How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

nerdyalien writes From the article: "Fiction author Michael Crichton probably started the backlash against the idea of consensus in science. Crichton was rather notable for doubting the conclusions of climate scientists—he wrote an entire book in which they were the villains—so it's fair to say he wasn't thrilled when the field reached a consensus. Still, it's worth looking at what he said, if only because it's so painfully misguided: 'Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.'" As a STEM major, I am somewhat biased toward "strong" evidence side of the argument. However, the more I read literature from other, somewhat-related fields (i.e. psychology, economics and climate science), the more I felt they have little opportunity to repeat experiments, similar to counterparts in traditional hard science fields. Their accepted theories are based on limited historical occurrences and consensus among the scholars. Given the situation, it's important to understand what "consensus" really means.

Comments

Science creates understanding of a real world.

[BoRegardless]

No functioning computers would exist without "Science." Science is verifiable and reproducible often in a variety of ways, or it is not "science."

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

True as that may be, people who are absolutely nuts tend to use the perpetual openness of science as an excuse to inject irrelevant, arbitrary insanity into discussions of fact. I'm not just referring to the (particularly common as Slashdot) climate change deniers who dismiss all sorts of careful analysis of data and theory for some unspecified null hypothesis "because we've been wrong before". But crazier people.

Conservapedia's owner cum dictator, Andy Schafly comes to mind as a frequent abuser. Who has made "be more open minded" arguments over things as scientifically established as relativity, which he asserts doesn't exist, or walking on water being scientifically possible.

And creationists do the same.

The point, of course is that while established science can always be wrong, arbitrarily embracing the opposite and asserting the evidentialist structure of the scientific method as a reason is crazy. The proof is in the pudding, if you will.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Firethorn]

Science is verifiable and reproducible often in a variety of ways, or it is not "science."

I craft a theory according to the current state of knowledge, and to verify it I do a study on X and come out with results Y, which I use to come to conclusion Z. My article is peer reviewed and published in the relevant accepted journal of science.

Did I do science? By most measures, YES.

However, only steps 1-3 were done on the actual scientific process - it's missing verification until a 3rd party comes along and repeats my study, gathering the same results within an acceptable margin of error.

The problem is that doing my own study is 'sexy', repeating somebody else's, especially when their results are within mainstream theory, isn't.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

And you have landed on an important problem in the scientific world. There's an understanding among academics that they need to make attempts at reproducing results. And for "big" things that make a splash, someone is usually going to step up to the plate.

But sometimes things take a while. Like just a month ago, someone just published an analysis undermining the, frequently believed, and popularly widespread, notion that women measurably like more masculine faces at the height of the fertility. That's been a (relatively) commonly believed assertion for years now. And they just got to retesting it and finding no statistical significance.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[dpilot]

This always struck me as a funny part of the "Harry Potter" series. They were all in a school for magic, verifying and repeating using experimentation. Though it sounds silly to say, it impressed me as "the science of magic."

Science is the way of thinking and the framework, not the topic.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most non-scientists are not in a position to evaluate the claims of any given scientist. So, they rely on scientific consensus in order to decide which scientific proposals they will accept as true. This is their only defense against the insanity that you are proposing. It is not an ideal defense, but it is what we've got.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

Which is, of course, silly.

Because discussion is essential to education, and we cannot possibly expect everyone to do all science on their own. The walls of pragmatism and human lifespans stand block the avenue.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Opportunist]

They have over 38000 entries there? That makes it the biggest satirical Wikipedia clone I know.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

They do, actually. It has lead to some very amusing graphs.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[neoritter]

It's not necessarily valid. An appeal to authority can be completely wrong. I'll just copy past wikipedia because it hits the points.

"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."

So just because a bunch of really smart people who have spent their adult lives studying something say that something is so, doesn't make it so. People like John Oliver, trotting out a bunch of people in lab coats saying, "look how many people say your wrong" is not an argument; funny yes, but not a valid argument.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[phantomfive]

See, what you are saying is correct, some people refuse to acknowledge evidence when it is right in front of their faces, and that's a real problem. The evidence for relativity is fairly clear, and quite strong; if someone rejects it, either they are not looking at the evidence, or not understanding the evidence.

However, when someone says, "you should believe what I say because there is consensus," that is a problem too. Science argues from reproducibility and evidence; from ancient times people believed things because they were claimed by an authority. If Aristotle said it, then it must be true, for example, or if the bible says it, then it must be true.

The great advancement of science was to not believe in authorities, but rather to look at the evidence. Nullius in Verba is the motto. Saying, "believe me because we have consensus" is a step back to the dark ages. If the evidence is strong, then present it. If the evidence is not strong, then your consensus will do nothing.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Savage-Rabbit]

Science is verifiable and reproducible often in a variety of ways, or it is not "science."

I craft a theory according to the current state of knowledge, and to verify it I do a study on X and come out with results Y, which I use to come to conclusion Z. My article is peer reviewed and published in the relevant accepted journal of science.

Did I do science? By most measures, YES.

However, only steps 1-3 were done on the actual scientific process - it's missing verification until a 3rd party comes along and repeats my study, gathering the same results within an acceptable margin of error.

The problem is that doing my own study is 'sexy', repeating somebody else's, especially when their results are within mainstream theory, isn't.

It's not just that verifying somebody else's results in not sexy. There are other factors as well. There used to be a broad scientific consensus about phlogiston theory being the best explanation to explain processes like combustion and oxidation. Eventually it was discredited against fierce opposition from some of the big names in science at the time and there are many other examples of this from other scientific fields. Scientific consensus about some theory or other sometimes has a tendency to be imposed by big name scientists who have the clout to do that because they have built a career and a reputation that depends on their theory and their research remaining unchallenged long after it is starting to become clear that the theory and perhaps some of their research results are just plain wrong. There is politics in science like everything else and sometimes politics trumps science.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

Wow, you even selected a fixed font to help you seem crazier. The way it invokes someone one a typewriter trying to convince their editorial board of a conspiracy is perfect. Nice satire. A+ work.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Matt.Battey]

Most non-scientists are not in a position to evaluate the claims of any given scientist.

I'm pretty sure that was the argument the Church had against releasing full, translated copies of its data, a.k.a. the contents of the Christian Bible.

This argument doesn't pass the sniff test. It is the job of a "scientist" to present claim and data that supports said claim in such a way that it may be consumed by anyone and still stand on its own, only then is there "consensus."

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

Of course, that doesn't make any sense.

We're not saying that to people who have meaningful evidence. We're saying to to people fixated on irrelevant points raising scientifically absurd objections consistently and repeatedly. There isn't a scientific debate happening here. If we were, we wouldn't see so much "just asking questions" about things with well established answers.

These are people who are trying to assert "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" out of an implied deference to fairness.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[rolfwind]

Science may be good and pure and free of politics.

BUT SCIENTISTS ARE NOT. They depend on funding and getting tenure and in general are dependent on institutions and where institutions are, there is a boat load of politics.

A hard science like physics has it relatively easy, but everything down the ladder can be and are muddied to one degree or another.

For the record, I'm convinced of anthropogenic global warming.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Runaway1956]

And, there you have an important piece of the global warming puzzle that many seem to miss.

Kids in chemistry class may have problems understanding basic chemistry. But, the experiments are laid out, the theories, the laws, the hypothesis are all there - everything is made available so that a juvenile layman who is willing to make the effort might become a novice chemist. And, the learning continues through the second year of chemistry, right on through their college and/or university years.

Now - where can we find the layman's textbooks on manmade global warming?

Oh - we have to take the word of the "consensus". Interesting. As has already been pointed out, the moment one stops doing science, and begins to preach to the masses, one is no longer a scientist, but a politician. Or, a priest of the new religion of Global Warming.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[presidenteloco]

Talk about setting up a straw man to knock it down.

If you prefer, we can do it this way:

1. Set limit on total carbon budget into the atmosphere. Humans can net-emit 1 trillion tonnes and have a 50/50 chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise . We are a little over half way through the trillion tonnes now, but our pace of emitting is still increasing.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/0...

2. Set a function for carbon pricing (carbon tax, taxed at source) so that the price will increase exponentially so as to keep the emissions under the budget.
If you prefer, the revenue from the tax can be redistributed as corporate and personal income tax reductions. Some would advocate devoting a good portion of it to transition funding, split between job transitioning funding and alternative energy and transportation technology R&D acceleration.

3. Under those conditions, let the market take hold and determine the best solutions.

On the first and second points, to which you will object, remember that physics does not negotiate. It's the most extremist of them all. It's not just gravity. It's the law. It's not just differential absorption/reflection/transmission of EM radiation energy by the atmosphere with different chemical composition. It's the law.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[phantomfive]

If we were, we wouldn't see so much "just asking questions" about things with well established answers.

Also worth mentioning, sometimes asking questions about established answers is one of the best ways to find new knowledge. I read a book about neuroscience recently, and the author said, "writing this book made me re-examine the basis of why we believe what we do, to figure out what the evidence is supporting these ideas." If you use their questioning as a motivation to understand more, then it will make you smarter. If you see it as merely an argument, then that's all it will be.

Incidentally, I have no idea what the summary is talking about. How is a dead fictional author even relevant here when we're talking about Von Neumann and Aristotle?

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

The problem, of course, is that "my" evidence is subtle, nuanced, quite voluminous, and requiring a reasonable level of backing in the details of atmospheric science to tackle.

This doesn't work well in an environment where dozens of people will post fairly identical posts that draw attention to one easily noticeable thing that doesn't actually demonstrate their point, but can appear to without examination of how that point is selected.

So... you see a couple dozen primary coping strategies in the climate change discussions. One is linking to careful debunking and explanation. To the kind of person who might be "on the fence", these are often lumped in as TL;DR equivalents to inane links to wattsupwiththat. And the balance fallacy strikes again.

And another coping strategy is to have big copy/pastes available to fully delineate why each given point is stupid. Except that requires an extraordinary library of precisely targeted rebuttals available at a moments notice. And due to the increased verbal complexity of these rebuttals they can, and do, come off as talking down in an impolite manner. On top of that they suffer the TL;DR problem above.

And the objectively wrong side cloaks itself in principle. Pretending to be morally superior in following the precepts of science, while doing the opposite. And all criticism can and is framed in this regard.

Most importantly, as a lay person who just happens to have a dash of meteorological education, it becomes difficult to formulate responses in a way I know to be perfectly in line with the science. This means any mistakes I make while trying to clear up disruptively misrepresntative statements can be structured as a "You were wrong about that, therefor everything" argument.

All this, collectively, points to suggesting the experts arguments as perhaps the most relevant, and thus should be deferred to.

And people who emotionally never grew past rebellious teenager will reject them outright without a moment of critical examination.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[MightyMartian]

An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious (that would be fallacious reasoning itself). If the authorities in question are generally recognized as actual authorities, then surely it does not follow that accepting, even provisionally, what they say is fallacious.

Look at it this way. The number of people that can actually work in physics, particularly in areas like QM and General Relativity, is by and large very small. Most people simply do not have the training in mathematics and theory to be able to understand anything but a laymans' approximations of the science.

So when you have an expert in the field who makes a statement about, say, the Inflationary Epoch of Big Bang cosmology, and that statement is in general accord with what other experts in the field say, then I'd say you're probably getting a statement that is a reflection of the science as it is at the time. It is not 100% reliable, but the whole nature of science as a discipline has the notion that 100% reliability is not achievable, so there is still plenty of room for new ideas.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[jfengel]

Unfortunately, it was a very poor kind of science, and that's one of the things that really irked me about the series. The potions (chemistry) class was especially bad. They were taught things by rote, and they learned only that if they didn't follow the procedure then they'd get bad results. Often, interestingly bad, but they thought of them as simply "the wrong thing" to be discarded rather than investigated.

The wizards looked down on "muggles", but they had an awful lot to learn from them. Applying muggle science would have made them vastly better wizards than they were. And they could have done a lot of good for the muggle world as well: people suffered and died needlessly.

I know, it's just a kid's book, and I'm putting too much on it. For drama, Rowling separated the magical and non-magical worlds in a rather unlikely way, and you were supposed to just chalk it up to suspension of disbelief. But I had kinda hoped that the series would go in a direction that realized this. I think it would have made better drama.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[i kan reed]

Of course I do. Clear explanations are not the problem here.

Climate change science can be turned into an executive summary quickly and easily. These summaries are essentially a bunch of incontestable facts that still get contested.

A. Carbon dioxide provably has much stronger absorption bands in the infra-red wavelengths than Nitrogen, and Oxygen, and a little more than water. These are the only compounds more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. You can run experiments in the lab seeing different radiative rates of cooling from different mixtures of "air" and CO2.
B. Paleoclimate reconstructions have show than CO2 concentrations consistently acts as a primary moderator of temperature on earth after the first occurrence of plantlife.
C. Naive modeling shows that substantially increasing the CO2 concentrations from current levels of the atmosphere shift the equilibrium temperatures of the planet substantially. More complex models incorporating other known factors, within the entire range of their uncertainty levels, show the same thing.
D. Human activity has almost doubled CO2 levels.

None of these 4 points are really scientifically questionable, and only naive skepticism(that is, pseudoskepticism) or ignorance leaves much room for debate on them.

Their implications are obvious, and we still get denial, and the problem is not with the structuring, but the behaviors of the deniers.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[phantomfive]

Likewise, when scientists start trying to convince you they are right because of consensus instead of evidence, you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[MightyMartian]

And yet no one believes in phlogiston anymore. Science did what it was supposed to do.

I can think of plenty of examples of the old guard trying to hang on to discredited ideas. The Out of Africa theory of human origins, when it first came out, flew in the face of a general view among European experts that modern humanity had evolved in Eurasia. The old guard, to some extent, were more informed by racial biases (the very 16th-19th century idea that sub-Saharan Africans were somehow lower on the evolutionary chain), and indeed there were a few angry bastards, notably on the Continent, that clung to the idea of a Eurasian origin of H. sapiens even into the 1980s, when finally enough molecular data had been gained both from extant human populations and from the remains of ancient humans (including Neanderthals) that it became irrefutable that modern H. sapiens had a very recent origin (sometime between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago) in Africa.

And again, on the same general topic, for a long time the idea that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred was viewed as completely invalid. mtDNA studies were flung in the faces of researchers who insisted that modern humans and Neanderthals had interbred in Eurasia. Those that insisted that the interbreeding had happened were tut-tutted, in some cases viewed almost as hippies. Indeed, even into the 1990s, the "consensus" view was that any interbreeding was so rare as to have had no impact on the genetic makeup of modern human populations.

Well, lo and behold, by the 21st century, better techniques for DNA extraction and genome mapping revealed that virtually all human populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa did have nuclear genes that came from Neanderthals.

So it strikes me that this, and numerous other examples, consensus that does not fit the evidence is always ultimately discarded. But that some consensus views are wrong does not mean all consensus views are wrong.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[jo_ham]

The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.

If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?

This isn't a "you're too stupid to understand" argument, it's a "it's not your area and it's very tricky, beyond basic concepts" argument.

If you're consistently disbelieving the very large majority of climate scientists when they summarise their findings, then you're a denier (assuming you take other scientists in different fields that are no politically sensitive at their word). If you're simply looking for an easy to digest pile of evidence then you're going to be disappointed. The evidence is all there - it's just not easy to understand, beyond simple threads like "land ice melting > sea level rise" or "higher [CO2] > more retained IR" but how those things fit into the whole is not trivial.

It has become very easy to simply distrust what climate scientists are saying because of a large propaganda campaign to demonise them all. It's almost unique to that particular field - but it happens to a greater or lesser extent where money overlaps with science (pharmaceuticals, GM crops, climate science, renewable energy, nuclear science etc) from both sides of the political spectrum.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Gavrielkay]

Just to be pedantic, scientific theories are quite strong and rarely disproven wholesale. Hypotheses on the other hand come and go pretty easily. What's funny to me is that people accept all sorts of science that suffers from the exact same problems that you write about... difficulty in reproducing, complex results that the layperson can't understand... but only those sciences that imply we might have to change our way of life get scolded. I'm pretty sure testing out femto-second lasers requires specialized gear that most people couldn't construct in their garage, but no one cares because they aren't asked to give up their gas-guzzling supercar because of lasers.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Runaway1956]

I've never seen an MRI - but I have seen CAT scans. During my EMT training, I did my ER work at Bangor Regional Medical. I stood beside the doctor as he showed us exactly what he was looking for, and how he maneuvered through the "slides" - how the damaged areas differed from the undamaged areas of the brain.

While it is a far leap from my own level of inexpertise to the doctor's level of expertise, the doctor was both willing and able to show us laymen the value of the CAT scans.

The global warming people haven't shown us the value of anything, so far as I can see.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[TubeSteak]

I've never considered myself a "denier", and yet every time I ask someone to point to the evidence, I hear that slur tossed out. I've only briefly attempted to search for evidence online, and had virtually no success except to find things like the 97% consensus page at NASA's site. So, if anyone here has better sources, I'm all "ears".

Start here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

Actually, you'll probably need to start with at least one college degree in meteorology or climatology.
Or, in other words, the raw data is meaningless to a non-expert in the field.

We are guided by consensus a thousand ways every single day,
but it's only climate science where people seem to get bent out of shape.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[sycodon]

Are you sure?

Absolutely positive?

Seems to be quite a few.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Runaway1956]

Which aspect of the space shuttle are you interested in?

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

A similar search for climate change? Note that the first hit researches public opinion, the second hit claims it to be a fraud, the third appears to be a treatise on people's understanding modes - and so on.

https://encrypted.google.com/s...

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[MightyMartian]

You have any citations that aren't from lunatics?

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Creedo]

The global warming people haven't shown us the value of anything, so far as I can see.

Then you are simply not paying attention. That's just one site, and 10 seconds of typing to get to it. Make an effort to read the data, don't bitch because you aren't getting spoon fed.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[GiordyS]

Climate scientist to layperson: "And here's where things get interesting. CO2 by itself only warms the planet modestly, at about one degree per doubling. We introduced feedbacks into our models which amplify that warming by 300%, turning a fairly benign warming into a dangerous one. This has garnered us a lot of international attention. Unfortunately, nature has not been cooperating and surface temperatures have not increased for the last decade and a half, despite an enormous increase in CO2. Rather than revise controversial feedbacks, we figured out a way to preserve the theory by claiming the deep oceans have absorbed all the extra heat. Since we can't measure the deep oceans with any accuracy it's not falsifiable, and since we don't know if or when the heat will "reappear", we can continue to educate the public for another 50 years even if surface temperatures start to cool."

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[iluvcapra]

People like John Oliver, trotting out a bunch of people in lab coats saying, "look how many people say your wrong" is not an argument; funny yes, but not a valid argument.

It's a valid argument if you're countering the claim that a meaningful set of scientists reject anthropogenic global warming. It isn't a valid argument that AGW is actually happening, true.

A scientific fact is a different thing than an authoritative claim, and you need consensus and political debate in order to create the latter. Science produces testable facts but the question of wether or not we, as a people, must do something in response to these facts, or if these facts are relevant or important, are not questions science can answer.

Implicit in the successive warnings from the IPCC and other bodies is the basic philosophical assumption that AGW is unnatural and hazardous, and must be stopped, because it threatens multitudes of human lives. Science can't really draw a firm line between unnatural and natural, that's metaphysical. Science cannot fundamentally indicate things that are a "hazard," because this is a concept that rests on analytic assumptions that are subjective to human values. And as odious as it is to say, science cannot prove that a human life has value, thus, science cannot justify any action that would save life, on it's own.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[mbkennel]

Here's a great example. It's just denialism.

| The problem with the AGW consensus is that prediction has yet to coincide with observed reality. The Solar cycles hypothesis do coincide.

That's simply empirically false.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

| Once folks start actually (or accidentally) start "performing" science and investigate all possible theories instead of FOTM (or FOT decade) we might get greater clarity. As soon as we start to remove lies from reports, get equal peer review time and otherwise move away from irrational religious science and get back to hard science we will be much better off.

You imagine hard science hasn't been going on and there are "lies from reports". It's just not true. Many physical drivers, including solar influence (which IS included in every serious analysis).

This has been a field of serious study for 50 years. Roger Revelle wrote in a report to Lyndon Johnson about various environmental issues that he estimated the effect from increased greenhouse gases would be visible by 2000.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[forand]

I am a physicist. I have explained the expansion of the universe to many lay people without trouble. I have also tried time and time again to explain it to my mother. All such explanations end with her asking "so where is it expanding into." The short answer to this is: nothing. And one can either accept that or learn metric differential geometry. The belief that whatever any given PhD is working on can "describe in laymen's terms what they are doing" does not mean a laymen has the knowledge to understand or even accept the details of the theory. Heck look at Quantum physics in the early 1900s and you see many very intelligent people thinking it is crazy because it is probabilistic. So in short a good scientist can explain to a laymen what they do but the laymen has to accept their expertise when it comes to many specifics.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Runaway1956]

You get some points there. But, I'll remain hung on this bit: " I have explained the expansion of the universe to many lay people without trouble."

If you explain something to 100 laymen, and more than 20% actually understand what you are talking about, then all is good. If another 30 or 60% understand parts of what you are talking about, that's good too. And, if I am among the remaining group that didn't understand a damned thing you said - then so be it. I can look around at my fellow laymen, and realize that they probably have more education and expertise in this area than I have.

If, however, less than 1% of those laymen can understand what you've explained, then we have problems. You might propose that your area of study is simply way over our heads. But, then, I might propose that your own understanding is insufficient to explain the relevancy of your studies.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[meta-monkey]

The thing with "consensus" is that consensus is what happens when scientists are out of (reasonable) questions to ask and answer. You put forth your measurements and say "we believe this is caused by X." And somebody else says "Ah, but it could be caused by Y!" So you devise an experiment (or set of observations) to test whether the results are from X or Y. Once that's established and no one has any other questions on the X-Y issue, then consensus has been achieved.

That's what happened with climate science. All the objections have been raised, further study has been conducted, and the questions have been laid to rest. If after all the questions have been asked and answered and you're still not satisfied, you are no longer a skeptic, you're just a denier, and there's not much that can be done about that. But it doesn't matter, because the beautiful (and terrible) thing about science is it's true whether you want to believe it or not.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[meta-monkey]

Skeptical Science does a good job of explaining the science behind climate change and answering about every objection there is with cited sources. It also answers each question at three different levels of scientific fluency.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Gavrielkay]

There does come a point when the resistance to the information goes beyond what is reasonable though. My personal opinion is that it doesn't even matter if the current warming trend is being caused by humans. The scary thing to me is the number of people who think that it can be safely ignored regardless. When growing regions and seasons change, when water availability changes, when coastal areas are flooded and tropical diseases migrate to previously temperate areas... well, there will be a lot of people wishing we'd put some money into mitigation plans.

The cause of global warming might matter somewhat to plans for things like carbon taxing and emission controls, but there is a separate larger issue of what to do to preserve our way of life even if it is caused by sun activity. No one will care whether it was man-made or cosmic rays when people in Wisconsin are dying of malaria.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?

You would start by simply asking. Persistent knee pain after a skiing injury caused me to go see a doctor. Doctor suspected that I had a minor tear in my anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). I went to a medical imaging facility where I paid for an MRI scan. They provided the resulting data to me on a CD or DVD. I'm fairly sure that the data was in some proprietary format, but it was bundled with a [Windows binary] viewer tool that allowed me to view the resultant dataset graphically. I had no idea how to evaluate my medical condition from this data at the time. While I did take the data to several specialists, I also read up on what minor ACL tears look like on an MRI and was able to sanity-check the work of these doctors to ensure they weren't selling me a surgery I didn't need. In the end, I opted out of surgery, and with some minor physical therapy I've been able to regain full knee function. Hiking and skiing again without having had my knee cut open.

Brief aside: I used to drive cab in Bangor. Watch out for the synthetic opiate addicts, they're everywhere.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[angel'o'sphere]

Temperature is not increasing by one degree per doubled CO2 level. It increases roughly by one degree per 200ppm share.
I don't get why you claim the "warming" had stopped recent years. Is that an american thing? I saw that often on /. It got debunked already hundreds of times, why repeat such a bullshit myth?

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[danbert8]

While I am sure the most vocal "deniers" and those with the most camera time are the crackpots who say the earth isn't getting warmer. However, there are many legitimate reasons to doubt how much of the observed warming is caused by humans and how much damage might occur in the future because of the human caused portion of the warming.

The climate is changing (Has the climate ever been constant?)
The current trend is warming (Was it warming before humans started affecting climate?)
It appears that the warming is increasing (How much is due to human causes?)
The warming will likely cause damage to human settlements (Is it more cost effective to move the humans? How catastrophic will it be? Are there potential benefits that might offset the damage to civilization? Might we be better off on a warmer planet?)

The main points are agreed upon my most rational people, the questions in parentheses are the ones that get glossed over. They are the assumptions based on the data that all of the money and the "carbon is pollution" politics that affect all our lives.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[tohoward]

At a minimum, your first statement "A" is incorrect. You should have said "Carbon dioxide provably has much stronger absorption bands in the infra-red wavelengths than Nitrogen, and Oxygen, but a lot less than water."

Water vapor is the single largest "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, and absorbs a large amount of energy in the infrared band compared to CO2. Mentioning incontestable facts, and then having the facts completely wrong doesn't help your argument.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[GiordyS]

I'm not American. That's a pretty funny caricature. I admit that there are many who would be skeptics regardless of what the science says. Sadly the same is plainly true for most global warming activists. It is sad to see otherwise thoughtful people resort to silly stereotypes. You hold up the Sarah Palins of the world as though they are the leading thinkers in the skeptical camp. What a joke. Why not seek out the best skeptical minds out there and hear what they have to say? Judith Curry's blog would be a good place to start.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[riverat1]

They didn't use the word "consensus" once in that editorial.) But I can see how you take that from it. That a consensus exists is not by itself an indictment of the science. If it just develops organically when they (nearly) all realize they agree about something then it's healthy. In any scientific field if more than 90% of the practitioners agree about something I'm going with them.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Seriously, do you understand what the words, Nullius in Verba signify?

Yes, I do. But even the members of the Royal Society who first came up with that motto understood that, taken to an extreme, the idea is STUPID.

We don't trust a person who says "X is the case" just because he says it. But if that person has reported "X is the case" along with details of his procedure, results, analysis, and interpretation of the data, we can start to say, "Hmm... that's interesting." And when a BUNCH of people do that and find similar results, we say, "Yes, the evidence is stronger." And when most of the experts in the field READ that evidence and conclude that INDEPENDENT experts in various labs all came up with similar results, they might start to think there's something there -- and a consensus emerges.

I will repeat what I said before: we can only make scientific progress by building on what others have done. If I, as a scientist, decide that I can't believe in anything anyone else has ever said and that I have to verify everything for myself before I begin my own research, I will very likely waste my entire lifetime reproducing results that are already accepted by the entire scientific community without ever doing anything new.

If the Royal Society really believed this motto in the extreme fashion you seem to be advocating, why even bother publishing proceedings, which they started doing very early? Huh? Why bother with any scientific communication whatsoever? If we can't actually trust in anything anyone else has ever said, there's no point in actually disseminating that information, since we all need to start from scratch when we begin our scientific lives anyway. And if your response is, "Well, because it's good to know that others have come up with similar results" -- NO, NO, NO, NO -- that's an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. How do you know that that person's results are true? Why should you believe them? Just because your results agree with them? Now THAT'S an actual fallacy we should be worried about -- essentially, that's cherry-picking experiments that agree with your view of the world.

So, again, why bother talking to any scientists at all? Why bother reporting results? If we take your argument seriously, there is no reason to ever trust anyone else's word on anything, and it would be a serious logical fallacy to ONLY trust people who seem to agree with you, so everyone else's results are meaningless.

Do you seriously think science could make any progress with such a stupid philosophy?

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[GiordyS]

I actually don't believe it is 100% natural. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and more CO2 will tend to warm the climate. The problem is that climate scientists didn't stop there. They built climate models that multiply that heat an additional 3 - 4 times, turning the relatively benign warming from CO2 into dangerous warming. These "positive feedbacks" assumed in the models are unproven. There is no clear evidence that the earth is hypersensitive to CO2 heating and will react by amplifying that heat threefold. The latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower.

If you are genuinely interested in hearing out the other side, Judith Curry's blog is a good place to start.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[GiordyS]

Personally, I rarely stray from the IPCC reports and the temperature data. Most people are unaware of what the science actually says. It does not support many of the beliefs held by global warming activists.

Much research is done by scientists who don't identify as skeptics, but whose work supports what skeptics have been saying for a long time, such as this paper on climate sensitivity, or this one by Nick Lewis.

I recommend Judith Curry's blog as a good place to start if you are truly interested in engaging with skeptics and lukewarmers. (Judith Curry does "actual research" by the way.)

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[GiordyS]

People claim that climate skeptics cherry pick 1998 as a start date, warping what would otherwise be an upward trend. And it sounds plausible, it fits their beliefs, so people seem to believe it uncritically. But it's simply not true; it's a myth. Most skeptics choose 1997 as their start date. If you don't like 1998 (I don't like it either) then pick another start date: 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001. You'll get the same result: no significant warming. The RSS data shows no significant warming since 1993

Nature magazine published an article that tries to explain the "mysterious global-warming hiatus". Nature magazine accepts it. The IPCC accepts it. The "pause" is real and is easily shown in the data sets. You are the one who is misinformed and in denial it seems.

Re:Science creates understanding of a real world.

[Namarrgon]

A) CO2 accumulates. Plants absorb it, they also release it. So does the ocean. And even though the ocean is absorbing more than it releases (making it more acidic), the amount we have been releasing into the atmosphere is still pushing CO2 levels higher and higher. This is easily measured.

B) CO2 historically has not driven temperatures, it's acted as a feedback, making warming temperatures even warmer. Orbital cycles or other factors cause some initial warming, which triggers higher CO2 concentrations, which causes further warming. This is also easily measured in a lab, and shows up in countless lines of observations. CO2 and temperatures have both been higher in the past, but now we're the ones releasing CO2, and we'll have to deal with the results. "Runaway" warming effects are unlikely, but what we expect is going to be plenty expensive enough.

C) Climate models are intended to predict trends, not short-term variation. Longer term trends are easier to predict than random fluctuations, as the random cycles all average out. Only those who don't understand the models (e.g. they're not "all feedback-based models") claim that they're not "working".

D) The effects are already here, you just haven't been looking. They're showing up, not in dramatic unheard-of catastrophes, but in increased likelihood of heat waves, droughts, and fires (in some areas), floods (in other areas), melting glaciers, reduced ice mass (arctic and antarctic). These things aren't new, but they're getting steadily more common, and the costs are already adding up.

Increased CO2 means global average temperatures rise, both on the surface and (more significantly) in the oceans. This has been happening for 150 years, as predicted. More rainfall in some areas, less in others.

There are many studies about the feedback effects of CO2 on plant growth. The overall conclusions are that this will affect the climate, but not very much.

The predictions have been made for decades and longer. They're coming true all around us. Only the deniers refuse to look and see for themselves, insisting that this or that one little thing hasn't changed yet, so nothing could possibly be happening. But a glance at the bigger picture shows overwhelming evidence, which is precisely why there is such a strong consensus among climatologists.

Worse than that...

[Etherwalk]

It's actually much worse than that.

Studies in economics and psychology tend to suffer from certain problems which limit their real-world application and the likelihood that they actually mean what people think they mean.

First, they are often based on correlation rather than causation. This is especially true with psychology studies, and readily allows confirmation bias, incorrect interpretations of data, and interpretations of data which are heavily influenced by the perspective of the researcher.

Second, they are often done on western college students. This tends not to yield rules of general applicability.

Third, most economics (and psychology of economics) experiments are advertising experiments. They are done by corporations for financial gain and the results are generally kept secret because they are part of a company's IP and help the company sell its products, and because it simply saves the company money to not bother publishing.

Re:Worse than that...

[oh_my_080980980]

Please stop. You think you know what you are talking about but you really don't. If you understand anything about experimental design and statistical analysis you would not have written the second sentence. Correlation or causation depends on the design of the study. When it comes to surveys, those would be correlational studies. When it comes to studying animal behavior, those would be causation.

Any study's results are only generalizable to the population from which the sample was derived. Thus if the sample was taken from a population of Ohio State university students, those results are only generalizable to that population. Your complaint is with the media and how they report the results no the study's principle investigator.

Re:Worse than that...

[digsbo]

In economics, the Austrian School folks agree with you so strongly that they reject the notion that empirical data can trump a priori reasoning. Recognizing that there is no "controlled experiment", any data that refutes a well-reasoned logical argument is considered incomplete. It's a remarkable rejection of empiricism and a recognition that economic activity is based on human behavior (praxeology) and as such can't be precisely quantified.

Re:Worse than that...

[Etherwalk]

Correlation or causation depends on the design of the study. When it comes to surveys, those would be correlational studies. When it comes to studying animal behavior, those would be causation.

Absolutely. Most of the studies I have seen discussed or come across in psychology have been correlation-based. While many people are good at saying they don't know for sure what the study means, most people looking at it interpret it to have meaning that fits with their preexisting biases.

 

Any study's results are only generalizable to the population from which the sample was derived. Thus if the sample was taken from a population of Ohio State university students, those results are only generalizable to that population.

Yes, hence the problem with conducting so many experiments on college students.

Your complaint is with the media and how they report the results no the study's principle investigator.

Not only them. You also see a lot of the same problems in psychology textbooks, for example, and among psychologists. Psychologists are not immune to the problems which plague non-psychologists looking at the research.

I have no problem with any study's principal investigator. I may have problems with their conclusions, but prefer to read a study before I critique it. A broad statement that I have seen certain problems in a field or two does not invalidate the work of any particular person, or even the field as a whole--it simply says that I have seen an issue that the field needs to work on. And it does, to some extent--while psychology is still bad at questioning some underlying tenets, it is much more focused on, for example, cross-cultural research than it was twenty years ago.

Re:Worse than that...

[khallow]

any data that refutes a well-reasoned logical argument is considered incomplete.

Another possibility is that the "well-reasoned logical argument" wasn't actually well-reasoned. For example, I've seen a perversion of the Austrian School axiom of action in which it is claimed that humans and only humans can act.

That bolded part can be refuted easily by observing non-human actors such as computer trading programs and animals. The latter can make economically relevant decisions without having a human involved anywhere in the process, for example, bees harvesting honey and incidentally pollinating plants or a host of scavengers and predators taking turns on a large carcass.

Thus, empirical observation trumps the perceived "well-reasoned" logical argument. I'm not claiming that this particular argument is representative of all Austrian School adherents, but rather of someone who thought they had a well-reasoned logical framework for which empirically based scrutiny should be useless. It turned out not to be so.

Also, how does one determine the well-reasoned nature of a logical argument? In an abstract sense, via a construction of a mathematically valid certificate, which is traditionally called a "proof" in mathematics. The problem is that construction of such a proof may be computationally very hard while construction of an empirical counterexample can take much less effort.

Nor are these problems considered in a vacuum. All this effort is to explain empirical observation of real world economic systems.

Re:Worse than that...

[Nimey]

"Rejects empirical data" is another way of saying "taking it on faith", i.e. the Austrian school is a religion by another name.

Re:Worse than that...

[stdarg]

That bolded part can be refuted easily by observing non-human actors such as computer trading programs and animals. The latter can make economically relevant decisions without having a human involved anywhere in the process, for example, bees harvesting honey and incidentally pollinating plants or a host of scavengers and predators taking turns on a large carcass.

A computer trading program is a tool used by humans. Animals "act" in the vernacular sense but the Austrian school's idea of action derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... which is the study of *human* action.

In thinking of economics, while it certainly makes sense to consider the actions of animals as you noted, the only relevance is in guiding the actions of humans. It's irrelevant to consider what honeybees are going to do outside of how that impacts humans and how we must react to them.

Scientific Consensus

[Archangel Michael]

Science is about provability, consensus is about getting majority or even a plurality of opinions. These two things are mutually exclusive.

Piltdown Man was once "consensus". We know how that turned out.

Re:Scientific Consensus

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is not about provability. Provability is the domain of pure mathematics.

Science is about falsification, which is quite different. All scientific knowledge is "until seen". The best theories survive, but they might not survive forever. Science proves nothing, it only provides us with empirical evidence for or against a certain hypothesis.

Re:Scientific Consensus

[tverbeek]

No, mathematics and logic are about provability. Real-world phenomena can't be proven; they can only be shown to have worked a certain way every time we've observed them so far. (I've dropped this rock 100,000 times, and every time it has fallen ... but I can't prove that it will next time.) If you want absolute proof you need to stick to theoretical phenomena. Or chuck it all and just believe something with absolute faith because it's written in an old book, like the other people who are afraid of their "truths" being subject to challenge.

Re:Scientific Consensus

[pz]

As an experimental scientist, I can, with certainty, state that you are wrong when you claim "science is about provability."

It is extraordinarily difficult to prove something experimentally. Most advances come about because we (both individually as experimentors, and collectively as members of a given scientific field), think we've accounted for most potential confounds and artifacts, not because we've conducted perfect experiments. Biological sciences, especially, suffer from a huge number of uncontrolled variables that often we are not aware of, but impinge mightily upon our results. Biology, to continue, is noisy. Very, very noisy. In my lab, we measure phenomena related to visual perception, and I can tell you unequivocally that individual variation usually swamps any underlying phenomenon we examine (meaning, we need to measure with lots and lots of individuals to make sure we aren't being fooled, and even then, we can easily get fooled).

Rarely, if ever, do we prove something experimentally. It's only through the consensus of reproducibility that scientific facts get established.

Piltdown Man, to discuss your example, was due to observational error (ie, a hoax), not experimental evidence demonstrating provability. Observational science, as opposed to experimental science, is rife with missteps and re-interpretations. Look up the history of shooting stars, as one example -- they were considered purely terrestrial phenomena well after the establishment of the United States as a country. It took repeated observational events, not experiments, to establish that meteors are astronomical in origin.

Reproducibility is the cornerstone of modern science. Everything else is consensus. We think we know things, and mostly, we've been correct with a high degree of probability, since we've been able to take given conclusions and build, predictably, upon them. But, every now and then, even firmly-held beliefs with eons of structural experimental integrity are demonstrated to have been mistaken. There is very little scientific truth, merely scientific certainty. If you want absolute truth, look to mathematics instead.

Re:Scientific Consensus

[CrimsonAvenger]

"I hypothesise that if I take one mole of substance A, there will be 6x10^23 molecules of it in the container"

Of course, this is a lot like saying "I hypothesize that a kilogram masses 1000 grams."

Not much of a hypothesis if it reduces to "I suspect strongly that X is defined to be X"

Re:Pseudoscience

[GameboyRMH]

Me neither:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

The fantasy of the "rogue" that was right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consensus is something that helps us keep crackpots and bad actors (Say, those that pay for fake/biased studies that support their political or financial position) from pushing their agenda. Charisma and slick marketing are dangerously effective so the practice of gathering the collective opinion of all the experts in a given field is important.

It's not perfect. Occasionally the community is slow to move on new evidence, but science should be a careful and methodical practice.

We enjoy stories about underdogs and misunderstood geniuses or the rogue new guy that goes up against the "establishment" but in reality actual true stories of this nature are quite rare. Statistic noise rare. Real breakthroughs are nearly always the culmination of decades of work from hundreds of researchers.

Michael Crichton, frankly, was a hack that enjoyed the above fantasy a bit too much. He did do a bit of research for his projects but it was always just dressing for the same plot over and over again.

That man has done more damage to the world than he ever knew. When he fell in to the climate change denial camp he provided legitimacy to the anti-intellectual nonsense that we're struggling to deal with today.

Re:The fantasy of the "rogue" that was right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont' forget that crackpots hawking perpetual motion machines, miracle cure-all pills, and anti-vac nutters are "squelched" by the consensus.

For every nobody that turns "the establishment" on it's head there are a billion hacks prevented from running their scams, or slimy fucks from promoting their agenda of robbing the unsuspecting public blind.

Yes, at one time things like heliocentrisim and the genetic inferiority of Africans was "consensus" but time and perseverance and careful study is what truly reveals the truth.

Progress isn't flashy. It isn't a moving story with a happy ending. It's boring, slow, methodical, dry, uninteresting, and makes a terrible news story or movie plot or book title.

If we, as humans, have a particular fault it's our addiction to excitement and relevance pornography. Too many of us think anything without sharp and loud "AH-HA!" moment isn't important.

Scientific Consensus is:

[drfred79]

Going along with your science department's political position so that you continue to have a job and funding.

Re:Scientific Consensus is:

[dave420]

You do realise the world of riches that awaits a scientist who could show AGW to be nonsense, right? They'd end up with a Nobel prize, their own science department, and a large research budget. This is such an easily-disproven nonsensical claim made by denialists it's not even funny. It only seems to work on other denialists who applaud it and say "See! See! That's what happens!". Others just laugh and assume the denialist in question is a grade-A muppet.

Re:Pseudoscience

[Shadowmist]

If there is no way to set up a test to and verify the results it falls more into the field of pseudoscience rather than science. If there is a way to test and verify but the data to do so isn't provided then it is more likely that it falls into the category of scam rather than science. (e-cat anyone?)

Climate science is given as an example. I don't see any reason to why results based on a model can't be backed up by providing said model or even the source code for verification.

Peer review is an important part of the global scientific progress. "Piltdown Man" is an excellent example of the need for peer review, which keeps true psuedo science such as perpetual motion and quackery like so-called "Cold Fusion" at bay. I find it rather astonishing at s-called open source advocates who praise the peer review mechanism to spot out bad code yet downplay it's importance in any other field.

Re:Crichton is an idiot.

[ceoyoyo]

A consensus is a bunch of people who share an opinion. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Consensus

[ceoyoyo]

A consensus is a bunch of people who share an opinion. You can have a consensus of scientists, but not a scientific consensus. Crichton was right (about that): science is about consistent, reproducible results, not opinions or consensuses. Politics often involves consensus.

Climate science doesn't care how many people, scientists or not, vote for a particular hypothesis. Climate politics do, and that's what's involved when we try to decide what to do. Unfortunately, people confuse the two.

Some people are missing the point

[nine-times]

It's absolutely true that science is not about consensus. Science is not a body of knowledge, but a process of (roughly speaking) formulating an explanation of phenomena, devising a means to test the explanation, and then using that test to determine whether the explanation adheres to the "real world". One of the criteria of a good test is that it must be reproducible, but nothing in the process of science actually requires "consensus".

However, you have a bunch of different scientists with different specialties studying different phenomena, so much so that no single person can actually be aware of it all. Certainly no single person can actually reproduce all of the tests and experiments. In the face of such complexity, we've developed another system which, speaking strictly, is not "science". It's more of a social/political system whereby the various experiments are reviewed by other scientists who attempt to determine whether the tests were good, and whether the tests actually tested the explanation/phenomena they were supposed to. In a formal setting, this process is called "peer review", but it also happens informally (i.e. scientists read each others' work, challenge it, devise other tests).

The upshot of this social system is that, if you aren't enough of a climate scientist to review the existing knowledge of global warming and evaluate its validity, then you should probably just trust the consensus. You trust that there are a lot of smart people working on the problem, and if 95% of the climate scientists agree, then the safe guess is that they're probably at least on the right track. It doesn't mean that they're absolutely correct-- no scientific or social process can guarantee absolute correctness-- but you're going to find more success going with the overwhelming consensus than going against it.

Of course, every once in a while, there is some genius who figures out that the overwhelming consensus is wrong. Most of the time, the scientific community catches on pretty quickly and the consensus changes.

"soft" science

[tverbeek]

The notion that climate science or economics can't repeat experiments is not entirely fair. While it's true that we can't conduct isolated double-blind experiments under identical conditions, we can conduct tests under analogous conditions to determine whether a given model is accurate or not, which is the real goal of such science. Given enough instances in which the accumulation of carbon compounds in the atmosphere leads to an overall increase in temperatures, or in which an increase in government spending or low-end wages stimulates economic activity in a market economy, we can make the inference of a correlation, and start looking for a mechanism of a causal connection.

Re:By whoring

[oh_my_080980980]

Incorrect. Appeal to authority means accepting what a person says on a topic as probably correct because they are an authority. The difference is scientists are using research to back up their claims. They are not stating claims as fact simply because they are experts.

Re:Pseudoscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, you can get climate data here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

And even more thankfully, you can see how both satellite and balloon data for atmospheric temperatures have consistently tracked each other since satellite data became available in 1980:

Graph of satellite, balloon, and climate model temps since 1980

You'll also note how climate model temps don't agree with reality.

What consensus means:

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

'Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.'"

The phrase "One investigator who happens to be right" assumes one would be able to tell who is right and who is wrong immediately as it happens. The consensus is agreeing who got reproducible provable results.

People who do not understand science, who want to game the system are intentionally gaming the system. They bring in rules used in philosophical debates and legal arguments into science. Equal time for both sides works ok in philosophy and in courts. But not in science. Let us say one side has tons and tons of data and the other side is waving hands. Giving equal time to both is doing a great injustice to the side with data.

If one side is just asking questions, raising doubts, etc and the other side is actually answering the questions and clearing the doubts, it is a great injustice to give equal time to both. It takes much longer to answer questions than to raise them.

One should gain standing to raise doubts. Getting funding from industry groups with vested interests is not getting the standing. Must publish in the relevant field, get peer reviewed papers. Must risk reputation gained by hard long work to raise questions.

Re:Crichton is an idiot.

[Imagix]

And as soon as those many many many scientists can repeat and verify that experiment, the consensus very quickly changes to account for the new experiment, and the old consensus vanishes. (Or someone can come up with a counter experiment that shows how the first doesn't apply....) That's how Science advances. "Here's how the current theory works. X, Y, Z.". "Hey, I found a case where Y doesn't happen, if there is a presence of midichlorians (M)." "You're right. Ok, new theory: X, Y (if there are no M), Z.". Doesn't make the first consensus wrong. It was right for all of the available data at the time.

Re:Who profits from West slowing down?

[Microlith]

though there are still perfectly valid debates in almost any other branch of science (dieting, economics, pedagogy, biology, and even computers — you name it — it is all in flux),

Sure, sure...

the science of climate is "settled" and anybody doubting the line pushed by the governments must also believe, the Earth is flat.

Utter nonsense. What's settled is that the climate is changing at the hands of man, what's open to debate is what the impact on us will be in the short and long term. The "consensus" is the same as the "consensus" that supports the modern understanding of evolution - it is a refinement and agreement across the field on the gross mechanism for something, and all the arguments lie in the details.

Kudos for tossing in the pinch of anti-government paranoia, it has to be that and not the desire for massively profitable fossil fuel corporations to defend said profits.

I disagree with the premise...

[QuietLagoon]

Scientific consensus is not political consensus.

.
Scientific consensus is an group of scientists agreeing on a proven theory or the proof of a theory.

Political consensus is a group of people ganging together to push their opinions on others.

The latter has a negative connotation which Mr. Crichton is using to taint the former.

Consensus and Burden of Proof

[Jason Levine]

No, consensus isn't needed for science to progress, but it is an inevitable result of science. A theory comes out, it is tested, peer-reviewed, and people see that it best describes the data. So more and more scientists in that field will accept that theory until something better comes along.

Now, you can be that one guy who says "here is my theory which contradicts prevailing views." This has happened a lot in the past. However, the key point is that those contradicting theories need an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove them. If your radical new theory was that relativity wasn't actually true and you could explain everything with X, then you'd need a TON of reproducible proof to convince your peers that X is true. This is because we have so much evidence that relativity is true that it would take a lot to unseat it.

What you can't do is insist that a theory with broad consensus is wrong because you have a different theory, offer up little to no proof, and demand that those "in the consensus" provide extraordinary proof that they are right.

Consensus is not a scientific method

[Opportunist]

That's what my math prof at the university said after he asked people who thought this or that answer was right (and the majority was wrong): Science is not a democratic process.

Sadly, it has turned into one.

Peer review sadly doesn't mean what it used to mean: That a lot of others who are experts in your field took a look and nodded their heads. What it means to day: A lot of other people in your field of study think likewise.

Scientists are humans, as much as they try to sit on high horses and claim they ain't. They don't like being wrong. They don't like to give someone else the satisfaction of coming up with some paradigm shifting discovery. And most of all they certainly do not want to admit that they wasted their life hunting the rabbit down the wrong hole.

Imagine we'd only discover today that the sun, not earth, is the center of our solar system. You think any of the scientists who invested their whole life perfecting deferent and epicycle calculation would budge to the overwhelming proof that they're wrong?

Re:Gotten?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

It is proper English. It is the difference between the active and passive voice. "He was sick, but he got well." "He was sick, but he has gotten well." The difference is actually tangentially related to the story subject. When I was in university [mumble] decades ago, all scientific papers for publication, and by extension all term papers, were required to be written in the third person past passive voice. This was thought to appear more objective. Printing costs for scientific journals drove the change to active voice, because, in English, that voice uses fewer words. Now that journals are largely electronic, printing costs are less of an issue, leaving aside Dilbert's PHB's concern about using up electrons. Active voice may also be more readable, particularly for those being taught by teachers who say things like, "Me and him went to the store."

Consensus is about the process

[ponos]

I think there is a subtle difference between being right (in the usual sense of providing a model that happens to accurately represent measurable stuff) and the process of scientific discussion. Consensus is just an outcome of a process, ie collaboration. That process is extremely important but does not guarantee being right.

In the end, without resorting to unnecessary complicated terms, if a bunch of people who are supposed to know what they are saying all agree on something that is not immediately testable (say, long-term human impact on the climate), odds are they are more likely to be right than some random wacko or idiot reporter because they spent some time discussing together and have highlighted potential errors.

In the absence of definitive hard data, which will only be available in retrospect, we have to pick sides. Consensus seems a safer bet than the probability that some random guy is the new Galileo or Einstein.

Re:Gotten?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. American English is not English, it's not about the number of speakers, and never will be (you will find that the form of English spoken on the Indian sub-continent outnumbers your "largest group of English speakers" - maybe time to notice the world outside your borders?). English refers to the form of English spoken in England. Yes there are dialects within this, but the fact of the matter is, the originating country gets to set the baseline.

Wavefunction collapse

[overshoot]

This whole discussion is distorted by the framing around "belief." As long as the result of a scientific inquiry is "belief" it's reasonable (in the "sound reason" sense) to hold the issue open and speculate that Einstein's General Theory (or the current version of Darwin's) might in fact be totally wrong.

But that's where the denialists play word games. They talk about open minds, and how consensus isn't dispositive, etc. and then use that as an argument against teaching evolution in schools or taking steps agains AGW. Or, for that matter, against teaching heliocentrism or plate tectonics.

The "scientific consensus" may not be dispositive in any epistemological sense, but when it comes time to collapse the waveform and make a decision it's certainly the way to bet.

Playing the man and not the ball.

[sugar and acid]

For climate change skeptics are always attacking the science and the scientists. But they never deal with the known facts.

1. CO2 concentration is measurably increasing year on year and accelerating. If you want a running tally have a look here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
This is one of a number of different high quality analytical chemistry studies that all tell the same story. CO2 concentration is increasing significantly.

2. We know this is because of release of fossil fuel sequestered CO2. By careful investigation of the change in carbon isotopic ratios, and by simply accounting for the CO2 released. Human release of CO2 more than enough accounts for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, and actually shows that a significant proportion is actually getting absorbed into the ocean and other carbon sinks. But clearly no where near all of it.

3. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat due to the wavelengths of light it does and does not absorb.

This is all hard chemistry measurement, and are known with a high degree of confidence. These are not up for debate!

The only debatable point is what do these facts mean for the climate and the environment going forward. And here we get into prediction and modelling. The best models and predictions shows that the climate will increase in temperature, and that will have significant and mostly detriment effect on most of the worlds environments and sustainability of human populations going forward.

If you are a climate change skeptic scientist, what you have to come up with is a model that sensibly and scientifically shows why this increase in CO2 won't have any significant detrimental effects. Then put it up for publication in peer reviewed journals. And if your scientific argument has any legs it will change the scientific consensus. All the other stuff being thrown around is political motivated bull shit, with no scientific basis and should be simply ignored.

Re:Playing the man and not the ball.

[MightyMartian]

Picking the "20 years of no warming" is simply cherry picking, and ignoring a time period 15 times longer that does show warming.

Re:Playing the man and not the ball.

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with climate change science is that there is only one experiment running that matters: is the state of the climate. Furthermore, the only predictions or interest are those who's outcomes won't be known for decades or centuries. This means that climate scientists can make lots of models which fit the past data, but they get no chance to see if those models are actually good at predicting the future until it is here. The whole thing will then become a "told you so" when either nothing happens, or sea levels rises 3 meters.

Because of the single experiment problem with climate change, taken as a whole, it doesn't lend itself well to the usual application of the scientific method: make some observations, propose a theory, craft and experiment to prove or disprove the theory, and repeat.

I think this is one reason that climate change is so contentious. The prove or disprove step doesn't happen enough to get rid of all the bad actors and crackpots. This is also the reason that an appeal to consensus must be made, because if there are not enough prove or disprove steps, the only way to advance the field is to run different theories by the people with the most knowledge on the subject and hopefully the wisdom of the INFORMED crowd will be enough to sort out the best answer.

It could very well be that the minority opinion is the correct one, but since the proof will not occur for 100 years when the sea level has not risen 1 m, it doesn't make sense to believe only the minority opinion, knowing what the consequences could be. Instead, policy wise, it makes more sense to make the choices today which will have the lowest probably future cost. Perhaps each scientists opinion should be given a weighting, so for example (I'm just making up numbers here) we can say with 90% certainty that the sea level will rise 1 m which will have an impact of $20 trillion, so if the cost of mitigating all effects of sea level rise is $10 trillion dollars, maybe we only spend $9 trillion and accept $500 billion in damage. (Obviously this is probably not the best solution. I'm just trying to show using the best estimate today to pick our response).

Re:Climate Conjecture

[dave420]

Translation: "I've made my mind up after watching some TV, and evidence can go screw itself".

Re:Crichton is an idiot.

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>"Science requires only one investigator who happens to be right, "

The one investigator publishes a paper, his work is confirmed by many others, he wins the Nobel Prize, and a new consensus is created. This differs from one loud voice who disagrees with the current consensus. For a handy metric for differentiating the two, see John Baez's Crackpot Index.

Whatever happened to scientific discussions then?

[luis_a_espinal]

True as that may be, people who are absolutely nuts tend to use the perpetual openness of science as an excuse to inject irrelevant, arbitrary insanity into discussions of fact.

You seem to be missing the point of TFA. Science doesn't need you to discuss it - it stands on it's own.

If this were true, we wouldn't have multiple physics/cosmological theories trying to explain observed phenomena or expected attributes on the nature of time and space.

If you have to discuss/debate it you have moved well out of the realm of science and into politics.

Kinda like the time when physicists were divided between those who theorized the Universe to be eternal and immutable vs those who thought of it as having a dynamic nature (expanding/shrinking with a creation starting point)?

Science not only relies on explanations of observations already taken. It also relies on PREDICTIONS (and the theories that proposed them) that are thought to be logical/inevitable based on what is has already been observed. Further experiments take place until these theories are debunked, reaffirmed or revisited. The process by which this takes place is strongly based on debate.

Even mathematical proofs are open to debate. You submit your proof. Peers attack it. If they find a chink in the armor, they send it back to you, and you now have to prove that the error is not fundamental, that your original proof can still be revisited and salvaged.

All politics are discussions. Not all discussions are politics - or are you not familiar with scientific discussions? If discussions have no place in science, then we pretty much close the door in the creation and presentation of scientific theories (which are just discussions and proposals which only become facts when experiments corroborate their predictions.) There is no exception to that and frankly it's disgusting you claim affinity for scientific knowledge and understanding and can't grasp such a basic concept.

Science is not consensus

[Kazoo the Clown]

Science is not consensus, and therefore my favorite random blog rant is equally credible? Somehow, I just don't see the former point supporting the latter...

What scientists mean by consensus is different

[RaccoonBandit]

I think there is a difference between what scientists mean by a consensus in the scientific community and how it is understood by the wider public.

If a climatologist says "there is a consensus" (s)he hardly means that a bunch of people came together to have a popular vote on the issue. Rather, it suggests that the majority of fellow climatologists have examined some evidence each and found the collection of all that evidence (and their respective analysis) to be conclusive (as far as statistically possible). However, no individual alone can "convince themselves by looking at the evidence" because the evidence consists of more data than anybody could study in a life time. So we have to put a certain degree of trust into our colleagues. An individual only has partial evidence, which by itself is insufficient to come to far-reaching conclusions about global climate developments. These conclusions can only be reached collaboratively -- in this sense it requires a consensus. Fortunately though I don't even have to trust any individual climate scientist or their data, just that there is no conspiracy by the majority. Furthermore, I know that I could examine any evidence if I wanted to, I just can't examine it all because there is simply too much of it. This applies similarly to other large-scale observational endeavours.

However, to a non-scientificially minded person "consensus" might indeed suggest something weaker (people sharing an opinion) and therefore mistrust the conclusions. And then they can't look at the evidence themselves because there is too much data and that data comes from exactly the people whom they mistrust in the first place. So instead they look at the evidence they can see and understand, which explains why acceptance of climate change drops on snowy days.

Re:Consensus is not Correctness

[MightyMartian]

There wasn't a learned man in Europe who believed the Earth was flat. It may have persisted much longer in China, but in Europe and among Arab geographers, there was no one who seriously believed in the flat Earth. The Greeks had figured that out nearly 2000 years before Columbus ever accidentally ran into the Americas on his way to China.

Controversy and Ignorance

[mdsolar]

In a lot of ways, consensus in science is what is lacking in both controversy and ignorance. It is what goes into text books. If a subject is controversial then some people know somethings about it but the details have not been worked out and agreed upon. If a subject has had no study, for example is there DNA under the ice on Europa? Then that is a subject of ignorance and perhaps speculation but not subject to consensus.

So consensus forms on topics that feel like they have pretty much been studied to death. It should be noted though that contrarians may remain active even when a consensus exists. That may look like controversy, but really the contrarian's arguments have all been addressed to everyone's satisfaction except the contrarian's. So, basically, the contrarian is the guy who does not get it. The faster a field moves, the more likely a contrarian will still be professionally active.

funny you should mention the ocean

[mbkennel]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=57

The ocean heat content is a better (though delayed) measure of global warming than the atmosphere for the obvious reason it has a larger heat capacity and so 'physically' integrates over many fluctuations.

Re:funny you should mention the ocean

[sjames]

Yes, and it too shows that the warming is real.

Scientific Consensus can be challenged

[Etherwalk]

Scientific consensus is like "you cannot exceed the speed of light." If you happen to demonstrate that you exceeded the speed of light, you want to be careful about how you present it--e.g. "we have this interesting result and can someone help show what we did wrong?"--but the community will take notice if you actually show that the consensus is wrong. The more consensus there is, the better the evidence you need to posit the question, but the community still listens.

Playing the ball...

[dtjohnson]

"CO2 concentration is measurably increasing year on year and accelerating...this is because of release of fossil fuel sequestered CO...CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat...These are not up for debate...The only debatable point is what do these facts mean for the climate."

Here are some more facts. The atmospheric co2 concentration is increasing by about 2 ppm per year. The world currently produces about 4.9 x 10^13 kg of co2 per year from the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the small total amount of co2 in the earth's atmosphere (atmospheric mass x co2 concentration) means that the earth currently sequesters ALL of the co2 produced by living organisms, decay, natural methane seeps, etc. as well as approximately 80 percent of all of the co2 produced annually from the entire world combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Based on all known reserves, there are approximately 75 years remaining of fossil fuels at current consumption rates. What this means is that, even if the natural sequestration rate remains unchanged (it is likely to increase with increasing co2 conc), the atmospheric c02 concentration will not increase more than 150 ppm ultimately reaching a concentration of approximately 550 ppm from the current 400 ppm. Even that increase, however, is unlikely, as rising fossil fuel prices and the diminishing returns of production will mean that global consumption of fossil fuels will decline over the next century as they are replaced by solar, wind power, nuclear power, conservation measures, and increased energy efficiencies. Therefore, rather than reach a maximum of 550 ppm and then decline precipitously as the last chunk of coal is burned, the atmospheric co2 concentration will more likely never reach that number as consumption tapers off and consumption continues at a lower rate of several centuries. What this means to an AGW true believer is that you have to believe that the earth's climate would dramatically warm if the atmospheric concentration of co2 went from the current 400 ppm to 550 (or less) and, there is absolutely no scientific basis for that belief. The atmospheric co2 concentration has increased by approximately 84 ppm since co2 measurements began in 1958 and the earth's climate has not changed dramatically. Even the small amount of warming that we have seen during that time is much more likely to have resulted from increased solar activity and long-term climate effects (we are in the middle of an interglacial warming period) than an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Moreover, there are actually signs of climate cooling as both the arctic and antarctic ice extent have increased in recent years. So, no, 'consensus' is not science.

Re:Who profits from West slowing down?

[mi]

What's settled is that the climate is changing at the hands of man

Yeah, sure. And every time I jump, the Earth moves (a little bit) in the opposite direction. Right... No, what is far from settled, is whether the humanity's impact is anything to speak of — or whether a single volcano's eruption produces more "greenhouse effect gases", than the Earth's entire bovine population and thus there is little justification in limiting beef-consumption on that account.

In other words, what's very far from being "settled" is whether humanity's impact matches that of other factors. Counting CO2 — and making predictions based on that — has already been demonstrated to be stupid. By those predictions, for example, Arctic ice should've disappeared this summer — instead, it has grown.

Kudos for tossing in the pinch of anti-government paranoia, it has to be that and not the desire for massively profitable fossil fuel corporations to defend said profits.

The profits of fossil fuel corporations are not endangered by the "green" moves at all — the demand for oil and gas is unaffected. Besides, for each such corporation, there is a bunch of solyndras peddling their wares to the "green" crowd — you aren't going to convince many, that it is the corporate world, that opposes "green initiatives".

But for the government folks — those, who are sincerely convinced, they know better than their subjects — this is a perfect way to expand their control. And if the already government-heavy countries (like Cuba) are helping persuade the free world's scientists, then all the better. Let's look the other way...

Re:Whatever happened to scientific discussions the

[onix]

People believe what they want to believe. Humans are fallible and will act in their self-interest. The question are:

(1) Is science and are scientists responsible for "explaining" themselves and their discoveries?
(2) Is the scientific community responsible for calling out charlatans that pose to use the scientific method, but don't?
(3) Are scientific discoveries constantly open for debate? And does it make sense to have proper channels for inquiry and discussion, or can anyone jump in?

Re:Gotten?

[Anonymous Coward]

Passive voice example should have been, "He has been sick, but he has gotten well."

AAAAArg. This is NOT passive voice!! Does really nobody have the fainstest idea of grammar anymore?

Re:Whatever happened to scientific discussions the

[luis_a_espinal]

People believe what they want to believe. Humans are fallible and will act in their self-interest.

True, but non sequitur to the nature of scientific debate (true scientific debate, not just "debate").

The question are:

(1) Is science and are scientists responsible for "explaining" themselves and their discoveries?

A) Yes they are responsible for explaining, and B) yes, they do explain themselves. But just because a explanation for a complex thing exists, that does not mean the explanation can be made to simple enough to reach a large untrained audience. Try creating an explanation to Wiles's proof for Fermat's Last Theorem that can reach anyone without any exposition to Algebraic Number Theory.

(2) Is the scientific community responsible for calling out charlatans that pose to use the scientific method, but don't?

Of course.

(3) Are scientific discoveries constantly open for debate?

Most of the time, of course. Just because something is discovered, that does not mean we know the mechanisms that make such a discovery a part of reality. Like, when we discovered that Archaea was a branch of life completely different from Bacteria (and not just a form a Bacteria). Then we have to debate, why are they different, how they came to exist, are they even closely related or separated from each other in a similar degree to which each of them is related or separated from from Eukaryota? Do they have a common ancestor (very likely) or they arose independently and their commonalities are just the result of lateral gene transfer?

Think a simpler question: what is electricity? We more or less have an idea of what it is, but for a very long time after its discovery we didn't quite know.

So, for as long as new discoveries and observations are made that cannot be taken into account from predictions made out of existing theories and discoveries, everything is up to debate by a) qualified people using b) the scientific method in c) a manner that is correct.

And does it make sense to have proper channels for inquiry and discussion, or can anyone jump in?

Of course. The scientific community must have channels to discuss the nature of, say, HIV, by qualified individuals (virologists, health specialists) using methods and observations that are reproducible by other qualified people.

OTH, the scientific community must not have a channel for someone like me (who has no fucking clue how to conduct virology studies) to come and say that HIV doesn't exist and that it is just a flu can be cured by eating peyote while looking at the stars from Stonehenge.