Tweet
The global warming issue is highly problematic due to a constellation of obfuscating issues, such as how knowledge is acquired, how predictive models are made and verified, how and why scientists conduct research, how scientists remain funded, scientific bias, agendas, and political and social constructs.
The global warming hypothesis, as it stands, suggests that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are the major source of a current warming trend across the globe. Furthermore, this warming trend is predicted to continue for at least 100 years, resulting in increases of up to 2 degrees F, resulting in the melting of polar cap ice and increases in ocean levels and severe weather. OK. So how do we know this and how certain are we? As a short aside, I will briefly point our that there are two general ways of acquiring ‘true’ information – through personal experience or through the confident belief in the acquisition by another (second-hand knowledge). Thus, for most information, we rely in the credibility of authority figures on a particular subject to determine whether or not we believe a piece of information to be true. For those of us (which means virtually everyone) we have to acquire knowledge about global warming second-hand, even if we read the primary research articles in Science Magazine or Nature (as I have done, BTW) Through scientific authority figures we know that carbon dioxide levels contributed by humans have increased and that some models predict dire future consequences. Essentially, to believe this, you have to believe that the method of the scientists is sound and that their motives and behavior are ethical. In other words, you must have faith, either in the scientific method in general or in particular scientists with credibility acquired by consistent accurate findings.
But what about these models the scientists create? How can we be CERTAIN that the future will bring what they claim? How accurate are the models? How can we know that conditions won’t be altered due to changes in technology or behavior by the worlds peoples? The ability to predict the future is confounded by our inability to anticipate such major changes. Karl Popper referred to future predictions of this type as ‘the poverty of historicism.’ To find a more accessible pop culture reference, you could look at Asimov’s “Foundation†science fiction series. In this series, future scientists called ‘psychohistorians’ used mathematics to describe the behavior of large human populations. They used this mathematics to model human behavior, and thereby predict with great accuracy human future history. The wrench in the works was that they could not predict the effects of mutation or as Popper would say, they could not predict the unpredictable changes that might come at any time.
So we are left with models, that if run without any perturbation whatever, predict a warmer planet, rising seas, and bad weather. But are these models any good? In the biological sciences, scientists have been able to dissect the machinery that allows cells and microscopic free-living animals to move. Video microscopy, together with biochemical analysis of the ‘skeleton’ of cells has helped scientists understand exactly how these cells can crawl. Using this information, scientist can model the movement using computer programs and the movement matches the observed at high fidelity. The best biological models are those FOR WHICH THE OUTCOME IS ALREADY KNOWN. In other words, because scientists understand so much, and can actually watch and record the movement itself, and they can model the movement. In the case of the weather models, the final outcome is of course unknown. Furthermore, the ‘skeleton’ of the weather, that is, the critical parameters that contribute to the final outcome are incompletely defined. Until just recently, the temperatures in the upper atmosphere had not been measured accurately. Also, some scientists are wondering what other physical factors (and to what degree) will affect global temperature (such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, etc.) Also unknown is how accurate the models will be in the long term given the incomplete input in the short term. Already, many iterations of long term warming models have been dispensed with due wild inaccuracies in the short term.
But what if the models are true? Strict materialists, who believe that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago and evolved into what we see now, have expounded on the virtues and survival capabilities of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. The earth that changed around evolving species saw incredible upheavals, and life survived and adapted. Are we to believe now that humans will be incapable of adapting to a maximum predicted rise of 2 degrees over the next 100 years? It’s depressing to think that scientists and politicians have less confidence in the adaptability of modern man over say the Neanderthal.
And what about the scientists? Are they honest? Are they agenda free? Will they get funded if they model the future weather patterns and claim that things will be largely the same as now? In the health sciences, funding flows to those who are trying to find the causes of disease and the cures for such diseases – in fact, most governmental grants require some justification that research will have implications for some human disease. Thus, scientists are trained, or more accurately, forced, to study topics that in some way negatively affect humans. If you don’t, you’re much less likely to get funding. Look at the scientists studying educational techniques. Do they continue to get funded if they publish papers with titles like ‘Current methods for teaching math to fourth graders are perfectly adequate’ or do they get funding if they produce a new method with ‘better’ results? Is it in their interest to find new and ‘better’ methods or to say things are just fine? Scientists are human beings, and they have to put dinner on the table, etc. They are subject to all the pressures to produce and uncover something novel and unique. Many are honest and have high integrity; some are not.
And that brings us to the political side. Ever since ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson, science has been infused with a dramatic spirit of activism. Mercury, lead, cholesterol levels, trans-fats, other chemicals naturally occurring in the environment (like radon) or from chemical plants, nuclear plants (tritium, warmed water released into streams), to stuff in our drinks (caffeine, etc. etc.) have all been treated with the same general approach: Something is killing us and something must be done. In many cases, the scientists were right and in many other cases they were horribly wrong (as in the case of DDT). The popularized image took hold of the caring activist exposing the cloistered huddling diabolical industrial company CEO who was deliberately poisoning the rest of us and cackling about it on his yacht (with heliport). There were battles to be fought and won, but activism itself took hold as an end in and of itself, with almost a religious fervor. Al Gore is celebrated because he is trying to right a wrong, and anyone opposed must be on the side of that stereotypical fat cat CEO. There seems to be no middle ground where people can say “There is an issue that needs to be addressed and handled rationally.†I cite as a very recent example the column from Nicholas Kristof in the NYT where he says we have more to fear from Girl Scouts wielding peanut butter cookies with trans-fats that we have to fear from al Quaeda wielding box cutters and machetes. Without some return to rationality from scientists, politicians, activists and even the fat cat CEOs, there’s no hope that the global warming issue itself will be anything more than a televised, agenda driven shouting match.
The global warming hypothesis, as it stands, suggests that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are the major source of a current warming trend across the globe. Furthermore, this warming trend is predicted to continue for at least 100 years, resulting in increases of up to 2 degrees F, resulting in the melting of polar cap ice and increases in ocean levels and severe weather. OK. So how do we know this and how certain are we? As a short aside, I will briefly point our that there are two general ways of acquiring ‘true’ information – through personal experience or through the confident belief in the acquisition by another (second-hand knowledge). Thus, for most information, we rely in the credibility of authority figures on a particular subject to determine whether or not we believe a piece of information to be true. For those of us (which means virtually everyone) we have to acquire knowledge about global warming second-hand, even if we read the primary research articles in Science Magazine or Nature (as I have done, BTW) Through scientific authority figures we know that carbon dioxide levels contributed by humans have increased and that some models predict dire future consequences. Essentially, to believe this, you have to believe that the method of the scientists is sound and that their motives and behavior are ethical. In other words, you must have faith, either in the scientific method in general or in particular scientists with credibility acquired by consistent accurate findings.
But what about these models the scientists create? How can we be CERTAIN that the future will bring what they claim? How accurate are the models? How can we know that conditions won’t be altered due to changes in technology or behavior by the worlds peoples? The ability to predict the future is confounded by our inability to anticipate such major changes. Karl Popper referred to future predictions of this type as ‘the poverty of historicism.’ To find a more accessible pop culture reference, you could look at Asimov’s “Foundation†science fiction series. In this series, future scientists called ‘psychohistorians’ used mathematics to describe the behavior of large human populations. They used this mathematics to model human behavior, and thereby predict with great accuracy human future history. The wrench in the works was that they could not predict the effects of mutation or as Popper would say, they could not predict the unpredictable changes that might come at any time.
So we are left with models, that if run without any perturbation whatever, predict a warmer planet, rising seas, and bad weather. But are these models any good? In the biological sciences, scientists have been able to dissect the machinery that allows cells and microscopic free-living animals to move. Video microscopy, together with biochemical analysis of the ‘skeleton’ of cells has helped scientists understand exactly how these cells can crawl. Using this information, scientist can model the movement using computer programs and the movement matches the observed at high fidelity. The best biological models are those FOR WHICH THE OUTCOME IS ALREADY KNOWN. In other words, because scientists understand so much, and can actually watch and record the movement itself, and they can model the movement. In the case of the weather models, the final outcome is of course unknown. Furthermore, the ‘skeleton’ of the weather, that is, the critical parameters that contribute to the final outcome are incompletely defined. Until just recently, the temperatures in the upper atmosphere had not been measured accurately. Also, some scientists are wondering what other physical factors (and to what degree) will affect global temperature (such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, etc.) Also unknown is how accurate the models will be in the long term given the incomplete input in the short term. Already, many iterations of long term warming models have been dispensed with due wild inaccuracies in the short term.
But what if the models are true? Strict materialists, who believe that life arose spontaneously billions of years ago and evolved into what we see now, have expounded on the virtues and survival capabilities of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. The earth that changed around evolving species saw incredible upheavals, and life survived and adapted. Are we to believe now that humans will be incapable of adapting to a maximum predicted rise of 2 degrees over the next 100 years? It’s depressing to think that scientists and politicians have less confidence in the adaptability of modern man over say the Neanderthal.
And what about the scientists? Are they honest? Are they agenda free? Will they get funded if they model the future weather patterns and claim that things will be largely the same as now? In the health sciences, funding flows to those who are trying to find the causes of disease and the cures for such diseases – in fact, most governmental grants require some justification that research will have implications for some human disease. Thus, scientists are trained, or more accurately, forced, to study topics that in some way negatively affect humans. If you don’t, you’re much less likely to get funding. Look at the scientists studying educational techniques. Do they continue to get funded if they publish papers with titles like ‘Current methods for teaching math to fourth graders are perfectly adequate’ or do they get funding if they produce a new method with ‘better’ results? Is it in their interest to find new and ‘better’ methods or to say things are just fine? Scientists are human beings, and they have to put dinner on the table, etc. They are subject to all the pressures to produce and uncover something novel and unique. Many are honest and have high integrity; some are not.
And that brings us to the political side. Ever since ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson, science has been infused with a dramatic spirit of activism. Mercury, lead, cholesterol levels, trans-fats, other chemicals naturally occurring in the environment (like radon) or from chemical plants, nuclear plants (tritium, warmed water released into streams), to stuff in our drinks (caffeine, etc. etc.) have all been treated with the same general approach: Something is killing us and something must be done. In many cases, the scientists were right and in many other cases they were horribly wrong (as in the case of DDT). The popularized image took hold of the caring activist exposing the cloistered huddling diabolical industrial company CEO who was deliberately poisoning the rest of us and cackling about it on his yacht (with heliport). There were battles to be fought and won, but activism itself took hold as an end in and of itself, with almost a religious fervor. Al Gore is celebrated because he is trying to right a wrong, and anyone opposed must be on the side of that stereotypical fat cat CEO. There seems to be no middle ground where people can say “There is an issue that needs to be addressed and handled rationally.†I cite as a very recent example the column from Nicholas Kristof in the NYT where he says we have more to fear from Girl Scouts wielding peanut butter cookies with trans-fats that we have to fear from al Quaeda wielding box cutters and machetes. Without some return to rationality from scientists, politicians, activists and even the fat cat CEOs, there’s no hope that the global warming issue itself will be anything more than a televised, agenda driven shouting match.
Comment