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.
Deadwood,
It’s good to hear that there is skepticism within a government environmental agency. I have a feeling that AGW would have already been beyond question if the proponents had not tried to push the catastrophic angle. For me, this is the part of the whole thing that is so ludicrous.
Of course, without the catastrophism, there would be no reason for drastic actions and increased taxation.
Mike Bryant
BTW, Good post, Dee.
I consider myself fairly green, but have in the last couple of years gone from unquestioning belief of AGW to a more interested and open-minded scepticism, mainly born of the mainstream media’s handling of this issue, which even if you’re not looking closely… I mean, it’s just awful! 🙁
…(thought- If you want to turn people off of AGW, then the media simply has to keep going the way it’s going now. All this sensationalist headline grabbing and simple fact dismissing is getting completely out of hand)
It’s obvious to me that a lot of people who spout global warming alarmism aren’t exactly interested in the science. Some people want to change the way other people live, and fear/desire are the two best ways we know- but if we are really seriously interested in helping the environment, it really makes sense to get the science part right, and that means questioning, testing- a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s possible that over the coming years we’ll waste incredible amounts of money, time and resources on expensive ventures which won’t have any actual environmental benefit. Serious environmentalists should naturally be skeptical, and strive to look at both sides of the GW argument. Simple feel good/feel bad ideologies aren’t going to help.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
It really comes down to if you:
– “believe” in the computer models; or
– are mostly convinced by the empirical data and the actual physics calculations.
Luke’s comment comes from a “belief” because if he understood that ALL of the serious global warming impacts ONLY come from the results of the computer model simulations (versus actual evidence), he might change his tune.
Even the commentary from Spencer Weart (the official global warming historian) at RealClimate this week said that there is no physics calculations that predict 3.0C of warming per doubling, it ONLY comes out of the global climate simulations.
The basic physics calculations say 1.2C per doubling – an inconsequential figure really. If the computer models kept spitting out 1.2C, the modelers and Hansen would have to say “okay, this is a minor problem we can probably forget about.” It is only when Hansen’s tweaked computer models say 4.5C that they get to scream “global warming disaster – send us money.”
Science is not about belief (especially belief in the results of a significantly manually adjusted computer program) – it is about evidence.
Does the FDA allow new drugs into the market based on
– computer simulations; or do they,
– insist on double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicated well-designed studies that use rigourous statistics to demonstrate/prove the drugs are beneficial and do not cause harm.
There appears to be at least four moderators online at the moment. Kinda funny results ~ charles the moderator
Hmmm.. I accidently posted a link to a temperature graph in my comment above. I was going to relate it to something Amanda Lynch said in the Age a few days ago, about global temps tracking above the IPPC’s projected scenarios. According to that graph, they’re not- which makes me want to ask, why does she say they are?
Also, why is it that the majority of the crowd refuses to see this sham (the Petition Project) for what it is?
For what it’s worth, I am a skeptic and I think that the 30,000 thing is a bit of a sham, in that the signatories are characterized as “scientists.” I would qualify as a “scientist” under their definition, even though I do not consider myself to be one.
Were they skeptical over the link between cigarettes and cancer too? My bet is yes.
So what if they were? Depending on what evidence is available, it may be perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about something which later turns out to be true. At a certain point, reasonable skepticism turns into unreasonable closed-mindedness. Given what is known today, no reasonable person is skeptical about the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
However, we are nowhere near that point with CAGW.
Dan,
Come back and comment.
Mike
Dee, heliocentrism and bacterial models for disease aside, the mechanisms for material evolutionary change are still inadequate to account for the origin of many biological features. The more we unpack the cell the worse the problem gets. I understand my opinion puts me in the minority, but it’s a quickly growing minority, and one characterized by bright, thoughtful, measured people.
Reply – I am not going to debate the issues you bring up. I am very well aware they exist but I am comfortable saying ‘I just don’t know’ when confronted for an opinion. – Dee Norris
Excellent post, Dee, but
. . . the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW.
The True Believers are right on that one. I am a skeptic, and I am indeed a non-scientist, a conservative, a creationist (of the big-bang type, not the 7000 yr variety), and I am Totally ignorant of “the real science” supporting AGW. I am also a Christian and I believe God works through mechanisms (e.g. evolution). I trust the moral teaching in the Bible, but for the physical details, I don’t think God would have gotten very far trying to explain General Relativity to Moses.
Luke –
. . .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.
I am smart enough to know that God is not subject to scientific proof, and I question the intelligence of ‘scientists’ who don’t know it, or who do and try to disprove God anyway. That’s the real LOL.
mcates –
“… it reduces the hole in the ozone.”
I, too, cannot sleep at night for worrying about penguins dying of skin cancer.
Reply – Skeptics come from all walks of life and the AGW debate cannot be simply be framed as Democrats vs Republicans, Agnostics vs Deitists, Blue-Collar vs White-Collar or any of the other polarities used to characterize the major issues under review in the world today. Let move off religion and creationism, lest Jeez [snip] me too! – Dee Norris
I smell an evolution discussion brewing. That’s a no no.
~ charles the moderator.
and a religious discussion, also a no no. ~ charles the moderator
no last words, no but…but….but…
please stop now.
I’d also like to chime in with a “Good Job, Dee” !
Since there’s a Nascar race on at the moment, please bear with me a moment while I recount a relevant story from 1997. I was a member of a car-related mailing list. Several hundred of us with the same kind of turbo cars had an active and very useful ongoing discussion about improvements. All was going well until The Topic came up.
Someone brought up the topic of intercooler color. In a turbo car, an intercooler is an air-to-air radiator that cools the pressurized air coming out of the turbo, increasing its density. Increased density and lower charge-air temperature dramatically increases the amount of power a turbo car can make.
So the question came up: what color radiates the heat better? It seems relatively minor, but it became a major argument, with hurt feelings and dozens of long-time list members leaving in disgust, and some being banned for going over the top in their arguments.
Since this is a science-related topic, I’m certain some of you reading know right away whether black or white would radiate better, or whether no paint at all would be better (to eliminate the insulating effect the paint has), but in the end it made NO DIFFERENCE. With upwards of 750 cubic feet per minute of flow through the intercooler, the minuscule difference that the color would make is completely lost. Back to back runs at the track with various colors of otherwise identical intercoolers were inconclusive, since normal variations in each run far overpowered the tiny difference of color.
I see the current CO2 forcing as the exact same issue. I’ve never argued that there is no difference from CO2, only that the amount of CO2 forcing is overpowered by other natural forcings. Also, the planet has a very efficient CO2 regulation system and can easily absorb any amount of CO2 that we mere humans are capable of putting into the atmosphere. And the concept of us reaching a “tipping point” is just plain ridiculous.
My personal skepticism began in 2002. Prior to that, I had unquestioning faith that the big-name scientists knew what they were talking about. I was actually researching AGW for a major web site I was building when I realized that there was, in fact, no credible evidence for AGW. In fact, there appeared to me to be a culture of fabrication in the “evidence” we were being given. It was clear to me from the start that by discounting any research that had any touch from the oil industry, the proponents were shutting down science.
Personally, I am in love with Science. I crave an orderly world, and am more excited watching a Shuttle launch than driving a 1100HP Corvette around a track. But I am dismayed at the pseudo-science I see in virtually everything that seems to be related to “environmentalism”. The AGW theory, as understood by the layman, not only IS bunk, but has been completely debunked as far as I can see. And yet, there are people who will fight and argue for it without really understanding anything about science. There are people who will risk life and limb and jail time to vandalize power plants because they so firmly believe something that I recognize as wrong. And there are “scientists” who will defend them.
Science is taking a major beating, and it is up to us “skeptics” to get it back on track.
Charles, evolution was used in the original post in reference to characterizing skeptics. I realize that’s off topic for the site, but I thought it would OK to comment on it given it’s inclusion in the article. Apologies for going there.
Dee, “I just don’t know” would be a welcome statement from many scientists in contrast to the unsubstantiated just-so stories they proffer. Good to hear you think it’s a reasonable answer…
Reply – Skepticism sometimes means admitting one just does not know. However, it does not mean that one stops trying to know. The issues of complexity in cellular microbiology you bring up may very well have valid scientific explanations. Personally, I suspect they do and historically, that is the pattern – it may take a year or 100 years, but 100% of the historic similar incidents have been resolved. In the meantime, I just don’t know. A little mystery in life is a neat thing and I look forward to being surprised at the outcome. – Dee Norris
I love materialistic IOU’s – there’s no shortage of them. And design is a scientific inference. Just ask SETI.
Religous? YES! In Denmark we have a debate where some pro-AGW people directly says : “If the IPCC says the moon is made of green cheese, i believe it”.
First the AGW tries some arguments they have learned. When these quite rapidly fall to the ground they use the argument: “But how can the whole world be wrong about AGW?” and they considder the sceptics for “Conspirathy thinkers”.
These peoble seems extremely indifferent with facts.
So Religion, yes, it more and more looks like a religion.
Dan,
the thing about the hockey stick is that, well, its a hockey stick. The temperature graph shows a practically level temperature gradient up until the late 19th early 20th century with no MWP or LIA. Without either of these periods being represented on the shaft of the stick the temperature reconstruction must be invalid.
There is excellent evidence for both of these periods, for example
radiocarbon dating of organic remains exposed by retreating glaciers
in Greenland indicates that there must have been sustained warming over
a long period of time. There are also many written accounts throughout
Europe of the LIA. And of course many of the ice and sediment cores also
show the same MWP and LIA.
The AGW proponents will simply dismiss anything like this as a local phenomenon (lasting several hundred years!) and I might be happy to accept this argument if they could show either a similar effect occuring over the last hundred years somewhere in the world or if their climate models could demonstrate exactly how it could occur.
Of course, they wouldn’t be able to show a similar effect over the last hundred years since if it did occur it would be put down to AGW and not a naturally occurring phenomenon.
BTW are you any relation to Nelson Muntz?
The Climate Change Creed – appointed to be read in laboratories.
I believe in Global Warming, which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore, Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting.
AMEN.
Skeptics are seen as “irresponsible” because they quibble over details while Rome burns. They interfere with humanity’s collective ability to respond to the environmental crisis.
In the bigger picture, humanity has come from smaller social units, which over thousands of years, gradually built material means and technology to increase lifespan, health, communications, transcend dogma, and integrate as ever larger social units, until a “global world” became a viable idea.
On the global stage, environmentalists often accuse dissenters of being deluded, corrupt, and even criminal. They form sub-groups that fight against business, prosperity, and normal modern aspirations. They pitch themselves against the rest with an “Us vs Them” mentality. These sub-culture wars are divisive. They lead to more fragmentation just at a time when the world needs more integration.
Pitching the environment against energy and business, “the root of the problems”, puts the environmental movement into an unmaintainable and unsustainable position. They will not be able to respond to the world’s problems, because we usually solve socially pertinent problems by advancing integration, not by going the other way; increasing fragmentation. Their inability to respond maturely could be seen as an irresponsibility far greater than a few skeptics could muster. Kinda sad actually.
“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,”
I wish you wouldnt lop people together in big globs like that. Im anti AGW yet am still an advocate of labeling and controling genetically altered foods. Why you ask? First off a majority of genetically altered crops carry a dominant gene, meaning if you grow them next to a non genetically altered field they will both produce genetically altered product. I also have issue with any company owning the rights to plants. I fear the ‘greater good’ frankly because I do not trust frankenstein:) What genetic alteration does do is create a batch of clone plants who are all suceptable to the same desease and easily wiped out, diversity is what will keep the world fed.
Reply – As I am sure you realize, clones and GMOs are different things. A clone can be of a perfectly ordinary organism and GMOs can have a lot of intra-speciesdiversity between individual specimens. The danger from a lack of diversity in our food source is equally a risk with using limited non-GM0 food-stocks as with GMOs. In both cases, inter and intra-species diversity can be lost by the exclusion of other variations on a species. However, a case can be made that GMOs can increase intra-species diversity by adding to the gene pool. Clones, however, are a huge risk as inter-specimen diversity can be lost. – Dee Norris
I attended a lecture this week by IPCC lead author David Randall. He intentionally and often blurred the line between measured data and theory, at one point presented Mann’s temperature reconstructions as “well established science.”
But the one useful piece of information I took away was his statement that unusually cold periods can not be attributed to CO2. He was insistent that climate change and warming go hand in hand. This is an important point, as activists attempt to morph their arguments to cover up the failure of the models used by the IPCC.
“just-so stories”
The Sing-Song of Old Mann Kangaroo
He was grey and he was woolly, and his pride was inordinate: he danced on an outcrop in the middle of Australia . . .
Imo, anyone who thinks “peer review” insures that a paper or study delivers given truth is deluded – though it might be nice if it were so, just like most Fairy Tales.
Regardless, until McIntyre and McKitrick got hold of the data involved in MBH98 – with great difficulty – apparently the only ipcc reviewers of this document were the authors, MBH!
So much for ipcc peer review, eh?
I agree completely. Its amazing how much venom is heaped on AGW skeptics. But I suppose we have it easy compared to those who were skeptical of the prevailing wisdom in the past. When Galileo said the earth was not the center of the universe he was forced to recant and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life, despite the fact that he proved it. The church didn’t get around to exhonerating him until 3 centuries after his death.
This is one more reason to be thankful we have a constitution that protects us from such things.
Dan, if you want to be taken seriously, then please take other people’s replies seriously (rather than laughing at them without giving a proper answer).
Look at graphs of the source data for Mann’s latest analysis (it’s up on Climate Audit for anyone to see). There is NO hockey stick in most of them, they mostly look like random noise!
Regarding your disbelief of the Petition, what has (alleged) Oil backers to do with anything? As long as the people signing it are real & honest, the Petition is exactly what it appears to be – 30,000 (?) scientifically literate people who are skepical of AGW.