Many of the people with whom I speak on a daily basis are the sorts who tend to believe only information that reinforces their values, beliefs, and preferences. Such a position frequently includes a general disdain for scientific findings (unless they support held positions, of course). This is not at all surprising, because scientifically obtained knowledge often runs counter to biases and intuitions.

It has been said by detractors of science that it is a secular religion, and that accepting a scientific finding requires belief equivalent to the faith required to accept a religious claim. I admit that I have known professing scientists who related to their science-inspired positions in such zealous, even dogmatic ways, but that is not the nature of true science. Human nature ensures that tensions between orthodoxy and openness exist in every human domain. Such struggles have to do with the ways people in social networks tend to form and seek to maintain hierarchies of power and influence. It is not a feature of Science, per se, but of human networks. And while networks of people engaged in science are not immune to biases, the scientific enterprise — more so than any other human approach to learning what is and how things work — has many proven checks against bias and inappropriate manipulation of information and knowledge.

After that philosophical detour, I return to my science-doubting friends. A favorite object of ridicule is any claim that the climate is changing significantly due to human activity. Within that general area of denial, climate models are especially favored targets. Aside from the general litany of fabricated or otherwise false statements that always accompany propaganda, a recurring argument is that climate models are wildly inaccurate. It is vital that detractors of climate change persuade people to believe this, because climate models are a key tool for discovering not only where the global climate is most likely heading, but also for revealing contributing factors in climate change.

An article in Science Daily highlights how today’s climate models excel at prediction. There is no doubt that climate modeling will continue to improve, due to the well established exponential increase of computing power and the constant improvement of modeling techniques. It is even very likely that better models will change some details of our current understanding. It is not the case, however, that current climate models are wrong about global warming or other climate change trends. There is a great wealth of peer-reviewed information validating climate modeling methods and findings. Tapping that wealth requires only a little interest, effort, and willingness to learn. Oh, and discovery of real explanations has to be more valued by the learner than are the cheap thrills of self-validation or pats on the back by those who share the same biases.

Technorati Tags: climate, environment, computing, models, belief, bias