Item — HN Reader

I think this is exactly Bret's point that he makes in the essay. Citizens aren't empowered to find out for themselves and are instead asks to trust smart people:

"And why trust them? Their rhetoric is catchy, but so is the horrific “denialist” rhetoric from the Cato Institute and similar. When the discussion is at the level of “trust me, I’m a scientist” and “look at the poor polar bears”, it becomes a matter of emotional appeal and faith, a form of religion.

Climate change is too important for us to operate on faith. Citizens need and deserve reading material which shows context — how significant suggested actions are in the big picture — and which embeds models — formulas and algorithms which calculate that significance, for different scenarios, from primary-source data and explicit assumptions."

1 comments

Do you check psychology journals every time you want to consult with a psychologist? Check the materials of the replacement parts in your car and run them against a material model to make sure that they're within the specified bounds of safety? Put food fragments on petri dishes to check bacterial content?

For 99.9% of people, scientifically validating the opinions of the scientific consensus in all fields of life is a non-issue, except here. We trust other human beings because society and ecology are systems far too complex for anyone to make falsifiable assertions about them without serious research beyond the scope of single individuals.

If anything, on the thing we can actually check up on, which is the integrity of climate scientists as an institution, they've been a hell of a lot more trusworthy than dozens of other institutions for which we rely on all the time. Maybe you've heard of them: the FDA, SEC, WHO, AMA, and dozens upon dozens of bodies of researchers, advisors, and experts.

They all fuck up significantly from time to time, but by and large, their assesments are useful and have helped to bring some of the benefits of modern society.

Now, I'm all in favor of people wanting to verify and corroborate data and evidence, but let's keep in mind that realistically, very few of us are capable of even asking the right questions. The best we can do is read up a little and check for consistency and reasonable explanations coming from the very scientists. So far, anyone who has listened to dudes like Michael Mann, Jason Box, and a plethora of other climatologists cannot seriously question their legitimacy any more than their own peers.