Global warming on trial in the US

[bascule]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

 

The business lobby has pushed the US Chamber of Commerce to hold a trial so as to determine whether the idea of anthropogenically forced climate change has merit. It's a modern day Scopes monkey trial.

 

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, especially after a verdict is rendered. This may have a lasting impact on US policy for years to come.

[iNow]

The point these trials seem to miss is that scientific accuracy is not determined by judge and jury, nor does nature give a damn if some court says something counter to how it behaves.

 

Swansont wrote a really nice post about that this morning:

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/3478

[The Bear's Key]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

 

The business lobby has pushed the US Chamber of Commerce to hold a trial so as to determine whether the idea of anthropogenically forced climate change has merit. It's a modern day Scopes monkey trial.

 

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, especially after a verdict is rendered. This may have a lasting impact on US policy for years to come.

It'd go the same way as the evolution trial: unscientific side* loses, but nurtures a mounting proproganda effort and in less than one hundred years are demanding a "theory" for CO2 Design be taught in schools alongside Global Warming Caused by Humans.

 

 

*(the Chamber of Lobbyists)

[bascule]

the point these trials seem to miss is that scientific accuracy is not determined by judge and jury

 

qft

[CaptainPanic]

On a sidenote:

In the Netherlands, some people want our meteorologists to stop giving weather-alarms altogether, because they're sometimes wrong.

 

I can see our weather man being put to trial for predicting sun, while somebody's BBQ party got ruined by a thunderstorm

 

*puts the thread back on topic*

[Mr Skeptic]

The point these trials seem to miss is that scientific accuracy is not determined by judge and jury, nor does nature give a damn if some court says something counter to how it behaves.

 

Neither is it determined by scientific consensus, much as some would like to imagine it is. Science has been wrong before... I think they just want to find out whether they will believe and act in accordance to the scientific consensus.

 

Or, less honestly, to pretend they gave the issue due consideration and found it false:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-trial25-2009aug25,0,901567.story

The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

 

The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."

It seems that their focus will not be only on global warming, but also on whether greenhouse gases will (via global warming) negatively affect human health and thus subject to pollution restrictions.

[swansont]

Neither is it determined by scientific consensus, much as some would like to imagine it is. Science has been wrong before... I think they just want to find out whether they will believe and act in accordance to the scientific consensus.

 

But science gets overturned or modified by data, not by decree.

 

This is an attempt to apply a different standard to the problem, but you can't legislate natural law.

[Pangloss]

The global warming consensus is not an expression of natural law.

 

But I agree that it has nothing to do with man-made law.

[swansont]

The global warming consensus is not an expression of natural law.

 

It's not? Can you expand on this?

[abskebabs]

It's not? Can you expand on this?

I think his point is that there is a difference between scientific consenus and what is scientifically correct, no matter how close they may often seem. It is along similiar lines to the difference between inference and implication.

 

I think to believe otherwise is rather naive, and reflects the view that all scientists are somewhow "pure Popperian falsificationists". We all have our biases and agendas, even if we don't always notice them. A good example of a scientific consensus that was not only wrong, but had disasterous implications, was the Social Darwinist and Eugenics movement, fashionable among intellectuals before the 2nd World War.

 

Only reasoning and evidence can establish and rule out arguments in scientific debate.

[swansont]

I think his point is that there is a difference between scientific consenus and what is scientifically correct, no matter how close they may often seem. It is along similiar lines to the difference between inference and implication.

 

I think to believe otherwise is rather naive, and reflects the view that all scientists are somewhow "pure Popperian falsificationists". We all have our biases and agendas, even if we don't always notice them. A good example of a scientific consensus that was not only wrong, but had disasterous implications, was the Social Darwinist and Eugenics movement, fashionable among intellectuals before the 2nd World War.

 

Only reasoning and evidence can establish and rule out arguments in scientific debate.

 

But all science is consensus, so I see no reason to differentiate Global Warming. Agreement is not universal; there are scientists who disagree with evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, and other parts of science, but we move forward because there is a consensus that the established models are correct, despite the objections of a few. One big difference is that the acceptance of most parts of science doesn't require much in the way of government action, but that doesn't affect the validity of the science.

 

Social Darwinism was not science. Social Darwinism was ideology attempting to use science to justify itself.

[Sisyphus]

A good example of a scientific consensus that was not only wrong, but had disasterous implications, was the Social Darwinist and Eugenics movement, fashionable among intellectuals before the 2nd World War.

 

Those weren't/aren't scientific ideas, they are ideology. A scientific statement would be "human evolution can be intentionally directed towards certain traits by means of artificial selection." The political idea is that this would be a desirable thing to do. Is/ought, etc.

 

Similarly, the scientific statement per global warming would be that it is occuring to X degree for Y reasons with Z results, and the political statement is that we should try to mitigate it by means of A and B. It gets mixed up, because so many try to argue with the science as if it were politics.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Sisyphus

[insane_alien]

my dad(in a rare moment of genius) came up with the perfect way to describe this.

 

"its as silly as holding a trial about whether being shot in the head will kill you. if a court decided it doesn't, would you be willing to hold a gun to your head and pull the trigger?"

 

btw, the quote is edited to remove profanity and inherent scottish accent that would render it unintelligble to anyone outside of scotland.

[Mr Skeptic]

But science gets overturned or modified by data, not by decree.

 

Not only is that not true, it shouldn't be true. Sometimes, science gets modified by a different way of looking at the same data. In fact I'd say most science happens like that. As for scientific consensus, there are other ways to change it as well, such as old scientists dying.

 

This is an attempt to apply a different standard to the problem, but you can't legislate natural law.

 

Perhaps, but they can legislate whether they have to pay any heed to the scientific consensus. After all, science doesn't tell you what to do, only what will happen under certain circumstances, and it is up to you to decide if that's a bad thing. As insane_alien's dad noted, shooting yourself in the head is quite likely to kill you, but some people do it anyways.

[swansont]

Not only is that not true, it shouldn't be true. Sometimes, science gets modified by a different way of looking at the same data. In fact I'd say most science happens like that. As for scientific consensus, there are other ways to change it as well, such as old scientists dying.

 

Looking at the data in a different way is still looking at the data, though.

 

Perhaps, but they can legislate whether they have to pay any heed to the scientific consensus. After all, science doesn't tell you what to do, only what will happen under certain circumstances, and it is up to you to decide if that's a bad thing. As insane_alien's dad noted, shooting yourself in the head is quite likely to kill you, but some people do it anyways.

 

Yes, and that's the politics aspect of it. But not heeding the findings of science is not the same thing as saying the science is false.

[SH3RL0CK]

Looking at the data in a different way is still looking at the data, though.

 

True. But then scientific consensus does include the meaning and interpretation of the data and this is subject to peoples opinions. You can look at the data scientifically in many different ways but come to different conclusions.

 

Let me give an example of what I mean. Lets say a scientific study of a proposed power plant will diminish the population of an endangered frog by 5%. The power plant is badly needed and will reduce overall CO2 emissions, but we also do not want to make the frog extinct.

 

Is this reduction of frog population acceptable? Scientific consensus could state this large reduction in population puts the frog at an unacceptable risk of extinction. Or scientific consensus could state this meager reduction in numbers does not put the frog at risk of extinction. Or scientific consensus could state that regardless of the extinction or not of the frog, the power plant is still worth this (perhaps due to beneficial reduction of CO2).

 

The truth of the matter is that although we might know the exact effects of a proposed action, the costs/benefits of such actions even from a scientific point of view will still be very much opinion.

[iNow]

All of this stuff about opinions and interpretations, IMO, misses the point of the article rather profoundly.

 

The science of human induced global warming is valid.

A court ruling to the contrary has zero impact on that validity.

 

 

I_A - I quite liked your dads analogy. It frames this perfectly.

[swansont]

Is this reduction of frog population acceptable?

 

This is the point it becomes a political, rather than scientific, issue. The issue at hand is whether politics can decide whether 5% is correct, not whether it is acceptable.

[abskebabs]

But all science is consensus, so I see no reason to differentiate Global Warming. Agreement is not universal; there are scientists who disagree with evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, the big bang, and other parts of science, but we move forward because there is a consensus that the established models are correct, despite the objections of a few. One big difference is that the acceptance of most parts of science doesn't require much in the way of government action, but that doesn't affect the validity of the science.

 

Social Darwinism was not science. Social Darwinism was ideology attempting to use science to justify itself.

 

Right, but I there is no necessary relation between where scientific consensus is and the development of correct scientific knowledge, a word I am stressing as we are largely arguing semantics and the word is more closely related with the source of the english word "science" than anything to do with the opinions and assessments of the "scientific community."

 

You only need to think of the Phlogiston or caloric theory of heat, to realise the amount of time that can be wasted on the major paradigms sometimes pursued in the mainstream without critical reflection. I think it would be worthwhile if readers of this forum would pursue Thomas Kuhn's work on the development of science.

 

I think it would be unfair to rule out Social Darwinism as simply an ideology. I think it was rather bad science, with intellectual roots dating back to Darwin's book(I believe his cousin was a major proponent), and was pursued as a major scientific project by many otherwise good scientists. With a rush to judgement, it was used to justify racist political ideologies and policies. Indeed, in a very similiar way Keynesian Economics is used to justify disasterous economic policies.

 

I think it is naive to not realise how ideology can influence the development of science and vice-versa.

[swansont]

Right, but I there is no necessary relation between where scientific consensus is and the development of correct scientific knowledge, a word I am stressing as we are largely arguing semantics and the word is more closely related with the source of the english word "science" than anything to do with the opinions and assessments of the "scientific community."

 

You only need to think of the Phlogiston or caloric theory of heat, to realise the amount of time that can be wasted on the major paradigms sometimes pursued in the mainstream without critical reflection. I think it would be worthwhile if readers of this forum would pursue Thomas Kuhn's work on the development of science.

 

Phlogiston and caloric were discredited because better science came along, not because a judge said they were wrong. I can't think of any examples of science being changed because of a legal (or even non-scientific) influence. I can, however, think of several examples of ideology being refuted by scientific findings.

 

I think it would be unfair to rule out Social Darwinism as simply an ideology. I think it was rather bad science, with intellectual roots dating back to Darwin's book(I believe his cousin was a major proponent), and was pursued as a major scientific project by many otherwise good scientists. With a rush to judgement, it was used to justify racist political ideologies and policies. Indeed, in a very similiar way Keynesian Economics is used to justify disasterous economic policies.

 

I think it is naive to not realise how ideology can influence the development of science and vice-versa.

 

Economics is not science in some of the same ways that Social Darwinism is/was not science. "Schools of thought" are largely philosophy and ideology. Ideology can influence the course of science, but that's not the point — it doesn't decide if ultimately the science is right.

[CharonY]

I addition to what swansont said, social Darwinism is based on a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's original ideas. In other words it is an ideology that is not based on any scientific foundation.

[abskebabs]

I think you misunderstand my point.

 

I also would disagree with you on Economics not being a real science, but that is another debate for another time, though I think your view reflects the general view often found in scientific debate concerning science as pretty much what Karl Popper and the Logical Positivists say it is.

 

I never claimed, and my objection never was about whether legal courts could rule on a scientific issue, for me such an assertion is so nonsensical I don't even think it should merit serious discussion- it's a joke.

 

My point was and remains that scientific consensus has been and does remain an unreliable form of checking the validity of scientific statements. Arguments from authority are weak, and require checking, although I will concede a healthy scientific community when functioning well can keep a lid on things.

[bascule]

I also would disagree with you on Economics not being a real science, but that is another debate for another time

 

There's no better time than the present. I made a new thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=511100#post511100

[swansont]

I think you misunderstand my point.

 

I also would disagree with you on Economics not being a real science, but that is another debate for another time, though I think your view reflects the general view often found in scientific debate concerning science as pretty much what Karl Popper and the Logical Positivists say it is.

 

I never claimed, and my objection never was about whether legal courts could rule on a scientific issue, for me such an assertion is so nonsensical I don't even think it should merit serious discussion- it's a joke.

 

That, however, is the topic of this thread. So please forgive the confusion on my part.

 

My point was and remains that scientific consensus has been and does remain an unreliable form of checking the validity of scientific statements. Arguments from authority are weak, and require checking, although I will concede a healthy scientific community when functioning well can keep a lid on things.

 

This, too, is something that might merit further discussion elsewhere.

[Dudde]

In regards to the Global Warning on Trial thing...I was literally embarrassed for my country and didn't want to share the info with anybody around me. Until other people here started agreeing with the article. ... /die

 

I think the entire point, obviously, is that the companies don't want to spend for throwing pollution all over the place because it's too expensive. I admit to falling behind more than I'd like on this issue; has anyone tried dropping the global warming thing and asking them why they think it's okay to throw massive amounts of pollution into the air we're trying to breath?

 

not that it matters, we should organize some giant rallies where we go out and protest the OTHER side for once, I'm kind of tired of seeing all these fruitless protests, let's walk in circles and peacefully set stuff on fire for once