The Will to Believe in Global Warming

In his justly famous essay, "The Will to Believe", William James argued that we believe scientific ideas for the same reason that we do or do not believe religious ideas: because we invest them with prestige. We believe as our passions direct us to believe, and our passions depend on what kind of people we want to be and what groups of people we want to be a part of. James' point was that religious beliefs were no less rational than scientific ones and so one could, as he apparently did, reasonably subscribe to both.

I think that James' analysis of belief is incomplete. One may want to know the truth about the nature of things even if that truth puts one at odds with everyone; and if the desire for truth is nonetheless a passion, it is a passion that can resist the desire for prestige and self-esteem.

Still, there is a great deal of truth to what James says. To put it mildly, most liberals are strongly inclined to believe in global warming and most conservatives are strongly inclined to be skeptical. No doubt folks on both sides were swayed by their social and political passions. I alone seem to be perfectly unmoved by anything other than the truth. If you believe that, I have this bridge…

I have had no trouble believing that the world warmed measurably since the end of the 19^th century. I am not convinced that human activity is a significant cause, though I regard this as what James would call a "live hypothesis." I am doubtful that models of climate change are really very reliable, and I have new reason to doubt. A study published in the prestigious journal Science suggests that global warming may be less severe than previously estimated. Here's the abstract:

Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.

Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a rise in temperature between 2 and 4.5⁰ C, the new study predicts a lower range of 1.7 to 2.6°C. The lower range is significant, but not catastrophic.

Ron Bailey at Reason does an excellent job of explaining how the new study was conducted and he provides all the proper caveats. Here is my list of the latter. It's just one study, and needs to be confirmed. It involves a different estimate of how cold it was during the Last Glacial Maximum than the IPCC numbers were based on. It is an awesome task to include all the feedback mechanisms which any reliable project must (but cannot) include.

Contrary to William James, science does provide a real corrective to our will to believe. In accord with James, our will to believe is still a powerful factor in our judgment of science and everything else. I certainly don't know what the climate will do over the next century and I am sure that no one else knows.

I have a pretty good idea what will be possible politically over the next several decades. We (I mean the global "we") just aren't going to hobble our economic growth on the basis of these kinds of studies. Climate science will continue to have a marginal effect on politics. Nothing we do will have an appreciable effect on our global carbon footprint. Maybe this is a great tragedy in the making, but believing that or wanting to believe it makes no difference.

The German Environment Minister believes that "Our Lifestyle Has Revolved Around a Dangerous Egotism." Does he believe this because of what he thinks he knows about climate change, or is it the other way round? I am inclined to side with James on that one.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

Maybe another factor comes into play in situations like this: Scientists can grow attached to their theories, emotionally attached, to the point that giving a theory up compares with letting a child go or accepting the death of a spouse ...

One might consider the Big Bang Theory or Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I haven't followed recent trends, but when I attended college in the 1970s, speaking against either of these theories amounted to "secular heresy."

To this day I question the Big Bang Theory, but my interest in cosmology has waned in favor of a greater interest in electronics engineering and pure mathematics, so I haven't pursued the matter with professors.

I wrote a little book on the basics of Relativity Theory in the early 1980s, and you can still sometimes find it in book stores (those few that remain); to this day I get occasional queries from readers asking me to examine their arguments against Einstein's theories. I tell them only that I'm not really qualified to refute Einstein, but go on to encourage the readers to look for truth in their own ways, just as Einstein did.

Where am I going here? Well, scientists are humans, not Vulcans, and they can wax irrational about even the most logic-based of theories, especially when they have spent years formulating and re-formulating to arrive at something. I remain convinced in any case that the truth is what it is, and has no connection or respect with our beliefs.

Our job as scientists is to find the truth no matter whether we're Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Communist.

If a theory turns out not to fit the facts, then the scientists must, if she's logical, reject the theory and start over, or at least modify it. But alas, as often as not, a scientist will cling to a dying theory even as it sinks to the bottom of the sea of knowledge, and might even attack anyone who dares to refute her.

Either we humans are contributing to global warming, or we are not; if we are, we can either effectively do something about it or else we can't. What I believe does not matter one iota. Nor does it matter what John Boehner or Newt Gingrich or Al Gore or Barack Obama believe.

As to what we should do, if anything, if we finally discover that global warming is real, that it's more bad than good, and that we can do something about it ... That's up to the whole of humanity. I will conclude with this opinion: We will do nothing unless and until the earth turns on us, and then, when it does, we will simply go ahead and die.

[larry kurtz]

The UN should have the resources to intercede then punish countries for ecocide:

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/what_if_ecocide_was_a_punishable_crime_uk_mock_trial_to_find_out

[Bill Fleming]

Spoken like the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island... because hey, what the hell. We need to make some rollers to move that last big rock over here.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: spoken like a man who doesn't bother to learn that a theory has been discredited because, hey, it fits in with his favorite story line. Thanks for illustrating my point.

[Jimi]

"if we finally discover that global warming is real"

The question isn't whether Global Warming is real. The data has always suggested that Global Warming is real, as it also has suggested that Global Cooling is real. The question is what causes it.

[duggersd]

Bill, you sexist you, how do you know it was a man?

[Dave]

Like so many frogs swimming in a pot of water on the stove, it all seems perfectly natural. They wont even try and get out...

[Donald Pay]

Being skeptical of established facts is not an indication of anything but foolishness, ignorance or the worst kind of shilling. The cited study actually supports the contention that increasing carbon dioxide levels will increase average temperatures, and it is within the range, though a bit lower than, some other studies.

[Ken Blanchard]

Dave: the frog analogy can support any alarmist thesis for which evidence is lacking. Beware zombies!

Donald: That might be true if there were any such thing as "established facts" in science. Almost by definition, every major scientific advance was a result of someone who became skeptical of something that everyone else regarded as an established fact. The speed of light as a maximum limit on velocity was about as established as anything can possibly be; yet, it now seems that the fact has been disestablished.

Yes, the study cited predicts an increase in temperatures, but one which is rather more modest. That matters if the only way to prevent it is to hobble the world's economies. If, as I have argued, we aren't going to do the latter, maybe we ought to concentrate on what we can do.

Both you and Dave want to condemn any dissent as heretical. Thanks for reinforcing my general point.

[Dave]

I do NOT condemn dissent! It is however quite ironic that you refer to your opposition in this debate as "zombies"...

[Donald Pay]

Science recognizes facts, and established facts. Facts are objective and verifiable observations, often consisting of sets of data. Established facts are those objective and verifiable observations that have been confirmed by other scientists through one of any number of methods.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: again, I must disagree. Science is not about "facts", established, or otherwise. It is about data, hypotheses, models, and theories. All of these are subject to correction or revision or rejection, respectively, at any time.

Your recourse to "established facts" is in fact just an attempt to choke off dissent. I feel your pain. Science does not.

[Donald Pay]

You seem to be rather cavalier in your definitions. Science is essentially a conservative enterprise, which requires established facts and generally, if tentatively, accepted theories. If every scientist is allowed his or her own sets of facts, science can't progress. That doesn't mean that data and theories can't be questioned. They had better be. It does mean that any such questioning must be done with a set of facts or theories that better explain observable phenomena. If people are just dissenting because they get a grant from the fossil fuel industry to allow them to cite some bs study, that's not science; it's public relations.

[Ken Blanchard]

Yes, Donald. And if people are just defending the orthodoxy because it fits their political agenda, that's just as bad. You find it very easy to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must do so not out of honest motives but out of corruption. I have absolutely no connection to "the fossil fuel industry." I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Donald Pay]

KB, you may have no connection to the fossil fuel industry, but the studies and sources the deniers rely on are virtual subsidiaries of the fossil fuel industry. You get nearly all of your information from them.