A new argument has started to crop up in debates over climate change. It goes like this: Science couldn't predict the outcome of the last U.S. election, or the bumps in the economy, so why should we believe scientists when they try to predict the future of Earth's climate?
For example, a recent New York Times column — the first from new op-ed writer Bret Stephens — starts with a cautionary tale about the failure of data analytics to guide Team Clinton to victory in 2016, then segues into a discussion of climate-change skepticism. Given the "inherent uncertainties of data," Stephens argues, doubters have a right to distrust "overweening scientism."
He writes: "We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound."