[Updates at end]
The single best thing and the single worst thing that the Internet and the Blogosphere have produced turns out to be the same thing. Prior to the availability of the seemingly unlimited information on-line, most people could achieve some level of expertise in their particular field of interest, but for information from other areas (geographically, as well as in terms of knowledge) we have always, of necessity, relied on the authority and wisdom of others.
Most people reading this would agree that the Internet and the Blogosphere offers unparalleled opportunities. No one can know everything, but on-line, there is always someone who knows more than us about something. The advantages have been obvious; less obvious perhaps is the cost of such expansion of knowledge, that is, the loss of authority by those who in the past were available to interpret and explain the world to us. It becomes a much more difficult job to determine what information is authoritative and what is fanciful. In such an environment, conspiracy theories and paranoia can flourish when people are not equipped to do the rudimentary work of evaluating information.
This loss of authority goes across the board. Patients come into my office asking for particular medications or worrying about side effects that they read about on the Internet. Sometimes I am forced to do some more research of my own in order to adequately answer my patient's questions; often, I must confront my own limitations and let the patient know that there are many things we still do not understand. With the incomplete knowledge I can offer, it is then up to the patient to accept or reject my recommendations. This forces me to explain why one particular treatment would be better than another in terms which my patient can understand. I consider it a major benefit that my patients must take responsibility for their decision and not simply rely on my authority in areas that affect their lives.
In other areas, things are not so simple. We used to be able to rely on our news gatherers to tell us what is going on in the world. We used to be able to rely on scientists to make sense of confusing information. We can't do that anymore and it is unsettling, confusing, and disorienting.
The AP this morning has a report on Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." The article, Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy, purports to tell us, once again, that the issue of human caused Global Warming is a settled question:
The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
James Hudnall does us the service of linking to a statement from the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE, which includes:
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
The quotes from other experts in the statement are worth reading and you should take a look yourself, but though my post is not specifically about Global Warming it illustrates a problem with the "recourse to authority" of Al Gore and the reporter, and less obviously, the difficulty with the loss of authority that the on-line world causes. We are being told by the GW advocates to make major changes in lifestyle on the basis of incomplete information poorly reported. Yet, how is one to determine who is right in this argument?
You can now do a Google search of people mentioned in the article. Of the five scientists mentioned, apparently several are connected to Al Gore and various environmental groups, another is an ecologist rather than a climatologist. However, most of us are not particular experts on Internet research; even fewer are climate scientists.
This leaves us with a quandary that extends from GW to Iraq to Gaza: how do we know that the information we are seeing and hearing is a first approximation to reality?
Recourse to authority is soothing and calming; it gives us the impression that someone understands things that are frightening and feel out of control, but this is an illusion. We are forced to decide for ourselves who makes the best arguments and who to believe.
As for GW?
I do know that the proponents agree (admit) that their alarm is based on computer models (which are modeling chaotic systems, notorious for their sensitivity to initial conditions and assumptions) and the AP article includes this:
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.
When you write an article which depends on a Recourse to Authority, it is probably a good idea not to rely on an authority that confuses Greenland and Antarctica and another authority who thinks we can't do anything about the problem anyway.
Apparently, Robert Godwin has been thinking about these issues quite a bit. His post yesterday, Vertical Maturity vs. Terminal Adultolescence starts with a perfect opening sentence:
Most psychological studies are worthless, because they either confirm common sense or violate it so thoroughly that no sensible person would believe the study.
Read the rest, as the saying goes.
Update: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred has a long round-up of responses to the GW questions raised by Al Gore, and supplies his own particular skew, while asking the question 'Can We Verify That Falling Sky' And What Does A Past President Of The NAS Know, Anyway?
Count GM Roper as a savvy skeptic.
And don't miss Fausta's efforts to bring some rationality to the discussion:
Again, there is no "consensus" on global warming
I posted on Monday the very words written by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with which he titled his WSJ article. The reaction to my post by the true believers of global warming, a contradiction in terms, was, as expected, rude, and the emailers' argument was focused on my intellectual attributes, specifically, speculation on what kind of moron I am, not on anything Richard Lindzen wrote.
I'd say that if I'm a moron, I'm an opinionated moron. At least I'm in good company. But I digress.
While my post was on how faulty science can be used as a political issue and lead to disastrous public policy, Dr. Lindzen specifically addressed in his article the issue of rising temperatures, a pillar of the alarmists' creed:
A learer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by environmental journalist George Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Farenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
Recent Comments