Posted by Dee Norris
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.
By Luke
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.
I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.
I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW – ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,
In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).
Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:
- The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
- The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
- the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
- The theory of prions – the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease – was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
- The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.
As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.
It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment –
- The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.
I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.
[The opinions expressed in this post are that of the author, Dee Norris, and not necessarily those of the owner of Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts, who graciously allows me to pontificate here.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might simply be radiated out into space.
The ArgoBots measure pretty deep, but not to the most extreme dephts.
I think that it makes alot of sense that all that heat is hiding at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Everyone knows how hot it gets at depths. Besides, the models have been showing that all that extra heat would be hiding in the ocean depths all along. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
If it’s not hiding there it is obviously hiding somewhere else. I’m pretty sure that a large percentage of it is in my attic.
Amiga mia
Hace tan fria . . .
Perhaps as Global Warming evolves, it has acquired the ability to disguise itself as Global Cooling. This is obviously the result of a beneficial mutation. This new ability is akin to the camoflage ability of the lowly chameleon. It is so effective that there is no scientific instrument that can locate this missing heat.
I am pretty sure that there are countless millions of caves deep within the oceans. If I am correct, these caves would be an excellent hiding place for the newly camoflaged heat. You may think this is all a big joke, however this makes as much of some of the absurdities of AGW.
as much sense…
Mike Bryant–while not in violation of explicit blog rules, I’m afraid you are just being a bit too silly.
El calor está ocultando
Debajo del mar,
O debajo de mi cama,
O en mi ático.
Es un camaleón.
No podemos encontrarlo.
El AGW es verdad.
El calor está quizá en una cueva del mar profundo.
Sorry Jeez, I thought a little comic relief might be in order.
REPLY: Mike you are really pushing it today, I suggest take a time out for a few hours, you’ve been at the console too long – Anthony
Good Night
The frightening thing is that I was actually able to understand that.
Hasty bananas.
evanjones (15:19:02) :
” If we had had better hybrids at points past, there would have been a heck of a lot less famine and human suffering. ”
This is such a common misconception, in my opinion, that I will reply briefly to it, even though not related to this thread.
Mammals expand to fill the food source available, in absence of predators. Happened to me with cats last year. Humans are mammals. They will adjust to the medicine, GM food, whatever, and multiply to the edges of famine till they reach again starvation and suffering. And by then many more will be suffering in numbers.
It is only education, particularly of women, and a wide spread of contraceptive techniques that will allow the brain ( the only thing extra from other mammals) to control and ration.
Kohl Piersen (16:03:58) :
“There is at least one major problem with what I have so far seen of the ‘hockey stick’. That is that it relies upon a restricted comparison.
It is unnecessary to consider the merits to be able to observe that restricting the comparison to the last 1000 or 2000 years is in itself, suspicious.”
I think you are getting a bit mixed up here, the ‘hockey stick’ is based on measurement of global temperatures by proxy, such as tree rings etc. The methods used can only give some degree of accuracy back 1,000 years or so due to the methods available. It is not arbitary at all but a reflection of what data can be used. Discussions on this blog and other disinformation suggest that the HS is fundamentally flawed, even a lie, fraud etc. Take a look at these graphs, the top graph shows the original HS, the lower graph shows the added results from more recent data. http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
What is immediately nticeable is that Mann et al had played it safe and represented past temperatures than warmer than they probably were, judging on the more recent data. Also very noticeable is the lack of MWP and LIA on the graphs. Some will take the obvious ‘D’ worded route out and claim ALL the data must be wrong. More reasonable people will deduce the localised effects of these events, as outlined previously in this post. What the recent data shows is how close to the mark and how durable the original HS actually is.
You will also notice the instrumental data and the unprecedented rise in temperature. It is certainly a lot warmer globally now than during the MWP.
Stefan (17:20:01) :
“…accept that the heat must be down there because there is nowhere else it could be, but only if it has to be somewhere. If it doesn’t have to be somewhere, then we don’t need to assume that it is down there.”
But we know the heat is down there, the rise in sea level indicates that. We also know that this heat is released periodically during El Nino events. We also believe a similar process of upwelling is what is melting the southern ocean ice caps from below.
Mike Bryant (19:13:16) :
“If it’s not hiding there it is obviously hiding somewhere else. I’m pretty sure that a large percentage of it is in my attic.”
I think Anthony is right, you have lost it I’m afraid! I hope you’re in better form today after you have slept it off 😉
Les Johnson (16:13:10) :
“The importance of arbitrary start and stop dates. The following chart shows much the same as yours, about 3.2 mm/year rise since 1992. But it also shows that if you start the trend in 2006, sea levels have fallen in the last 2-3 years.”
I think you should actually try to get a basic grip on this before this sort of disinformational knee-jerk reaction. One, it isn’t arbitrary at all, the project was started in 1992 and the graph shows the data since that point. Second your graph shows the seasonal signal still in. I’m sure you know, or may not know, that the sea level changes cyclically throughout the year. To make the graph relevant this signal needs to be removed. To see the graph with the signal intact click here http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_not_rem.jpg
You will notice that the sea level minima increases each year on year, including this year. Please don’t take the disinformationalist route of confusing short term trends with long term trends, it makes you seem lacking in depth.
Dee: “The end result is that the un-knowledgeable reader is manipulated below the level of conscious awareness into accepting this meme as truth.”
I see no manipulation, merely a series of steps in an argument. The fact that you disagree with some of the steps is not evidence of manipulation, merely disagreement. Compare this:
“Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:
• The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
…
• The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.”
These two claims are presented as if they were similar, when in fact they are entirely dissimilar. So who’s manipulating who?
@anna v
I think the mammal brain will just adapt to that as well and we will continue to use our brains to discover new technology to increase the food supply and/or increase the surface area over which we can spread/graze/hunt, bringing along with us the useful co-species and the non-so useful hitchhikers. Pretty much a continuation of status quo for the history of homo sap.
Creo que Mike Bryant tiene fiebre… 🙂
Mary,
The sea level graph was very interesting. I noticed that if this trend continues, we will have a sea level rise of almost 13″ by the year 2108.
Mike
I apologize to all who were offended last night. I wasn’t drinking, just a little tired from hurricane weekend, and a little sick of arguments. I take full responsibility for my crazy sense of (humor?) or whatever that was. If I wasn’t such a responsible person I could blame my antics on AGW, which, of course, causes everything.
I hope at least one or two of you got a chuckle out of my ramblings.
Reply – Personally, I think your ramblings were fine, but they would have been even finer if consolidated to a single post. 😉 Levity is a good thing, IMHO. – Dee Norris
@Brendan H.
I guess either you have not read Homer or deleted/denied/distorted the meaning of the preceding paragraph in which I was clear I was about to make a prediction based on the gift of prophecy. That was vastly different than IIback who uses authority without evidence to support his assertions with his claim to have worked with the IPCC and believes in AGW (Dr. Chris Landsea work ON the IPCC and states he disagrees with them).
Dont’ forget Cassandra took quite a kicking around for her prophecy.
Please Note: The phrase delete/deny/distort is called the Three Deadly D’s in the addiction recovery model and represent three of the defenses used by the patient when confronted with conflicting ‘truths’ – one or more gets either denied, deleted or distorted. While the origin is similar, this should not be confused with the pejorative used for skeptics.
Hmmm… I wonder if there is a need for AWG Anonymous? “Hi, My name is Al G. I humbly admit I am a believer in AGW and ask my higher power to lift this burden from me.” – Dee Norris
Mary, doesn’t calculating how much the sea would rise, require knowing the temperatures all the way down to the deepest parts?
“I am still waiting for your proof of this and the sources.”
I gave you the exact page and quotes from the IPCC AR4 in the previous thread (I suggest also reading the section on C12/C13 isotopes and the cited literature). I would think that, as a skeptic, you would inquire about the matter yourself.
Denying that humans are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere and ocean also defies common sense. We know that we emit CO2. We know that CO2 has not been at the current level for at least 800,000 years. We know that CO2 concentrations track with the increase in FF burning. Even without isotope evidence the answer is obvious. Where do you think ton after ton of carbon is going?
Reply – When I added up the IPCC’s Carbon contributed by human sources I didn’t get your values.
How about since the IPCC does NO original research, can you provide the source material. Thanks. – Dee Norris
Climate ‘realist’ is a better term – being realistic about uncertainty in climate science, and being realistic about the (lack of) prospects for reducing CO2 emissions against a background of increasing emissions from developing countries, that will more than compensate for any reductions by developed countries.
Mary Hinge:
You suggest that significant heat is being stored in the oceans saying;
“But we know the heat is down there, the rise in sea level indicates that.”
Sorry, but that is a clear misunderstanding.
I ignore eustatic, tectonic, volcanic and anthropogenic effects that cause local rises and falls in sea levels because they are not pertinent except as difficulties in determination of global values for sea level change.
The global sea level has been rising since the end of the last glacial period because ice sheets on land continue to melt and, thus, to add their contents to the oceans. The rate of global sea level rise has been very variable, but no significant change to the rate has been observed recently.
(refs.
Tanner W.F. 1992. 3000 years of sea level change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73: 297-303.
Varekamp, J.C., Thomas, E. and Van de Plassche, O. 1992. Relative sea level rise and climate change over the last 1500 years. Terra Nova 4: 293-304.)
Therefore, the rise in sea level does not indicate recent change oceanic heat content.
Richard
Stefan (05:20:27) :
“Mary, doesn’t calculating how much the sea would rise, require knowing the temperatures all the way down to the deepest parts?”
I am not sure of your logic here, I haven’t tried calculating how much the sea will rise, I have just presented the evidence for the rise over the last 15 years. You can predict a rise in sea level using current trends as Mike Bryant has done (welcome back Mike and apology accepted), but this has its obvious flaws and his 13″ (lucky man!) doesn’t take into account the increased rate of sea level seen in recent years. As a matter of interest here is the record from Iceland from the last 2,000 years taken from sediment cores in Iceland and last 700 years from Connecticut.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
They show very clearly the rapid rate increase since the mid 19th century.
The sea levels are now at the highest for 120,000 years
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html