[Vision2020] Climate & Science

[Art Deco]

[image: Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the
Web]<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/>
July 12, 2011, 4:01 pmOn Experts and Global WarmingBy GARY
GUTTING<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/gary-gutting/>

The Stone <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/> is a
forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.
Tags:

anthropogenic global
warming<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/anthropogenic-global-warming/>,
climate change <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/climate-change/>,
Global
Warming <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/global-warming/>,
Plato<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/plato/>,
science <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/science/>


*The Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of
philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking to
information and events that have appeared in the news.
*
Experts have always posed a problem for democracies.  Plato scorned
democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny, largely
because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to knowledgeable
experts (philosophers, as he saw it).  But, if, as we insist, the people
must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can we, non-experts, take
account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public
policy?

One we accept the expert authority of climate science, we have no basis for
supporting the minority position.

To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the
authority of experts.  First of all, such appeals require a decision about
who the experts on a given topic are.  Until there is agreement about this,
expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions.  Another
requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points
relevant to our discussion.   Precisely because we are not experts, we are
in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are.  Finally, given a
consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we non-experts have no basis
for rejecting the truth of the claim.

These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they have serious
consequences.  Consider, for example, current discussions about climate
change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming caused
primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.).  All
creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated as
“climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to
their claims about global warming.  In contrast to enterprises such as
astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project
of climate science.  The only questions are about the conclusions this
project supports about global warming.

There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong
consensus<http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm>among
climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human
activities are warming the planet.  There are climate scientists who doubt
or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that
is dominant in their discipline.   Non-expert opponents of A.G.W. usually
base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate
scientists have raised against the consensus view.   But non-experts are in
no position to argue against the consensus of expert opinion.   As long as
they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they
have no basis for supporting the minority position.  Critics within the
community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but,
given the overall consensus of that community, we non-experts have no basis
for concluding that this is so.  It does no good to say that we find the
consensus conclusions poorly supported.  Since we are not experts on the
subject, our judgment  has no standing.

It follows that a non-expert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by
arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken
seriously in our debates about public policy.  There may well be areas of
inquiry (e.g., various sub-disciplines of the social sciences) open to this
sort of critique.  But there does not seem to be a promising case against
the scientific authority of climate science.  As noted, opponents of the
consensus on global warming themselves argue from results of the discipline,
and there is no reason to think that they would have had any problem
accepting a consensus of climate scientists against global warming, had this
emerged.

Some non-expert opponents of global warming have made much of a number of
e-mails written and circulated among a handful of climate scientists that
they see as evidence of bias toward global warming. But unless this group is
willing to argue from this small (and questionable) sample to the general
unreliability of climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative
but to accept the consensus view of climate scientists that these e-mails do
not undermine the core result of global
warming<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/gate-fever-breaks/#more-22259>
.
Related More From The
Stone<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/>

Read previous contributions to this series.

   - Go to All Posts »<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/>

I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in
democratic debates.  It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s
philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our *polis*. We the people still
need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups we
accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. Nor am I
denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific
results and specific policy decisions.  The fact that there is significant
global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any particular
response to this fact.  There remain pressing questions, for example, about
the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions,
the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the
proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term
gains.  Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make
fundamental value judgments, a task that, *pace* Plato, we cannot turn over
to experts.

The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority of
a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its
conclusions.  To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality, science
is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like.  Once we
board the train of climate science, there is no alternative to taking it
wherever it may go.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110713/1112936e/attachment-0001.html