As climate dominoes fall, a riposte to an alarmist
Last week’s column for The Daily Maverick was about how the news keeps getting better on the climate change front. The dominoes keep falling, and they appear to be gathering speed.
My previous columns on the subject of climate change prompted an extraordinary rant from a cognitive science student named Michael Meadon. Perhaps in pursuance of his research, he looked at my face and concluded that I’m not entitled to an opinion.
It is too tempting not to rebut. Read Meadon’s post first, then read on:
For those who don’t know, Twitter is a micro-blogging service, a platform on which one posts short “tweets”, limited to 140 characters. They are visible to people who have chosen to follow your updates. You can direct tweets at individuals using their username, which makes basic dialogue possible even between people who don’t “follow” each other. Meadon’s idea of an “argument” on Twitter appears to be a lengthy, tweet-a-minute tirade, asking rapid-fire questions with which one cannot possibly keep up, even if they were answerable in 140 characters. The suggestion is that a refusal to respond in detail is an admission of defeat. Here’s a tip from an expert: Twitter is not a good forum for debating complex topics.
Like his tweets, his lecture on his blog does not address any of the points I’ve made in my columns (and admits it boldly). Beyond vaguely misstating and exaggerating my opinions, it merely makes rash and uninformed presumptions about what I might or might not know.
His main point is that I do not understand climate science well enough to dare question it. I’m not an expert, and therefore am not entitled to an opinion on whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is an urgent threat that requires immediate coercive regulation on the part of governments.
First, he falsely conflates several independent issues: the risk of catastrophic climate change, the validity of attributing it to human activity, the credibility of proponents of this theory, the justifiability of consequent coercive action by the state, and the likely efficacy of different regulatory proposals. Even if the first were true, the rest do not necessarily follow.
Leaving his sloppy analysis aside, however, his insulting presumption about the extent of my knowledge and the depth of my research is ironic for someone who accuses others of intellectual arrogance. My education includes university-level mathematics and applied mathematics, a great deal of computer science, some physics, some statistics, much political economy, a lot of history, and a fair measure of philosophy. Though climate science wasn’t a subject when I attended university, I have read much about it — including scientific literature — in the two decades since.
I don’t claim formal qualifications nor specialist knowledge on any subject, including my own profession of journalism. Does that make my opinions a priori invalid? I, like most working journalists, am a generalist rather than a specialist. Does that make my commentary ipso facto conceited?
I can at least claim, contrary to Meadon’s charge, familiarity with the terms he bandies about to imply that science is a matter of baffling cant, comprehensible only to an initiated elite. Unlike Meadon, I am not so pretentious as to use them in writing for a general audience. If I did, would it sanctify my published views, even if they did nothing to add to the substance of my arguments?
Meadon also presumes that I do not properly understand the “methods of science”. Would it make me special if I say I have read (and understood) Popper, Nagel, Kuhn, and a number of other philosophers on ontology, epistemology, and the nature of proof and falsifiability, or would it seem unbearably pompous?
Besides, the charge is rich, coming from someone who appeals to consensus in making his point. Even if there were consensus among experts on climate science (which there isn’t), science is not a democratic enterprise. No consensus about the existence of the aether, the medical efficacy of snake-oil liniment, the geocentricity of the solar system, the paradigmatic nature of scientific theories, the impossibility of rocket propulsion in a vacuum, the possibility of perpetual motion, or the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight make these beliefs true. I hope they don’t teach the contrary in “cognitive science”.
Regardless of Meadon’s condescending presumptions about the extent of my scientific understanding, it is not really all that relevant to the main issues I raise in my columns: that of the credibility of the climate alarmism establishment.
In one among Meadon’s barrage of tweets, he links to a science fiction writer (with a doctorate in astrophysics), who states: “Respect toward professionals is compatible with keeping an eye on them.”
That, I contend, is exactly what well-informed journalists and commentators do. In that spirit, I could quote a long list of doctorate-level scientists in multiple disciplines who disagree in various respects with the orthodoxy on AGW. Many have felt driven to write public appeals to political decision-makers to register their dissent. But in lieu of all of them, permit me to defer to one Philip D. Jones, Ph.D., the suspended head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, on a question to which Meadon appears to attach great value — the question of consensus: “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”
So much for Meadon’s claim of a “vast majority”. Or does he have an “intellectually arrogant” opinion of his own that trumps such a striking admission by a (formerly respected) dean of climate science?
Climate fears are being used to advocate the imposition of far-reaching coercive measures upon the public, which will have serious economic and political consequences. Their credibility and integrity are therefore questions of great public interest, even if Meadon’s mythical consensus existed and carried weight.
It is right that the public does not blindly believe experts when their data is shown (and admitted) to be incomplete and disorganised. It is proper to be suspicious of mandated science, conducted in pursuance of government policies using government funds. It is justifiable not to respect professionals who cherry-pick data, make arbitrary, undocumented adjustments to it, or withhold it from independent review. It is wrong to presume the integrity of scientists when they collude to get dissenting scientists demoted or fired. It is not okay to delete source data for results that now underpin reports of serious political and economic import. When Enron was caught shredding documents, one didn’t have to be a chartered accountant to call “fraud”.
I was once told that having read the Bible in its entirety several times and having listened to innumerable sermons did not qualify me to hold opinions on the doctrines of Christianity. I should simply defer to my betters, and believe. Meadon’s argument is identical. It is an appeal to faith; an appeal to ignorance.
I contend that despite not being a cardinal, an imam, a pastor, a rabbi, or a high priest of the cult of Gaia, a well-informed person is very much entitled to an opinion when economic prosperity and political freedom are at stake. To put it more bluntly, let me paraphrase a slogan from the American Revolution: if you’re proposing to tax me, damn right I’m entitled to an opinion.
It is a mark of desperation to make no other argument except to declare that it is arrogant not to suborn one’s will, intellect and interests to the dictats of a technocratic (or any other) elite. Moreover, it is downright fascist.
Meadon is welcome to live his own life as a deferential sheep, ignorant of the factual basis for political action. If the alternative is “intellectual arrogance”, then consider me guilty as charged.
Update: Meadon has asked for a specific response to his brain surgery analogy. It is a false analogy, since I do not propose to change the climate, and no politician is proposing to modify all our brains. Climate policy has extensive political, social and economic implications that brain surgery lacks. But let me put it this way: If I knew as much about brain surgery as I have learnt about climate science, I’d be fairly confident of choosing between two contradictory expert opinions. Furthermore, if the subject was my brain, or all of our brains, I’d feel morally justified in forming my own informed opinion too.
I’m fond of my neurosurgery analogy. I can’t tempt you to respond to it, can I? I’d be happy to change my mind regarding its force if you show me it’s a false analogy, or otherwise inapplicable.
Fantastic rebuttal Ivo. Your argument on logic makes tremendously more sense that Meadon’s argument, especially in the context of the debate (i.e. AGW and its implication on policy).
See “update” above, Michael. And thanks, Sheraan.
As with your previous posts relating to climate science, this piece is lacking in both accuracy and logical validity. I’m sure the straw-man you beat up thoroughly deserved the thrashing, but I see very little above actually addressing Mr Meadon’s points.
I eagerly await Mr Meadon’s response to this… and possibly your response to his neurosurgery analogy.
@ Owen Swart: I don’t address his points? Which ones? Where’s the straw man? And the supposed errors? Come on, man. Spit it out. The dullest drunkard down the pub is capable of yelling, “bull!”
Meadon said I’m not a subject-matter expert, so therefore it would be proper of me to defer to expert consensus, and arrogant of me not to. I argued that I know more than he thinks, there is no consensus to defer to, and that even if neither of these were true, anyone affected by climate policy is entitled to an informed opinion. What’d I miss?
Besides, it was Meadon who explicitly declined to discuss the actual points I made in my columns, preferring instead to make sweeping claims about me, my knowledge, and my right to form an opinion on the subject at all. And you say I’m not addressing his points?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by IvoVegter: Climate alarmist @michaelmeadon wrote an entire blog post just for me. The bait proved too tempting. http://bit.ly/djv1Cf #climategate…
For a short period of time I had a religious friend. It ended in an argument over belief in God. He asserted that since he had a BSc science degree, that I could not refute his belief using scientific arguments as to why god does not exist.
I think the same applies to arrogant Michael Meadon who assumes that only specialists in climate can discover the truth about Climategate.
The truth is evident to any simpleton. Climategate has shown how badly the world has been mislead.
Fact of the matter is that the highest learning our world currently possesses churns out climatologists who can’t reliably, with 100% accuracy, predict the weather 5 days in advance, let alone decades.
It is sheer arrogance to presume that a person possessing Phds in Climate Science actually knows much more about climate than alchemists did about turning base metals into gold during the Medieval Age. Not only are they millennia away from perfecting their knowledge, it is a proven fact that they have deceitfully mislead the world.
Understanding the Earth’s climate requires millennia of accurate data. It requires truth and honesty. None of which are present in today’s arguments for anthropological causes of global warming.
Well written Ivo… This guy, Michael Meadon, thinks winning an argument is just a case of using a welter of words… On the science of climate he, himself, shows no particular knowledge…
riposte |riˈpōst| noun 1 a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism. 2 Fencing a quick return thrust following a parry. verb 1 [with direct speech ] make a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism : “You’ve got a strange sense of humor,” Grant riposted. . . .
——————-
Riposte? I don’t think so. There are subtly veiled ad-hominem attacks, paralytic strawmen, and narcissistic appeals to un-credentialed authority; but very little actual substance in your injured rant.
6.7 billion parasites running around on the planet’s surface, moving massive amounts of carbon-based fuels from the earth to the atmosphere, and hurtling towards armageddon; yet you don’t wish to impede our myopian race’s proclivity for self-destruction? Shame on you.
I’m not at all in favor of over-regulation and involvement by government, by any means; and we’re seeing hell’s heapings of it here in Mzansi. But to paraphrase an old saw: a pinch of caution is worth an ounce of valour. That is, people with able minds and intentions do well to minimize their carbon-footprint.
It’s plainy moronic (or trollishly thickheaded) to side with vested interest lobbies over cool common-sense.
But you said it, boss. Yup. It’s a scam. You done read and unnerstood, refuted and confuted all them thar things, like the Bible ‘n some philosophers I done never even heared of ‘n shit.
What flavor is that chip on your shoulder? Long pig, by any chance?
You and Catto do make a lovely couple.
Over & out.
:)
I was not responding to substance; I was responding to a personal attack questioning my competence to hold an opinion on the subject of climate change. Clearly, my belief that I have both a right and sufficient competence to think for myself strikes you as narcissistic. Fine. Add that to “intellectual arrogance”.
As for “our myopian race’s proclivity for self-destruction”, what evidence do you have that this is true? All the stats show rising prosperity, rising population, declining poverty, and declining mortality rates from preventable causes. What self-destruction there has been, in history, has been caused by socialism, tyranny, corruption, lawlessness and war. But on balance, even that damage is outweighed by the living standards created by free-market capitalism, even among the poor. Curbing our ability to continue producing such excellent results by contrast, would be self-destructive, and would bar the way to prosperity for many who have yet to reach the West’s standard of living. So in a sense, my opposition to AGW alarmism is exactly what you say: a wish to impede self-destruction.
Your appeal to precaution is bunkum. Caution is well and good, but only if you actually know the risks, costs and benefits. If the risks are overstated, no cost is too high, and the benefits are speculative and long-term, caution is simply stupid. Refusing to act according to rational cost-benefit analysis is not caution, it is impotence and cowardice. Claiming the cost might be infinite and therefore a course of action is morally justified, is not an argument. It is demagoguery. Progress is not the result of impotence and cowardice. It is not the result of superstitious fear. The world got to where it is today because of innovative risk-taking by bold individuals, and an economic system that rewards this and punishes failure. Besides, the precautionary principle precludes its own application, since it speaks of the risk of acting, without counting the risk of not acting (i.e. the risk of applying the precautionary principle).
As for the rest of your rant, that’s pretty impressive for someone who frowns on ad hominem attacks.
I’m still pro doing what we can to reduce our carbon footprint and live in cleaner cities. I’d love to live in a pollution free city, and having clean air to breathe. However, if the climate scientists involved have committed fraud, that has big consequences.
Re your “Update”. In that case, would it be fair to conclude that you consider yourself an expert? Surely only experts can properly understand and evaluate expert disagreements given that such disagreements turn on the truth of technical details?
In which case, I note there is an interesting article is this week’s Science, here. I trust you can read, understand and evaluate this paper.
It would be perfectly fair, in the sense that it’s not unfair to be both wrong and obtuse.
Why would you conclude that I consider myself an expert, when I have explicitly said I do not consider myself an expert? That a journalist is a generalist, and not a specialist?
Besides, I thought you said I substantially misrepresented your view, and yet you still go on about how only anointed experts who concur with the majority are entitled to an opinion about something that’ll gravely impact on the lives of others?
And no, I cannot read that journal article. And yes, it is because I am not an expert. If I were an expert, I’d pay for a subscription. Being a freelance journalist, I’m hard pressed to pay for beer.
Firstly, I’m not trying to be… unpleasant or aggressive. I’m working on a response to this, and I want to make sure I understand your position. I berated you for misunderstanding my position and, to be consistent, I’m trying very hard to understand yours.
Yes, I’ve read you’re bit about not being an expert. But you say: “If I knew as much about brain surgery as I have learnt about climate science, I’d be fairly confident of choosing between two contradictory expert opinions.” When two experts disagree, they disagree over technical details, minutia, and various arcane methodological issues. So, let’s be clear. An expert is defined as a person who understand the relevant technical details and associated methods of some discipline. So, either you think you can evaluate contradictory expert opinions on other criteria, or you think yourself capable of making a judgment on technical details. If you do think the former, I’d be interested to hear what those are. If the latter, you seem to think you’re an expert, despite what you say.
I didn’t say only “anointed experts who concur with the majority are entitled to an opinion”. I said only experts get to have independent opinions about (sufficiently) complicated phenomena, whether they agree or disagree with a particular view. Experts who disagree with consensus serve a useful function - they challenge the majority to do better science, keep alive possibly true theories and so on. While most such experts turn out to be wrong, on rare occasions they’re right (c.f. Plate tectonics). Non-experts, however, are not qualified to make judgments because they don’t understand the issues under debate sufficiently, and are therefore not (intellectually) entitled to an opinion. When there is no consensus, agnosticism is a non-expert’s only reasonable course. When there is consensus, a non-expert can choose between agnosticism and deference. What is unreasonable is for a non-expert to takes sides in a genuine controversy, or to take a stance contrary to consensus.
I feel your pain re beer. But hold on. If you can’t read the paper I linked to because (1) you’re a non-expert and (2) don’t have access, how is it, exactly, that you’ve read and understood the scientific literature on climate change? I mean, you don’t have access to Science. Do you have access to Nature? How about Climate Dynamics? There are other ways of getting papers (often with great difficulty - when UKZN doesn’t have access, I’ve had to ask friends at overseas universities to get papers for me), of course, but do you do so as a matter of course? And, if you do, can you understand those papers as well as an expert? And, if not, how, exactly, do you choose which side to believe?
Here’s a homework assignment for you. Register at Research Blogging. Find a paper from the last decade or so that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Blog it (in the way science bloggers like Ed Yong do), set out the methods and findings, and explain either (1) why it supports your view, or (2) why it’s flawed (if it supports the reality of AGW). Oh, and maybe point me to five papers you’ve read recently? Maybe in the last month or so? (I’m more than happy to do the same re my work).
(Examples of me practising what I preach in my own discipline - I don’t pretend to be able to understand the scientific literature on climate change - can be found here and here.
I have to agree with Michael on this. Why not challenge papers yourself? Research/Peer reviewed blogging are excellent tools. I value your input on the economic and policy impacts, but I do at times feel your views on the science are sometimes misguided, in older posts and in Maverick. Almost in the same way creationist or christian apologists defend creationism; “there are gaps”, “Richard Dawkins said we come from Martians”. Like the ‘documentaries’ Expelled and The Great Global Warming Swindle, both of which are so blatantly dishonest, yet I see no critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle?
There are so many tactics that creationist share with those in opposition to the climate science, which for me makes the lot look more foolish each argument that does not appose the science through the scientific method. So instead of screaming “fossil fraud”, “show me the transitional creatures”, do some proper science. Go and challenge the folks at scienceblogs.com or similar sites with your findings.
I’ve been clear on the point that while I am very familiar with the subject, I cannot claim to be an expert. I’m a journalist and commentator.
My primary argument over the years has been that even if climate alarmism were true, the proposed policy response is not justified. This is a political and economic argument.
I did not expect ClimateGate to fall into my lap to make my job at convincing others so much easier. It is now clear that the quality of the alarmists’ data is shocking, they are reluctant to submit their data and methods to public scrutiny even in the face of legal obligations to do so, they have deleted primary data “for space reasons”, they face serious allegations of cherry-picking and changing results to reach preconceived conclusions, they suppress dissenting research[1], they try to get dissenting scientists fired and have succeeded in at least one case, and they privately concede doubts and errors that undermine the public claims to consensus and “settled science”. All this undermines my respect for their impartiality and honesty as scientists, and denies them any authority at all as activists.
Moreover, not being a scientist myself, I rely on the work of real scientists and researchers such as Richard Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Luboš Motl, Ross McKitrick, Marcel Leroux, Patrick Michaels, Anthony Watts, William Cotton, John Christy, Fred Singer, James Saiers, Steve McIntyre, Tad Murty, Don Easterbrook and Roy Spencer. While I do not blithely accept everything they say (just like I treat alarmists with scepticism), they are much more qualified than I am to challenge, with “proper science”, the papers on which the alarmist consensus is built. They might not enjoy the financial largesse that the alarmists get from taxpayers, non-governmental organisations and corporations, but they do a fine job poking holes in the elaborate but fragile edifice the alarmists have constructed. Falsification is a key feature of the scientific method, and these are the people who keep that flame alive.
Suggesting I should join them is glib and facile, but it is not a counter-argument. Moreover, suggesting that my position is “similar” to some other argument that I have never made proves nothing, and merely undermines your own credibility.
I will, however, write a column explaining the logical basis for my position, rather than attacking the alarmists or getting swamped in the details.
[1] Michael Mann: “Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”