By Jim Lakely
A quarterly magazine called Skeptic published a cover story a few weeks back by Donald Prothero titled “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human-Caused.” That struck us here at The Heartland Institute as rather strange.
Our work for years has been skeptical of the idea that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change, which is the conventional wisdom of the mainstream media. And we have two immense volumes of peer-reviewed literature and the videos of many conferences to prove it.
So if the very name of your magazine is Skeptic, shouldn’t readers expect you to carefully examine the spoon-fed doctrines of the likes of Al Gore, Michael Mann, the UN’s IPCC, etc., and be … well … skeptical of “doctrine” — especially in light of the Climategate scandal? Alas, no.
Skeptic magazine, as the headline of the cover story makes clear, is not skeptical of the global warming Roosters of the Apocalypse who say the sky is falling and we’re unnaturally boiling the planet. It’s hysterical, and ironic, that the Skeptic article begins with a quote from Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman:
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Yet the fact is: Reality, and scientific observation of nature, tells the truth about the climate — and man is not causing a climate catastrophe. Skeptic Magazine is the one regurgitating public-relations lies disguised as a hard-boiled look at the climate debate and grounded in real science.
Feynman has posthumously become a bit of a YouTube star for his one-minute explanation of the scientific method. The video below, from a lecture at Cornell in 1964, blows up Skeptic magazine’s idea of what science is — let alone the quote the magazine uses to led legitimacy to its article.
In one minute, Feynman lays out how the scientific method works: Theories are constantly proposed, questioned and tested. Only after a theory goes through many exhaustive rounds of scientific examination — using observational data — can a “guess” become a “law” of science. And even then, a well-founded scientific “law” laid down by the smartest people in history is temporary. Just ask Newton.
Yet we don’t seem to have a healthy scientific skepticism when it comes to Earth’s climate. Men and women who couldn’t hold Feynman’s briefcase have for years told us that the science is “settled”: Human activity is causing a catastrophic climate disaster — no matter that their computer model predictions haven’t come true, violating the scientific method and becoming the decades-later butt of Feynman’s presentation. In short, the evidence we can prove shows that the roosters’ predictions are a joke.
Yet Skeptic magazine, of all publications, dedicated a nine-page cover story to carrying water for public-relations hacks — propagandists — and not the kind of real, observable science that should be its hallmark. But let’s not completely condemn Skeptic. It still has the fact that there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot in its favor.
Christopher Monckton — Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, good friend of Heartland, advisor to Lady Thatcher, and one of the most learned “laymen” experts on climate science — gives that Skeptic article a hearty vivisection. Skeptic refused to publish it, so we share it here. There’s a short version and a long version of his reply, and they are both devastating.
Lord Monckton starts it off with his typically cheeky and refreshing in-your-face style:
By Christopher Monckton
Be skeptical, be very skeptical, of Skeptic magazine’s skepticism of climate skeptics. The latest issue has, as its cover story, a Climate Change Q&A, revealingly subtitled Climate Deniers’ Arguments & Climate Scientists’ Answers.
The article, written by Dr. Donald Prothero, a geology professor at Occidental College, opens with the bold heading How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human-Caused.
Anyone who starts out by using the hate-speech term “Climate Deniers” – laden with political overtones of Holocaust denial – cannot expect to be taken seriously as an objective scientist.
Despite this promise of “Climate Scientists’ Answers”, only four peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists are cited among the 41 references at the end of the article.
And the implicit notion that “Climate Deniers” are non-scientists while true-believers are “Climate Scientists” is also unreasonable. Many eminent climate scientists are skeptical of the more extremist claims made by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. We shall cite some of their work in this response to the Professor’s unscientific article.
Read Monckton’s full essay here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is a pity that Donald Prothero who has done such good paleontology, has written such a poor analysis. Unfortunately he does get carried away with a strong anti-creationist point of view (not that I think he is wrong) and with his rather poor understanding of climate science, his reputation will be damaged. A pity he didn’t stick to something he understands.
My (rough draft) offering/suggestion for a name for the anti-sceptics?
Simpletons.
e.g. “A simple classroom experiment performed over a century ago…” “It’s simple, the science is settled….” “Simple Climate Model…” “The simple model is a nonlinear six order simplified climate model featured with chaotic dynamics, dissipation, and forcing source…” etc.
I submit;
Only an idiot would deny climate change
Only an imbecile would deny natural variability
Only a moron would deny the last 200 years of sea level rise
Only a cretin would deny the Holocene Temperature record
Only an ignoramus could believe that climate science is mature enough to base policy upon
Only a naif fails to see that corporations and lawyers have utterly usurped environmentalism for their own gain
But;
Only a simpleton could believe that climate science is based upon simple physics, that models trump empirical research, that one may ‘average’ intrinsic properties, that belief beats experience, that the gas-of-life will broil us all, that blind agreement beats critical thinking and that CO2 is the predominant driver of climate change.
Please weigh in.
Having had a few beers with Douglas Adams, I think he would approve of your headline. He might not agree, but he would like it.
I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer (CSI), but like Scientific American they drank the Kool-Aid of global warming. I guess you can’t be skeptical about everything, even if your magazine name includes it.
Jim
“Skeptic” magazine just fulfills its role in a Hegelian dialectic. Occupy all channels and all labels, offer thesis as well as antithesis, design the desired synthesis in advance. Simple dialectic trick, centuries old. A power instrument.
Ah, but the models show that……………………………….! Same ol same ol!
In Orwell’s 1984 , he brought us the idea of good or double-good , an attempt to change the language so it was not even possible to think bad thoughts of BB becasue there were no negative words to use .
There trying the same trick here , in fact what we are seeing has been done many times before by the AGW faithfully , its a attempt to define sceptic in such a way as for it to be impossible to disagree with AGW alarmist ideology , rather its defined as someone that agrees but not as fully and blindly as others . In other words the basic faith stays the same its just of question of how deeply its held . Its an idea seen amongst the AGW professionals such as Mann , they amazing adverse to one of the conner stones of science ‘critical review ‘ , much preferring instead pal review and back stroking . In words of Jones ,’why should I send you data you only want to find something wrong with it ‘
But their kidding no one with that nonsense but themselves, with that idea.
The “Here” link above takes one only to an intermediate site, where one has to click again to get to the ultimate site:
http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/moncktonskepticreplylong.pdf
Feynman said famously that the only fluid you can analyse by physics is dry water.
I suspect he’d have said that the only atmosphere you can analyse by physics is one without clouds.
As a cynic, one wonders if the AGW crowd waited until Feynman died in 1988 before really ratcheting up the propaganda as they didn’t want him being called to the White House to demolish the whole thing in 30 minutes.
I’m sure the usual suspects will be along to say that Viscount Brenchley hasn’t produced a valid scientific argument because he isn’t a real-live lord, and has a disability……:-)
I have never read anything of importance in CSI or comparable journals. It’s mainly about silly subjects like faith healers, UFO watchers, astrology, etc. It does not have any intellectual weight. I would really be amazed if Feyman once belonged to this club. Did he?
I love to read Lord Monckton’s words. He has a rare gift for getting a message across wrapped up with a good balance of humour. Brilliantly done, as always.
I’m sure that the usual suspects will be along to point out that Viscount Brenchley’s arguments need not be discussed because he isn’t a real-live lord and he has a disability..:-)
They give their game away right from the start with the subtitle Climate Deniers’ Arguments & Climate Scientists’ Answers.
No one can “deny” climate and no one is trying to. This is more silly PR language like “anit-science”.
‘Skeptical Science’ has a partner in crime…
I was a long-time subscriber, first to Zetetic and the to the Sceptical Inquirer, which presumably were the precursors of Sceptic. The forensic destruction of the claims of flying saucers, alien abductions, poltergeists, Velikovskism, and ‘psychic’ spoonbenders were superb.
The unofficial motto was “We need to be open-minded, but not so open our brains fall out”, attributed to the great physicist John Wheeler.
On this issue, they have miscalculated badly. They have confused ‘scepticism’ with ‘total agreement with soi disant establishment science’.
That leaves their brains hovering precariously in mid-air.
Feynman Chaser’s video clip says it all.
climate science is now—
Guess-model-model again-propose a law.
Observation has nothing to do with it because all observation refute the theory but would stop the gravy train if the truth were to be adopted.
i am very skeptical about human caused climate change. We may be able to slightly change local climate by deforestation or agriculture though that could be argued as local weather change. But regional change by humans is very questionable.
I, too, once took an note rest in Skeptic and Michael Shermer. But, once supposedly “skeptical” of climate change, Shermer reported that a less-than-20 minute TED talk by Al Gore was all it took to turn him completely around. Not dedicated research and analysis but merely a quick overview by a politician who has made millions as a water-carrier for the Global Warming interests totally flipped a man who has published books on the need for skepticism in all areas. Well, guess what? I’m told that the bulk of what Shermer has supposedly written in his books was written not by the professed skeptic himself but by his underlings. In a word, Shermer is a phony as Al Gore!
I think I read something recently to the effect that ‘climate scientists’ are asking for immunity from prosecution in the event of the spurious science being advanced by the warmists should prove to be false. Can anyone confirm this for me? If true it does rather suggest that the Team and others might be trying to cover their backs.
Monckton always seems to find the mot juste. “Culpably,” “artfully,” and “vapidity” stick in my mind.
“It is not worthy of the Professor; it is not worthy of science; and it is not worthy of a detailed reply.”
It’s “awesome” to watch him in action. Like the most accomplished advocates, he seems to accomplish his effects effortlessly.
I hope WUWT will ask him to post his treatment of the 97% surveys (and endorsements by scientific societies) that were the focus of a recent WUWT thread on that topic–or to start a new thread with them.
And I’m delighted to see that he has abandoned his former practice of hyphenating compound adverbial modifiers in phrases like this: “The Professor gives a highly partisan account …”
All I found to disagree with were a few punctuation marks. (E.g., a doubled comma).
I’m delighted to see that the institutions of card-carrying capital-S skepticism have nailed their colors to the mast of this sinking ship. Bon voyage!
Jim Masterson, I too had a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer, but I did not renew it at the end of 2007 because it published “warmist” texts, one reply to my comments being written by a member of the IPCC.
Here’s a quote Monckton makes from the Professor’s article that is “actionable,” in my opinion. Sic ’em, Anthony:
This article will go down in history as WUWT’s “a-flying-saucer-crashed-in-Roswell-with-aliens-on board” equivalent.
Thanks for the laugh.
John Cook isn’t involved, is he ??
Do paleontologists make experiments?