Logic and Climate Change

I believe that if you do not have the learning/ability/training to understand how climate change works, it is illogical for you to believe climate change is not a serious issue.

Let’s say you hurt your arm.  You go to nine doctors, and they all say you have a broken arm.  You go to the tenth, and he says your arm is fine.  Assuming all of the doctors are equally qualified, and you have no medical training, it is illogical to believe the one doctor who tells you your arm is fine.

This is analogous to what’s happening with climate change.  A large number of scientists believe that climate change is a serious issue, and a small number of dissenters believe it is not a big deal.  If I am going to make a choice about which side is right, and I do not possess the scientific training to grasp the climate change issue, I don’t know how I could justify logically agreeing with the dissenters.

Additionally, the scientists who are worried about climate change have published numerous studies in peer reviewed journals, and have come together as an international panel to address the issue.  As far as I am aware, there are few, if any, studies published in peer reviewed journals that dissent from the hypothesis that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed soon.

I will admit that this article sounds a bit paternalistic in that it appears to discount whether people should read the evidence on both sides and make up their mind.  I think people should do so in all situations where they are qualified to do so.  If you can educate yourself to the level where you really and truly understand the climate change science at a comparable level as an expert, then by all means, you should pass your own judgment rather than rely on the scientific community.

However, most people only possess a layperson’s knowledge of climate change.  With a layperson’s knowledge, it makes logical sense to believe the vast majority of scientists over a small minority.

It does not follow from this article that I believe we should always defer to experts in every situation.  I just believe that in highly complex situations where laypeople do not have enough knowledge to make a reasonably thought-out decision, deferring to experts is smarter than taking a “guess” on your own.

Another criticism that will probably be raised about this article regarding the fact that Galileo thought the Earth was round, but most experts thought the Earth was flat, and it turned out that most experts were wrong.  The criticism says that because Galileo was right, we shouldn’t just ignore something because only a small group of experts said it.

This is a faulty criticism for two reasons.  First, Galileo’s battle with the flat-earth thinkers at the time was an argument between science and religion, not science and science.  Secondly, the criticism is just ex-post analysis.  Had I been able to go back in time, and 90% of experts told me the world was flat, and I were untrained to the point that I could not reason out whether the earth was flat or round on my own, I would believe the earth was flat.  I think that’s a perfectly logical conclusion for a layperson.

Please post comments.  This seems so clear to me that I’m sure I’m missing something important.