Climate denial and arrogance

I recently became a bit more active on Twitter (find me at @michaelmeadon) and today I had an argument with one Ivo Vegter (@ivovegter), a South African journalist and, more to the point, climate denialist. Vegter is a staunch critic of climate science and he's penned several columns espousing his views, on Climategate, Copenhagen and one answering his critics (among others). I don't have either the time or the inclination to document all the misconceptions, false statements and fallacies Vegter makes in his columns, but I do want to hold forth on intellectual arrogance and share an analogy I put to him regarding expertise. Vegter, you see, is a journalist: he not only has no training in climate science, he has no scientific training at all. He is, apparently, "reasonably familiar with scientific subjects, and ha[s] read...a great deal on the subject of climate change." (Though this does not include, at least from what I can see, reading the scientific literature like respected science journalists do - c.f. Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong). Oddly, he claims "no particular expertise, nor qualifications to challenge professional scientists on matters of high science" but then does exactly that when taking sides between denialists (often non-climate scientist) and proper climate scientists.

As regular readers will know (I keep reminding you...) I recently wrote a long piece praising intellectual deference. The key premises of my argument there was (1) that the universe is hypercomplicated and (2) that intellectual rigor demands robust epistemic justification before forming an opinion. My conclusion was that, given (1), (2) is extremely difficult to fulfill. Intellectual responsibility, then, demands either agnosticism or deference to expert consensus when (2) is not fulfilled. I think it should be obvious that climate science is in fact preposterously complicated. To make up your own mind, all by yourself, about whether human activities cause global climate change, you would need to understand, at a minimum and as far as this particular non-expert can tell, the relevant physical and chemical processes that happen in the atmosphere and how they change, the history of and variations in climatic conditions, the extent and history of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, and the mathematics that underlie climate models. To form justified opinions about these, in turn, you’d have to know and understand, including all the technical details, a vast body of literature about things like dendroclimatology, meridional overturning circulation, the net radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols, and the quasi-biennial oscillation.

Vegter, as far as I know at least, understands none of the above, let alone at an expert level. Yet he espouses an opinion contrary to scientific consensus. (While there is plenty we don't know, the vast majority of the relevant experts agree climate change is anthropogenic). Without properly understanding the methods of science, he claims, absurdly, that "Climategate" shows there is a warmist conspiracy. He adjudicates arguments between scientists and denialists - usually in favor of the latter. All of this, I think, is irresponsible and arrogant in the extreme. As I pointed out in my deference piece:

It is extraordinarily arrogant to have (independent) opinions on complex questions without being willing to pay your dues first – that is, without studying the question for years, reading the scholarly literature, mastering the relevant techniques and mathematics, and so on. Thinking you are entitled to an opinion without paying your dues is the very epitome of intellectual arrogance. And it is especially arrogant – mind-bogglingly so – for a non-expert to have opinions that contradict the consensus of the tens of thousands of intelligent, diligent and dedicated people who have spent decades studying, debating, doing research on and thinking deeply about their respective disciplines. The bottom line: be an expert, defer, or suspend judgment.

There is, I've noticed, an odd inconsistency in lay arrogance about science. I doubt very much Vegter would grab the knife away from a neurosurgeon and start cutting away himself. I doubt Vegter would tell an engineer she's Doing It Wrong and redraw her plans for a bridge. And yet Vegter seems perfectly willing to yell 'bunkum!', 'conspiracy!' and 'fraud!' when it comes to climate science, despite the fact that the topic is arguably much more complicated and the stakes several orders of magnitude higher. Why not watch MegaStructures on Natural Geographic and start an engineering firm? Why not browse through Gray's Anatomy, read a bit of Oliver Sacks and then branch out to neurosurgery? He's done neither physics nor physiology, but seems willing to advise climate scientists on the strength of his ignorance on the former, but not neurosurgeons on the strength of his ignorance in the latter. Why?

Quotes: Clifford on belief

I posted some quotes from WK Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" a while back. Here are some more. (I'm not saying I endorse all of these - he's far too strong in places. Though, I like the sentiment and the prose is fun). 

"No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe."

"If I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery."

"The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

"'But,' says one, 'I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments.' Then he should have no time to believe."

"It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."

Skeptics' Circle #130

I've not pointed to Skeptics' Circles in a while (naughty, I know). So here's the latest. the 130th edition of the Skeptics' Circle is up over at The Lay Scientist. Posts to check out: Martin on the 10:23 mass homeopathy overdose, Andrea's Buzzing About on the false distinction been 'natural' and 'artificial' chemicals, and Dubito Ergo Sum on Mike Adams' (of the quackery site Natural News) stupid views about skeptics. My contribution to this edition was "In Praise of Deference".

Andreas Moritz is (also) a quack

So I wrote yesterday about one Christopher Maloney, a naturopathy quack. It turns out he was not responsible for getting Michael Hawkins' blog shut down, the villain responsible is Andreas Moritz, a cancer quack. PZ has posted the letter Moritz has sent to Hawkins, in which he threatens to sue for defamation. Yeah, right. Smart move - now the whole internets will be one your case. Streisand effect FTW.

See: Orac's takedown of Moritz, published long before this whole snafu.

Update: Orac has taken on Andreas Moritz again.

Christopher Maloney is a quack

Now this is rather shocking. Wordpress has shut down the blog of a University of Maine student, Michael Hawkins, for having the temerity to criticize a Naturopath quack cancer quack. Luckily, PZ Myers has unleashed the power of the Streisand effect. So let's just be clear. Naturopathy is bullshit. And Christopher Maloney is a quack. And... Shame on Wordpress.

Update: the quack in question has written to PZ Myers to complain, and says it wasn't him who contacted Wordpress to shut down Hawkins' blog. Also: see Steven Novella's take on the incident.

Update 2: Andreas Moritz, a cancer quack, is actually responsible for taking Hawkins' blog down. See this.

Quote: Clifford on the Ethics of Belief

I'm in the process of editing my piece on deferring to experts for publication somewhere (maybe Skeptical Inquirer), so I've been doing a bit more reading in the area. I just remembered William Clifford's famous 1877 essay, "The Ethics of Belief" (a nice pdf version is here). It's well worth a read, if only for its purple prose and hardnosed conclusion: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Another nice quote: 

Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. Then it helps to bind men together, and to strengthen and direct their common action.

It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his beliefs with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.

English Libel Law Reform

I have written repeatedly about the urgent need for England to reform its libel laws (here is why). The Libel Reform Campaign has been doing a great job in pushing this issue onto the agenda, and one good way to help, urged on supporters recently by the long-suffering Simon Singh, is to sign the reform petition. Please do so if you haven't already...

Nature on South African science

Today, February 11th, 2010, is the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela's release from prison. Nature has taken this opportunity to publish two articles about the state of science in South Africa: a news feature entitled "South African science: black, white and grey" and an editorial "South Africa's opportunity".

The news feature by Michael Cherry is the most interesting: it focuses on the funding and educational challenges in South African science. Writes Cherry:

Lack of strong science leadership, a dearth of funds and a series of well-intentioned but poorly executed schemes have left most of those hopes unrealized. In 1994, the Mandela government established a ministry of science, technology, arts and culture; later, under Mandela's successor, Thabo Mbeki, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) split off as a separate ministry. But its spending priorities have been questioned, its efforts to boost student numbers have failed to live up to expectations, and beyond that, many scars of the racially segregated education system remain.

Particular problems identified includes a lack of substantial funding for basic research and too much focus on applied and prestige projects (like SALT and the SKA). Additionally, South Africa has yet to reach its 1% of GDP target for R&D spend, and the system of awarding (meager) block funding in terms of how researchers are 'rated' by the National Research Foundation (NRF) seems rather silly. (It has not helped that the Ministry of Science and Technology has long been handed to minor political partners of the ANC-led government, which meant science lacked influential advocates in government. Luckily, Naledi Pandor, the new minister, is an ANC bigwig).  

The most serious problem, however, is South Africa's dysfunctional education system that is simply not producing enough capable students. Of particular concern is that this problem is especially acute for black students, largely due to a lack of qualified teachers and the legacy of Bantu education (which deliberately provided an inferior education). What is worse, retaining graduates (especially black graduates) is difficult, because more lucrative careers draw them away from academia and research. Cherry sums up these problems, so:

Stark racial differences in participation rates still exist across the board in higher education: in 2006, 59% of white and 42% of Indian 18–24-year-olds — but only 13% of coloureds and 12% of black Africans — were engaged in tertiary education. And although the NRF is justifiably proud that more than half the doctoral students it supported in 2008 were black, it declined to disclose how many of these were in science and engineering. Many black schools in the apartheid era did not offer mathematics and physical science as subjects, initially as a point of policy, and latterly on account of a teacher shortage. But the sad reality is that after almost 16 years of democracy, the proportion of black and white school leavers attaining good enough grades in these subjects to qualify for university courses in science has not risen significantly, in part because efforts to train and recruit schoolteachers in these subjects have failed.

The editorial I referred to above strikes a more positive note and suggests reforms:

However, there is reason for optimism. The South African research community's long alienation from the government, which emanated largely from former president Thabo Mbeki's denialist stand on AIDS, is at last a thing of the past. And in May 2009, newly elected president Jacob Zuma appointed Naledi Pandor as his minister of science and technology. Her role as education minister in the previous cabinet has given Pandor a firm grasp of the problems facing science in South Africa. And because she is the first incumbent at her ministry to be a member of the ruling African National Congress, she has the requisite clout to effect reform.
[...]
The best way to recruit good teachers and academics is by offering much better salaries, decent working conditions and good facilities. But this will require significant financial commitment by the government, as well as cooperation between the departments of education and higher education. Nonetheless, as South Africa emerges from the recession this year, it would be one of the wisest investments Zuma's government could make. Perhaps the National Planning Commission, which is headed by the highly regarded former finance minister Trevor Manuel, could provide a mechanism by which such a huge task might be achieved.

For all of its problems in science, South Africa has a solid and productive core of university-based researchers. And since the end of apartheid, the country's universities have been enriched by significant numbers of students from other African countries. South Africa thus has the potential to become not just a major player on the international research stage, but also a catalyst for the development of science throughout the continent. There is a huge pool of talent waiting to be tapped, and it is up to Zuma, Pandor and other political leaders to put in place the money and systems with which to tap it.