The other day, I mentioned Clive Hamilton’s series of posts on climate change denialism at The Drum. In today’s edition, Hamilton comments:
Indeed, those who study the climate itself rather than the bogus debate in the newspapers and the blogosphere understand that climate science and popular perceptions of climate science are diverging rapidly, not least because the news on the former is getting worse.
Indeed. But there’s something of a perception lurking around here that ’science’ is one thing and ‘politics’ another, which I think is false.
It’s certainly the case that whatever ammunition denialists use against climate science is not itself part of the ’skepticism’ which is said to be integral to the scientific method. Rather than proposing an alternative hypothesis which would better explain the range of observations made, any line of attack is used, no matter how contradictory with others it may be. So, what we have in denialist discourse is all politics, and no science. No scientific method.
It’s important to underline this point. What denialists cannot provide is anything which can approximate to a truth statement. Methodological doubt, Cartesian style, is supposed to be a prelude to the uncovering of a truth, not a rhetorical strategy of dismissal. Climate change skepticism, contrary to the claims of some of its proponents, has absolutely nothing to do with ‘The Enlightenment’. Quite the contrary.
Their other classic move is to hold science itself to an impossible standard. Somehow the findings of climate science have to be unequivocally true. What we actually see, then, in this contre-temps is a debate over what constitutes truth. Statements made by the IPCC, for instance, are couched in terms of Bayesian probabilities, rather than ‘predictions’. It’s the same form of statement as with genetic predispositions individuals may have to particular diseases; having such a predisposition does not imply that one will necessarily develop the disease. Probability is not destiny or fate. But probabilities of 90%, as in the IPCC’s Fourth Report, are very strong indeed.
But asking science to articulate truth, if truth is understood as incontrovertible knowledge, is asking it to do something it cannot do.
Continue reading ‘What is truth?’
Recent comments
BilB, Gummo Trotsky
Pavlov's Cat, Mercurius, Casey, anthony nolan, tigtog, desipis [...]
Zorronsky, Lefty E, Sam, PinkyOz, Jacques de Molay, Pavlov's Cat [...]
Nickws, joe2, joe2, Mark, Mark, Ag [...]
David Irving (no relation), Mark, Mark, Pavlov's Cat, Lefty E, joe2 [...]
Guido, pablo, Saint Furious of Ikea, Salient Green, Lefty E, ewe2 [...]
Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan, joe2 [...]
BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter, Vanessa, Vanessa [...]
Casey, Liam, anthony nolan, pablo, Ute Man, Col. Douglas C. Niedermeyer [...]
Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V., armagny, sg, Robert Merkel [...]
josh, Gummo Trotsky, Wood Duck, joe2, tssk, joe2 [...]
Fran Barlow, Jacques Chester, John D, HuggyBunny, Chris, Tim Macknay [...]