SansPretense

I just got back from a scientific meeting, and felt the need to reply to someone else’s post…

Alex Lockwood has linked to my previous post titled Limits to Free Speech, and has given a pretty thoughtful analysis of why free speech should be regulated. Of course, I disagree with him, and I’d like to provide a rebuttal.

Alex’s post is in the context of censoring the climate change debate. For the record, I am a climate change “skeptic” as the label goes. That’s not to say that I don’t believe the climate of the earth is changing. I just question the “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” claim that man is the primary factor behind changes that have been going on in very drastic ways for 5 billion years. Now, I’m not a climatologist, and, as a scientist (PhD candidate), I do appreciate the subtleties that one outside of a field may not appreciate as regard to the data and models. However, when I look at the data, I see a much closer link between solar activity and temperature variability than I do carbon dioxide levels and temperature variability. I won’t expand on that here, for it’s not the purpose of this post. All I will say is that if I and a bunch of non-climate experts were the only ones seeing such a link, I would dismiss it to my own ignorance. It’s the fact that many climatologists have come out to say the same things, among other facts like global warming in locations that have had very little human activity present there…you know, remote places like Jupiter, Pluto, Mars, a moon around Neptune, etc…I don’t feel like looking up the links now, but if you want the links to the news stories about these things, please say so in the comments and I will be happy to provide.

Here’s an excerpt from Alex (more after the fold):

If the science is beyond reasonable doubt, and miscommunication and denial leads to damaging inaction, should it not be censored? Beyond reasonable doubt is all we need to put someone in prison, or in the US, put them to death.

This issue of censorship is complex. If you shut it up, does it go away? No.

However, Perhaps more importantly is the question. Where do we draw the line between the different gradations of skepticism…

…

I’m an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views. Either way, while I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.” A body which can also say to me, and to James Hansen, and to the IPCC, the same.

(Which is of course peer-review in the academic/scientific world. Why is it not trusted?)

According to Alex’s suggestion, what I just wrote above, without the relevant links, could lead me to be taken to a court of law and forced to provide the evidence for my facts. If for some reason, the sites that I found those stories are also censored, there very well could be a chain reaction of litigation. In this case, since the stories came from prominent sources like LiveScience.com, it unlikely that the source would disappear, but nonetheless, so much of the information that comes from the blogosphere comes from amateur reporting by bloggers who know a little too much about Photoshop or pay a little too much attention to details (ask for links later for concrete examples, such as the photoshopping of smoke on several occassions in pictures posted by the MSM). What happens if someone decides to force these bloggers to prove something that is a matter of personal interpretation? Even if the evidence is on that blogger’s side, proving beyond a reasonable doubt is usually impossible in any situation – just ask the Canuck 6. Even capital murder cases get litigated on for decades about whether the reasonable doubt exists.

Furthermore, what if the people who I cite are “proven” (legally) wrong? Are they then held accountable? Am I for linking to them? Sure, we can legislate safety nets into the system, but undoubtedly, someone will find a legal loophole.

And how do we prove something true beyond a reasonable doubt? Is that really the case with climate change? In 1687, Isaac Newton published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which was considered, after 200 years of successfully explaining and standing up to the intense scrutiny of experimentation, was considered “proven beyond reasonable doubt.” Furthermore, one of the centerpieces of classical physics, Galilean Invariance, having been successfully tested, well-thought out, and philosophically and mathematically sound, was considered infallible as well. These concepts are the foundations for explaining phenomena we see everyday in our existence. Yet, starting in 1905, Albert Einstein, in an effort to explain some strange and surprising experimental results of an experiment that was designed to put one of final bricks on top of the physics pyramid (as physics was just about considered a “done” thing – proven beyond a reasonable doubt), completely ripped up the foundation of the pyramid by replacing Galilean invariance and Newtonian physics with Relativity.

There is no such thing as a scientific model being “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” That applies equally well to climate change and even evolution. (Don’t get too excited Creationists and Intelligent Designers – evolution is still on completely solid ground and your arguments are still inadequate, wrong, illogical, and full of shit…no offense)

Censoring the “skeptics”, even when said “deniers” are hindering the majority view from completely screwing up the global economies in the name of an un-proven “science” is setting a horrible precedent that WILL (not “could”) do irreparable harm to scientific research. Science HAS to allow dissent and competing (scientific) theories in order for it to grow. We are already facing issues with scientists losing funding for studies that disagree with the “consensus” on climate change – which happens to be a growing body of research AGAINST the claims of the IPCC report.

Speaking of which. to answer the question about not trusting the IPCC: it’s a politically charged and biased committee, as has been reported by scientists who participated in the proceedings (not posting a link out of principle – but will on request). But even if it wasn’t, scientists are always questioning the peer-reviewed papers of other scientists. That’s what makes science work. One doesn’t have to agree with the paper/report just because it was peer-reviewed. Very often I hear colleagues disagreeing with works published in some of the most prominent journals – Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters. It doesn’t matter that the work was peer-reviewed. Skepticism drives experimentation, which, in turn, helps verify the theory or condemn it. Peer-reviewed articles are still subjected to the politics and other biases of the researchers and reviewers (lots of papers get published due in part to the micro-politics within a field).

I consider myself a “free-speecher” above and beyond the notion of a “global warming skeptic.” I am very much open to the strong possibility that I am wrong on that issue. Free-speech censorship, even under the disguise of regulation designed to “balance freedoms”, is, at its heart, an effort not to censor harmful language, but to control how individuals think. That’s not morally justifiable. The real answer to the issue is to promote the dialogue and not try to bury it.

Self-regulation, on the otherhand, is very effective. Whenever a prominent blogger or authority figure posts wrong information, he/she is usually quickly found out and the misinformation corrected when the community gets involved. If a central authority or micro-authorities are ever given the “job” of controlling information (the first step in controlling society – see the Chinese for example), it generally leads to less fact checking by the community at large. The end result is less accuracy rather than more (see the many examples of how inaccurate information gets passed along via the MSM because people trust that there is fact checking being done). Instead of working towards censorship of ideas that go against the majority opinion by forcing the writer to be able to provide “proof” on demand, it should come down to the community doing their homework before passing judgement one way or the other. There’s nothing wrong with demanding a person cite their sources, but making it “regulation, law, or influence” is asking for trouble.

The free-exchange of ideas on the open market of human thought is the best way to win any argument or make any changes to society, for it is only then that the “consensus” is real and not forced by tyrannical elements.