<div id="header"><h1><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/" title="Go to Opinionator Home"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/opinionator/opinionator_print.png" alt="Opinionator - A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web"></a></h1>
<div class="ad"> </div></div><div id="opinionator"><div align="left"><span class="timestamp published" title="2011-07-12T16:01:22+00:00">July 12, 2011, <span>4:01 pm</span></span><h3 class="entry-title">On Experts and Global Warming</h3>
<address class="byline author vcard">By <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/gary-gutting/" class="url fn" title="See all posts by GARY GUTTING">GARY GUTTING</a></address><div class="entry-content"><div class="inlineModule">
<div class="entry categoryDescriptionModule"><p class="summary"><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/">The Stone</a> is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.</p>
</div><div class="entry entryTagsModule"><h4>Tags:</h4><p class="meta tags"><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/anthropogenic-global-warming/" rel="tag">anthropogenic global warming</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/climate-change/" rel="tag">climate change</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/global-warming/" rel="tag">Global Warming</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/plato/" rel="tag">Plato</a>, <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/science/" rel="tag">science</a></p>
</div></div><p><br> <em>The
Stone is featuring occasional posts by Gary Gutting, a professor of
philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, that apply critical thinking
to information and events that have appeared in the news.<br> </em><br>
Experts have always posed a problem for democracies. Plato scorned
democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny,
largely because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to
knowledgeable experts (philosophers, as he saw it). But, if, as we
insist, the people must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can
we, non-experts, take account of expert opinion when it is relevant to
decisions about public policy?</p><div class="w190 right module"><div class="entry"><blockquote>One we accept the expert authority of climate science, we have no basis for supporting the minority position.</blockquote></div>
</div><p>To
answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the
authority of experts. First of all, such appeals require a decision
about who the experts on a given topic are. Until there is agreement
about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our
discussions. Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the
experts about points relevant to our discussion. Precisely because we
are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among
those who are. Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized
experts, we non-experts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the
claim.<br> <br> These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they
have serious consequences. Consider, for example, current discussions
about climate change, specifically about whether there is long-term
global warming caused primarily by human activities (anthropogenic
global warming or A.G.W.). All creditable parties to this debate
recognize a group of experts designated as “climate scientists,” whom
they cite in either support or opposition to their claims about global
warming. In contrast to enterprises such as astrology or homeopathy,
there is no serious objection to the very project of climate science.
The only questions are about the conclusions this project supports about
global warming.</p><p>There is, moreover, no denying that there is a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm">strong consensus</a>
among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view,
human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists
who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of
opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Non-expert
opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a
small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus
view. But non-experts are in no position to argue against the
consensus of expert opinion. As long as they accept the expert
authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for
supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of
climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the
overall consensus of that community, we non-experts have no basis for
concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the
consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the
subject, our judgment has no standing.</p><p>It follows that a
non-expert who wants to reject A.G.W. can do so only by arguing that
climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in
our debates about public policy. There may well be areas of inquiry
(e.g., various sub-disciplines of the social sciences) open to this sort
of critique. But there does not seem to be a promising case against
the scientific authority of climate science. As noted, opponents of the
consensus on global warming themselves argue from results of the
discipline, and there is no reason to think that they would have had any
problem accepting a consensus of climate scientists against global
warming, had this emerged.</p><p>Some non-expert opponents of global
warming have made much of a number of e-mails written and circulated
among a handful of climate scientists that they see as evidence of bias
toward global warming. But unless this group is willing to argue from
this small (and questionable) sample to the general unreliability of
climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative but to accept
the consensus view of climate scientists that <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/gate-fever-breaks/#more-22259">these e-mails do not undermine the core result of global warming</a>.</p><div class="w190 right module">
<div class="entry"> Related <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/">More From The Stone</a><p class="summary">Read previous contributions to this series.</p><ul class="refer"><li><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/">Go to All Posts »</a></li>
</ul></div></div><p>I
am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in
democratic debates. It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s
philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our <em>polis</em>. We the
people still need to decide (perhaps through our elected
representatives) which groups we accept as having cognitive authority in
our policy deliberations. Nor am I denying that there may be a logical
gap between established scientific results and specific policy
decisions. The fact that there is significant global warming due to
human activity does not of itself imply any particular response to this
fact. There remain pressing questions, for example, about the likely
long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions, the more
immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the proper
balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term gains.
Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make
fundamental value judgments, a task that, <em>pace</em> Plato, we cannot turn over to experts.</p><p>The
essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the authority
of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot consistently reject its
conclusions. To adapt Schopenhauer’s famous remark about causality,
science is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we
like. Once we board the train of climate science, there is no
alternative to taking it wherever it may go.</p></div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>