This said though, his article in the Independent today was complete rubbish, mainly because he started out being right in his analysis of a particular groups reasonining, and then ruined it all by applying the same dodgy reasoning he had just correctly identified.
The subject of today's cock up was climate change. The title of the piece is "Global warming must be a lie. Just look who says so" and starts out in the first paragraph, quite rightly, pointing out the intellectually vacuous nature of an argument in the Sun that said "Global warming is simply the new way of screwing more and more taxes out of us."
He then goes to bemoan the fact that "[t]his is the level of debate offered by those who dispute global warming is happening." He has a point here, the level of debate that comes from some quarters is exceptionally weak on this issue. The problem is what he then goes on to say
Some of the science is confusing and uncertain, so one way to judge it is to look at who's on which side of the argument. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was made by 600 scientists from 40 countries, assessed by 600 reviewers, and agrees this is happening.So, let's start at the top. The first paragraph is basically two fallacies, fiorst he appealing to authority - "they're all scientists don't you know!" - and the second is an appeal to numbers -"everyone says it, so it must be so!".
Whereas most of the stuff that contradicts it can be traced back to websites that aren't entirely neutral. For example, one leading source for the "global warming's a myth" supporters is called "Friends of Science" - except their president admitted: "About one third of the funding for the Friends of Science is provided by the oil industry." Yet this stuff is repeated round the world by columnists as fact.
Exxon has spent millions of dollars on a website that disputes global warming. Or there's the publication called 21st Century Science and Technology, which claimed that 55 per cent of glaciers are actually growing at the moment.
But this paper turns out to be owned by an American millionaire by the name of Lyndon Larouche, who has also claimed the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate. Nonetheless, he's been quoted by global warming sceptics, including David Bellamy.
Then we move on to motivational fallacies. The line that research funded by an interested party is, by definition, false because of their interests. This sort of nonsense argument happens in the etch industry all the time. When a report comes out showing that Windows Advanced Server is better than RedHat Linux, if the report was funded by Microsoft, it is rubbished instantly. The same thing happens in reverse. The fact remains it is nonsense reasoning.
Just because an oil industry funds research that produces results that are beneficial towards it, it does not follow that the research is wrong. Likewise, just because a loony bloke that thinks the Royal Family is an international drug cartel says something else about glaciers, it does not follow that what he said is wrong because in the past he's been a bit chicken oriental. Mark Steel's bemoaning about the "level debate" is superficially pointless because he's just joined in the fun and games of using bollocks reasoning.
I guess I should point out here that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with either side in the whole messy climate change debate. As I think is quite well known, what really annoys me is the manner in which science has become totally politicised on this issue. This is mainly because, I think, due to the popularity of simplistic conceptions of science exemplified by Thomas Kuhn and his silly Marxist paradigm shifts. But that is a post for another day.
8 comments:
Lyndon Larouche? Brilliant! He is the David Icke of American politics. Or is that ad hominem.
Dizzy this is so politicised mostly because it is so difficult to prove/disprove. There are just too many variables. There is big money at stake on both sides of the debate so naturally scientists will be financed by interested parties to 'prove' the right result and be used as an 'appeal to authority'.
All it comes down to is "we think something should be done - just in case" versus "we think this is just a revenue-raising scam". Which is a purely political argument.
Noone says these scientists are biased becuase they are receiving funds from the state, and the states beurocrats will benefit from the increased tax extortion their reports invariably call for.
I'd reckon there is more money per GAIA worship researcher than there is for each researcher sponsored by firms that know CO2 is airborne plantfood.
> "we think something should be done - just in case"
Yes, but most of the "just in case" things to be done have trans-enormous costs and happen to align with the things they were calling for to defeat separate problems in the past.
As a former scientist, I can quite happily tell you that we are all biased one way or another... no matter how objectively you conduct research, the second it comes to telling people about it you start adding your own agenda.
I happen to be in the 'we'e all gonna die' camp... not immediately, and probably not even soon, but eventually.
Have you noticed the recent slant in the news of 'actually cows make more greenhouse gasses than cars'?
Oh, That's OK then, we can just carry on using our cars so long as we slaughter a few head of cattle each day to balance it out.
There's a political agenda behind much of this, though for the life of me I can't figure it out.
NPR hosted an Intelligence Squared debate in this area, "Global Warming is not a crisis".
@adam_y
Scientists are just mathematically-minded whores. Especially when there's research funds up for grabs. Speaking as a scientific type myself.
We'll soon have politicians talking about "the war against Global-Warming" - mark my words.
Better than the war on Terra, I suppose.
Anyway. Argument ad-hominem and argument from authority are only fallacies when both parties agree on the reported facts.
If you're relying on someone else's facts as well as their argument, which will inevitably be the case in something as complex as climate change, then taking account of their position - in terms of expertise, in terms of how bribed they are, and in terms of how mad they are - is perfectly legitimate, and indeed the only sensible thing to do.
John B
Its the science I feel sorry for!
Climate is the most complex system we know of. So even though we don't know for certain how it works, we are sure enough that I need to be taxed heavily for driving my Range Rover and that will help keep the climate static??!!!!?!
Who ever heard of a static climate?
The only time nature is static, it is known as dead!
Post a Comment