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.]
Moderator, this may be of interest to you and the group:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm
“Contrary to 40 years of conventional wisdom, a new analysis published in the journal Nature suggests that old growth forests are usually “carbon sinks” – they continue to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and mitigate climate change for centuries.”
[…]
“In the 1960s, a study using 10 years worth of data from a single plantation suggested that forests 150 or more years old give off as much carbon as they take up from the atmosphere, and are thus “carbon neutral.”
“That’s the story that we all learned for decades in ecology classes,” Law said. “But it was just based on observations in a single study of one type of forest, and it simply doesn’t apply in all cases. The current data now makes it clear that carbon accumulation can continue in forests that are centuries old.”
Perhaps those that call for criminalization of skeptics should call for those that followed this conventional wisdom be imprisoned.
As I see it, the Mann Hockey stick story runs like this:
Mann took certain datasets argued to be proxies for past temperatures and subjected them to statistical analysis producing the Hockey Stick. This was a potentially important result from the point of view of science and the emerging political momentum regarding AGW. If a piece of scientific investigation produces an important result, it’s necessary that the work should be scrutinised to make sure that it’s reliable knowledge which others can reproduce. It was reviewed, but not closely scrutinised. Unfortunately the Hockey Stick had rapidly become a significant piece of imagery in a political movement.
Steve McIntyre is a statistician who was intrigued by this research and investigated it, meeting with obstruction as to both the data used and the statistical methods employed. He found that the statistical methods used were invalid and his work was endorsed by authorities in the field of statistics. Now, there’s really no reason that the data and methods used should have been withheld from scrutiny, otherwise what’s being asked for is tremendous faith placed in a result which has not been properly tested. This wouldn’t normally happen with a pivotal piece of scientific research.
Scepticism, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning seductive reasoning….
All I want to see in this is reliable knowledge, in so far as the scientific method is a system of building models each tested and each valididated maybe with its limitations, until a better model is created. This requires critical thinking, testing new findings and doubt as to whether new and remarkable conclusions are valid and safe to proceed on provisionally. You can’t separate the political aspect of this and the huge changes predicated on it, so I’d say, it’s particularly important to be sure that the findings on which this is based are the best knowledge of the subject we are capable of having. The Mann Hockey Stick fails miserably on this count.
All this talk about 1,500 experts have endorsed this and 30,000 experts have questioned that, and the consensus held by whoever, strikes me as argument from authority and not very well considered argument from authority at that.
Nigel Jones and others:
The 31,000 scientists are not “proof” that AGW theory is wrong, and never were intended to be. They are, however, proof that the science is far from “settled”, there is in fact a “debate”, and claims to the contrary are wrong.
A quick skim through the list demonstrates more expertise in related disciplines than the IPCC can claim, even though it should be well known that not ALL scientists the IPCC claims in fact agreed with the IPCC’s conclusions.
Nigel Jones: “…otherwise what’s being asked for is tremendous faith placed in a result which has not been properly tested.”
Couldn’t agree more.
I write, and review, software for embedded systems, and I know only too well how errors remain overlooked through the most rigorous of review processes, only to become glaringly obvious during testing.
Dan, since you appear to be a True Believer facts won’t affect you but I’ll try anyway. Major statisticians have refuted Mann’s methodology, not just Steve McIntyre. Both Wegman and Ian Jolliffe, a noted principal components authority, repudiate Mann’s usage of PCA. It doesn’t matter that Mann has new data, the methodology itself is fatally flawed>/em>.
“How do you explain corroboration of the hockey stick independently with tree-rings, corals, ice cores, historical records AND marine sediments?”
I’ll answer that. It’s because if the statistical algorithms used. If the algorithms produce a hockey stick with random red noise, then it wouldn’t matter what the inputs wer. It could be corroborated by thousands of proxy sources and still be meaningless.
“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.”
That knife cuts both ways, but few seem to recognise it. If any pro-AGW scientist has any ties to any organisation which would benefit from the advancement of AGW hypotheses, they would be equally tainted (or untainted, as the case may be).
Ties to nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal energy to start. How about carbon trading? What about to any government agency that would gain a larger budget? If scientists with ties to oil (no matter how tenuous) are immediately corrupted by it, why not scientist tied to the other side of the fence?
The AGW theory has nothing to do with real science but is basically a political ploy by one of the most corrupt and inept organizations ever created by humankind and its adherents to control worldwide activities for socialistic purposes that will eventually, if left unchecked, result in the loss of our freedoms. I wonder if we will eventually have another ‘Fahrenheit 451’ where all the skeptics’ books are burned.
This letter to the editor was worth noting:
David McKnight, of the University of NSW, alleges that ExxonMobil has funded “junk science” with the intent to “deny” climate change (“The climate change smokescreen”, August 2).
ExxonMobil agrees climate change is a serious issue and is taking action to address it. We are an active player in the debate on Australia’s climate policy. We are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at our operations and have invested in energy-efficient cogeneration technology that has saved more than 10 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
The work of ExxonMobil scientists has produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and numerous related scientific bodies. We have supported major climate research projects at some of the finest academic and governmental organisations in the world, representing a range of positions on the science of climate change.
McKnight has ignored the fundamental point that ExxonMobil does not try to control the views and messages of those whom we support. A case in point: one of the institutions we have funded for many years is McKnight’s employer.
Trisha Perkins Public affairs manager, ExxonMobil, Australia
“How do you explain corroboration of the hockey stick independently with tree-rings, corals, ice cores, historical records AND marine sediments?”
Cherry picking.
What Dan (not me, that’s why I use my full name!) was doing was repeating things he’d read on some AGW site, possibly cut and pasted to here, and which he fully believes. He was not prepared to actually discuss anything, and it’s clear he was woefully uniformed about the current state of the discussion.
I like to see knowledgeable AGW defenders on boards like this and on CA, they keep us honest and force us to be careful with our claims. Just as we are doing for them, although I think they believe we’re doing it “to” them. 🙂
But Dan just isn’t one of the knowledgeable ones. I’ve only seen a handful of those, come to think of it. Could it be that once they become aware of the Mann prestidigitation, they’re too embarrassed to try and defend it?
Dan, if you’re still out there, roll some dice 1000 times, write down the results, and run the data through Mann’s algorithm. You’ll get a hockey stick. That’s the problem with it that is being discussed at Climate Audit.
Adam: “Dan is attempting to argue that any association with oil companies invalidates anything said by a skeptical scientist. ”
What make them think that oil companies are anti-AGW anyway? Both Shell and BP have jumped on the bandwagon. Anything which pushes up the dollar barrel price has to be in their interests.
CodeTech (13:52:05) wrote: “A quick skim through the list demonstrates more expertise in related disciplines than the IPCC can claim, even though it should be well known that not ALL scientists the IPCC claims in fact agreed with the IPCC’s conclusions.”
Has anyone ever seen the IPCC’s list of 2500 scientists? Or is it simply another exergeration, or worse a fabrication?
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Dan where is the list of scientists who do support AGW? The last warmer I asked about this finally produced a list of 11 scientists who support AGW theory. This was the best he could do after much arm twisting by me.
So the score was:
Sceintists who are skeptical of AGW 31000
Scientists who support AGW 11
Can you do any better?
If the Latin is derived from the Greek, then “Skeptic” is more correct than “Sceptic”?
A scientist runs a series of experiments and notes the results. In the real world, for real experiments, the results will not be identical for every run. Then it is that the results are compiled and subjected to mathematical analytic procedures – statistical analysis if you will – in order to derive a scientific ‘law’ of some sort. (Settle, settle, this is only intended as a very broad generalisation to serve a limited purpose). Such a ‘law’ is but a generalisation drawn from a number of particular instances – it is scientific induction at work. Surely, ALL such science (i.e. experimental science) is inductive. This can be contrasted with the deductive method which is appropriate to the logical syllogism and, within limits, to most of mathematics. As a personal matter I don’t really buy the characterisation of AGW proponents and AGW skeptics as one or the other. I can only have real confidence in those who pursue the experimental evidence wheresoever it may lead. For me, that includes those who pursue general circulation models. But at each and every step of the way, that process MUST be open to falsifiability. That can only be done if the methods, programs, experimental evidence, statistical analyses etc etc are available for examination and replication by ANY other scientist.
Witholding evidence, statistical methods or results; or refusing to publish certain papers because they arrive at different conclusions – any of these things is anathema to science and the scientific method.
Alas! It seems to me that there is considerable reason to think that this is exactly what has been happening in relation to AGW.
nigel jones:
The author of the “Nature” paper is none other than Beverly Law, famous (or infamous) as the co-author and academic advisor of Dan Donato, principle author of the flawed “Science” paper on salvage logging.
The University of Oregon will be living that paper down for years to come. The new one appears to follow the same pattern.
Sorry, my reply above should be addressed to Glenn.
I’m a libertarian with a few sciencey letters after my name (MSci, MA) in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University (specialising in Earth Sciences).
I, and most of my friends from uni, do not believe in AGW. We believe in climate change but that man has no measurable effect on it.
I also don’t believe in God, believe in evolution, believe in the right of people of the same sex to marry and adopt / have children, believe that technology will overcome all threats to human existence but that GMO is, in its current state, wrong as there are not enough controls to stop cross-pollination and companies should not be able to hold patents over plants.
So not exactly an ultra-conservative, religious nutcase who doesn’t believe in AGW due to ignorance!
I write, and review, software for embedded systems, and I know only too well how errors remain overlooked through the most rigorous of review processes, only to become glaringly obvious during testing.
Peter
Yes, this is surprisingly common – at least to those unaware of the way things actually work. “Degrees” by themselves actually don’t get you anywhere, nor does “peer review”.
The literal meaning of “heretic” is someone who thinks or chooses for himself… dangerous stuff, that…
Sorry, my keyboard has itches today – so I’m scratching it.
Dan,
Glad to see Mann proved his Hockey Stick with new data. Too bad the same hockey stick appears when the program is fed a telephone book…
(Things that make you go hummmm?)
I am not a scientist, but the very words “Peer Review” worry me because they appear to infer commonality. It sounds a bit like a sect. Then it comes out that the data is not shared outside the peer group (or even inside it?), why not be open and simply call it “rubber-stamp review”
And what of being skeptical of the evidence, data, and theory contributed by “skeptics?”
My biggest problem with the skeptic community is that, in my opinion, they preach a double-standard. While many skeptics take a hard-line, skeptical attitude towards all aspects of it – theory, evidence, and predictions – they take any contrary theory, evidence, or predictions on faith. Follow these examples from this very thread as illustrations of this point:
Yep…. No warming for ten years and a Tropical Troposphere that hasn’t warmed in accordance to AGW models.
A true skeptic would ask, “Why hasn’t there been warming for ten years? Why hasn’t the tropical troposphere validated AGW model predictions?” Then, the astute skeptic would reason that, a) there has been warming for the past ten years, and choosing 1998 and it’s anomalous El Nino is merely a way to obfuscate that fact, and b) the tropical troposphere has indeed followed predictions. This comment was not a skeptical one; it was just plain wrong.
However, it seems with the AGW believers insist that when contradicting data turns up, they simply say that “we know our theory is correct but the contradicting data show us that we need to tweak our computer models”
A true skeptic, when told of this contradicting data, would ask “is this data correct?” This comment takes the accuracy of that data on faith as correct, assuming that the AGW theory is either out of tune with the data or not robust enough to handle it. A skeptic would question the data first – not the theory. I saved my favorite for last:
The simple fact that the AGW “Climate Scientists” did not check any of the World’s temperature sensors to see if they were up to specs means that these self-annointed “Scientists” are just not doing Science.
A true skeptic… wait, this comment is just BS. For those of you out there who do not have training in operational meteorology, be advised that there is an elaborate, extensive system and coding scheme with which we try to observe the global weather. Take it from an insider: we all know that it has huge issues. Mr. Watts’ SurfaceStations project is nothing new – anyone who has spent ten minutes dealing with climate data knows about these issues. While documenting all the issues will help clean up the records, the problem is not that we don’t know about them. The problems are systematic, and as such, are dealt with as efficiently and pragmatically as possible.
But, of course, a true skeptic would know this and would understand it’s a moot point. This commenter is simply uninformed on this issue.
—
Anyways, does this illustrate my point? A skeptic doesn’t get to pick and choose what to be skeptical about. A skeptic’s attitude is universal. Climate change skeptics seem to take on faith that all evidence contrary to AGW predictions is valid and true; that’s the opposite of skepticism.
Let this be an open invitation from a proponent of AGW – come, be a skeptic. Audit our data. Debate our predictions. Try to pull the rug out from under us. But sane. We’re getting sick of skeptics reserving all their skepticism for us rather than utilizing it on their own evidence.
James S (16:51:17) :
I am quite impressed with your credentials and beliefs but I don’t how they really relate to the debate about skeptics.
“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.”
Then AGW theory should be added to this list. The common factors that unite these examples are that they are theories that offer a new understanding of some phenomenon and have subsequently gained wide acceptance despite initially being rejected. AGW offers an explanation for climate change, which was once believed to be due wholly to natural causes. Currently, AGW is gaining mainstream acceptance against rejection by sceptics, just as in the examples above.
Furthermore, scepticism does not belong in this group because scepticism is not a theory. A theory is a positive claim that x is the case. AGW is a positive claim. Scientific scepticism attempts to find flaws in a theory. Today’s AGW sceptics are in the same position as those rejected theories such as evolution and continental drift.