Debate This
Yesterday. Park Avenue. New York, NY. Sold out event. Two sides meet to debate ('Oxford-style') the assertion that "Global warming is not a crisis." Arguing in support of the statement: Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Phillip Stott. Arguing against it: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, and Richard C.J. Somerville. Before the debate, a poll is taken among the spectators: the majority are against the 'motion.' That is, they believe global warming is indeed a crisis. Afterward, polling reveals a tide change. More people now think, 'No, it's not a crisis after all.' Huh, how did that happen? At Real Climate, Gavin Schmidt gives the post-game wrap-up, arguing that, in effect, entertainment and subterfuge trumped science. Then he asks: Are such debates even worthwhile?
Unfortunately, the audio of the debate is not yet available for download, but I have to say, (just this writer's opinion, not having yet heard the debate), Schmidt's reaction seems naive. Of course science doesn't win the day. Not because the science is wrong. Whether it's wrong or right is of utmost importance, but it's immaterial to the debate -- as immaterial as whether or not, in a courtroom, the man on trial is, in fact, innocent or guilty. Guilt or innocence after all is not a matter of objective truth. It is what the jury decides it is, based on two competing narratives. That's why you hire the best lawyer you can find, and not necessarily the most scrupulous one.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that scientists should comport themselves like lawyers. God no! Just that they should make greater allowance to political reality, especially when they have agreed to engage in a public debate. Reports Schmidt:
As fate would have it, the same day the debate took place, the Guardian published this essay by Mark Hulme of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in which he argues a very similar point; namely, that it's time for scientists to stop kidding themselves.
Unfortunately, the audio of the debate is not yet available for download, but I have to say, (just this writer's opinion, not having yet heard the debate), Schmidt's reaction seems naive. Of course science doesn't win the day. Not because the science is wrong. Whether it's wrong or right is of utmost importance, but it's immaterial to the debate -- as immaterial as whether or not, in a courtroom, the man on trial is, in fact, innocent or guilty. Guilt or innocence after all is not a matter of objective truth. It is what the jury decides it is, based on two competing narratives. That's why you hire the best lawyer you can find, and not necessarily the most scrupulous one.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that scientists should comport themselves like lawyers. God no! Just that they should make greater allowance to political reality, especially when they have agreed to engage in a public debate. Reports Schmidt:
The organisers asked us afterwards whether we'd have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no. We are scientists, and we talk about science and we're not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas - and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage....The idea that a scientist cannot or should not get into "questions of personal morality" or "wider political agendas" strikes me as a conceit we can live without. It is like the myth of journalistic objectivity, when objectivity is not what we most want from journalists at all. What we want (what I want) is a reasonable inquiry and honest accounting in a manner that is well-told -- something which is served, not undermined, by showing one's cards.
As fate would have it, the same day the debate took place, the Guardian published this essay by Mark Hulme of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in which he argues a very similar point; namely, that it's time for scientists to stop kidding themselves.
Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error.Hulme concludes (and I obviously agree):
...
The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. ... If the battle of science is won, then the war of values will be won.
If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage.
If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.Hulme calls this "post-normal" science, and perhaps it is, but it is not ahistorical. There are, after all, plenty of precedents for scientists revealing fully their values and beliefs. James Hansen. E.O. Wilson. Albert Einstein. To name a few.
10 Comments:
Thanks Pat for an excellent posting about a very curious event. Gavin Schmidt et al should have seen the set up from the get go: They were pitted against an even number of people on the other side of the issue, suggesting to the audience before the first words were even spoken that both sides had equal standing.
Well, no. Michael Crichton has no business debating the science with Gavin Schmidt. He's a novelist, for crying out loud. He makes stuff up! And a lot of what he says about the nature of science in particular is utter nonsense. (He once said that there is no such thing as consensus in science. Oh really? There's no consensus that plate tectonics builds mountains and gravity is a result of curved space?)
Moreover, the debate format perpetuated the same old tired framing of climate change as 'global warming: yes or no?' As Hulme points out in his column in the Guardian, and as you rightly highlight in your posting, there are many other issues worth discussing at this point.
For more thoughts on this, see my own posting about Hulme's excellent column.
they must ... reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity
In an ideal world this would be no problem and in fact it is what should be the norm, but it seems that to do so in today's highly charged political world opens them up to accusations of bias. Scientists need to at least appear to be objective or their work will be instantly discredited by those desperate to find any reason at all to do so - especially when it has anything to do with protecting the environment. It's a sad reality.
Of course the downside of this is that one has to dig to find a particular individual's (who has some sway on the matter) real stand on the issues.
On the other hand what's to stop somebody from simply lying and asserting that their values are environmental and then to advocate some anti-environmental position as reasonable compromise, someone like say Bjorn Lomborg or Patrick Moore?
James Hansen, E.O. Wilson and Albert Einstein reached a high enough standing that they could reveal their feelings and not have to worry about being fired. And I'm not sure that Relativity Theory was quite as politically charged as global warming is.
Thanks for the response.
You may have a fair point about having to attain a certain eminence before you can 'disclose your values and beliefs' and still hope to keep your day job. Still, it took a lot of courage for Hansen to speak out as he did. And remember, he was out on a limb on global warming way back in the early 90s. And he got a lot of flak for it, too.
My own opinion is that people will discredit scientists for any number of reasons and are more likely to discredit them based on where their funding comes from than on who they vote for or whether or not they believe in a god or how they feel about monetary policy.
As for Bjorn Lomborg and Patrick Moore, how do you know they're lying? I understand disagreeing with them, but how can you know what another man believes or doesn't believe?
Finally, in his writing and speeches, Albert Einstein advocated both pacifism and socialism. Pretty charged for the times, I'd say.
Totally predictable result. Deniers win by creating DOUBT. They create doubt by creating the APPEARANCE of a debate.
Anyone engaging in this kind of exercize must be prepared for the full scope of rhetorical tricks. Mostly, these kinds of flat-earth 'debates' should be declined at this point. We don't debate whether smoking causes cancer.
With all respect, Rafael, I think there's more to learn from this experience than 'we shouldn't debate this anymore.' And isn't your opening remark a bit like a prosecutor complaining that all the defense attorney has to do is establish reasonable doubt? Well, yeah. Like it or not, that's the way it works. But if we want to convince society that it has to act in the face of uncertainties, we have to build a convincing case. Science is the foundation of the argument, but it's not enough.
This post has been removed by the author.
Great article. But I disagree with your comments to Rafael. We must not continue to cast doubt on the science by debating it. We no longer debate whether smoking causes cancer, and the result is that we have moved on to discussing - and implementing - serious policy solutions to the smoking epidemic. And the smoking rate is now in decline. If only we were that far along on climate change!
We need to point out the obvious - that the scientific debate is over - and move on to discussing policy solutions. And we need to do that in an inspiring and positive way, avoiding the opposition's frames of hardship and sacrifice.
Thanks Dave. You may be right. And apologies to Rafael if I came off as having all the answers ... But, for argument's sake, while there is broad agreement on the science, I think I'd agree with Scientific American's George Musser that it's not enough (when it comes to convincing society) to say there's a consensus. You have to explain why there's a consensus.
Thinking of another highly laden scientific debate -- the one on evolution -- not debating it has not helped at all. Some ridiculously large number of americans don't believe in evolution.
If you look at recent polls, climate change is doing great in comparison.
You each crack me up...my recommendation is for you to get degrees in a real scientific field....try a field of engineering. Perhaps you'll learn about the physical sciences and eventually learn to think critically for yourselves, rather than memorize catch phrases from Greenpeace pamphlets. This was comment was amazing: "Michael Crichton has no business debating the science with Gavin Schmidt." I'll one up you...Schmidt has no business debating the science with Richard Lindzen. Science and reason won the debate...it will always trump pseudo science and hyperbole.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main