
Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science - lucabenazzi
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/dan-rather-now-more-than-ever-we-must-stand-up-for-science/
======
CWuestefeld
These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the
ongoing chant is getting really tiresome.

Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in
how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about
that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands
filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective values as a
society. Those values are fluid, and very frequently in controversy. It seems
like the demands to "follow science" are an attempt to sweep some of that
controversy under the carpet.

In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit
analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing
something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the
case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the
conversation)

It pops up in other cases, too. Virtually every economist will tell you that
free trade is almost always a net positive for all involved. It harms a few,
but on net the entire society is much better off. If we stopped with the
science, then we should remove all tariffs and be done with it. But before we
do so, there's still a moral question to be resolved: if a few people are
paying the price to improve our overall economy, do we owe any debt to them,
to make them whole afterwards?

So stop pretending that a lack of the policy you want demonstrates that we're
scientifically illiterate. Instead, recognize that the science can only inform
our debate over the values.

~~~
tzs
> In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit
> analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing
> something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the
> case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the
> conversation)

In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis
part of the conversation because some people (including the presedint-elect,
and important members of the majority party in Congress who lead the
committees that where climate action would originate) say that climate change
is not happening, or that if it is happening humans are not contributing to it
and cannot do anything about it.

~~~
gwright
I hear this a lot and feel like it is a muddled response to a muddled
understanding of climate change.

For what it is worth:

    
    
        * Science is clear that CO2 causes warming (pure physics), but so do many other gases (methane, water vapor, etc).
        * Science is clear that global temperatures are rising (even if you quibble about the 'pause')
        * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity.
        * Science isn't clear on how much and how fast temperatures might rise.
        * Science isn't clear on how to model the climate. Climate models have incorporated a net positive sensitivity to CO2 warming and make predictions that have exceeded actual temperature gains. So the models are not accurately predicting the climate.
        * Science isn't going to provide a definitive policy response to increased temperatures. There are many options.
    

In particular, the warming due to CO2 physics is _NOT_ the catastrophic
warming that we see reported in the news. That warming is based on climate
models incorporating a large positive sensitivity to the CO2 warming (as well
as many other factors). The models are not "settled science". The actual
sensitivity is not something that can be measured with today's scientific
understanding of complex climate systems.

Even if the climate models were making correct predictions. It doesn't
automatically follow that the policy solution is to reduce CO2 emissions to 0.
The costs of clean energy have to be borne by someone and cutting off energy
supplies (because energy is more expensive) to developing economies, for
example, also has consequences. The negative affects of warming can be
mitigated also via relocating people, communities, and changing our land-use
patterns, etc. The correct policy mix is going to depend on many factors, most
of which are going to vary from place to place. A single global policy
proscription isn't likely to be feasible for lots of reasons.

Finally, criticism of policy proscriptions shouldn't automatically be
interpreted and characterized as rejecting the climate change hypothesis. In
many cases there are argument for or against policy proscriptions that aren't
even related to climate change, such as improving air quality, increasing the
efficiency of our energy systems, using market based approaches to avoid crony
capitalism and favored industries, and so on.

~~~
alecst
Can you elaborate on this part?

    
    
        * Science isn't clear regarding what part of global temperature rise is due to human activity.
    

I just want to contrast the above with this statement by the IPCC [1]:

"Human influence has been detected and attributed in warming of the atmosphere
and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and
ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and has been extremely likely been the
dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid century. In recent
decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems
on all continents and across the oceans."

[1] [https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/drafts/SYR...](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/drafts/SYR_FOD_Final.pdf)

~~~
nonbel
>"[human activity] has been extremely likely been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid century."

This is worded strangely so that it doesn't mean anything. Of course human
activity has been the dominant cause of humans observing something. Why don't
they say CO2 emitted by human-made machines or something more specific?

~~~
alecst
That reply doesn't address my original comment, but the IPCC do say just that
-- although not in that paragraph. You will find statements all over the IPCC
about how climate change is nearly certain to be caused by people, and in
particular, by people burning fossil fuels. If you go to the link I posted and
search for "fossil" you will that in those notes. You can also read the
official IPCC reports yourself to get a clearer idea.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there's no anthropic principle at work. It
would be perfectly fine to say (although it would not be true) that "plasma
fluctuations on the surface of the sun are extremely likely to be the dominant
cause of observed warming since the mid century."

~~~
nonbel
I was just commenting on the strange word choice used for that statement.
Almost like whoever was editing that section wanted a way to weasel out of the
implications later, if need be.

------
treehau5
Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of
science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal
or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have
empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought
unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle
America sees as destructive to families and local economies. Additionally,
there is growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or
conservative ideals in our universities. This is unacceptable. (This is a
great article on the matter
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessio...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-
of-liberal-intolerance.html))

In short, we need to stop treating that being "scientific" and "liberal" go
hand-in-hand. They don't.

To quote the great Serj Tankian:

 _Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human
existence_

~~~
veidr
> _growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or
> conservative ideals_

Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm,
that other thing...

~~~
mordocai
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people
thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work.

Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.

~~~
gbrs
Doesn't that depend on the religion though? Like evangelicals don't think
human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation. I
think most people will accept the evidence as long as it doesn't go against
some of their core beliefs (which can be expanded beyond religion). It's just
that for a lot of scientific discoveries there is at least one group that
refuses to accept it.

~~~
treehau5
> Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because
> humans can't alter gods creation

Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical
literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't
representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the
problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some
type of scientific discovery incompatible with my faith -- how silly would
this be regardless. If science is true observation of God's earth, and God is
indeed the creator of all, the contradictions only arise when we use flawed
logic or reasoning (for example -- biblical literalism and mis-
interpretation). The problem is, as I mentioned, when we use science as
political tools, or to draw vague conclusions or hasty generalizations.

Side note: evangelicalism, while being the loudest and most representative
form of Christianity in the states, doesn't even crack the top 10 of largest
denomination of Christians in the world. Catholic is first, Eastern Orthodoxy
is second, then the various Protestant denominations are all after.

~~~
nyolfen
not even top 10? there are 280 million pentecostals _alone_ in the world and
roughly the same number of eastern orthodox christians:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)

~~~
treehau5
Pentecostalism is as about as a specific term as "christianity" or
"monotheism" or "paganism" comes when it comes down to actual beliefs,
practice of worship, doctrines, etc. The largest of those groups, "Assemblies
of God" defer in key areas of doctrine, faith, and worship from the next 8 or
so on that list. You may argue the differences aren't worth the seperation,
but consider even in the American Protestant landscape -- even the
Presbyterian Church, which is a specific kind of Protestant is heavily
fractured between it's more liberal wing, the PC-USA, and it's more
conservative group, the PCA. Baptists not apart of the Southern Baptist
Convention differ heavily from those not a part of the SBC. Methodists and
Lutherans face similar key distinctions. If all of these groups were united in
belief, practice, doctrine, and key tenants of the faith, I would agree with
your statement, however this is not the case.

------
lordnacho
I heard the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence, does not believe in
evolution. In fact there's a video of him, admittedly a long while ago now,
making a speech where he seems to not understand what the scientific meaning
of "theory" is.

Are people not concerned about this at all? People in high positions ought to
know basic things about how science functions, yet as the article points out,
barely a word was said about science.

As a European, I think if someone went on a show like Question Time (a UK live
debate show) and revealed they didn't believe in evolution, they would be
finished in politics. And there would be even more mockery if they said they
thought the earth was 6000 years old (though I don't know if Pence believes
that).

~~~
tbskm
There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't
believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific
fact.

Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these
views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a
conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all
regurgitate the same things they hear from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones,
Breitbart, and other conservative sources, which, for whatever reason, seem to
hold a lot of scientific things in contempt.

They're ignorant, sure, but it's hard to see things from another perspective
if you've never really been exposed to anything else.

~~~
notdonspaulding

        > They're ignorant, sure, but it's hard to see things 
        > from another perspective if you've never really been 
        > exposed to anything else.
    

Are you sure they're ignorant?

Could they not be intelligent, rational individuals with the personal agency
to have looked at the same facts as you and come up with different
conclusions?

~~~
kstrauser
Not on that subject, no. It's not reasonably possible for a person to look at
the known facts of modern biology and not believe in the process of evolution.

Things intelligent, well-read people can disagree on: fiscal policy; democracy
versus republic; abortion rights; single-payer healthcare.

Things so overwhelmingly shown to be factually true that it's not a sign of
reasonableness to debate them: Earth and life are old; vaccines don't cause
autism.

------
nonbel
The impression that schools and media gives of how "science" is being
implemented these days is inaccurate enough that I would call it propaganda.
The reality is that the research literature is filled with over 90% junk, and
a small percent of value, just like everything else.

The funding and publication system is set up to force this junk percentage as
high as the public will tolerate, so I do not think this "positive-spin" type
of propaganda is a good thing.

~~~
Angostura
> The reality is that the research literature is filled with over 90% jun

Based on what? There is a problem of non-replicated papers - but where exactly
are you getting your claim of 9 out of 10 - particularly in high quality
journals?

~~~
nonbel
Personal experience. It is great that the replication issue is getting
attention, but really that is a minor aspect of the problem. Producing
reproducible reports of your research is supposed to be the easy part... The
real difficulty is how results are interpreted.

What I was taught to do (along with basically my entire worldwide cohort of
research colleagues) is test a "null hypothesis" rather than my hypothesis.
Then when the null hypothesis was deemed to be inconsistent with the data, I
was supposed to conclude my hypothesis was supported, with at most some hand-
waving about other explanations.

A crucial part of scientific research is distinguishing between different
explanations for the results, and this is almost never found (at least for
fields like medicine, psych, etc). If we can get the public eye to look behind
that curtain, oh man...

------
r_smart
Most of the comments here are focused on climate change denial and smattering
of evolution denial. It often gets painted that science denial (and evolution
denial) is something that conservatives do, that liberals are the tribe of
science.

Here's a link to a talk from Jon Haidt that puts a different perspective on
that [0]. I don't want to do his eloquence a disservice, but suffice to say,
every group has their own flavors of science denial. The discourse just seems
to mostly focus on calling out the conservative forms of it while ignoring the
liberal forms.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0)

------
simosx
Understanding science requires some scientific mindset.

The climate scientists talk about 1 degree Celsius increase in global
temperatures and some react with "I am fine if the temperature would increase
by a degree Fahrenheit".

Instead, what a person should realise is that an increase in global
temperature of a mere 1C is shorthand to trillions of trillions of Joules
(energy).

------
melling
Funny, today on the Drudge Report, I read that we've had record cooling in the
past 8 months.

[http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-
cooling-...](http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-over-
the-last-eight-months/)

There's a large online anti-global warming movement that needs to be
addressed. Actually, there's an anti-everyhing movement (e.g vaccines). The
general public is not going to know who to believe.

Do more people read Drudge or Scientific American?

~~~
qntty
What we need not better debate, but better dogma. It shouldn't be necessary to
argue that climate change is real every time the topic comes up. Just like we
dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer, we should dogmatically
accept that climate change is happening and it's caused by us. The science
that establishes this fact is far beyond anything that the general public
should be expected to understand. I don't understand the first thing about
lung cancer, yet it doesn't bother me to accept that cigarettes cause cancer.
The general public needs to be comfortable accepting this fact without proof.
The world is too complex for everyone to understand every issue.

~~~
nonbel
>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer"

The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", _everything_
seems to "cause" cancer:

>"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the
toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic
or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals
would be expected to be carcinogens at high doses; the MTD may not be reached
(101) or the chemical may be toxic without causing cell killing or
mitogenesis."
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/)

There is value in having a nuanced understanding. For example, just as a kind
of random additional fact, did you realize lung cancer is a pretty common
diagnosis even amongst non-smokers? "if lung cancer in non-smokers had its own
separate category, it would rank among the top 10 fatal cancers in the United
States." [http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-
cancer-s...](http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-cancer-
strikes-nonsmokers)

What about the reports that the most common time for smokers to be diagnosed
with lung cancer is right after quitting: "Several reports indicate that the
risk of lung cancer increases slightly for a short period of time after
cessation of smoking while the risk of adverse cardiovascular events drops
immediately." [http://www.medical-
hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%29...](http://www.medical-
hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%2900170-2/abstract)

~~~
intended
How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with
anti-science in public discourse.

I ask because while I think its an _awful_ conclusion, I've seen and
experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal
from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized
to what we see today.

The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication problem -
because science has been _DESPERATELY_ trying to do that in whatever fair and
logical manner they can.

It's been met by concerted efforts to confuse, muddle, emotionalize, subvert,
defund, ridicule, and physically attack people on what used to be "boring nerd
territory".

This is a political/emotional problem, and for that, isn't dogma a horrid but
simplistic solution.

~~~
nonbel
>"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse."

You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still
know about the book 1984?

~~~
intended
No I don't.

I am well aware of 1984, and I am also keenly aware that many people seem to
be applying it like a manual as opposed to a warning.

Its easy to tell me, a random person who mentions that he thinks its a horrid
solution, "remember 1984". I am already on this site, and already disposed to
that vein of thought.

Its not that effective at countering, or dealing with people who are not here,
some of whom are coders who have never read those books, or think the books
are over hyped.

------
jwatte
It is said that, in a war of ideology, you cannot bring facts. But, what if
facts are your ideology? This is the conundrum we're facing.

------
touleier
Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going
to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your
kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with
character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth
teller". Indeed. Here is the full report.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf)

~~~
Retric
Please take your
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
somewhere else, it only suggests ignorance on your part.

~~~
touleier
"suggests ignorance" == ad hominem. Rather is a discredited hack. Get a clue.

~~~
Retric
I don't care if he is insane, who he is says nothing about his message. At
most a speaker simply calls into question the evidence they are using to
support an idea, not the idea.

