Wednesday, October 05, 2011

The times, they are a-changing: Now Nature publishes a well-written piece attacking the idea of "consensus" reports

The voice of science: let's agree to disagree : Daniel Sarewitz - Nature News
Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful, says Daniel Sarewitz.
When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report.
The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice.

Yet, as anyone who has served on a consensus committee knows, much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report. For months, our geoengineering group argued about almost every issue conceivably related to establishing a research programme. Many ideas failed to make the report — not because they were wrong or unimportant, but because they didn't attract a political constituency in the group that was strong enough to keep them in. The commitment to consensus therefore comes at a high price: the elimination of proposals and alternatives that might be valuable for decision-makers dealing with complex problems.

Some consensus reports do include dissenting views, but these are usually relegated to a section at the back of the report, as if regretfully announcing the marginalized views of one or two malcontents. Science might instead borrow a lesson from the legal system. When the US Supreme Court issues a split decision, it presents dissenting opinions with as much force and rigour as the majority position. Judges vote openly and sign their opinions, so it is clear who believes what, and why — a transparency absent from expert consensus documents. Unlike a pallid consensus, a vigorous disagreement between experts would provide decision-makers with well-reasoned alternatives that inform and enrich discussions as a controversy evolves, keeping ideas in play and options open. That is something on which we should all agree.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

From another website:

HadCrut acknowledges that temperatures have declined this millennium. NASA acknowledges that sea level has declined for the past two years. NSIDC acknowledges that multi-year Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2008. Cryosphere Today acknowledges that Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years. Rutgers Global Snow Lab acknowledges that winter snow is increasing. Trenberth can’t find the missing heat. ENSO has gone negative. US hurricane strikes are at historically low levels. ACE is at historically low levels. Severe tornadoes are on the decline.

The global warming religion has nothing legitimate to hold on to, so the high priests are now trying to convince people that bad weather never used to happen. The old white males who run this religion complain that old white males are against them.