Andrew Sullivan’s Amazing Intellect Falls Prey to Bush-Think
Posted on February 3, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!
On the eve of his move to the more prestigious Atlantic Monthly, conservative standard bearer undermines scientific standards in defense of AEI
The basics: Exxon-funded American Enterprise Insttiute (AEI, in acronym-speak) offered $10k to scientists to write papers that refute the proposition that human activity causes global warming.
More basics: Legitimate science does not start with the desired conclusion and seek evidence in its support, filtering out all evidence to the contrary.
The only very slightly gray area: In the process of interpreting the evidence scientists find, they’ll propose a “conclusion,” that is, a hypothesis, which is then tested against variables and missing data, seeking both to prove and disprove the validity of their hypothesis. At this stage of inquiry a scientist worth her salt does not prejudice the outcome by valuing one result over the other. I learned this in 10th grade science in an underperforming school.
This is where Exxon, AEI, the administration, and now, seemingly, Mr. Sullivan, are trying to confuse people. In their rhetoric, they treat the search for, not evidence, but arguments, against “climate change” (codespeak for global warming) as if these are the kind of neutral test of hypothesis a scientist does.
First, the inquiry is not neutral. There are big bucks at stake for Big Oil, AEI, and their political payees. Second, Global warming is WAY beyond the hypothesis stage.
The next stage in legitimate scientific inquiry is theory. This is where the science on global warming now stands. Republicans and those who own them try to obfuscate the concept of theory.
Try this: “It is my theory the sun will rise tomorrow.” Do I know this? Well sunrise is dependent on the rotation of the earth as well as many other near-constants. It is also subject to variables. What if an asteroid strikes the Earth overnight? There’s a variable. How likely is that? So my theory that tomorrow will come like any other day, feels a lot like fact. There’s a lot of support, evidence, for my theory.
The obfuscators try and confuse people by treating theory as mere hypothesis.
The theoretical has already stood up to rigorous scientific tests. Scientists of good integrity don’t actually seek facts. They seek all of the above—evidence, hypothesis—the whole scientific method. The end product of science is not fact, it’s theory. Facts are for the arrogant and close-minded.
All this is to say, the support for global warming as theory is rather strong. Science is always open to new evidence, but the introduction of minor conflicting data points does not negate the preponderance of data that support the theory, new data supports new inquiry; that is all. The rest of the story is that the efforts of AEI and Exxon smell of dishonesty, or at the very least truly bad science.
What did Andrew Sullivan do to earn a headline? It’s the man bites dog thing, isn’t it? Bush, AEI, and Exxon are expected to behave in a certain way. The unexpected is worth a comment or two. I’m generally impressed with Sullivan’s ability to cut through the BS and find what’s real. I know he is ideological, but liked to believe he valued truth over partisanship.
In response to one writer he calls an hysteric Sullivan writes:
He sounds like a member of the curia, not a scientist. There’s something creepy about the notion that a scientific report must not be subject to scientific criticism, regardless of how it’s funded. If the studies are flawed, attack the studies. It is as if climate change has become a doctrine to be defended rather than a hypothesis to be debated.
The errors, overlooking the choice of “hysteric,” are that the criticism being sought was not scientific. Again, you don’t start with the conclusion. More shocking is the misuse of “hypothesis.” The science is reaching maturity and something near consensus. These “errors” sound like the tricks the administration employs in its misinformation machine. I did think better of Sullivan.
Sphere ItComments
2 Responses to “Andrew Sullivan’s Amazing Intellect Falls Prey to Bush-Think”
Leave a Reply
Andrew Sullivan’s Amazing Intellect Falls Prey to Bush-Think…
The basics: Exxon-funded American Enterprise Insttiute (AEI, in acronym-speak) offered $10k to scientists to write papers that refute the proposition that human activity causes global warming. More basics: Legitimate science does not start with the des…
Since when does anyone take what Andrew Sullivan says seriously anyway?