[Osx-nutters] Denial

[David Cake]

At 1:38 PM +0100 15/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Aug-15, at 10:48, David Cake wrote:
>
>>  At 11:09 PM +0100 14/8/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>>>  I doubt it because they say the debate is over.
>>
>>	But if they said the debate wasn't over, you'd doubt it too
>>  (I mean, you'd be nuts to say otherwise).
>
>I looked at this earlier. If they said, "we're actively pursuing 
>several lines of research and we welcome knowledge from other 
>disciplines, and here are the results so far", (words and evidence to 
>that effect) then I would trust them much more.

	It seems to me that this is clearly going on - just all the 
lines of research have more or less the same starting point - that 
there is significant evidence to say GW is significantly outside the 
normal cyclical mechanisms, and non-anthrogenic theories have so far 
proven unsatisfactory.
	Going back to the philosophy of science argument, what is 
going on is not that the orthodoxy has stamped out dissent, what is 
going on is that non-anthrogenic theories have proven so far to be 
unproductive. They don't lead to cool new insights, they just lead to 
failed hypotheses. Are you really saying that you think science would 
be better if it spent more time pursuing avenues of enquiry that had 
been found to be unproductive? Of course, with the resulting resource 
allocation meaning it spent less time investigating avenues of 
research known to be more productive?
	You have this idea that when science stops debating an idea, 
its because the last dissenters have been bullied out of the debate 
or similar. The reality is that when science stops debating an issue, 
its because the debate has become one sided and boring, and people 
run out of interesting new data to present (interesting in terms of 
surprising) and new things to say. The dissenters have been reduced 
to making the same few arguments no one finds convincing over and 
over again, new avenues of enquiry aren't coming up with interesting 
results, and people move on to doing something more interesting and 
useful.

>It's like, if I go to a doctor who says, "I completely understand 
>your condition, we'll sort you out no worries", that would make me be 
>worried due to his apparent overconfidence.

	No one is saying we completely understand what is going on. 
They are saying they have on theory that so far fits the facts well.
	I think you have the idea of what is going on somewhat confused.
	The current scientific consensus is that GW is observed, and 
there is a high likelihood that is

>
>If I go to a doctor who says, "it looks like you have this, these are 
>the indicators and the counter-indicators, we have this treatment, we 
>don't honestly know why it works, but it's all we've got, it's a bit 
>tentative but so far 65% of people respond fairly well", then I would 
>trust him much more. I trust him because he is being honest, I mean, 
>I can Google the 65% figure to check.

	Well, that seems to be pretty much the exact situation we 
have? Only the confidence interval is higher than 65%.
	Its as if a doctor said 'look, your temperature is going up. 
Thats bad. We think its due to this virus, we recommend treatment 
with anti-virals. We aren't 100% sure that is responsible for all 
your symptoms, but we are 90% sure its part of the problem, and we 
have no real competing hypothesis, so that's the treatment we 
recommend. ' You seem be saying you'd be happier if the doctor came 
up to you and said 'well, your temperature looks to be going up to 
us. Though I think you should know, crazy bob at the blanket store 
says its going down and you need a blanket. Anyway, Its most likely a 
virus, pretty good chance. But we know a guy, not a doctor but, you 
know, a guy who likes to talk about medicine, this guy at the health 
food store, he says its something to do with your level of colloidal 
silver. Want some of that?  We think its crazy, just thought we'd 
mention it though. Anyway, an alternative explanation is that its 
bacterial. That hypothesis only fits some of the facts, and in some 
ways is contra-indicated, but stuff we don't understand goes on in 
your body all the time, so althought actually we are pretty sure its 
wrong, but we thought we'd offer you some anti-biotics.'
	Or are you just disgruntled because some people, somewhere, 
some time, forgot to say '90% sure' and just said 'sure'. The IPCC 
has confidence predictions, so what's your issue?


>  > So, you've argued yourself
>>  into a catch 22 - there is nothing they can say that will make them
>>  think the scientific question is more or less settled.
>
>You seem to think that we need to be told that it's settled,

	No, I'm saying if it actually IS settled, you won't possibly 
believe it. You have argued yourself into a position where you wont 
believe in scientific consensus until long after it has occurred.
	Which means you've argued yourself into a position where some 
of the time, you know you will be wrong. Surely that's not good.

>and I 
>guess those scientists thought they needed to tell the public that it 
>was settled. I don't need it settled. I am happy to proceed on a 
>course of action even when the outcome is uncertain and the knowledge
>partial.



>  Sometimes it's necessary to start in some direction, but as 
>you start sailing you keep checking along the way that the chosen 
>direction is still a good one.

	Sure. Do you think anyone is saying 'hey, AGW is settled now, 
lets stop measuring the climate and trying to understand it. And if 
any data that doesn't fit our models turns up, ignore it, right?'
	No, people are just saying lets all admit that AGW is the 
best hypothesis we have right now, and lets stop filling our 
newspaper columns and blogs with arguments from paid oil industry 
liars saying otherwise[1]. Arguments from opposing climate scientists 
are welcome, but should probably take place somewhere other than the 
op-ed columns. Lets continue our debate about what to do from the 
basis that AGW is the best hypothesis we have right now, and is more 
likely to represent the truth than any other hypothesis, including 
the 'nothing unusual is going on' hypothesis.

>  You are open to making course
>correction, even turning around 180 if necessary. But if they say 
>it's settled, that means there's no more option for changing their 
>minds. Nobody can have practically perfect knowledge of such a 
>complex system, so there's plenty of scope for errors, some minor, 
>and some major. A culture that believes it's settled is a culture of 
>closed minded arrogance. If this were some little academic subject of 
>no consequence then that wouldn't matter. But if it really is about
>planetary survival then there is no room for professional arrogance.

	I think you confuse political debate with scientific.
	Perhaps it would help if every time you imagine someone said 
'the debate is closed' you imagine someone said 'the public debate 
about matters of scientific fact should be closed until the 
scientific consensus changes in response to new developments in the 
field'. Science hasn't 'closed' the debate by fiat, just noted that 
its over - scientists *have* largely stopped debating it, not because 
someone told them to, but because there isn't much to debate there. 
You can't 'keep the debate open' to satisfy your ideals if no one has 
any good arguments to make on one side.
	So, your objecting to some supposed closing of the debate by 
order of someone, but you can't declare it open anymore than someone 
can declare it closed. No one has compelling evidence to suggest 
flaws in AGW theory. No one has a competing theory that explains 
things as well. Without these things, the debate is over.
	Sure, people have different ideas about the details, and what 
should be done, and how much it will cost, and they ARE debating that.

	The thing is, though, scientific debate doesn't take the form 
you seem to think it does anyway.

	IF AGW gets turned around as a theory, it won't be because 
someone comes up with a compelling argument that reinterprets all the 
exact same facts we have - it will because one of the many pillars of 
fact on which AGW rests will be challenged, probably with empirical 
data that shows something a change in expected pattern.
	Perhaps, like evolution, the AGW theory we have now will be 
replaced with a very different idea of how AGW works, changing our 
understanding at a deep level - but actually, making no difference in 
the big picture facts relevant to those outside the field.

	But more likely, it won't change much, it will just get 
refined. Like, say, the germ theory of disease. We still believe it. 
We know a lot more data around it now, and have a lot more 
understanding of it. But its unlikely ever to basically be 
challenged. Similar to the theory of DNA as a mechanisms of 
hereditary.

	Accepting the possibility that scientific consensus might 
change radically, as it sometimes does, should also mean accepting 
the possibility that it probably won't change except in the details, 
as it usually doesn't, and we should work with what we have.

	You seem to think we should stop and watch the AGW theory for 
a while in case it radically changes. The chances of that are very 
unlikely. The chances that it will be refined are high, and that 
specific predictions will get better.

>  >	I mean, sure, if they said 'oh, we are moderately confident
>>  of a particular outcome' you would probably take them at their word -
>>  but what if they are genuinely MORE than moderately confident?
>
>Big complex system being forecast 100 years into the future.

	Yep. Long term trends can be predicted in big complex 
systems. Short term ones too. We've gone over this several times.
	Perhaps more to the point, even when you know the details of 
the prediction are almost certain to be incorrect, its still rational 
to go with your best bet. Everyone knows predicting the economy 100 
years in the future is impossible. But still, if someone comes up to 
you  with a good economic model that makes a prediction about where 
the economy is heading in 100 years, you might want to consider 
putting your money on where it says its going now.
	Making long term predictions that have limited confidence 
isn't an intrinsic flaw.

>Lets go back to your "predictive power of science because the sun 
>rises" point.
>
>According to Wikipedia the geocentrism model with the Earth at the 
>centre of the universe goes back 5000 years.
>
>So, the cosmologists 5000 years ago can predict that the sun will 
>rise each day. We now know from experience that that prediction has 
>proved to be correct one point eight million times.

	Of course, it got proven to be incorrect a bunch of times, if 
that was the hypothesis. Anyone living above the arctic circle, for 
example.
	The modern institutions of science didn't exist then. But if 
they did, heliocentric theories have existed for a very long time. 
And first shown to provide a better match for all observational 
evidence over 2800 years ago.
	Which makes the point that the NUMBER of correct predictions 
is nonsense. Fitting all the observed facts is a much more useful 
measure of the value of a model.
	I don't know what you hoped to prove with this geocentricism 
stuff, but it seems as if you are proving the exact opposite of what 
you are trying to say.

>Lets look at the modern climate models forecasting about +4C in 100 
>years. That prediction has proven from experience to be correct 
>exactly zero times.
>
>They can't be more than moderately confident because they don't have 
>the empirical experience that the prediction is correct even once.

	Sure they can.
	No one has EVER put 300 tons of U-238 in a pile. I bet we are 
more than moderately confident that its a bad idea.
	The economy is a big complex system. No one has EVER tried, 
say, having the central banks tie interest rate changes to tarot 
readings. Maybe it would turn out be a good idea. I think we are more 
than moderately confident that its not.

>
>>>  Virtual certainly about forecasts of big complex systems only leads
>>>  me to suspicion.
>>
>>	But somehow, the virtual certainty about facts like 'reducing
>>  smoking reduces lung cancer', despite the massive and poorly
>>  understood complexity of the human immune system and mechanisms of
>>  cancer, doesn't bother you.
>
>The key word is forecast. As I said earlier, saying that 25% of 
>smokers so far have gotten lung cancer is different to saying that in 
>future, 25% of smokers will get lung cancer.

	Well, sure. Because people might act on those theories, and 
change the outcome, for a start. AGW theory only makes predictions 
about the climate in 100 years IF conditions don't change, because we 
do nothing, and our use of CO2 doesn't change, and other relevant 
conditions don't change (I am sure AGW doesn't so 'and the 
temperature will rise by exactly 4 degrees, even if the sun goes 
nova'). I don't understand what criticism you are levelling here?
	In short, it looks superficially as if the version of AGW 
theory you represent here may well be shoddily constructed out of low 
quality straw, but I'm not sure, because I'm not sure that your 
argument is really that simple and silly - I'm just at a loss to find 
another interpretation.

>  To make your forecast scientific you need to
>first empirically quantify why these other factors are negligible, 
>and why your method of quantifying these factors is empirically
>sound.

	Errr... odd.
	So, in order to make predictions about the death rate to road 
accidents in 2010, I first need to empirically quantify why I don't 
think we are likely to experience nuclear warfare or bird flu 
pandemic in that time? No, I just say 'if conditions do not change 
then' and move on.
	I think everyone actually grasps the idea that when science 
makes predictions, it isn't claiming the psychic power of 
precognition, and I'm not sure what else you complaining about here.

>Extend this to AGW and you have to start dealing with a far greater 
>order of complexity. You have to even show why you believe that the 
>actions you plan to take will succeed, because the damage of trying 
>and failing may be worse than the damage of not doing anything at
>all, eg. Iraq.

	And that exact debate is taking place, certainly with regards 
to some of the odder and more dramatic means of reducing CO2 that 
have been proposed (deliberately creating high altitude haze?), but 
also on the more mundane issues of economic cost of reduced emissions 
etc. No one says that debate is closed.
	Why do you think that debate isn't taking place? The whole 
point of the 'debate on the AGW hypothesis is over' is to move on, 
and start the real political and scientific debate about what to do 
about it, which obviously includes evaluating the down sides 
(including the basic one of cost) of proposed courses of action.

	Cheers
		David


[1] yes, I know I previously said that not all proponents of anti-AGW 
theories are paid liars. However, the paid liars are the ones that 
are more likely to turn up in newspaper op-ed columns, due to the 
social mechanisms governing conservative newspapers, OK?