This three-part blog series is essentially the talk I gave at the recent Clearing the Air Forum, which was entitled “Discovering Truth in the Synthesis of Science and Faith.” The audience was comprised of scientists, church leaders, journalists and other interested parties so this is a fairly lay introduction to epistemology.
In my first post, Epistemology 101: Science, Faith and Authority Part I, I set out some basics about epistemology. In Part II I looked at testimony and authority. Now I will turn to my final point, what about the clash of traditions or authorities, what should we believe then?
Here is a fairly obvious example, suppose I am not a biologist but I hear it on authority that the scientific consensus is that evolutionary theory is the correct account of human origins. In the absence of any defeaters for this, such as the absence of compelling reasons for thinking that the biological sciences are unreliable in this area or some compelling disproof of evolution, I should accept this claim. One the other hand, I read the Bible and it looks like it states that the world was created by God in six 24-hour days and that humans and animals were created on separate days. I examine the subsequent genealogies and I discover that when added up these entail that the world is only a few thousand years old. If I accept the Bible as authoritative and as the word of God, then I have a reason for thinking that evolution is false. What should I do?
I am using this case as a vivid example because it is such an obvious one in an evangelical setting, particularly one like this full of scientists who will have experienced the tension first hand. I want to look at two approaches that I think are mistaken. The first is exemplified by a well meaning school board member I encountered a few years ago. I was applying for a job as a curriculum developer at a Christian school. I was asked if I would teach that Genesis was true. I responded by saying that at the senior level, students should learn about the debate over how Genesis should be interpreted. They should be encouraged to ask whether it literally teaches that the world was created in six 24-hour days or whether, as some scholars believe, the days are a kind of literary device drawing out the relationship between human and divine work. The board member responded in horror, he said “are you saying God might be wrong?” I did not get the job.
There was some wisdom in the board member’s response. If God teaches something then it is true and what God says trumps all human opinion, including scientific opinion. The problem is that I was not questioning what God said, I was questioning an interpretation of Genesis which was the basis of the board member’s conclusions about what God said. God does not make mistakes but human interpreters do.
Throughout history brilliant Christian theologians have disagreed as to how to interpret scripture and also which theological perspectives are correct. The fact that they disagree means that they cannot all be correct. Our theologising then is fallible and it is not given that we are always correct. It is mistaken then to assume that when the scientific consensus clashes with our theology it is always wrong and our theology is always correct.
In a room full of scientists this is probably uncontroversial but I want to also reject an equally erroneous view. This is the view that whenever scientific consensus clashes with a theological position, the theological position is always incorrect. Often this view is based on mistaken views on history. In the 19th century an interpretation of Church history known as the conflict thesis emerged. This position taught that religion and science had been locked in conflict throughout their history and that science had flourished only by fighting off the shackles of the church, which had consistently suppressed its ideas. The picture was of a Church constantly losing ground to science. This view of the history of science has been rejected by most historians today but its legacy lingers on.
In fact the history of science and religion is quite different. There were few conflicts of the sort this thesis puts forward and when they did occur issues were not as simple as science being right and theology wrong. In fact, in some cases the opposite was been true. The fact is that scientific consensus can be and has been, in the past, mistaken. Only a few decades ago the steady state theory of cosmology was widely accepted and it was believed the universe had no beginning, a thesis in direct contradiction to the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Today, theology now appears to have been correct. In the 12th century a similar clash occurred between aristotlean science and that of the Church. The church was proven correct. There are other examples, such as denials that people groups such as the Hittites ever existed and claims people could not write at the time of Moses.
Further, scientific consensuses changes over time. Alvin Plantinga notes,
According to Bryan Appleyard, “At Harvard University in the 1880’s John Trowbridge, head of the physics department, was telling his students that it was not worthwhile to major in physics, since all the very important discoveries in the subject had now been made. All that remained was a routine tidying up of loose ends, hardly a heroic task worthy of a Harvard graduate.”4 Twenty years later the same opinion seemed dominant: for example, in 1902 Albert Michelson, of Michelson-Morley fame declared that “the most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted on consequences of new discoveries is remote.”5 And of course we all know of the scientific theories that once enjoyed consensus but are now discarded: caloric theories of heat, effluvial theories of electricity and magnetism, theories involving the existence of phlogiston, vital forces in physiology, theories of spontaneous generation of life, the luminiferous ether, and so on.[1]
Scientific consensuses then can and have been mistaken. In addition to this there is an important insight in the comment of the school board member who cost me employment. Given the fallibility of humans, even as a group, if God says something and the scientific community says something else then we have good reasons for thinking the scientific community is wrong and hence we do have a viable defeater for the testimony we have heard. God, understood as a all knowing, all powerful, perfectly good being, certainly is not mistaken and it is not as if he needs some scientists to enlighten him or correct his teaching.
I think the correct response is to allow science and theology to mutually correct each other. Take the case of evolution and the Bible. One needs to ask just how likely is it, given the evidence, that evolution occurred? One also needs to ask just how likely is it that the interpretation of Genesis underlying creationism is correct? If it is more likely that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true than it is that evolution is true then we should reject evolution despite the consensus in favour of it. On the other hand, if there are reasons for thinking our interpretation of Genesis is mistaken and that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming then we should conclude that God is not teaching us that the world is only a few thousand years old.
My own view is that there are good reasons for rejecting a literal interpretation drawn from what we have learned about ancient near-eastern texts from the same period. Evidence suggests that ancient genealogies did not function the way the literalist picture suggests and that much of early Genesis is a polemic against ancient near-eastern mythology rather than sober history. But my views are beside the point main point.
My point is that I think as Christians we need to say that both science and theology are valid ways of knowing and that human theorising in both fields are fallible.
There is a view in our culture which denies this, this is a view called scientism which claims, following Bertrand Russell, that whatever is knowable is knowable by the methods of science and what science does not tell us is not knowable. This is, however, a philosophical and theological view that rejects the existence of revelation. If we accept that God has spoken to humanity then we should not assume that God has not said something that is the basis for a legitimate critique of scientific claims or culture and if he has then we should not cower from offering such a critique despite the fact that the scientific community thinks otherwise. At the same time we should not embrace the kind of naiive theologising that reads the bible in English, ignores the fact that God’s word was mediated through human texts in different languages which essentially boils down to “God said it, that settles it” type thinking. Both approaches should be repudiated.
Let me make a final comment in this area. If we are to gain an accurate picture of the world then we need to take into account all information we know that is relevant to the question. If we bracket some information which is relevant then the picture we will only be probable on “part of the evidence” and may not be probable when everything else is factored in. If one accepts that science is the only way of knowing this does not matter much. Nor does it matter much if we think that all that is at issue is what we find in the scriptures. But if we accept, as I think we should, that both are valid sources of information then theologians and scientists needs to take others insights into account. There might be areas of reality in which both make claims. If scientists proceed ignoring information from theology that is relevant to what they study and theologians ignore what scientists are saying when it is relevant to the issue both will end up with a distorted view.
I think this picture applies to the issue of climate change. We have scientific claims about anthropogenic global warming being affirmed and contradicted in the media, in the pulpit, on talk-back radio, in the blogosphere and so on. Those of us who are not climatologists rely on testimony and we need to start being critical about whether much of what we hear is subject to defeaters. Similarly, the issue has moved beyond science into areas of ethics, public policy, laws and even pictures of eschatology. In these areas scientists are not experts and questions of theology and ethics, among other things, come into play and we need to have a method for negotiating this.
[1] Alvin Plantinga “Creation and Evolution: A Modest Proposal” in Robert Pennock Ed Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives (Cambridge, The MIT Press – Bradford Books, 2001) 785.
RELATED POSTS:
Epistemology 101: Science, Faith and Authority Part I
Epistemology 101: Science, Faith and Authority Part II
Tags: AGW · Alvin Plantinga · Climate Change · Epistemology · Faith and Reason · Science and Religion · Scientism26 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Flotsam and jetsam (7/23)…
Matt Flannagan has posted the third of this 3-part series on epistemology, this time dealing with what happens when authorities clash….
Heres just one defeater for you regarding your criticism against reading the Bible in English….God inspires translations.
There are plenty of Instances of OT texts originally in Hebrew/Aramaic translated into the Greek language…which was the language of the N/T times under Rome.
It follows that further translation into English is part of this scriptural doctrine of Keeping the scriptures alive….part of Gods promise to preserve his word for us.
Also you appear to reduce all knowledge down to mere probabilities….which is not knowledge but guesswork…and the abandonment of principle.
Its like watching a three day test…and it ends in a draw….very disappointing.
This is why most of your writings appear as written by an indifferent skeptic, rather than a man of Faith. You are good at presenting conundrums rather than presenting convictions.
Who taught you to doubt the King James Bible…if not infidels who doubt we have any reliable copies of the so-called originals that alone are worshipped as truth…yet long turned to dust.
You have been smoked by wolves in sheep’s cloth…textual critics who would ensnare you into perpetual doubt.
“Yeah hath God said?” A perfect example of this is Lee Strobbel telling readers in a book that is supposed to promote faith in the Bible that the scripture “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” is a bogus edition, not part of the original word of God!!! What has he achieved but to suckered by poor scholarship and is now promoting Bible criticism not faith! He foolishly accepts the perverted scholarship of Minnows over and above the Giants that translated The King James 1611.
Of course the very Birth of the King James Bible was to put Gods word in the hands of the common people and free them from reliance on Priest craft and the monopoly of the interpretations of ‘experts’.
It was the King James bible that created the religious liberty of the new world.
You scholars of bible criticism would rob us of our greatest treasures…Our assurance and Authority, and accrue that all for your own vainglory.
I really can’t see what use this post would have been to people adopting a stance on climate change science (not that they necessarily did as nothing has yet been made public and the organizers are being coy).
1: Your concept of scientific knowledge is naive. You talk about such knowledge in the past being “mistaken”. But this is a static view and just doesn’t recognize the progressive nature of scientific knowledge. To some extent all scientific knowledge is “mistaken”. Because it is an imperfect reflection of reality. It’s by discovering areas that are wrong we make progress. A research scientist actually enthusiastically welcomes results showing her hypothesis or current theory is wrong. That’s how we make discoveries.
This process means our knowledge continuously changes for the better. Our theories become better and better reflections of reality. That is why it is naive to critique science for “mistaken” theories. On the other hand if scientists clung to theories after they were proven wrong (like the religious) that would be a valid criticism. But they don’t apart from some few exceptions ( eg proponents of cold fusion).
2: You make an interesting concession when you claim “theology now appears to have been correct” and “the church was proven correct.” You obviously really think the real test of truth is what science determines in these cases at least.
3: Your choice of big bang theory is also naive. Le Maitre himself had to warn the pope that trying to draw theological justification from this theory was mistaken. For many reasons. Obviously biblical mythology just cannot compare with current scientific theory – in fact big bang theory does not rule out steady state as current reputable scientific big bang models like eternal inflation and the existence of previous universes shows.
4: You seem to be suggesting “revelation” as a valid way of knowing. Come on then. Give us examples of “revelation” being as effective as, or more so, than science. WTF does “revelation” do to help you understand climate change?
(But your previous comments on theology and the church being proved right suggest to me that in your heart of hearts you see science as being the only real valid method).
5: Your last para appears to give credibility to media, pulpit, talkback radio, & blogs as useful for providing testimony on climate change. Surely you aren’t serious. The most reliable and most objective testimony comes from climate scientists themselves. They are the experts.
That is why governments set up the IPCC and use their findings. Notice they did not set up a panel of bloggers, priests, radio hosts and journalists. Their people would have called that irresponsible.
6: Scientists acknowledge their role does not go beyond the science. In the areas of politics, ethics, policy making, etc. their input is the same as other citizens.
Unfortunately there are people who dishonestly attempt to solve ethical and political issues by pretending the science us faulty. Most of these people have no scientific expertise and indeed they seem to operate on the basis of conspiracy theory and slander of honest scientists. The recent “climategate” fiasco, which is now proven to be sa hoax, is an example. As was the slanderous attacks made by local deniers on NIWA scientists at the same time.
@Ken “I really can’t see what use this post would have been to people adopting a stance on climate change science.”
The truth of these words becomes ever more apparent on reading the rest of the comment.
I wonder what the climate scientists present for this talk made of it.
It was well received thankyou Murph, people from NIWA and other scientists and policy analysts made a point of coming up to me and thanking me and praising my talk. I have had feedback from the organisers that they received heard similar sentiments on my talk.
“The most reliable and most objective testimony comes from climate scientists themselves”
The most objective testimony comes from factual information, the scientists job is to make sure the information and underlying data are honest and without bias (including their bias).
You must be blind or ignorant, a lot of scientists are clearly very biased and dishonest. Those climate scientists behind the leaked emails should have been sacked, even if their conclusion is right, because there’s no way I would trust people who write that kind of emails.
Ken should read Atlas Shrugged.
John Galts speech is very blar blar yet the picture of statist scientists is bang on!
Rands mythical selfish Geniuses are truly insane too!
Both science and education ought to be kept separate from the state because politics corrupts both utterly.
Both become tools for big brother.
Philosophical veiw is very important , it even can change our life, hopefuly for good.
Ken wrote “Most of these people have no scientific expertise and indeed they seem to operate on the basis of conspiracy theory and slander of honest scientists.”
Ken you have (a) repeatedly attributed a theocratic conspiracy called the “wedge” to people who have offer philosophical critques of your views. (b) repeatedly slandered philosophers for example you slander a huge number of Philosophers of religion off with the claim. Christian apologists are not known for their logic – or rather they are known for their faulty logic. And for their misrepresentation and opportunist use of science. They actually study philosophy and logic and hone these skills so as to argue for the one thing they try to “prove” – the existence of their god. One of the philosophers you mention in this post, apparently renowed for poor logic, actually wrote a significant book on modal logic. (c) you have no credentials in Philosophy or Theology.
So answer me this, the tactics you attribute to deniers valid or not? if they are not then admit your criticisms of Christian philosophers are invalid. If they are then admit that the deniers have given a valid argument against you.
But stop trying to pass of contradictory claims in the name of science, it does your cause no credibility.
Ken, on the NIWA issue. At the conference I attended there was a discussion on this involving NIWA representatives. And NIWA pretty much conceeded the skeptics claims. It was put to them that scientific studies in the 80’s had called into question the accuracy of their weather stations and they were asked what they had done since then to take this into account. The response was they had made adjustments to the raw data (which showed no warming). When they were asked by skeptics what the basis was for these adjustments they said they got the adjusted figures out of PHD thesis that had been submitted to Vic a decade or so ago. When they were asked what the formula was for making these adjustments and what the rationale was etc they said the records had been accidentally deleted from a university data base and they did not know, but they were confident the figures were correct because scientists would never have accepted the results if they were not.
Is that what you mean when you say that the criticism of NIWA has been proved unsubstantiated?
Matt – perhaps you should go back and read my comment. Most of your reply is completely irrelevant. Perhaps your knees are reacting again and you haven’t taken in my comment.
Bloody hell – I didn’t mention any philosophers in my comment. The only names we Le Maitre’s and the pope of the time. You must be distracted.
The only vaguely relevant criticism I can find in my comment is the reference to some deniers who have an ethical and/or political issue with the actions of governments to tackle the climate change issue. I have no problem with that. It’s just that it is dishonest to avoid the ethics and politics (or economics) of the issue. When they attack the science, especially when it is well outside their area of expertise and they therefore resort to lies and distortions, they are being dishonest.
As I said in Liability of scientific denialism to political conservativism they cut off their nose to spite their face.
They have more chance of influencing social decisions if they deal with the economics, politics and ethics. They have no chance of changing the reality of climate change just because they don’t like it.
Their attempts to divert the argument away from the ethics, economics and politics by dishonestly attacking the science is, in effect, a cop out.
They end up making themselves irrelevant.
I would have thought some advise to the forum on the epistemology behind their discussion could have dealt with such relevant issues.
And, of course, you have ignored all the other points (6 in total) in my comment.
Matt – as you appear to have been at this forum for longer than your presentation perhaps you could provide some sort of summary on your blog. Although a press release before the forum mentioned a communique non has yet been forthcoming – despite the importance of the topic.
Anyway you ask a specific question of one part of my comment where I said:
“Most of these people have no scientific expertise and indeed they seem to operate on the basis of conspiracy theory and slander of honest scientists. The recent “climategate” fiasco, which is now proven to be sa hoax, is an example. As was the slanderous attacks made by local deniers on NIWA scientists at the same time.”
“Climategate” has been proven a beat up. At least 5 inquiries have shown there was no distortion of the science, hiding or losing data, etc.. Those claims have been proven a hoax.
Regarding NIWA. The slanderous attacks (and I quote) were that scientists:
“created a warming effect where none existed.” That “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” And “we have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emission of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”
These charges claim deliberate distortion. They were completely unsubstantiated and nothing you report in your last comment provides any support for such slander. Nothing at all. Although, of course, that won’t stop some confirmation bias on your, and others, part.
(By the way – if you think your report shows deliberate scientific distortion why has no disciplinary action been taken??)
So clearly the claims are unsubstantiated and even your own selective reporting of NIWA statements surely confirms that.
(As an aside I have done my own analysis of data I extracted from the figures for that particular denier claim and find it to be faulty. This, at least, shows ineptness on their (the deniers) part. But they refuse to provide me with their methodology or their data. Notice – I am not charging them with intentional distortion – just ineptness. And that raises questions of what scientific input they had and how they reviewed their conclusions. On both these things they provided contradictory answers to my questions. There is a story in all this).
However, Matt. Having heard the scientific presentations at this forum what is your feeling about the science of climate change? Is our government wrong to accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC that:
1: Evidence of global warming is now unequivocal, and
2: The major cause of this in the last 50 years has been caused most probably (>90% confidence) by humans.
Acceptance, or otherwise, of this findings is surely important – even if we can continue to argue about the ethical, political and economic solutions.
Matt,
Apart from the fact that C”S”C flat out lied in their press releases, and in the ‘climategate’ hype plenty of right leaning people took them at their word, the criticsms of NIWA were vapid because the unadjusted data itself makes it obvious corrections were needed. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that adding noise to data ruins the power of statistical tests!
If skeptics want to reconstruct the NZ temperature record they should, but asking for the pen and paper results of adjustments made 20 years ago isn’t replicating results, its copying them.
Matt just doesn’t like the truth about climate change because it will mean more abortions and euthanasiaering.
Matt – who were the “NIWA representatives” you refer to as taking part in this discussion. You indicate more than one whereas there was only one NIWA speaker.
What specific “skeptics claim” did “NIWA pretty much concede”?
And FFS what specific epistemological principle has enabled you to take up this stance against honest scientists.? Was it “revelation?” “Basic belief” perhaps?
I can’t see that any evidence was involved. More like confirmation bias.
David if I had said anything about wanting to reconstruct stats your comment would be relevant. But i didn’t I simply noted that NIWA conceeded certain criticisms made against them. You seem to think that one can’t criticise a positions assumptions unless you create an alternative theory of your own thats simply false.
Richard, I am not sure how one could validly get to a moral conclusion from a claim about climateology. But for the record, anytime a scientist qua scientist tells me that a particular moral position which I know is false, is required by his theory then I know something unscientific is going on. I don’t consider scientists to have any expertise in ethics.
But Matt.
You’d said that the criticisms of NIWA had been substantiated. Apart from the fact the C’S’C lied in their initial press releases (” There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments” etc) the demands that they made were unreasonable and not needed for their stated goal of reconstructing the temperature record.
David what I actually said was this “Ken, on the NIWA issue. At the conference I attended there was a discussion on this involving NIWA representatives. And NIWA pretty much conceeded the skeptics claims” I then went on to elaborate precisely what I was talking about, outlining the criticisms and the response in question.
You however, like Ken, evaded this and brought up other issues I never said anything about.
I note however both you and Ken seem strangely silent on the point I did make to Ken which is how the very same “conspiracy” theorising and slander of competent scholars is quite frequently used by Ken and other scientists in response to criticisms of scientific orthodoxy. Goose gander
David you state“Apart from the fact the C’S’C lied in their initial press releases (” There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments” etc) “But as I pointed out at the conference I was at NIWA admitted they did not know what the basis for the particular adjustments were, the formula was lost and they were simply acting on faith that whoever made them was warranted in doing because the scientific community accepted his conclusions. So its not clear to me that the claim that there was nothing to warrant those particular adjustments has been refuted.
Matt you have raised the question of scientists and moral positions here. Well – there is one moral aspect which is inherent in the scientific ethos and that is honesty. Misrepresentation and dishonesty is treated very severely in the scientific community when it is discovered.
I just wish other communities could do the same.
Now, you say I have evaded some questions – but conveniently don’t say which.
You have attempted to portray NIWA (you won’t answer how many representatives from NIWA you refer to) “pretty much conceeded the skeptics claims.”
Now, not being there I can’t deal with the specifics of the seminar. But we do know what the “skeptics” claims were. I repeat:
that scientists:
“created a warming effect where none existed.” That “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” And “we have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emission of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”
Now these are serious claims. If not true they are slanderous, libel. If true then the scientific community should take steps to seriously discipline the scientists involved (usually by sacking them) and correcting the literature.
Your blog supported these people (the deniers) – even advertising and supporting am ACT meeting where Richard Treadgold promoted this slander. You are hardly objective in this little scam.
Now, various denierslike Richard Treadgold, Vincent Gray, and Ian Wishgart now admit that site adjustments were necessary (Brill refuses to reply yes or no to my question on this). So already these “skeptics” (actually deniers) have backed down. (They made a “concession”).
So next step they say – yes we accept the necessity of adjustments but we want to see how they were calculated.
There is actually material in the literature describing the methodology used. Various techniques were used ranging from quite objective to fairly subjective.) But the material is published. Anyone can judge for themselves, and apply their own adjustments to the data.
So the deniers back off again (another “concession”) and say “Yes, but, we want to see the specific calculations used.” You may not understand why that demand is stupid not appreciating how science is done. But it is equivalent to asking for the scraps of filter paper used to “tot things up.”
Now to “concede” that those scraps and notes are no longer available is not significant. Its perfectly natural. Ask any scientist. I myself would not be able to find such scraps used in manipulating raw data for any of my scientific papers.
(Computers do enable more things to be kept but consider these were only available to most scientists from about the mid 90s and most sensible people wouldn’t bother trying to retrieve such things from untidy files. They would simple repeat the calculations – no big deal.)
So, Matt, you are inventing this “concession.”
Any idiot will surely be aware that the basic data is available. The methodologies are described. It is up to any serious contender in this science to do their own calculations, come up with their own adjustments.
I am sure that if they did this they would not get exactly the same answer – but it would be similar.
What is not permissible is to tell lies, claim that adjustments were not necessary, that the methodology is not described. That is seriously, and morally, wrong.
Of course, the deniers like Treadgold, Wishart, Brill, etc., do this for political reasons. They have no scientific bones in their bodies – not at all interested in the scientific truth. They have a political agenda and they are advancing this using the immoral tactic of slandering the science and honest scientists.
And, you Matt, have supported these scoundrels with their slander.
So Matt, perhaps I can repeat my questions that you have again evaded:
1: “Having heard the scientific presentations at this forum what is your feeling about the science of climate change? Is our government wrong to accept the basic conclusions of the IPCC that:
1: Evidence of global warming is now unequivocal, and
2: The major cause of this in the last 50 years has been caused most probably (>90% confidence) by humans.”
2: “Who were the “NIWA representatives” you refer to as taking part in this discussion? You indicate more than one whereas there was only one NIWA speaker.”
And:
3: Seeing the point of your post was to give advice to people attempting to find the truth through conflicting claims made by the climate scientists on the one hand and people like Wishart and Brill (the deniers) on the other:
“what specific epistemological principle has enabled you to take up this stance against honest scientists.? Was it “revelation?” “Basic belief” perhaps?”
Well, when a station record says “station moved several hundred feet higher” I think that’s something that might warrant an adjustment. They have to have known some of the adjustments tied in with station moves (that’s how they grafted their long term records together) so to claim otherwise is a lie.
It’s also obvious that even the most basic tests on their own ‘flat’ data should have made it clear that some sort of adjustments were needed. To try and draw conclusions from the unadjusted data, as they suggested people do in their press releases, would be pointless
David – dishonest but not pointless.
After all they were pushing a political agenda and its not unknown for politicians to tell porkies, or even defame honest people, in pursuance of their agenda.
And they did provide a rallying argument for people like Matt who have, as far as I can tell, the same conservative political agenda.
Ken, please expand on this ‘conservative political agenda.’
Richard I have written on the links between the local denier groups, the ACT party, the Centre for Political Research, Conservative Christian blogs/groups, etc., before. A recent post showing data for the US situations is It’s politics, not science.
However, here I am referring specifically to Matt’s position – not yours (I don’t know you from Adam and have no idea of your political position of attitude towards the science of climate change. So I don’t know what your interest is.
If you have specific questions don’t hesitate to ask.
What do you think is the real reason behind Matt denying anthropogenic climate change?
Richard – I think Matt is old enough to speak for himself on this. I also would like him to describe his reason as this little act about the NIWA data is rather disingenuous.