Check out Gary Gutting's article from the New York Times Opinionater blog, titled
On Experts and Global Warming. Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and is writing articles for the NYT that apply philosophy to current events. In this article--you guessed it--he applies philosophy to global warming.
What does he have to say about it?
First, Gutting looks at the experts: who are the experts, and what is their consensus?
Consider, for example, current discussions about climate change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming caused primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.). All creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated as “climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to their claims about global warming. In contrast to enterprises such as astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project of climate science. The only questions are about the conclusions this project supports about global warming.
There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline.
Gutting's argument is that, when a consensus has been reached by experts, "nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts." When the majority of climate scientists believe that the planet is warming as a result of our activities, who are we to know better than the experts? Well, what about the experts that disagree with the consensus? Can't we believe their opinion?
As long as [nonexperts] accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing.
Since climate scientists agree that global warming exists and is increased by human actions, those of us that aren't climate scientists can only accept the premise, since we aren't truly able to judge the position ourselves.
What do you think? Tell us in the comments below, and don't forget to check out
Sizzle this fall!
