Trust, But Verify
November 28, 2009 · By Martin Street
The key lesson to take away from the CRU email scandal is: trust, but verify. It’s an old expression, but it’s the key to why the “deniers” are looking prescient while the true believers look like dupes. Expert opinions are valuable for assessing many aspects of the world we live in. However, when the methods and data sources used to bolster these opinions are shrouded in secrecy this should be taken as a warning sign that something is amiss.
Peer review cuts both ways: it is a valuable tool for weeding out inappropriately formed opinions, but in the wrong hands it can just as easily be used to keep a poorly constructed “concensus” insulated from the kind of rigorous intellectual debate that a subject of this importance deserves.
With any topic of public debate, we should never trust without question opinions formed in a black box, no matter how much we otherwise trust and admire the source.
(Thanks to Instapundit, Ace of Spades, Mark Steyn and The Volokh Conspiracy)
“Peer review cuts both ways: it is a valuable tool for weeding out inappropriately formed opinions, but in the wrong hands it can just as easily be used to keep a poorly constructed “concensus” insulated from the kind of rigorous intellectual debate that a subject of this importance deserves.”
I suppose it would be useful to think about what peer review is. It’s review by people who are qualified in the subject that a paper is written about. Who would you suggest checks the work, if you exclude those who are qualified in the area of work that they’re meant to be checking?
Okay, I’m game. Who decides who is qualified? The issue pointed out at the link in the text you quoted is that the peer review process appears to have been actively controlled (subverted?) by a small clique dedicated to a non-scientific, political agenda. (Besides which, I don’t think I actually said anything about excluding experts from the process.)
I’m suggesting that you check the work, or at least try. No one is expecting a scholarly rebuttal. If everything leads back to the “black box” you should be concerned. There are no black boxes in science. If other people, with a bit more knowledge, are asking questions you’d like to see answered, be concerned when they’re met with resistance and scorn instead of an explanation. By the way, I’d like to reiterate that this is a good rule of thumb for all aspects of public life. It’s not narrowly confined to debates over climate change.
Here’s an example: I’m not a chemist or a physicist, but Lubos Motl at Harvard is. He pointed out once that carbon dioxide traps infrared energy at a particular range of frequencies; the amount of heat that it can trap is limited to by the amount of energy in that frequency band, and therefore beyond a certain point it doesn’t matter how much carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere because all of the energy that it could trap has already been absorbed ie. the principle of diminishing returns is at play. But climate models assume a linear relationship for heat and carbon dioxide, such that a percentage increase in carbon dioxide means an equivalent percentage increase in heat trapping. I’ve never seen this discrepancy addressed. In fact, if you decide to look it up and find a reasonable explanantion, I’d love you to post a link here. Prove Lubos and me wrong. Review by non-peers can cut both ways too.
By the way, dropping in a link for the Wikipedia page for Venus and thinking your work is done isn’t going to cut it. The surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and the Wiki page states that this is the result of Venus having the solar system’s strongest greenhouse effect, implying that this in turn is the result of high atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Which is exactly what Lubos is stating is incorrect. Using Venus to counter Lubos’ argument against a core concept in the greenhouse theory is basically saying that he’s wrong because he’s wrong. It’s faulty, circular reasoning. We need something a little more robust than that.
By the way, for those interested here’s the Google search criteria I just used to confirm (after the fact, of course) that what I’ve said about Lubos Motl is correct:
absorption site:http://motls.blogspot.com/
(copy and paste into Google’s search field)
The top search return will take you to a representative post on the subject.
“I’m suggesting that you check the work, or at least try.”
“Here’s an example: I’m not a chemist or a physicist, but Lubos Motl at Harvard is.”
Thanks for the last comment. I was having trouble finding who you were refering to as there is no Lubos Motl at Harvard. I’ll have a read to see what he has to say.
My bad. According to Wiki Lubos left Harvard in 2006. I’ve been following his blog on and off since before then, and I missed it when he resigned and returned to Pilsen. Mea culpa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl
@Martin
You’re so right that blind faith in scientists has been proven to be unwise. Nonetheless, shouldn’t some of that healthy skepticism be applied to the temptation to assume that this controversy proves that AGW or “climate change” doesn’t exist?
Jonathan,
Speaking for myself, I’m always skeptical about attempts to prove a negative, regardless of the topic. If Lubos slipped such a claim of proof into his argument then I would disagree with him on that. I don`t recall such a claim. Though you have to admit, that if the argument is that man`s carbon output is solely to blame, and Lubos is right that the effect of carbon is self-limiting and is presently near the upper limit, then it would seem he`s about as close as possible to proving that negative as he could get.
While I have no doubts whatsoever about the existence of climate change, I do doubt the proposition that most of the warming we saw in the twentieth century had a human cause, which is regularly put forward by AGW true believers like James Hansen. I`m not sure what exactly Mr. Hansen`s deal is. On the one hand he`s a respected scientist at a world class facility. On the other hand he`s staked his entire reputation on computer models that have always been iffy, and now appear to have been built using data that was deliberately manipulated to reach a foregone conclusion. My guess, judging by his latest article in the Guardian, is that his real target is First World industry.
I think that for the AGW theorists to move forward they need to concentrate on the greenhouse potential of other gasses. But since carbon dioxide output is so closely related to industry, and industry is the real target, I also doubt we`ll be seeing that change in strategy in the near future.
In any case I would be tempted to completely ignore any argument that said mankind’s activities had no effect on the climate. Of course we affect the world around us. I simply doubt that we`re as inherently destructive as the AGW crowd would have us believe.
Martin,
I was just thinking about your line, “…while the true believers look like dupes.” Granted, a lot of it will depend on how one defines ‘true believers’, but this seems like a stance as definite as that which the ‘true believers’ held.
I’ve been participating in online discussions about AGW and its political and social responses for a few years now. My experience is that there is no rational argument that can be made against AGW for people who believe it’s the primary cause of global climate change. If you point out something they don’t have a prepared reply for (such as, “Hey, all the research you’ve been basing your arguments on looks like it might have been compromised by shady, unscientific practices among the world’s core climate science researchers”) they immediately go to appeals to authority or ad hom attacks, but they don’t step back and consider the idea that the people and the ideals they trust might be wrong after all.
I’m willing to change my mind. If someone can come up with some solid, verifiable evidence for AGW that doesn’t rely on a computer model that some graduate student pulled out of his ass, I’ll sell my vehicles and move into a commune constructed of hay bales.
Until then, the ‘true believers’ are just that in my mind, a bunch of quasi-religious cultists trying to get me to convert by having the loudest voices in the argument. If saying out loud that I think they’re dupes makes me their equal, then so be it, but I know otherwise.
Hi Martin,
It seems we’re not far apart on this. By this definition of “true believer”, you’re right; they were duped.