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.
Yes, without review, it couldn’t be called credible science. Good thing it’s in a peer-reviewed journal then.
Dan,
Glad to see that you have “migrated” to this blog. Look around and get acquainted with the place. Try to hold your anger and all your views will be read and commented on by many people here. There are many here who are published scientists. These guys enjoy the give and take.
Thanks for stopping by, we’re hoping you hang around.
Mike
So are plenty of AGW-skeptical papers.
Peer review doesn’t cut it. Only independent review will do. If full data and methods are undisclosed, independent review is not possible.
It’s really as simple as that.
Okay, here’s a question for you Evanjones:
How do you explain corroboration of the hockey stick independently with tree-rings, corals, ice cores, historical records AND marine sediments?
Coincidence?
Oh, and this:
Peer review doesn’t cut it. Only independent review will do.
Right – those silly climate scientists can’t be trusted to evaluate the credibility of climate science. LOL
Dude, you’re a [snip – Anne the tough moderator].
Reply: Please be courteous. Name calling is a no-no here.
~Smokey the moderator
If you say so.
Meanwhile, insofar as it comes to any subject of controversy, be it climate or history, I’m from Missouri.
(BTW I did not do the earlier “snip” and do not know what it originally said.)
Am I one of the few who has just read Monckton’s painfully detailed dissection and dismantling of the hockey stick?
I would suggest that any wanting to learn exactly how faulty and … okay, I won’t use the other f word here … let’s say, “Creative” the hockey stick is need to read its complete history.
And Dan, McIntyre was one of the peer reviewers for Ammann and Wahl’s attempt to regain credibility for the hockey stick. There was no methodology sharing, as you so forcefully claim.
Anyway, Monckton: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
Coincidence?
Selectivity. (And in at least one case I know of, extreme alteration.)
Hence the need for full disclosure and open audit. Let data and methods do the talking. What straight-shooter would object to that?
And I think you will find the historical records heavily against you.
Anyone who sprinkles their comments with “ha ha ha” and “LOL” comes across as a uneducated teenager, not someone to be taken seriously.
I might be wrong but wasn’t the original hockey stick graph submitted to a journal with peer review? I believe that it was totally discredited. Peer review by no means guarantees truth.
“I think the time has come to push back, and point out that peer review is not the arbiter of truth. Truth is the arbiter of truth, and peer review is merely a flawed tool we use to help get there.
Peer reviewers don’t check to make sure the results are true. Peer reviewers do not typically replicate the experiment in question. They do not check the math. Most of what they do is check that the arguments are reasonable and that the experiment(s) were well designed. Peer reviewers do not necessarily even have to agree with a paper they accept. They may simply think the data are compelling and the arguments are worth hearing, even if they may be wrong.”-Submitted by coglanglab
Peer review has been oversold.
Also, Dan, Evan is no moron. That type of name-calling does nothing for your case.
Dan
Did you look at Mann’s source data? All of your HA HAs are like listening to a kid that hasn’t learned to read or do the math himself. Check the work. Do the math. Make some credible responses. Raising the DB doesn’t make your arguments even interesting.
Dan is attempting to argue that any association with oil companies invalidates anything said by a skeptical scientist. That, of course, is a pure ad hominem argument, and therefore it fails.
Rather than attempting to convince scientists by the use of his ad hominem, red herring and appeal to authority arguments – which fail the logic test – Dan needs to start arguing actual science.
There is a very minor effect from CO2. But it is so small that many other forcings completely negate the effect. That’s why the Earth has been cooling for many years. Check it out, Dan: click
Mann’s new and improved hockey stick is being systematically dismantled at Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre. The problems with this new incarnation are legion. It’s only a matter of time before this hockey stick lies broken, beside the old hockey stick.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
His most recent post, “Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Re-Mix.
by Steve McIntyre on September 12th, 2008” reveals that even confirmed AGW proponents, are less than enamored of the poor science in that latest Mann fable.
Guess you missed my first comment.
No.
All your first comment did was talk about who funded it and who didn’t like the declaration and what those people thought the ulterior motive of the declaration was.
It was a statement and it was signed. Unless the signers did not read what they were signing or did not agree with it, or the signatures themselves were bogus, it would seem the word “sham”, by definition, does not apply.
(I make the same objection when skeptics refer to AGW as a “scam” or a “fraud”.)
brazil84 (07:37:40) : All science relies heavily on inductive reasoning. We make a bunch of specific observations and try to come up with a general rule. That’s inductive reasoning.
Actually, that’s closer to abductive reasoning although they are similar. Abductive means arriving a probable cause vs. the cause. An hypothesis, if you will. Experimental design is deductive, i.e., given the cause, what are the expected effects. The experiment then sets out to see if it is the case. After many experiments, the hypothesis is then elevated to theory. The process of elevation is closer to induction.
Science is supposed to be doing both abduction and deduction because, oddly, abduction is the equivalent of the logical fallacy affirming the consequent. It can yield invalid causes thus making experiment necessary.
I guess it’s fair to say science is ultimately using induction but that really glosses over the process.
Being a skeptic or non-skeptic has little to do with the type of logic chosen. Author D. North has effectively put forth the proposition (not necessarily her own) that the process of arriving at a conclusion is different for skeptics. That proposition seems to imply that most skeptics are non-scientific in their approach. I think it’s fair to characterize scientific reasoning as skeptical reasoning.
Unfortunately, unscientific reasoning is a characteristic of both sides of the AGW debate. I’m not sure how to term these people. Maybe faithful is the best term. After all, they aren’t really looking at the evidence.
Without going into a lot of detail, I think that down deep, most people use a Bayesian approach — whether they readily admit this or not — because they rely on subjective probabilities. This allows differing abductive conclusions to be reached. The AGW scientists have assigned a low probability to alternate causes. The non-AGW scientists have assigned higher probability to alternate causes. In both AGW and GW camps, the faithful have assigned no probability to the evidence but high probability in the reliability of various sources. Also, whether anyone admits it, there is no absolute “truth” and a belief in a particular conclusion is just that, a belief.
It’s quite possible for two genuine skeptics to agree on a conclusion concerning one subject but to disagree on another. To make an observed association between one’s belief in differing topics is effectively an ad hominem.
To sum it all: SCIENTIST == SKEPTIC and both sides of AGW debate have the FAITHFUL. Looking back over the above posts I’m willing to bet on who is which but I’ll keep that list to myself 😉
Reply – I was wondering when someone would make the leap from deductive reason to abductive reasoning. Abductive is prone to generating false results, more so than either deductive or inductive, but it has its uses for narrowing the field of outcomes. – Dee Norris
Dan – please explain this:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080905/lf_afp/switzerlandarchaeologyclimatewarming
in light of “warmer now than for 1300 years blather, blather…”
And…
“Right – those silly climate scientists can’t be trusted to evaluate the credibility of climate science. LOL”
….is the first sensible thing you have said. Poor review is broken beyond repair. I wish I knew how to replace it to your obviously scrupulous criteria.
“The authors show that current warming is anomalous even if all tree-ring data are eschewed.”
Well, then try telling that to the Bristlecone Pines, which used to grow at an altitude 330 feet higher in the White Mountains of Calif. than they do today, Mr. Nat. Acad. Sci.. I’ll bet that the Bristlecones don’t like to be “eschewed” [shunned or ignored], nor their ancestors thought of as “anomalous” [in the sense of being unnatural freaks].
The fact that some of these AGW people can’t seem to see their own impotent word-game propagandizing, or else think that no one will notice it and their very convenient use of language and alleged facts, is one of the main things which continually amazes me. [I’m sure I’m not alone.]
And, even though the evidence for the MWP is massive – the ipcc even had it featured in its 1995 graph – why is the time span of a mere 1300 years past suddenly the magic period which determines if there was or was not ever a naturally warmer time in the Earth’s more recent history?
For example, Stephen F. Arno states in his book “Timberline – Mountain and Artic Forest Frontiers”, pub. by The Mountaineers, 306 Second Ave., Seattle Washington 98119, etc., 1984, pg. 81:
“Another use of timberlines as a climatic indicator lies in measuring the timing and magnitude of the major warm period [the Hypsithermal] since the last ice age. Remains of large trees above the current alpine timberlines in the Great Basin, the Cairngorm Mountains of Scotland, and at numerous locations north of the current polar timberline indicate that the climate was substantially warmer a few thousand years ago [Wardle 1974]. Dates of the Hypsithermal vary by region.”
Arno, pg. 26, quoting Wardle, apparently considers “that ‘timberline is the sharpest temperature-dependent boundary in nature’.”
As to the Great Basin’s reflection of the Hypsithermal, Arno cites current Bristlecone Pine treelines vs “remnants” above current treelines in the White Mountain Range of California’s eastern Sierras [along with the Bristlecone treelines and remnants in the Snake Range of east-central Nevada], pg. 82:
“These remnants indicate that the forest extended at least 330 feet in elevation higher than at present during a warmer climatic period from 4000 to 2000 years ago [LaMarche and Mooney, 1967, 1972].”
So I’m not that down with the Nat. Acad. Sci. in totally “eschewing” tree data, which so far doesn’t really tell these “experts” what they want to hear.
I too am a skeptic who lives in Alabama. My life’s moto “Trust nothing, Question everything!”. Isn’t that what we all do in reality?
Dee:
From one “AGW skeptic” to another. Thanks for a job well done! I really enjoyed your article and the comments it has brought forth.
Wow… What a great post. Thank you Dee.
I too claim the new moral high ground of skeptic and try to use both inductive and deductive reasoning. A mind should always be open, but critically so.
I am not a stereotype! I am a free man! (Sorry, watching too many ‘Prisoner’ re-runs)
Full disclosure – I do not work for an oil company, but do work for a government environmental agency.
I, like many of my colleagues (not a majority, but still sizable), am skeptical of AGW (Alarmist Global Warming) theory.
As a scientist I am very disappointed in the actions of colleagues who follow the herd when it comes to this debate. Science is not about a consensus. Science is about describing what is happening. If science finds a better way of describing things, then that description replaces the old one.
The 31,000 petition is no better than the 2,500 IPCC experts. Both are attempts to infer that a consensus agrees or disagrees with a position on AGW. Both are political statements.
What fuels my skepticism of the AGW position is the lack of transparency of its adherents and the lack of agreement between the data and the models.
Reply – I see the 31,000 strong petition as a clear statement that there is no consensus. If you read the link for the Purpose of the Petition you can see this this was the intent of the project. – Dee Norris
Dee, Like you, I am a skeptic and I yearn for AGW to be proved wrong! But Luke´s ignorance of how science works has nothing to do with the issue. I recently experienced an enormous shock when I read the exchanges in Duae Quartunciae´s “The APS and global warming: What were they thinking?” If you haven´t read him, please do. As he says “It´s the physics, stupid!”
Dan,
A Canadian Steve McIntyre has found a lot of Holes in Mann’s Statistical Data!
It took a lot of Requests from Steve to Mann to receive Mann’s Inputs in His Studies! Go to Climate Audit.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3608
There are over 31,000 scientists who have co-signed the OISM Petition. One of those scientists is Prof. Freeman Dyson.
I will sit up straight and pay attention to what Freeman Dyson says over what Michael Mann claims. Remember that Mann still refuses to disclose his taxpayer-funded data and methodologies regarding his “Hockey Stick” invention. Doesn’t that tell you something?