Political abuse of science, such as the recent attempts to stop NASA sceintists from public statements about the possiblity that global warming may be pushing Earth to a “tipping point,” have a long history.
Today’s political abusers of science are pikers compared to the Nazis, and no one claims that their motives and ideology are as vile as those who viewed themselves as members of the “Master Race.” Still, it’s useful to look back at Nazi tactics to see how easy it is to abuse science to achieve political objectives.
A book review in today’s Seattle Times discusses how far afield abuse of science can go. According to reviewer Adam Woog, The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust by Vancouver, B.C., science writer Heather Pringle, “describes a massive effort to retool history to fit pet theories — and it shows just how easily that retooling can happen.”
In this case, there was a hypothesis to prove: that “Aryans” were inherently superior to other people. Heinrich Himmler’s scholars knew the answer. Their task was to find evidence, however flimsy, and to weave a persuasive story around it.
I have not yet read Ms. Pringle’s book, but Mr. Woog’s review is enough to make me want to recommend it. I’ll try to contact Mr. Woog to see if I can add his review to my Science Shelf book review archive. It will be a valuable companion piece to my reviews of Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil’s Pact by John Cornwell and Master Mind: The Rise and Fall of Fritz Haber, the Nobel Laureate Who Launched the Age of Chemical Warfare by Daniel Charles.
I think you’re misunderstanding Shannon. There is a consensus on the fact that people produce greenhouse gasses. There is no consensus on what the extent effects or whether they are good or bad. We don’t know anything about how much natural greenhouse gas production may fluctuate. We don’t know what the sun might do.
The situation is that the prescribed cure is likely worse than any possible symptoms.
I’m asking whether you would accept a fringe scientific view or a strong scientific consensus view. There’s been enough discussion of whether there is a consensus. Even Shannon agreed that there is one, but attributed it to an anti-capitalist political plot. I guess you do, too.
There’s no debating people who think I have a political agenda rather than a concern about my grandchildren’s future.
That’s why I asked Shannon about fringe versus consensus in a personal context and removed the politics.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
… and it’s experimental. And your kids should take it too, just incase.
Your white bloodcell count is slightly higher than usual. Your doctor prescribes chemotherapy. Do you get a second opinion?
This is not however, how Global Warming is sold to the public. We are repeatedly told that we face imminent catastrophe and that if we don’t immediately empower the state to control runaway material excesses of capitalism we will all die very, very soon. There is a systemic attempt to panic and stampede people world wide into making sweeping political and economic changes based on the most extreme interpretations of the science. I object to that.
Shannon, your ideology is showing here. You are mischaracterizing the discussion and using radical language. I am the conservative here, and this is why.
I am not discussing the way global warming is being “sold” to the public, and I strongly dispute your description of the discussion as an anti-capitalist political plot. In fact, most of those calling for action rather than inaction are not asking for “sweeping political and economic changes.” They are calling for manageable, not disruptive, policy changes to avoid scenarios that are within the reasonable range of projections not “the most extreme interpretations of the science.”
If we do not act or if we delay acting, we are much more likely to face “sweeping political and economic changes” that we can do nothing about.
I’m saying, in an old-fashioned conservative way that “a stitch in time saves nine.” You’re saying, let’s wait and see. Who cares about sewing this little hole? It might heal itself. (Okay, I plead guilty to mischaracterizing your argument. But sometimes a caricature can be revealing.)
And now I’m really done with this.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
I am citing a lot of reading and the near scientific unanimity on the conclusion that human activity is the cause. That includes John Marburger, the President’s Science Advisor. Yes, it is a conclusion from evidence rather than the evidence itself, but it is powerfully persuasive.
The only scientists who are disputing that have vested interests. They are now at the fringe. Sometimes fringe ideas lead to important new theories, but those ideas usually come in at the fringe and develop more credibility as evidence accumulates (example the K-T asteroid impact event). The ideas that you and Shannon are advocating have been pushed outward to fringe as evidence accumulates.
For that reason, I find the consensus much more persuasive than the fringe interpretations.
This discussion was continued in a later thread that begins with Shannon’s post called “Fringe Ideas.” See above.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Parachuting in from Chicago Boyz…
First, I agree that Shannon is justified in taking you to task for your ‘appeal to authority’ to justify your conclusion that human activity is the cause of global warming. It isn’t. Never has been. There’s zero evidence for that conclusion and all the authority figures in the world claiming it’s true doesn’t make it so. You’d see that if you thought about one basic fact: 14,000 years ago the world was coming out of its’ last Ice Age. Was the amount of steel mill usage, leaf blowing, SUV driving and other fossil fueled activity among humans great enough at that time to have pushed the world out of the Ice Age? Yes, there is global warming and there has been a global warming trend since the last average global temperature minima approximately 50,000 years ago.
I posted an essay on the topic last year, based mostly on research being done by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute but also referenced an interesting astronomical phenomena that may prove to be the ultimate global warming culprit. It can read here:
Putting Global Warming In Perspective
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Speaking of retooling history…
Have you heard about the story of David Irving who is in jail in Austria for his revisionism? Jailed British historian David Irving has again said he does not believe Hitler presided over a systematic attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm
I think the major idea you have trouble grasping is that historically, the degree of scientific consensus at any given time about an idea and ultimate validity of that idea are in no way related. In the other thread, I provided numerous examples within the last 40 years wherein a broad scientific consensus existed that was eventually proved wrong.
I disagee that the degree of consensus is unrelated to the ultimate validity of an idea. In science, validity depends on the evidence, and scientific consensus forms around evidence. The two are intimately related.
True, a scientific consensus idea may turn out to be wrong (usually marginally wrong, not completely wrong), but when you make a decision, you use the best evidence you have at that time. And you want to use evidence has been strengthened by skepticism, as the scientific consensus has.
Political consensus is a different ballgame, because political decisions, including policy, involve more than science. Policy makers who have to weigh scientific findings should consider how the current consensus has come about. In this case, Dr. Marburger has already stated that there is little debate on the science. So it is particularly galling when the administration uses fringe science instead of the consensus that it claims to accept.
Arguments from authority are useless in evaluating science.
We are in full agreement about that. The best authority we have lies in the primary source literature, which neither of us has read in detail. I have, however, read a lot about this subject matter in books and in weekly publications (Science News and New Scientist) where respected science journalists in the U.S. and Britain have read the primary source literature and summarized it.
I am therefore arguing largely from very credible secondary sources. I have been citing what they agree on and where they are speculating. I expect some of the speculations will be wrong, but the areas of agreement will probably not change much. Even the best-case scenarios will be challenging to deal with, but we can act now to head off the worst case scenarios.
Waiting for more evidence without acting seems to me a very dangerous course, but that’s a policy question, not a scientific one. Whatever choice our leaders make, I want them to base it on the best available science.
I’ll let you have the last word on this, though I hope others chime in as well. But I hope you’ll answer this question: If you had a life threatening cancer and your physician told you that the scientific consensus is that chemotherapy cures 95% of the cases (and you got several concurring opinions from the best medical institution you had at your disposal), would you opt for the vitamin pills that another doctor offered to sell you as an easier cure? After all, the pill-pusher reasons, scientific consensus is often wrong.
If you chose to take the vitamins and offered me a bet that they would work, I’d turn you down, because the only way I’d be able to prove I was right was to try to convince a corpse.
Sorry, but that’s what your position seems to be.
And with that, I yield the floor for the last time on this.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Fred Bortz,
If you want to continue this discussion, please start a fresh thread of reply, perhaps by explaining why you and so many others continue to believe the fringe ideas when even Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger told NPR that there is little disagreement on the science
I think the major idea you have trouble grasping is that historically, the degree of scientific consensus at any given time about an idea and ultimate validity of that idea are in no way related. In the other thread, I provided numerous examples within the last 40 years wherein a broad scientific consensus existed that was eventually proved wrong.
The existence of broad consensus is of itself no predictor of scientific accuracy, especially when it touches on matters of political policy. It was once the consensus view of many different scientific disciplines that different races of human beings were in fact sub-species with different evolutionary histories and different inherent mental and physical capabilities. The tiny minority who argued against this consensus were derided as cranks or religious fanatics. This consensus view was so entrenched it took the horrors of WWII to dislodge it.
Arguments from authority are useless in evaluating science. Scientist, both individually and collectively, are quite often wrong. Normally, the self-corrective nature of science will correct the problem but once an idea has become politicized, once that idea is used to justify the power of the state, then it becomes hard to dislodge it. This is the dynamic that drove scientific racism and the energy crisis. I think the same dynamic is at work with Global Warming.
My other complaint is that actual nature of the consensus is systematically misrepresented. I think there is a consensus among climatologist that anthrogenic gas emissions are altering the climate to some degree. However, there is a profound lack of consensus on the actual degree of change. The different climate models themselves vary significantly returning a worldwide temperature increase anywhere from 1 to 4 degrees over the course of a century. Anything under 1.5 degrees is basically ignorable whereas 4 degrees would be catastrophic. Some of the models say that we have already passed a catastrophic tipping point. All these models cannot be right. Some must be radically wrong but which ones?
The actual consensus view, the most likely future predicted by most of the models, and the one endorsed by the most climatologist is that change will be in the 1.5 area. In other words, the consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions are not an immediate and catastrophic problem requiring a powerful political response.
This is not however, how Global Warming is sold to the public. We are repeatedly told that we face imminent catastrophe and that if we don’t immediately empower the state to control runaway material excesses of capitalism we will all die very, very soon. There is a systemic attempt to panic and stampede people world wide into making sweeping political and economic changes based on the most extreme interpretations of the science. I object to that.
So, in nutshell, I am wholly unimpressed by the existence of a scientific consensus because I know of to many instances wherein a scientific consensus has been proven drastically wrong and secondly I think exactly what the scientific consensus on global warming that does exist is misrepresented to the public.
We are both suspicious of political interference with science, and that’s why I quoted Flannery’s comment about previous circumstances where there was a political bandwagon effect that reinforced a weak consensus.
But I added his comment about why this time things are different. The climate change consensus has developed in spite of the political bandwagon going in the opposite direction.
If you want to continue this discussion, please start a fresh thread of reply, perhaps by explaining why you and so many others continue to believe the fringe ideas when even Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger told NPR that there is little disagreement on the science (interview link available at this URL on the NPR website).
My assessment is that you are, unfortunately, one of the many who have been taken in by politicians who deny the consensus because it doesn’t fit their narrow agendas and their supporters’ short-term interests.
You don’t have to agree with Chris Mooney’s thesis that there is a Republican War on Science to see the ideological abuse of science that is guiding too many politicians and policy-makers today.
If you care about intellectual honesty, that book will open your eyes, even if you are a staunch, conservative Republican. You seem like an open-minded person, and I hope you will battle to take back the Republican Party from those who abuse science and history. I’ll work on the Democrats who do the same.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
You can say you disagree with the consensus, but you can’t deny that there is such a consensus.
I have not denied there is a consensus I have merely pointed out that a consensus means nothing as ALL the previous science panics have also arisen from consensus. Consensus simply means that most of the members of a given field have all made the same mistake.
Let’s end this exchange at this point…
Okay, its your blog
and allow others to comment on the original intent of this blog entry.
If the original intent of the post wasn’t to discuss the patterns of political interference in science, what was it?
Shannon, I have not impugned anyone’s motives, just stated the fact that I consider sources with vested interests to be less reliable. In this case, the only scientists disputing the fact of global warming and the dominant influence of human activities are those with clear economic interests in the status quo. Those interests don’t make them evil or even wrong, but it means they are more biased than most on this issue. That diminishes the weight I’m willing to give their fringe viewpoints.
As for your earlier example of the resource crisis, my reading today turned up something interesting. Tim Flannery’s upcoming book, The Weather Makers, which I will soon be reviewing, addresses the point you made about the famously wrong prediction about resources.
Flannery writes (quoted from prepublication uncorrected proof):
As a result of the public’s growing experience of the difficulties understanding all these conflicting views, many people have reacted with rightful caution to news about climate change. After all, we have in the past got things badly wrong. In its 1972 publication Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome told us the world was running out of resources. Subsequent geological exploration has revealed just how wide of the mark our estimates of mineral resources were back then, and even today no one can accurately estimate the volume of oil, gold, and other materials beneath our feet.
But then he continues,
The climate change issue, however, is different…. (T)he size of our atmosphere and the volume of pollutants that we are pouring into it are known with great precision.
Earlier in the book, he discusses the importance of scientific skepticism, because consensus is impossible to achieve without challenging the results and, especially, their interpretation. He initially approached the issue with great skepticism, as have I. He has since researched aspects of the issue, whereas I have merely been an interested reader. The book is ultimately a description of how the current consensus has evolved and strengthened, and what problems may lie ahead if we fail to act. Yet it is not doom and gloom, but rather a call to action.
You can say you disagree with the consensus, but you can’t deny that there is such a consensus. Even the President’s science advisor accepted it in an interview on NPR Weekend Edition Sunday yesterday, which is probably available on line. He defends the Bush administration’s policy approach, but he does not dispute the science.
As I noted in an earlier post, I’ve discussed the climate change issue in another blog article. This article has a different intent: to point readers to a book about the ease of distorting science and history for political gain. To see what I think the current administration is doing, judging by their actions and not attributing motives other than their desire to keep power, read my review of Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science.
Let’s end this exchange at this point, and allow others to comment on the original intent of this blog entry.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
I don’t want to get into a prolonged discussion about other people’s motives.
Then you should not assert that only people of impure motives could possibly disagree with you.
… I’d much rather talk about how we can avoid falling into the traps of our own preconceived notions, or worse, those set by self-serving groups of people who are in positions of power.
Which I have done. I assert that in the last 40 years we have seen a successive series of supposedly scientifically identified crisis that have turned out to be false. The “energy crisis” being the biggest. I think the same political and social dynamics that caused scientist in the 70’s and early 80’s to lend credence to the idea of permanent resource depletion. This in turn led to the adoption of actively counter-productive policies world wide.
Nothing in our scientific, academic,media or political institutions have changed to prevent the same sort of massive error from occurring again. In fact, the same part of the political spectrum and in many cases the same individuals who once promulgated the idea of the energy crisis now promulgate the idea of AGW. Again I ask: They were wrong then, why should I believe they are correct now?
If you want to examine how politics distorts science, look at the Left first. Virtually, all the bogus science panics of that 40 years have been pushed by the Left. I think that environmental and technological threats serve the same purpose for the political Left that wars once did. They are used to justify increasing the power of the state. AGW is the perfect “permanent emergency” that can be used to justify state control of the economy for decades. This creates a powerful incentive to distort the publics perception of the actual science.
So, I will restate my original claim. Given the real-world track record of the last 40 years, political interference in the science of global warming is more likely to produce an exaggeration of the threat than an underestimation.
Shannon, I don’t want to get into a prolonged discussion about other people’s motives. I only know that my motive is science and my concern is for the future of our species and the planet as a whole.
I am a grandfather of three small children who will have tough issues to face in their lifetimes, and I want them to be armed with knowledge and judgment. That’s why I write what I write. If that’s an ideology, I am proud of it.
Of course everyone has a point of view, and if you look over my book reviews, you will see that I consider the authors’ ideology and do not always agree with them. In the climate change arena, I have been watching the consensus develop and the areas of debate change. That’s what happens in a lively scientific area.
I don’t buy into alarmist predictions, but when credible scientists are saying that they see warning signs, we are foolish to ignore them or label them ideologues. We need to understand the risks and weigh them. (I wrote an award-winning children’s book about understanding risks so we can succeed. It’s called Catastrophe! Great Engineering Failure–and Success. Follow that link to see how I handled that issue, check out the book in your library, or buy it and make a grandpa happy.)
This thread began with a review of a book that points out how easy it is to distort science or history to achieve political objectives. That behavior is not restricted to any particular ideology.
Rather than debating the science of global warming here, I’d much rather talk about how we can avoid falling into the traps of our own preconceived notions, or worse, those set by self-serving groups of people who are in positions of power. (Alas, we have had the bad habit of electing such people regardless of party for most of the last 50 years. We might even agree on some of the exceptions, but I don’t want to turn the discussion in that direction.)
I wish I could ignore the dramatic changes taking place in the Arctic and the credible predictions of climate modelers; but to do so, I would be advocating leading my grandchildren’s generation into a trap that they can probably still avoid.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
There is now little disagreement, except among those with vested interests, …
Now, that takes me back because that is exactly what advocates of the “energy crisis” said about those who questioned whether oil and other forms of energy where actually physically in short supply. The consensus on the “energy crisis” was far broader and deeper than the consensus on global warming is today and yet it turned out to be an illusion.
You seem unaware that everyone has a vested interest in one view of anthrogenic global warming or the other. The worldwide political Left has seized upon AGW as a blanket excuse for increasing state control of the economy just as they did during the energy crisis. Hostility to capitalism is a greater predictor of whether an individual believes in AGC than is scientific knowledge.
I note you did not address my main point that we have had many supposedly scientifically confirmed ideas that we based public policy on only to find out that the science behind them was either weak or bogus. Why shouldn’t I consider AGW to be yet one more item in a long list? Especially, since the same cast of characters line up on the same sides on each issues?
As in the parable of the emperors new clothes, those pushing the idea of the emperors new climate explain that an invisible threat requiring great expanses of state power threatens us all but that only the most intelligent and unselfish can see the danger. Those who say they can’t see the danger are labeled either stupid or selfish. Soon people start saying they see the danger only because they don’t want others to believe ill of them.
Whether AGW is occurring to any significant degree is a valid scientific question. However, it shows a frightening degree of naivete to declare that one side of the debate has no motive beyond the actual science to advance its viewpoint.
Shannon, you’ve got it backwards when you write:
“I think global warming will prove to be just another political hysteria driven, not by science, but by politics. The science to date is certainly not strong enough to justify the radical policy prescriptions that many so-called scientist put forward. This leads me to believe that global warming is more of a social and political movement than a scientific one.”
The fable you need to pay attention to here is “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In this case, the present administration would like the science to be otherwise, but the evidence is getting stronger all the time. Because the science is so strong, the political controversy is driven by those who want to deny it.
As Phil says in his comment below, it is essential for scientists to speak truth to power. (Phil trusts business to do that as well, and there I disagree with him, since business operates on principles of self-interest, which can lead to speaking falsehood.) By truth, I mean the best available information drawn from the most objective sources. Arguably, that is not perfect, but it is the best we can do.
And what is the best truth we have at the moment? Consider what has happened to the debate in the last twenty years. It has gone from questioning whether there is global warming, to yes, there is global warming but we don’t know whether it is caused by humans, to yes, it is largely caused by human activity but we don’t know whether we are approaching a “tipping point.”
There is now little disagreement, except among those with vested interests, that global warming is real and caused mainly by human activity. There is considerable doubt about how close we are to a tipping point, but the scientific evidence about dangerous climate trends is powerful enough that scientists are sounding a warning. The evidence comes most notably from the Arctic but also from elsewhere. Based on their track record on this issue, the scientists who are speaking out are trustworthy in their projections. They are certainly not crying wolf. Perhaps they are crying “polar bear,” because those great carnivores may be heading for extinction in the wild.
I refer you to the discussion at an earlier blog entry of mine.
I also recommend reading several of the books I have reviewed, listed at my Science Shelf climate links page. That previous discussion points to several of those in particular. Also, I am currently reading two new books about the “tipping point” issue and will be reviewing them at the Science Shelf and in several major newspapers. If you subscribe to the Science Shelf mailing list, you will get regular updates about new reviews there and can follow the issue.
Meanwhile, it’s time to tell the Emperor that he is the one being fooled.
Fred Bortz — Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
Actually, given the track record of the use of science in the last 40 years in the political arena, it is more likely that global warming advocates are abusing the science than those skeptical of it. It is those who have proclaimed that science foresees some future catastrophe that have been proven wrong, not the skeptics.
The biggest way in which science is abused in when people demand that concrete policies be implemented based on ambiguous science. The best example of this recently has been the enforcement of low-fat diets based on skimpy evidence that they would prevent heart disease and cancer. In last five years, numerous large studies have shown that low-fat diets do not prevent disease. In retrospect, there never was concrete evidence that low-fat diets prevented disease so why did the medical, political and regulatory authorities base policy on the idea that they did?
In the 1970’s it was considered an iron clad “scientific ” fact that the world was running out of natural resources such as oil, iron. fresh water and other “natural resources” and they they would be in permanent decreasing supply. Yet the supply of every such resource is greater today than then and most resources, even oil, are actually cheaper.
We could also add over-population, nuclear winter, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic (in the developed world), the landfill crises, silicon breast implants autoimmune disease and dozens of other concepts that were promulgated as throughly proved concepts that only the stupid or the corrupt questioned. Each concept was seized upon by political groups to advance their own pre-existing agendas. As each each concept failed they just moved on to another one.
I think global warming will prove to be just another political hysteria driven, not by science, but by politics. The science to date is certainly not strong enough to justify the radical policy prescriptions that many so-called scientist put forward. This leads me to believe that global warming is more of a social and political movement than a scientific one.
You may be interested in reading Jane Jacobs’ take on the subject in her book, Systems of Survival. I have a book review posted 2/25/06 at blogcritics.org.
I said “Jacobs warns that academic institutions steeped in guardianship values are antagonistic to objective science.” She labels the morally corrupt hybrids of our day: mixing government with science or commerce, including the mafia and other power grabbing Attila the Hun styled business models.
The value of reading Systems for me was I finally have come to accept that we can’t live well without power-oriented guardianship institutions (government, military, regulatory, standards administrators) These institutions will always find unfettered objectivity threatening, and thus a tad subversive. If you accept Jacobs’ construct, the best defense when truth-oriented folks, including scientists (and business folks) are asked to subjugate themselves to power is to understand and remain true to one’s own moral syndrome. To lift a fine bit of wording from the Religious Society of Friends, [scientists, to be true to themselves, and to keep power-oriented institutions in their proper place must] Speak Truth to Power.