I am well and truly outside of the debate on global warming; and remain highly suspicious of the findings of scientists in this arena. There are a number of reasons:
1. The reliance on computer modelling of complex systems like the climate. There has for the last decade been dire projections of climate change which simply have not occurred as modelled. The only certainty on this issue is that these scientists cannot make accurate predictions. We can be assured that they will get closer because 'short terming' data will allow them to do that; but then they miss the long term factors.
2. The political loadings or 'biases' associated with such issues, i.e. The spectre of human action as reflective of uncontrollable, non-compliant, treacherous egotists who need to renounce or be regulated. Of course the flipside is that I can be biased in my alternate thesis. The 'middle ground' rationalisation or 'repressive state' does not hold, i.e. The argument that one is 'unbiased' by these considerations is not an argument. No more satisfactory than a paedophile saying he will abuse no more. Scientists are not self-aware people. They renounce moral imperatives because they think they are a betrayal of evidence. This is a false dichotomy because it means they ignore any evidence that betrays their legitimacy, i.e. They will not entertain value judgements about their own bias. They will simply not have the appreciation of ethics to make valid conclusions.
3. Interpretation of data - There is a great deal of scope for people to misuse or misinterpret data; even to manipulate data sets knowing that no one is going to both confirming these interpretations. Scientists don't like to go over what has already been done; particularly because they don't want to take the position of a critic.
4. The blatant lack of certainty implied in data and their interpretation of it. If you listen to these scientists they do not project a great deal of confidence in their understanding. There are simply earthly and astronomical processes that they are still coming to terms with. i.e. The processes by which methane hydrates, immense deposits of carbon-containing methane on the sea floor are formed. There is uncertainty about how these are created and how stable they are. The sensitivity of this data is huge, so there is a huge importance placed upon knowing these systems.
5. The conflict of interest - These people are paid to create 'stigma'. We do not appreciate climatologists when we have no reason to fear climate change; just as for the same reason, we more highly value police in periods of high crime. The same for firemen in the 9/11 period. This creates a strong incentive for climatologists to seek validation; and to take measures to achieve it. Conceding that the evidence is not there is a hard step to take because it invalidates their credibility as a scientist. Have you seen what happened to the exponents of 'cold fusion'. Can you imagine what will happen to science budgets/funding when global warming is discredited - if it is?
6. The decline in the quality of science - In the past science was a low-status field of endeavour. No one wanted to be a scientist - unless you went into space - and too few people can do that. There was always greater appeal in making money, and that meant smart people tended to enter law, finance, economics, or become an entrepreneur or programmer. Universities around the world lowered school scores in order to attract graduates. This is only part of the problem. The education system does a poor job at teaching students how to think. I studied science. No one teaches logic in science; but they do teach statistics. This entrenched empiricism in the university curriculum means that scientists are 'strongly empirical'. The problem with this is three-fold:
(a) There is a lack of recognition of what 'causation' actually is. These scientists think that if you pass 5% statistical confidence you have causation.
(b) These scientists don't realise that empiricism rests on analytical arguments. What is a 'valid sample' to test a hypothesis. The implication is that they are making assumptions that they cannot prove.
(c) Given their inherent non-analytical position, you will find that they make rationalisations which invalidate their argument. i.e. In this video, this Harvard scientist says that there is 'no resolution problem' in his data. He thus need not be concerned with the fact that his data rests on 400-year sample points. His argument is that he is not concerned because CO2 levels don't rise and fall so quickly, so he does not need to worry about issue. The problem with that argument is that he is using his hypothesis as an argument for its validity. That is a circular argument - a contradiction. You can't use your conclusion as the basis of your evidence. The conversation about resolution starts at 2:15 minute mark. What is interesting is that, probably having heard the criticism already, he makes a psychological 'gesture' that would probably convey apprehension to a psychologist. That 'evidence' occurs at 2:38 when he touches his ear. Note that the video identifies a scientist with the counter-argument (Robert Rohde) has struggled to get his research peer reviewed. The implication is that there is a strong 'values laden' bias in the scientific community against alternative arguments to the global warming hypothesis. The world has a rich case history of 'human error' where people simply stopped taking critical positions and accepted the status quo. This guy's apprehension is well-appreciated. Unfortunately he is going to be validated despite his apprehensions. He will accept this 'unearned validation', the cornerstone of this 'academic ponzi scheme'. In this interview, the scientist treats the raw data 'context' in his thesis derisively as 'chitter chatter'. This is not science; its presumption (evidenced at 4:30 minute mark). This is where scientists 'don't know what they don't know' and arrogantly assume that there is no case to answer. What is conveyed is a lack of respect for facts, or a lack of procedural discipline to establish them. i.e. Its all about the money and applause; being validated rather than alienated for a counter-position. Ask yourself how many times you have seen any of these 'truth seekers' defend or spurn the lack of peer view of their counterparts. It should remind people of the lack of objectivity or defence of critics in times of political tyranny. Aside from a governor of Nagano, few publicly criticised Emperor Hirohito, when he sanctioned empire building. The same is true for Hitler and 'modern systematically-wrong science'. The problem is the education system.
(d) There is the problem of there not being equal access for scientists who are more objective than others. The problem is that there is a 'consensus bias'. Politicians listen to people because people decide their fate. This is true for scientists as well. For the reasons I have made above, only 5% of scientists are critical thinkers able to substantively understand the validity of sciences. Yes, I grab this number out of the air. Its not been empirically tested, and that's not to say 'non-science' is an argument, but rather than there is a plausible hypothesis that has not been tested. I say plausible because non of my contemporaries who are 'so sure', or who conclude that 'the cost of being wrong is too high', are destined to ignore the prospect of this argument being true, because its not within their capacity to know whether its true. That is the 'disempowerment bias' that is destined to invalidate a great deal of science when dealing with these complex systems. Critcal thinking scientists - let's call them 'the 5%' are not being listened to by the media because they don't have the consensus. They are denounced as 'qwacks' as if this was a witch-hunt.
(e) One has to ask how much does this scientist actually understand about the nature of how the data is actually collected, i.e. What is the data measuring in terms of its relationship to other data. i.e. Is the data measuring maximum, minimum values, or average values? Is there data contamination within the sample record, i.e. contamination by surrounding data. this will of course depend upon the nature of the data, and it comes from different sources. We might wonder if these scientists are stitching together data that suits their rationalisation; ignoring any counter-evidence. i.e. Selective interpretation of data. We need to remember that recognised scientists can't get peer reviewed. There is bias among scientists. Strangely, great scientists have historically often encountered this problem because smart people are not commonplace; that's why they call it mediocrity. When the standards for university science entry were lowered, we opened up science to mediocrity. That process took 15-20 years. It happened in the 1980s; so in the 2000s, we saw the full impact of this 'correlation'.
It is interesting to read some of the support for this research
Michael E. Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University, an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors "had made conservative data choices in their analysis".
What a curious thing to say. What is a 'conservative data choice'? It makes you wonder. I simply want them to identify trends based on facts. Such statements tend to convey; that we are not certain; but we are going out on a limb and saying the world only has our research, and you'll just have to live with our inaccuracy or uncertainty. But in fact - there is a choice - not doing anything until we know. The argument is that doing nothing is not a choice. This is nonsense. There is a cost to doing the wrong thing. The 'high pressure' 'must act' notion is popular; its called 'high pressure sales' - create urgency.
Dr. Marcott said: Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age".
The implication is that global warming is allowing humanity to stabilise the average global temperature before we go into a freeze. We need to remember that we are currently using coal because its the cheapest fuel. If we artificially make it expensive, then we are actually sabotaging our wealth creation capacity, and thus our capacity to finance change in the future, to offer technological solutions in the future, if indeed those 'interventions' are required. We need to remember that the concern for energy consumption efficiency is a pretty new concern. It was never the focus of corporate leaders. You can ask yourself why. Many of you will conclude its the 'failings of capitalism', but I would argue that government intervention has added costs (i.e. cynical tax impositions, little of which has gone into solar/renewable, little of it efficient expenditure on research). I would also argue that government intervention is wholly compatible with the moral relativism that allows the current system of economic reward to discourage CEOs from making cost savings in energy. It is far more 'remuneratively beneficial' for CEOs to simply consolidate global capacity rather than organic growth.
The problem with these researchers is that, even if they make no other statement, their conclusions in the hands of journalists results in some damaging conclusions. But scientists too are destined to 'reach outside their page grade'; and by that I mean that are free to speculate outside of their narrow field of expertise, and in doing so rely on others thinking - or rationalisations.
Dr. Marcott: "The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century".
Now, this makes me recall the old days of the Club of Rome and the 1980s projection that coal prices were going to $100/tonne. Instead, we found more resources and coal collapsed to $25/tonne....and only in more recent times have reached $180/tonnes due to completely unrelated phenomenon; a commodities bubble and inflation. So what do they need to consider:
1. The prospects for nuclear fuel to take more market share
2. The prospects for prosperity to reduce the energy-intensity of people
3. The prospects for rebalancing of labour from 'cheap' to 'quality' in about 20 years to change attitudes to buyers/consumers
4. The prospects for technology to reduce energy intensity of consumption, renewables and innovation in other ways.
5. The prospects for lifestyles to change when we can make our own food at home; live in cities, which are better designed
6. The prospect that a complete revolution in decision-making, say by political reform, could and should change our capacity to be efficient and judicious in our actions. How much is our political paradigm holding us back now.
7. The prospects of global population growth reversing in 70 years. Might this however be offset by longer lives? Possible? But maybe by then, we will be so advanced we will be engineering our bodies or lives to consume 240% less energy and products. Maybe we will realise that we already over-eat, and we can already achieve a 50% reduction in calorie intake simply by addressing issues like anxiety. That is a 'political problem'.
When you consider these issues; you realise that society does not project a realisation that they have any inkling of what the problems really are.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
