In a recent column on a U.N. report on climate change, Ellen Goodman noted that only 25 percent of college-educated Republicans believe global warming is caused by humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats do. The sociology of truth is a fascinating phenomenon. But Ellen the Scientific sees only proof of conservative dogmatism: "The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get. ... (G)lobal warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." That is to say people who disagree with Ellen are either very bad or stark raving mad, and either way she can dismiss them.
But of course Goodman is quite wrong about one thing: Scientists are far more than 90 percent certain about most scientific truths. It is social scientists who aim for 90 percent (or 95 percent) certainty, and the large margin for error -- a 1-in-10 chance by the authors' own estimate that the report is simply wrong about the cause of global warming -- is a telltale sign that what we have here is not a hard scientific fact, but a scientific judgment, a possibility, a probability perhaps, but hardly an undeniable fact like the Holocaust.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an interview this week with Timothy Ball, a dissenting climatologist who thinks sun-spots, not carbon emissions, best explain the 500-year trend toward global warming. (You can read what he says here: www.elynews.com) It's an important debate, but the most important thing about the debate is to notice when the Science Says card is being played inappropriately as a way to shut down debate: "As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually that they don't want to talk about it anymore," notes Ball. "A consensus is not a scientific fact." Amen to that.