"Science"

Copenhagen: The Science Is Settled; The Policy And Politics Aren’t

• The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder, Journalist

Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

• Richard Feynmann, Scientist

Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves.

• Isaac Asimov, Science Fiction Author

This morning, this article at The Burning Platform popped into my feed, talking about “listen to the scientists”. Which got me to thinking about science in general, and hot-button science like anthropogenic (man-made) climate change and science-backed responses to viral pandemics (COVID-19). In short, my thoughts on the matter are this:

Anyone claiming that “the science is settled” or making similar statements about the certainty of science are at best ignorant or at worst lying to your face to justify a political agenda.

No science is certain. As an example, gravity, one of the most studied theories in science, is still not completely understood. A quantum theory of gravity is still highly sought after. Science is the slow, boring process of devising more and more accurate, reproducible models of reality in collaboration with other scientists. It is always subject to revision. Usually this is minor revisions, but not always. Think of the change that General Relativity brought to a science community dominated by Newtonian physics.

In short, the science is NEVER, EVER settled. What is claimed to be “settled science” is more accurately described as pseudo-scientific religious dogma that supports the agendas of the political power elites, who are most certainly not you or me, and these agendas all benefit the elites at the expense of everyone else.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

And then there are the computer models. Whether it is terrible COVID-19 models or climate models, they do not prove anything about the future. At best, they are a computer aided guess. Computer models rely entirely on the assumptions, knowledge and honesty of the programmer. At worst, they are used for outright scientific fraud.

Trying to model chaotic systems, which includes weather and climate, economic markets, and viral transmission, is notoriously difficult. In chaotic systems, tiny changes in starting conditions lead to massive differences in outcome. Incomplete sampling, as plagues both weather and climate make it impossible to even start with something resembling an accurate starting condition.

Scientific computer models rarely have either code or data published to allow for peer review. The handful of models that do have source code released are almost uniformly terrible. The Imperial College computer model that predicted 2.5 million deaths had non-deterministic behavior.

It is good practice for computer programs that use probabilistic elements to use pseudo-random number generators that for a given seed always produce the same output because it makes the output reproducible, which is required for debugging. I am a computer programmer with over two decades of experience so I can speak on this with some authority. The most difficult bugs to fix are the ones that are difficult to reproduce.

The Imperial College COVID model when given the exact same seed would produce different output. This is a massive bug. Of the order that would likely lead to me getting fired if I were responsible for it. Don’t take just my word for it though, read this code review by an anonymous programmer who worked at Google. Having read it myself, I find the points made to be spot on.

The climate models are almost uniformly opaque. No code is released, and none can be reproduced except by the original author. No improvements can be made, and no critic of the methods performed. You have to take them at their word that it is accurate, they didn’t cut corners during development (highly unlikely), and that they have a perfect knowledge of the subject matter, chaotic weather systems over decades of time (impossible). The data that feeds into these models is at best the same data fed into the weekly weather forecast and the same level of accuracy should be expected.

Reproducibility

Science is, at its most basic level, repeatedly testing educated guesses, and should be repeatable by as many people as possible. You can test the theory of gravity in your home with a stop watch, a tape measure and any heavy solid object. You don’t have to trust someone else that gravity is a thing and it acts as described; you can check it yourself.

If you can’t check it, and the authors go out of their way to throw barriers in the way of you checking it, it is not science. It is also suspect, of the flavor “what are you trying to hide?”

Some things you can’t completely prove yourself, but have very straightforward reasoning to them. Take peak oil. My reasoning is essentially this:

1. Objects and matter that I interact with are finite in quantity.
2. To the best that I can tell, the planet Earth is finite.
3. Oil is extracted from the ground.
4. Oil makes up a fraction of the mass of the planet Earth.
5. Therefore, there is a finite amount of oil currently in existence.

Further,

6. Oil is produced from decomposition of organic material at a rate limited by the amount of organic matter in the appropriate temperature and pressure.
7. The rate at which oil is produced naturally is less than the rate it is extracted.
8. Oil is more easily recovered from some deposits than others.
9. Eventually, the oil that is retrievable will run out.
10. Between the start of oil extraction and the end of oil extraction, there must be a point in time when the most oil is extracted in a given time.

I have not developed a similar reasoning for anthropogenic climate change, so I remain unconvinced that it is a physical phenomenon and not a political agenda. If at a later date, I develop such a reasoning, I will change my mind. Until then, I will operate under the assumption that peak oil has or will happen and that climate change is not anthropogenic in nature and as such I have minimal affect on it and will instead adapt to the changing environment.