Athée Canadien
Against science
By Joe
I’m not a scientist, I’m not even really good at math, and the only science I took after high school was a biology course. I did well in it… but I have no illusions. On the up side, unlike Tom Harris, I don’t pretend to be a scientist.
An energy industry public relations man and lobbyist with no background in climate science has infiltrated Carleton University in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, teaching a course on climate change denial that other Carleton professors describe as “a source of embarrassment to the institution.”
I know there are atheists out there who are skeptical of ‘climate science’. And I agree skepticism is important, but from what I have read from actual scientists, the evidence is pretty clear, and mounting. Human-caused climate change is here. The only question is what are we going to do about it?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Joe on March 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm, and is filed under Science. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 2 months ago
tildeb at Questionable Motives wrote a post on the Heartland Institute on February 15, 2012:
“What is the Heartland Institute and why should we care how it gets its funding?” http://tinyurl.com/7shab2n
about 2 months ago
You’re bang on, Joe. Skepticism is important, but the evidence is in. At this point, it isn’t unreasonable to suspect that climate change deniers simply have an ulterior – and possibly hidden – agenda with regard to their reasons for not wanting climate change to be real; be they political, monetary, or other.
I know pollution isn’t explicitly “climate change”, in the sense that global temperature change might be a minimal factor, but do you consider the smog in big cities “climate change”? It’s kind of an obvious way to demonstrate to a climate denier that driving combustion engines and exhausting COx, NOx, and SOx from manufacturing plants causes terrible environmental effects. Anyone who denies the smog in toronto isn’t from human causes ought to be committed.
about 2 months ago
Climate science is problematic on a number of levels, just look at how well we can predict the weather… week to week. Complex systems are hard to predict generally.
So I think being skeptical about 100 year predictions of global warming is reasonable… especially for someone like me who is not a climate scientist.
However, I do think there is a large amount of evidence to support human-caused climate change, and the deniers invariably either don’t have the credentials or have serious conflicts of interest. I think there is a very big difference between being a denier… and being a skeptic. I’m not a denier, and I disagree with Shermer’s wait and see attitude. We should be proactive, but not reactionary.
about 2 months ago
Sorry to put this so bluntly, but that is incredibly stupid. In almost every field of science it is nigh impossible to make predictions on a small scale, but that doesn’t rule out the ability to make very good predictions on a larger scale. A good illustration is with subatomic particles; it is impossible to predict where a single electron will be in the next second or two… but given enough electrons and enough time, we can make exceedingly precise predictions – which is why we can do insanely precise things like hit comets with deep space probes. Similarly, while climate scientists cannot make predictions about a small patch of Earth in a short span of time, they [i]can[/i] make surprisingly good predictions over large areas and large periods of time. The phenomenon is called the law of large numbers.
But the real reason that comment is incredibly stupid is not because you didn’t know about the law of large numbers. Why should you, right? It’s because you made a claim about the status of climate science, with no clue what you were talking about. How is that any different from a creationist saying “Evolution is problematic on a number of levels, just look at how complexity in organisms seems to increase over time – shouldn’t complexity be selected against?” Or if you want a less emotionally charged example, that is almost identical to your own, “Controlled flight is problematic on a number of levels, just look at how well we can predict what happens in turbulent flows… in small sections of the airframe. Predicting the whole air flow across the airframe is even more complex.” (Which is not true, thanks to the law of large numbers; viewed at a larger scale, the turbulence averages out, and the flow can be treated as laminar.) Frankly, if you have no idea what’s going on in a field of science, being skeptical about it is not reasonable (unless you suspect the entire field of gross incompetence, and/or fraud). If you picked up a math textbook from a graduate course in elliptic integrals, having no knowledge of math beyond grade 12, is it reasonable to look at one of the theorems and say, “hmm, this seems fishy”?
It should not need saying, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about… don’t talk about it. Making statements like “X science is problematic, because Y is problematic, and I don’t understand how the field overcomes that difficulty” is just not helping.
about 2 months ago
Indi did a good teardown, but the shorter version is that weather is not climate.
A decent analogy would be a pot of water coming to a boil. You can measure, with pretty good accuracy, the average temperature of the pot of water. And you can measure the rate of temperature increase accurately as well – those kinds of factors are equivalent to the global climate; large-scale phenomena that can be accurately modelled using a handful of basic physical principals.
However, nothing in modern science would allow you to predict exactly where and when any particular bubble of steam would form (and how large, and how long lived, etc, it would be). This is because, while the formation of the bubble follows physical laws, the number of variables that determine the specifics of each bubble are too many for us to accurately measure. Weather is the same – small, complex, short-lived events which emerge out of numerous interactions.
I work in a very different area of science (biology), but we too have our extremely complex systems that are essentially unmodelable. If we were to take your “logic” and apply it to biology, the existence of humans would be questionable as we cannot model the various developmental and gene-network interactions that create a human.
Bryan
about 2 months ago
Joe, I’m disappointed in you. You’ve fallen into the camp that thinks scientific consensus by every major scientific body in the world is kind of, sort of, …well… iffy when it comes to exercising reasonable scepticism.
This doesn’t seem to raise a warning in your mind?
Really?
This is EXACTLY what climate deniers want to promote, EXACTLY what is needed for too little to be done for too long to make the necessary changes we could start to implement now seem unreasonable. And you’re doing your unwitting bit to help them.
Stop it. You’re wrong to do this and become as much a part of the problem as any religious accommodationist who thinks religious interference in the public domain is really not a problem to those of us reasonable people.
You’ve got to stop doing this.
Exercise your scepticism, by all means, but please take the trouble to find out why the evidence overwhelms your healthy scepticism with demonstrable and compelling evidence that accounts for your concerns to the nth degree. In other words, your scepticism you believe is reasonable has no legs in reality on which to continue standing… except by your belief that it does.
Your belief is factually wrong.
I would hope an author of the Canadian Atheist would be rather put out to find himself fooled into promoting exactly that which he criticizes in others: belief without evidence, belief contrary to what is true in reality, belief that simply doesn’t care about what is true.
about 2 months ago
Joe, I’m disappointed in you. You’ve fallen into the camp that thinks scientific consensus by every major scientific body in the world is kind of, sort of, …well… iffy when it comes to exercising reasonable scepticism.
But it is reasonable to be sceptical about some aspects of climate science. That green house gasses warm the earth is as close to beyond question as science can get – people forget that Fourier first discovered the greenhouse phenomena in the mid-1800′s, Tyndall discovered which gasses were GHGs in the 1850′s, and Arrhenius provided the first evidence in the 1890′s that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could raise global temperatures. Since then it has been a continual progression of confirmatory studies which have strengthened and refined those findings. Questioning that aspect of the science is dubious – disproving that aspect of the science would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.
In contrast, being sceptical about the models of future changes (as one example) is reasonable. There are multiple models that do not agree with each other, and most of the modern models have a great deal of uncertainty build into them (as is obvious in the studies themselves, where predicted changes have large variances assigned to them). That doesn’t mean the models are wrong – but it does mean we do need to approach them with a degree of scepticism, and a willingness to seek and accept revisions to those models which increase their predictive power.
Bryan
about 2 months ago
Wow.
Its funny, one of the big criticisms that I hear of scientists is that they are arrogant, dismissive, and self-righteous. With that in mind, I was trying to be the opposite and use my own admitted lack of expertise as part of that, to reach out to other non-experts… really bad idea, I guess…
Oh well, for those interested, here is the link I was going to talk about in my next post… I found it both compelling and interesting, even though I am not expert enough to really say how accurate it is.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/short-and-simple-arguments-for-why-climate-can-be-predicted
about 2 months ago
But your admitted lack of expertise did not stop you from concluding that climate science is problematic enough to justify that being skeptical about 100 year predictions of global warming is reasonable.
But the point is that this is not a reasonable conclusion. This conclusion is what aids and abets those who argue that we’re not really sure we actually have any pressing problem regarding our possible influence on this hypothetical climate change! And this abuse of scepticism drives a wedge between politicians able to implement legislation to address this problem and the political support from voters necessary for them to successfully do so. It helps only to fool people into thinking that perhaps we don’t really have a problem at all, which in turn impedes us from taking any meaningful actions now because perhaps it is premature, and that this is somehow a reasonable and prudent stance.
Well, it’s not reasonable. It is a manufactured scepticism unsupported by reality. Your conclusion is nothing more than a belief that is factually wrong.
about 2 months ago
Well, I would disagree, but I think the disconnect here, is that you reserve ‘reasonable skepticism’ for experts.
I think the link I provided shows that normal people actually can make reasonable objections… that aren’t STUPID or DENIER in nature. And I think it gives a much more rational response than we have seen here. Rabid attacks just make things worse in my view. And while I don’t mind watching the internet attack dogs pounce, it does make it clear to me why many people avoid science.
Did you know that almost 40 percent of college age canadians (2003 statscan) are not going on to any post secondary education? That means highschool science is the end of their science education. Add in those who go to college/university but take things like the Humanities or Business, and you have a majority of Canadians who are going to have a very different standard of ‘reasonable’.
And those Canadians are going to vote, and they are going to be on juries. Yeah, I think that is a problematic for science of all kinds. This is not manufactured, this is the way your average reasonable person thinks about weather. Ignore it at your peril.
But if the topic is too hot to have a civil discussion… eh.. nothing new I guess.
about 2 months ago
Joe, I know I’m heavy handed in this matter and sound very blunt, but for the past 20 years the alarm bells have sounded about climate change and a tremendous amount of science has been done to satisfy every – note that word, please, every – major scientific organization in the world that now concurs that AGW is real, it is here, it is causing climate change at an unprecedented rate, and that it is getting worse the longer we fail to take corrective actions. Every. Single. One.
Against this united scientific front are those who stand to gain short-term profit from doing either as little as possible or even nothing at all to bring about the necessary changes. To accomplish this task, they have created and funded denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute and organized sustained attacks against credible climate scientists like Mann of Climategate notoriety , hoping to fool people into thinking that the case for climate change caused by AGW is somehow open to debate when it is not.
The evidence is overwhelming and comes from multiple lines of inquiry. No reasonable scepticism can be maintained in the face of this consensus; only unreasonable scepticism based on denialist propaganda.
So imagine my disappointment that you of all people have been fooled into thinking this propaganda justifies viewing the consensus of every major scientific body in the world as ‘problematic’ and spreading the message it is so… a message bought and paid for by those who fund dedicated organizations like the Heartland Institute. You think it is actually reasonable to remain sceptical when the fact of the matter – the one supported by ALL major scientific organizations around the globe – is that climate change from AGW is real and getting worse. And you don’t see a problem with maintaining your belief that climate science is too problematic not to be sceptical about it… in spite of this factual information contrary to your belief.
Rather than admit your mistake and take corrective action, you pretend the criticism against your belief is “Too hot to have a civil discourse” – a typical canard taken right out the what’s-so-unreasonable-about-discussing-the-controversy-over-teaching-creationism-in-science-class handbook! What’s wrong, Joe, is that the so-called controversy is no such thing, that the ‘problematic climate science’ is no such thing! Your belief is factually wrong. Pointing this out to you in straight forward language is not uncivil, nor an attack, nor arrogant, nor dismissive, nor self-arrogant. It is blunt, to be sure, but there is no accommodating this notion that the climate science is anything but sound and very well informed.
I know you believe your scepticism is reasonable. It’s time for you to change your opinion and help explain to anyone who wants to know that scientific consensus is not too darn problematic for those not in post secondary education but a pretty good indicator that we’ve got a big problem on our hands that going to become a lot bigger the longer we do too little.
about 2 months ago
An incredibly concise and well written argument. Well said!
about 2 months ago
I should note, I am skeptical, by default… on pretty much every issue. Scientists don’t get a pass, and as you note, there is lot of misinformation out there. So when you are not an expert it can be a pretty daunting deciding who to trust and about what.
Being skeptical however doesn’t mean I am closed minded. Thanks for input, I actually do appreciate criticism.
about 2 months ago
I agree that AGW is real and there is substantial peer reviewed evidence supporting the idea. I find that people arguing for AGW who go to arguments other than the evidence are doing more harm than people with maybe an unjustified scepticism. You made some of these arguments in your post.
You talk about how every scientist agrees that AGW is happening. This is true, however that fails as an argument because it is plainly an appeal to majority fallacy.
You then talk about the junk studies done by think tanks. Instead of pointing out the refuted claims and the errors made in the studies, you just poison the well fallacy saying they are paid off by short term profit (the implication being oil companies). You do realize that this exact same argument is used by climate change deniers? They say the scientific studies that are pro climate change are paid and bought by the green industry lobby for profits.
And finally, in your previous post you talk about how this complicates political actions with regard to climate change. Mixing the political element when talking about scientific legitimacy only repels those who are agnostic about climate science. Believing that climate science is 100% true does not necessitate that anything political has to be done. You could believe in climate change and still want to drill for oil, want less regulation, less taxes on dirty energy, etc.
about 2 months ago
Well, Steve, I said every major scientific organization, not every scientist. This appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy if the authority is respected, the importance of which was one of my points.
You tell me to stick to the evidence which is a rather large task on such a site so I compressed the evidence to ‘scientific consensus’. Yet here you are claiming without evidence that those like I who do so “are doing more harm than people with maybe an unjustified scepticism.” I explain why the scepticism is unjustified and counterproductive and here you are slipping in the qualifier maybe. There’s no maybe about it, which was the central criticism I made against Joe’s position. This is why I included the political aspect, not to confound the evidence for climate change from AGW – which is the scientific consensus that we need to respect, don’t forget – but to get sceptics who hold to an unjustified scepticism to wake up and stop being fooled into thinking that maybe the climate science is problematic when in fact it is not. There simply is no legitimate or justified or evidence-based reasons to pretend that agnosticism about climate change is anything but another manufactured success story by the climate change deniers.
about 2 months ago
Re: Tom Harris
Why is an engineer teaching a science course?
CBC article says, “Harris, who has two degrees in mechanical engineering from Carleton, said he was asked to teach the course starting in January 2009 because the usual instructor . . . was going on sabbatical. ”
Who asked him and why?
What were his qualifications for teaching a science course?
There are no answers to these questions from the university. CBC article says
“According to Carleton University, when full-time faculty are not available to teach a course, the department hosting the course advertises for a sessional instructor and makes the recommendation to the dean’s office, which reviews and approves the hire.”
and the give the stock statement
“Academic excellence is a priority at Carleton,” the university said in a statement responding to the report. “We review our courses to balance content with academic freedom and the rights of our instructors as outlined in their collective agreement.”
If Harris were hired as sessional instructor, why was he protected under the collective agreement. Why is a university offering a course about what something is not, rather than what it is?
about 2 months ago
Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the CBC article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/01/environment-climate-change-carleton-course.html
about 2 months ago
This seems like a case of colossal failure by the admin and senior faculty. It is not easy to find replacement lecturers for uni courses – departments tend to be made up of experts with their own niches (and we tend to teach those niches), meaning that outside of 1st/2nd year “survey” courses other members of the same department may not be competent to teach the material.
But that is no excuse to for hiring someone who is completely lacking in the area. Even assuming the course is a highly-specialised one, the departments general faculty should have been able to cover it better than Harris. And if not, there are a lot of PhD’s out there with the expertise who’d be happy to have a semesters worth of work as a sessional instructor.
Its almost like the course was filled on a first-come-first-served basis…
about 2 months ago
The phrase that comes to my mind… its not what you know, but who you know.
about 2 months ago
I just wanted to weigh-in here. There is nothing wrong with a lay person being skeptical about science, but you have to be skeptical about the right bits. For example, here are some things that research has demonstrated unequivocally:
1 – The planet is warming
2 – Humans are contributing substantially
Now there are some statements that scientific skeptics can start to explore:
3 – The planet will warm by 2-4 degrees during the 21st Century (the error is what we can quibble over, and the projections become “iffy” when we start to take into account potentially unpredictable events like large volcanic eruptions and international political revolutions. Continuing warming is certain, it is a matter of how much. Note, however, that we put as much effort into quantifying the error associated with these projections as we do into the projections themselves.)
4 – Cap-and-trade will solve the problem (clearly not a scientific question, although economic and mathematical models can be used to suggest whether these kinds of solutions *could* potentially solve the problem.)
I think some people get a little bit obsessed with the details of climate change and, as a result, brand themselves “skeptical” when they would certainly accept the central pillars of the theory. In summary, I have come across a number of skeptics who are uncertain about climate change. I agree that it is a complex subject with many unknowns, but we know enough to go forward. Here is an analogy (feel free to point out why it is flawed, if you think it is!): we cannot predict how measles epidemics will spread in the future. However, we know that vaccines reduce measles outbreaks. Advocating against climate change mitigation because we cannot “accurately” predict future climate is like advocating against vaccinations on the basis that we cannot predict patterns of epidemics.
about 2 months ago
Thanks for this, this is essentially, exactly the sort of comment I was hoping for.
about 2 months ago
Joe: Being skeptical of a specific hundred year climate prediction – say, a 3C rise in global temperature – is perfectly appropriate. But there are processes within the climate change community to compare the results of multiple models, which produces a consensus *range* of estimates for the level of warming that is highly likely without significant action. Thus, skepticism is already built into the system. If you are skeptical of this already hedged consensus prediction, and do not have a good scientific reason (one that has not already been factored in) to do so, then you are being unreasonable. Essentially, you are putting your “gut instinct” above the outcome of a robust scientific process. Modesty requires that, when lacking knowledge in an area, we defer to cautious expert opinion.
Veronica: As a sessional instructor, Harris would have been covered by the CUPE 4600 collective agreement. This specifies the hiring criteria: ” The best available candidate shall be appointed, taking into account the candidates’ academic and professional qualifications, skill, teaching competence and other relevant experience.” Given that Harris claims the course was mostly identical to that taught previously by Patterson, who created it, they may have decided that an appropriate qualification for this course was “proven adherence to the denial of established science”. (I’m not sure the union would accept this as a legitimate requirement!)
about 2 months ago
A correction for Joe: it is not what you know, it is not who you know but rather it is what you know about who you know!
about 2 months ago
Climate science is problematic on a number of levels, just look at how well we can predict the weather…
This is a climate denier P.R.A.T.T.
You should not be repeating it.
Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.
There is a slick, well-funded disinformation campaign out there that seeks to confuse the general public on climate change and sow doubt where none should exist. It’s the same campaign with the same “think tanks” and the same money and with even many of the same “scientists” that worked so well for the tobacco lobby. Don’t fall for it.
Climatology has a long and solid history of scientific research and uses multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all the Earth Sciences. There is a wealth of scientific literature that supports the current scientific consensus on climate change. No short cuts have been taken. There is no global scientific conspiracy.
about 2 months ago
Cedric, thanks for the link to Naomi Oreskes’ talk. Although just about an hour in length, she clearly enunciates and supports with compelling evidence what I was trying to say earlier, that climate scepticism is both unreasonable and manufactured.
Part of the problem I’ve repeatedly come across from those who believe their climate scepticism is warranted is a misunderstanding of what scientific consensus actually means, and she explores exactly this around the 43 minute mark, explaining patiently and calmly how this all too common misunderstanding is exploited into fooling people to remaining unreasonably sceptical while falsely painting those who respect this consensus to be the unreasonable ones.
Because her expertise is second to none about the history of science, Naomi’s presentation regarding today’s state of climate science is well worth the time to watch in its entirety.