Montréal, 11 février 2007 • No 212

  

COURRIER DES LECTEURS / READERS' CORNER

 

Vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec le contenu d'un article? Vous avez une opinion à partager? ÉCRIVEZ-NOUS
Le QL publiera toutes les lettres pertinentes. N'oubliez pas d'écrire vos nom et lieu de résidence.
 

You don't agree with the content of an article? You have an opinion you want to share? WRITE TO US
We will publish all pertinent letters. Don't forget to include your name and place of residence.
 
 
 

CLIMAT: LES MODÈLES NE SONT PAS TOUS FAUX
 
 

          Il est certain qu'il est impossible de calculer le mouvement, la vitesse, la trajectoire et l'influence de chaque atome de notre atmosphère et par la suite intégrer toutes ces informations dans une formule mathématique ou modèle qui nous prédira ce que cela aura l'air dans cinquante ans. D'accord, quelqu'un qui me produirait un tel modèle, je le questionnerais sur le chaos que cela produira. La simple petite erreur de mesure à la millionième décimal d'une seule variable d'un tel modèle produira un désordre incommensurable sur les valeurs prédites comparativement aux valeurs observées. Savoir cela c'est bien. De là à prétendre que tous les modèles sont faux, il y a une marge qu'il ne faut pas franchir. C'est tout le débat autour de l'école de pensée mécanistique vs l'école probabiliste.

          Petite citation de George Box pour vous mettre à réfléchir sur la notion de modèle et théorie: « All models are wrong: some are useful. » En espérant que vous ne vous arrêtiez pas à la seule réflexion que tous les modèles sont faux, car là c’est dire que toute la science est fausse au sens élargi du terme. Il est bien de questionner les modèles établis, mais ils ne sont réfutés que lorsque des preuves sont apportées de façon adéquate avec des données formelles. Seulement à ce moment-là pourra-t-on refaire le modèle. Pas avec une opinion comme ce Lindzen apporte dans le débat. Il n’apporte rien de bon au débat scientifique en tant que tel puisqu’il ne fait qu’exprimer une opinion sans preuves. Bel exemple de paralogisme d’appel à l’autorité que vous nous faites là.

          Répondez à cette question bien simple: qui a le plus d’intérêt à transformer ses conclusions et sa réflexion? Celui payé par les compagnies pétrolières pour des consultations? Ou celui qui reçoit des subventions en fonction de son rendement scientifique (nombre de publications)? Le problème que j’ai avec vous les libertariens du Québécois Libre, c’est qu’en tant qu’idéologues, vous confinez vos lectures et opinions en fonction de votre a priori sur le sujet.

Philippe Lebel
 

Réponse de Jean-Hugho Lapointe:

Monsieur Lebel,

          J'ai présenté ma position quant aux modèles climatiques dans mon dernier article, que je réitère. Heureusement, vous abondez vous aussi dans le même sens en admettant que les modèles ne peuvent ni prédire les résultats de phénomènes chaotiques, comme la turbulence en basse atmosphère ou des courants marins, ni tenir compte de l'imprévisible, comme le développement de nouvelles technologies. Nous devrions donc être d'accord avec le Dr. Lucarini (et George Box semble-t-il) pour affirmer que les modèles climatiques sont faux a priori. Certains modèles peuvent évidemment s'avérer vrais. Mais à force de jouer à pile ou face, on finit bien par obtenir face, n'est-ce pas? J'admets donc que le GIEC a peut-être raison, mais le bain politique dans lequel il se trouve, en plus de l'incertitude scientifique inhérente à la climatologie, m'amènent à entretenir des réserves trop souvent marginalisées dans le débat public.

          Le GIEC vient d'ailleurs de nous donner davantage de raisons de douter de ses cris alarmistes. Le troisième rapport (2001) nous annonçait un réchauffement variant entre 1,4 et 5,8 degrés Celsius d'ici 2100. Or, le Sommaire du quatrième rapport qui vient d'être publié nous apprend que le réchauffement anticipé n'est plus que de 2 à 4,5 degrés, une baisse notable de 22% du maximum de la fourchette! Toute une claque pour le troisième rapport, et pourtant les médias ont donné l'impression que la situation était pire. Qu'adviendra-t-il du quatrième rapport lorsque le cinquième sortira?

          De plus, ce sommaire du quatrième rapport admet une marge d'incertitude de 10%. En science, 10% d'incertitude, c'est énorme. Ce l'est d'autant plus lorsqu'il s'agit d'engager des milliards de dollars puisés à même les fruits du travail des gens.

          La climatologie se pose en science alors qu'il est permis de douter qu'elle en soit une à 100%. Ses théories ne peuvent pas être mises à l'épreuve, sauf par le passage du temps. Ce processus de falsification m'apparaît plutôt éloigné de la méthode scientifique. Cela revient essentiellement à proposer des théories que personne ne peut invalider, et à en proposer de nouvelles en remplacement des vieilles au fur et à mesure qu'elles s'avèrent fausses. Voilà qui ressemble à une diseuse de bonne aventure. Pour moi, c'est suffisant pour jeter le doute.

          Ce doute s'amplifie d'autant plus lorsque j'entends les appels au consensus. Permettez-moi de citer l'auteur Michael Crichton, dans une allocution au California Institute of Technology:
 

          I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

          Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

          There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. [...]

          Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

          En terminant, vous me pardonnerez de ne pas répondre à votre question. D'une part, affirmer qu'un scientifique émet des opinions biaisées parce qu'il est subventionné par l'industrie pétrolière est un sophisme – un raisonnement fallacieux par lequel vous évitez de répondre aux préoccupations soulevées. Le fait que le scientifique soit subventionné par tel ou tel groupe ne prouve pas que ce qu'il affirme est faux. D'autre part, ma préoccupation n'est pas de parvenir à déterminer quels scientifiques ont tort ou raison, mais bien de mettre en lumière qu'il existe des fondements légitimes d'incertitude face aux conclusions alarmistes du GIEC alors que ces sources d'incertitudes font face à une pression de censure sous la forme d'appels au consensus. Si la recherche de la vérité est ce qui importe, il est nécessaire de répondre à toutes les questions et de ne pas cacher celles qui peuvent s'avérer dérangeantes pour l'establishment onusien.

          Bien à vous,

J.-H. L.
 

 

MARKET, YES! BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DRUGS...
 
 

          I've just read your article in the latest issue of QL. I'm a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada. We would like all economic issues be taken out of the hands of government and be given back to the private sector so that the market system will take of them. But I/we have a problem. That's medication.

          I understand the concept of the market system (at least I think I do). If we take for example the lamp at Wal-Mart, I have the choice to buy it or not; go elsewhere; or buy a substitute. All of this affects supply and demand and thus price. The question I want to pose is this: what choice does a sick person have when it comes down his medication? He doesn't have the choice to buy it or not (unless death is his wish). Going elsewhere just means going around in circles. He could buy an alternative (a clone as I call them), but they could take years to become available because of copyright laws. How can he get affordable medication, or insurance, like he can get an affordable lamp?

          Thanking you in advance,

Francis Bédard
Quebec City

Christian Saucier answers:

Mr. Bédard,

          Although libertarians like you and I often get demonised for being harsh and having no compassion for the needy, I find to the contrary that the great majority of us are very concerned and well informed on social issues. The approaches we propose are often misunderstood, but when we examine them under the light of well established economic principles, we find that they are much more efficient than state intervention.

          One of the reasons why many people don't understand libertarian proposals is that they usually revolve around allowing the market to operate freely. The market itself isn't the solution; it is a discovery process, not unlike a web search engine, that allows us to get to (and measure the effectiveness of) various solutions. The solutions themselves are provided by individuals and private firms who risk their own capital hoping their products or services will be successful.

          Unlike the market approach, the statist proposal often seems more appealing to many because it is usually more immediate and it promises specific results. When faced with a problem, the politicians always tell us: "We have a plan!" These plans are not inherently bad, but unfortunately we have no way of measuring how good they are. The only way to measure the effectiveness of such plans, and to ensure that they remain aligned with the constantly changing needs of a population, is to compare them with competing alternatives in a market.

          This might all be true and good, but what about medication? Your note seems to pose two underlying questions: 1) Do people have a choice when it comes to medication? 2) How can we ensure that people can afford the medication they need?

          Regarding the first question there is rarely only a single treatment available for one particular need, although I agree that there usually is one that is preferred over the others. Decisions regarding medical treatment are some of the most difficult decisions to make: there is always a cost (in money and usually in unwanted side effects), and there are rarely any guaranteed results.

          The fact that treatments developed in the last five years are usually preferred over treatments that came out 20 years ago goes a long way toward demonstrating the importance of pharmaceutical research. Both alternatives are still available, and some physicians like to wait longer than others for a new product to demonstrate its effectiveness before altering their recommendations to their patients. But no one questions that we continuously need to develop better drugs, that are more easily customised, that can cover more illnesses, and that have fewer side effects, etc.

          That means we need R&D. The best way to encourage pharmaceutical companies to do more R&D is not by giving out government favors. Fiscal incentives always come with conditions that are unrelated or sometimes even counter-productive to the actual research (e.g.: location of the research centre, minimum number of jobs created, investments in the local community, etc). Other forms of government subsidies aren't any different as I argued in another article (see « Pour un Québec innovant et prospère... sans subvention »)

          The best way to encourage R&D is simply to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge the market price for their products (see « Les effets pervers des contrôles de prix », p. 4).

          Which brings us to question 2: How can we ensure that people can afford the medication they need? You already mentioned insurance, which I agree is the best way to safeguard against the risk of not being able to afford the treatments for a potential illness. Again, with insurance as with any other sector of activity, competition on a free market is the best way to keep the products diversified and as affordable as possible.

          Yet, there will always be some people who just can't afford the medication or the insurance they need. Note that the percentage of the population finding itself in this situation is not very high in developed countries; the great majority of people can budget for the basic necessities of survival. Life-saving or life-sustaining drugs are pretty high on people's priorities, right up there with food and shelter.

          Still, there remain individuals – the most vulnerable individuals – who simply do not have the income or the savings to cover their basic expenses. These are the ones we need to focus on. We should NOT be calling for "universal drug programs" where the guy who makes $100K/year gets subsidised medicine at the same price as someone else living on $15K/year.

          If we have public dollars to spend, let's not waste them on trying to manipulate the market by putting price ceilings on products and then subsidising the companies that produce them. Let's focus our support specifically on individuals that are the most in need. You'll rightly guess that I am also a big proponent of private charity, which is a necessary institution to provide a final safety net after everything else has failed.

          I might have gotten carried away a little with the length of this response. It only reflects my desire to see more open dialogue on the topic and my respect for the pertinence of the questions you asked. I don't presume that this response will be totally convincing, but I hope it'll inspire you to remain curious about potential alternatives and engaged in developing your libertarian perspective on this and other social issues.

          Regards,

C. S.
 

 

A BY-PRODUCT OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM?
 
 

Mr. Bhandari,

          This is in response to your recent article regarding The BBC Celebrity Big Brother series and racism. I do agree with you that Caucasians do not have the "market cornered" on racism, far from it. As an individual who is well-educated; of mixed races; an immigrant in the US; has lived in various international cities (San Francisco, New York and London); well-traveled and female: I have seen and experienced more than my fair share of racism and discrimination.

          I would like to pose a question to you: Do you think that India's racism within its own people is a by-product of British Imperialism? As with many former British colonies, plenty of countries seem to have adopted forms of caste systems and hierarchies within their own cultures.

          This is true, from America to India to Belize, et al. Of course racism is more pronounced against non-Caucasians in other countries such as France or Greece. The subtleties are varied, but my point is that as Western European countries (from Conquistadors to Puritans, even the Danish into Greenland and the Dutch into Africa) invaded and conquered the rest of the world from the Seventeenth Century onward, aboriginal cultures became disenfranshised and intermingled with its European conquerers, both genetically and anthropologically. This in turn, created a paradoxical self-loathing and veiled prejudice, stemming from an enforced invading, then prevailing culture where "Caucasian" is ruler and the "ideal." This is where I believe this horrific concept of racism "within it's own" originated from.

          Racism, and very importantly, sexism, in any form is abhorrent and is purely a sign of ignorance and lack of enlightenment. When individuals begin to look for the similarities and not the differences, this is when harmony will be reached. I wish us all this for humanities sake.

J. dV-A.

Jayant Bhandari answers:

          If you read the history of India, the class and caste system was very much ingrained in it before the English arrived. Women had a very low status; I think a bit lower than that of cows. These were the reasons why India was very fragmented and weak. If at all, the English tried to change it. One thing that they actually mostly got rid of was the system of Sati (widow burning on her husband's pyre). In my understanding the reason for India's war for "freedom" from English had nothing to do with people trying to be free – they probably didn't even know what freedom meant. The "freedom" movement had its origin in the British trying to challenge the rigid Indian social system, and bringing some enlightenment (look for Ram Mohan Roy for some more details. You might also like to read books by Mulk Raj Anand).

          I think it is important to put the horse before the cart. India became a subservient country to England because the people of India had a slavish/totalitarian/dishonest mentality, not vice versa. I am not saying that the English were angels, but they were indeed much more enlightened than the Indians were.

          Most Indians I know have very little respect for other people's property and personal space. They have close to no sense of fairness. There is absolutely no way that these cultural aspects could have come to India from the UK. At no point of time were there more than 150,000 English people in India. India had a population of 300 million. The Raj was mostly run by Indians. In fact, if you look at the history of Indians living in the UK, most followed the English to the UK immediately after "independence." Ask yourself, why?

          There was an Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore. He won a Noble prize. He was very pro-English (look under "political views"). He used to tell Gandhi that the way to make India really free was to liberate Indians from their complicated/superstitious minds. Everything else would follow.

          Best regards,

J. B.
 

 

SOMMAIRE NO 212 • QU'EST-CE QUE LE LIBERTARIANISME? • ARCHIVES • RECHERCHE • LISTE DES COLLABORATEURS

ABONNEZ-VOUS AU QL • QUI SOMMES-NOUS? • LE BLOGUE DU QL • POLITIQUE DE REPRODUCTION • COMMENTAIRES/QUESTIONS?