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.]
For instance Many skeptics believe that the sun is the primary cause of temperature change.
Fie! Fie! Vile sun-worshipers! We, the Sea Witches, shall drown you, as surely as the Feng Shue dictates that water defeats fire!
Confess! Confessssss!
After having scanned a couple of comments in the queue. (I think some other moderator beat me to the “delete” button.):
Let’s keep it civil, folks. (Except when righteously drowning the vile sun worshipers, of course.)
Inductive?
Deductive?
Abductive?
or what?
Reductive.
Dee, If Real Climate is too technical for your taste, may I presume to refer you (again) to Duae Quartunciae´s “The APS and global warming: What were they thinking?” for another battle royale, this time between “Saturn” (in the skeptic corner, just fighting his corner) and DQ (the referee). I´m afraid Saturn got completely rinsed in this one, DQ inflicting a succession of “It´s the physics, stupid” hammer-blows on poor old Saturn. But still a “must see”! Great fun!
“…continuing exchange between “mugwump” in the skeptic corner and Ray Bradbury in the AGW corner on Real Climate…”
Perhaps you are referring to Ray Bradley?
To me a layman, that’s exactly the stuff that plainly sounds like a post-rationalization. Inventing an “explanation” after the fact is no more convincing than people “discovering” what has been “masking” the warming after the lack of warming.
It is not an “explanation”, it is merely yet another untested hypothesis.
If what you say is true where has all this water gone?
If floating ice melts, sea level does not rise.
But, according to NASA, a large percentage of the melt is due to a.) errant wind currents that blow the ice into currents taking it into warm water, and b.) Dirty snow.
Land ice seems rather stable, however, and over the last couple of years, sea level is down (in spite of highly controversial upward adjustments that are giving “Axe” Moerner a stroke).
mickeyklein@Mac.com (09:33:46) : Inductive is science, deductive is religion
Or mathematics, which is based solely upon deductive logic. Unfortunately, mathematics and philosophy have little to do with the world at large. Deduction can’t cope with facts that can’t be derived from initial premises thus it only takes one contradiction to bring down an entire philosophy. Science can say “Ooops” and regroup. Nonetheless, deduction also has its uses in science.
These cycles do have some effect for sure but again, probably not enough to explain recent warming.
Well, it does seem reasonable to me (prima facie) that six cycles flipping over can account for 0.4°C of warming. (Assuming that this is not exaggerated by bad measurements.)
Remember, the slope of the ’20s – ’30s warming is as great or greater than that of the ’70 – ’90s, and there was much less CO2 increase (so far as we know).
This is an area that needs a lot more work and illustrates the complexity of the study of climate and climate change.
Quite.
Sorry – meant to say Ray Ladbury (not Bradbury, not Bradley). Thanks Bill P.
“Warning: If the ad hominem attacks keep going, eventually whole comments will start disappearing because the effort to keep [snipping] is exceeding the value of the material. – Anne the Moderator.”
And you don’t find the whole comment below to be an Ad hominem (or Ad feminem) attack to 50% of the human race?
“Mike Bryant (08:43:05) :
To anyone responding to Ms. Mary,
[snip]…
Reply:I gotta go with Mary H on this one, Mike B, that was out of line, even if you did not intend offense. ~ charles the moderator
Reply: I just saw that too. It was out of line. – Anne
(Mary Hinge)
So you are saying that AGW is just causing sea ice to melt and not land based ice is that correct?
So you agree that the alarmists who have said that the Greenland ice cap is undergoing a rapid melt are talking through their hats?
If you think they are not talking through their hats I say again where has this water gone?
What amazing phenomenom is causing all this as the oceans have not warmed up at all in the last few years?
Alan
llbeck: All – As a scientist who also worked along side the IPCC on global warming issues, I believe that AGW definitely is a fact.
Well, okay, then.
Let us stipulate that there is absolutely no positive feedback in play. How much would you say the warming factor of CO2 is?
If a skeptic is somebody who ignores facts they dislike, what is the proper term for somebody who believes in unverified computer models instead of actual climate data?
evanjones (09:58:09) :
Inductive?
Deductive?
Abductive?
or what?
Reductive.
Might intuitive trump the other ‘ives’?
I enjoy your comments.
Mary,
Sorry to add more replies, but I have to ask, you say “probably”… but how do you know? Why is the missing heat always in the last place that we haven’t looked? As a former AGW supporter, and now supporter of “W[snip] do we know”, I am curious as my mind can be swung either way as more arguments come in. How do we know that the heat is deep in the ocean?
(Stefan)
“How do we know that the heat is deep in the ocean?”
We can be fairly certain that it isn’t, as it would show up in accelerating sea level rise due to thermal expansion. Perhaps the AGW theorists can explain how physics allow thermal expansion to remain hidden as well!
Alan
This may be an aside but do we know the contribution of heat transfer from the earth’s core to climate and is the declining magnetic field of the earth associated with mechanisms operating internally or externally to the earth that could modify the climate?
“Luke” unknowingly provides evidence as to why his assertions are wrong, his logic is flawed, and that he would not know the scientific method if it hit him in the face.
Of course skeptics cling to evidence that fits their conclusions. The challenge of diligent science is that one contradiction can unravel even the soundest of theories. If I could find one single flaw in the laws of thermodynamics, they would cease to be laws, the many downstream implications would need reviewed, and a massive effort would be required to find a more comprehensive theory that is immune to any similar contradiction. Two space shuttle missions were lost as a result of miscalcuations on an o-ring and a piece of foam. The lives of 15 astronauts were lost proving the point that the most seemingly small details, when overlooked, or underestimated, can undo the most technologically advanced scientific projects.
But because AGW rhetoric flows so effortlessly off the tongues of NBC News anchors, and seems so believeable to the masses of high school educated simpletons, Luke seems to think it is automatically infallible. This is a clear demonstration of the infantile rationale of AGW believers, even those claiming to be well versed in the ways of science. All of NASA had reached “consensus” that the Challenger was a go for launch. History has proven that, sadly, it was not. That 31000+ learned scientists see flaws in a theory should be a glaring red flag that that theory needs some correcting. It should be enough to completely freeze the debate. That is there should not even BE A DEBATE that that theory is flawed and invalid. It should be the clear and unarguable FACT that it is to the real scientists. These are the undeniable truths of science as a whole, not just the very very small area surrounding the AGW debate. So Luke’s smug assurances are comedic, given that he accepts a very flawed doctrine, forsaking all of the established rules of science that the real scientists are following, then quite ignorantly states that the exact opposite is true. In other words, not only is Luke terribly misguided in the ways of science, he is equally as misguided in the ways of reality. Yet sadly “Luke” represents about a billion plus people walking this planet, with a totally false and manufactured feeling of enlightenment and intellectualism, that is nothing more than the fabrication of a well equipped political agenda that they have been duped by. Can you say Irony…
Fitting that the idea of evolution should come up in this same discussion as well. The same people who tend to religiously cling to AGW theory, similarly brandish Evolution against those who argue creation. Regardless of what your thoughts are on that debate, there is no denying the idiocy of believing that evolution occurred (and continues to occur) on a planet where the weather has and is never supposed to change. I hear daily about the catastrophic changes that AGW will cause our earth. And it is undeniable that such changes could lead to the loss of some species, and evolutionary adaptation by other species in order to survive. Yet Luke would have you think that in the 4 billion year history of this planet and throught all the evolution of species that live on it, that climate change was never a factor until we started driving cars.
This debate was never an issue of inductive vs deductive reasoning. It is a simple matter of rational logic versus cognitive dissonance. The kind of cognitive dissonance that leads a guy to read a few websites that agree with him, before claiming intellectual superiority over 31000+ of the worlds best scientists.
What a sad dumb world we live in.
“All – As a scientist who also worked along side the IPCC on global warming issues, I believe that AGW definitely is a fact. Albeit with much uncertainty as to the when, the where, and the magnitude. You need only to believe the laws of physics.
1. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have a demonstrable warming effect on the Earth. This has been accepted for decades. Without this beneficial effect the surface temperature of Earth would be much like Mars. Thank goodness for the greenhouse effect.”
So GHGs have a demonstrable affect, yet you are very uncertain as to how much, when and where. Good gracious! But you know all about Mars. So that last sentence should be really convincing to skeptics.
From what I’ve seen, medical practitioners usually use a combination of inductive and abductive reasoning when making a diagnosis:
“Most of the patients I’ve seen presenting your symptoms were suffering from disease X, therefore you probably have disease X.”
Does anybody know who Dan is? [snip ad hom ]
Dan apparently believes that research funded by corporations like Exxon is inherently corrupt. Where would geology and engineering be without the substantial support the mining and petroleum industries have provided for research? Likewise, where would medicine and pharmacology be without the pharmaceutical industry?
The ability to influence research is dependent upon the character and integrity, or the lack thereof, of the researchers. Government funded research funded is also corruptible. GISS is a prime example.
Dan does not provide anything substantive to the dialog about climate science and the AGW hypothesis. Ignore him and his ilk.
REPLY: He kindly provides an embedded link (click on the name in comments) to his website, where you can read his bio: http://migration.wordpress.com/about/
– Anthony
Glenn,
All three points in IIBeck’s comment were very vague and contain a disagreeable slight of hand.
TSI at Mars is much lower than the Earth, so the global temperature of Earth would be warmer than that of Mars were the Earth to have the same atmosphere (impossible actually due to the Earth’s higher gravity).
There still is much disagreement to the effect of CO2 on global temperatures at present concentrations, so any value actually assigned to the global temperature if the Earth was lacking CO2 and the other GHCs (does this include H20 as well?) is even more open to debate. Atmospheric density also plays a huge role in maintaining global surface temperature through heat transfer due to convection.
The slight of hand is an old Neural Linguistic Programing (NLP) trick now most commonly used by Infomercials, politicians and PR flacks. State something that is true or something with which reader (or listener) would readily agree, and then slip in a notion you want to reader to accept as true. Lets see how that works –
So, having established in the mind of the reader that greenhouse effect exists using true and partially true statements, the second message is inserted into listener.
The unwary reader will now accept as true that humanity is 100% responsible for increasing the greenhouse effect by the use of fossil energy and the reader is primed to accept the final message which drives the entire meme home.
if (A and B) then C.
The end result is that the un-knowledgeable reader is manipulated below the level of conscious awareness into accepting this meme as truth.
Not to sound repetitive, this is the same methodology that is being used on our youth.
Children, you all love Mr. Polar Bear, don’t you?
Well, Mr. Polar Bear needs our help.
Grown ups are putting pollution in the air and that pollution is destroying Mr. Polar Bear’s home.
We all need to get the grown ups to stop destroying Mr. Polar Bear’s home.
Neural Linguistic Programing 101. See how it works? This sort of trick is used all the time to manipulate opinions and when identified should serve as a warning flag that all the speaker’s assertions need a greater inspection. Just watch AIT for dozens of examples.
Sorry if this post is a tad unfocused. I broke my nose while playing around with my horses this morning and I am slightly distracted.
Apologies to all I’ve offended. The list is long. It got longer today.
Might intuitive trump the other ‘ives’?
I think the ultimate honor has to go to Seductive.