My point exactly Ben. Models are not theory or data, but they are excellent
ways of understanding theory and data. Bush (the first) had an Ph.D.
engineer for chief of staff. Can't remember his name to save me live at the
moment. Anyway he convinced Bush that the models of global warming were
flawed. Well, all models are flawed in some way, so what? Anyway, Bush used
this argument over the model to stop all global warming policy. I can't say
why the Clinton administration failed to take action, or maybe they did and
I'm just not aware of it.
I don't think we disagree about the basic nature of models. I've constructed
more than a few in my life. Perhaps we disagree in how much strength to give
a model in policy formulation.
In the case of global warming, I have strong doubts about the science, but
no doubt that we need to have a very active policy in regards global
warming. Is that contradictory? I don't think so. I have doubts about all
sorts of things that need effective policy anyway.
Steven
To say that "I will not be free till all
humans (or sentient creatures) are free" is
simply to cave in to a kind of nirvana-
stupor, to abdicate our humanity, to define
ourselves as losers.
Hakim Bey
The Temporary Autonomous Zone, 1985
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Benjamin S Hale
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 10:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Models of global warming
> I'd particularly like to draw the lists attention to the final quote from
> Dr. Lidzen. Much of the debate about global warming has been over the
nature
> of models. In fact George Bush's decision for the US to not develop a
global
> warming policy was largely due to his advisors dislike of the models. As
Dr.
> Lidzen points out, models are not proof one way or another of anything,
they
> are merely heuristics to help understand the data.
>
> Steven
Funny, this. We use models in many areas of science, most of which aren't
challenged as ferociously as our models on global warming.
My grandfather is a rather well renowned epidemiologist (Nathan Mantel,
for epidemiology buffs), and we've spoken numerous times about models and
predictability. He would argue (to the agreement of numerous
non-epidemiologists, I think) that epidemiological models can often
provide quite accurate information about the spread of disease, causal
effects of disease, and so on. He would also argue that these models
provide strong arguments to suggest that a particular pathogen (for
instance) is the cause, over other possible causes, of some ailment. In
response to the epidemiological determination of these possible causes,
many responsible people in government and in business begin the laborious
process of redirecting our public policies and our future research. This
only to say that epidemiological models provide important information for
us, humans, when we make determinations about what is causing what in whom
and where.
My grandfather would also argue, and I think this pertinent here, that
these models are nowhere near perfect, and that they should, in no sense,
be considered proof that something is the cause of something else. His
position closely resembles that reflected in the statement of the
meteorologist Dr. Lidzen, who suggests that the global warming model
should not be considered "proof".
The wrong way to interpret these statements would be to suggest that
because the models cannot in any way provide "proof", means that they're
disregardable, useless, flawed, wrong, etc... The right way, it seems to
me, would be to interpret these statements as suggesting that while any
model of any complex system is never going to provide "proof" of anything
(in the strict Popperian sense of the term), these models nevertheless
provide "extraordinarily compelling evidence" of X, Y, or Z.
If Bush and his advisors want to disregard the models because they deem
the models to be flawed and not "proof" enough, I would first (a) question
political motivations (because sometimes attacks against the person are
not ad hominem fallacies -- particulary when political and monied
interests come into play); (b) suggest that Bush and his advisors provide
some other, equally compelling model to explain these radical temperature
fluctuations; and then, (c) ask the Bush team to provide a compelling
argument as to why, when predictions are so dramatic, we can afford _NOT_
to pay attention to data suggestive of such global warming.
PS: I'll ask again...is anyone going to the APA who would like to meet or
grab a beer or coffee?
Ben Hale
Philosophy Department
SUNY at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY
|