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.
[SNIP: Sorry, ttca, but this is going to spark a diversion from the thread topic. Please let’s not go there. -REP]
They did an excellent expose of “facilitated communication,” which was causing social havoc, when I subscribed.
Since the editors of these magazines won’t pay attention to letters of protest from subscribers, or be swayed from their course, because They Know Best.” the way to make a greater impact than letting your sub lapse is to go to their websites and cancel your subscriptions. You’ll get a refund to your credit card and you’ll be spared the sight of them in your mailbox.
These are worth repeating:
Capital-S Skeptics are the most perfect herd of independent minds ever. They are a parody of what they purport to be.
The null hypothesis requires proof of AGW, which has not been provided. CAGW is just pure speculation.
DirkH said on July 23, 2012 at 1:46 am
” “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.”
– – – – – – –
DirkH,
Good analysis and well phrased. Thanks you for starting my California Monday morning with some excellent applied epistemology that is critical of the post Kantian Hegel. I love it.
On a different subject, Skeptic magazine appears to use the same dishonest intellectual naming trick as Cook’s pseudo-SS site. I wonder if the magazine and the blog share pseudo-intellectuals. I think it is an interesting area to investigate.
John
Well naming the magazine Skeptic is a recognition in the climate “debate” that the skeptics have the upper hand, but I am disappointed that with all the talent available in the real skeptical crowd there hasn’t been a skeptic magazine come out of them. Even “Skeptical Science” represents a bit of a coup in adopting the apellation, It isn’t as funny as some here think – the USSR and other ideologue masters invented this kind of thing to great effect, knowing that the majority are pliable with this kind of propaganda.
I’ve been invited to a couple of the local “Critical Thinking” clubs to give my lecture on “Atmospheric Physics” a couple years ago. All in all, I’d say about 95% of the CT members tended to regard the AWG Dogma with HIGH suspicion.
One poor fellow accosted me with the question, “You don’t BELIEVE…in Global Warming!” I responded by asking him what the TITLE of my Lecture was. (Atmospheric Physics, by Max Hugoson, P.E. Mechanical/Electrical..etc.) He could not answer. It happened the Power Point was on the SCREEN and he was LOOKING at it, and the PPT had cycled back to the first slide of the presentation.
I KEPT asking him what the TITLE of my presentation was. He kept saying, “You don’t BELIEVE in Global Warming”. The 4 or 5 other members of the CT, around me…asking GOOD, solid, technical questions were both IRRITATED and AMUSED by this fellow. FINALLY one of them said, “Jack (made up name) CAN’T YOU READ?”while pointing to the TITLE ON THE SCREEN… The fellow took one look, muttered something about MY being an IDIOT, and stomped off.
Someone else quipped as he walked away, “I think we’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt WHO the idiot is…” A good laugh was had by all.
But it shows that “self anointed titles”, i.e., I’m a “critical thinker, I’m a skeptic…” are about as worthwhile as “Honorary Degrees”. (BE alert for that on some of the hard core enviromentalists, who keep popping up here and there…it’s surprising the number who have degrees ..particularily PHD’s which are “honorary titles”…given by left leaning institutions…to lend some of their PETS credibility.)
Here Center for Inquiry says it has an official position; which amounts to “endorse all consensus science and eliminate dissent”
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/12885/
So called “Climate Deniers” are forced to respond about tobacco issues. The denier in the thread was threatened by admin elsewhere after refusing to denounce Heartland out of hand.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/12885/
AndyG55 says:
July 23, 2012 at 3:42 am
My thought exactly! I wonder whether Donald Prothero is just a patsy for SkS.
The quote that got my attention is reference 1 in the magazine article where it describes Richard Lindzen as ‘a notorious global warming denier’ – in a reference!?. There are too many references in the list to SkS for it to be coincidence. Why would an academic make so many references to an alarmist website?
He’s on the editorial board of the magazine and has books to sell – expect more of the same.
AHHHhh that explains it.
A Psychobabblist from the two most Marxist states, MA and CA, about what I would expect. It is worth taking a look at the rest of the Bio. The list of books he has written is illuminating
The Rag even has a link Skeptical Activism: Fight Fraud & Pseudoscience! and also this
Fix Wikipedia
b>Is it Worth Paying Attention to Wikipedia?
Yes, it absolutely is. This is a shining opportunity for the skeptical movement. Wikipedia is among the most important public sources for almost any scientific, pseudoscientific, or paranormal topic. A Wikipedia article is almost always the number one Google hit for that subject….
Looks like they are gunning for the real skeptics.
Superb rebuttal by lord Monckton as usual. On feedbacks, electronic engineers sometimes use the barkhausen criterion when creating circuits that oscillate. As far as I remember you need a closed loop gain magnitude > 1 and a phase shift of 180 degrees as a necessary condition for oscillation. Or you could look at the Eigenvalues of the system – their position in the complex plane determines system stability – right hand plane is bad – left hand plane is good! Not sure if these are used in climate science when discussing feedbacks and all the rest of it
I meant of course right half plane and left half plane. Stupid iPhone spell checker
Jim Masterson says:
July 23, 2012 at 1:43 am
I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer (CSI), but like Scientific American they drank the Kool-Aid of global warming….
_________________
That was the first rag I thought of when I saw the title of this post, and just like you we dropped our subscription.
[SNIP: This is way off-topic, inappropriate for this blog, and an attempt to divert traffic to your blog. Please don’t try this again. -REP]
Nature, Scientific American, Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, Popular Science, Sky & Telescope (at least Astronomy mostly avoids CACC) – so sad, all publications that I subscribed to, in some cases for many decades, even NASA Tech Brief’s is infected…
Scientific method 2.0:
Guess, compute, measure, discard, adjust, legislate, profit.
I also used to subscribe to Skeptic magazine (and also Skeptical Enquirer), but tired of their endless recycling of articles about easy subjects such as paranormal and religious claims. I had an e-mail exchange with their “editor” (Shermer?) in which I challenged them to take on more serious subjects such as climate change. The response was a serious of questions intended, I think, to pigeon-hole me into some clearly counter-factual position, but when that failed they employed appeal-to-authority, mentioning the IPCC. When I pointed out that the IPCC was not, in fact, a scientific source, and that I prefered to get my information from such sources, they said something about having friends at CalTech that disagreed. Realizing they had an unshakable belief in the infallibility of mainstream science (which is decidedly an anti-skeptical position), I decided to unsubscribe. Some of my favorite science bloggers also do a lot of cheerleading for various areas of mainstream science (often far from their own area of expertise), so I just have to take it with a grain of salt when they chime in for the IPCC and climate alarmists.
Alan
I was shocked when SKEPTIC published the Prothero article. If SKEPTIC should be skeptical of anything it should be CAGW. The article is too political and unscientific and leftist. I am glad to read Monckton’s article, it is the perfect answer. I wonder how Prothero will respond, the plot thickens!
46.Robbie said (July 23, 2012 at 6:44 am)
“…Now I haven’t read the original article, but does it claim that the Human-Caused global warming will be catastrophic? Certainly not in the title.
That one word “catastrophic” makes all the difference…”
Well, in my quick reading of the original article, you appear to be right. I’m not seeing any mention of “catastrophic”. But they do make the following statement (on page 20 of their article):
“…There are many more traits that the climate deniers share with the creationists and Holocaust deniers and others who distort the truth. They pick on small disagreements between different labs as if scientists can’t get their story straight, when in reality there is always a small amount of give and take between competing labs as they try to get the answer right before the other lab can do so…”
So here’s another author that lumps the “skeptics” with those that would deny the Holocaust.
When history looks back at this, it will not be to question how a small group of skeptics could prevail. It will be to question how a small group of pseudo-scientists could have successfully propagated such hoax/scam “Climate Crisis” at all!
Skeptic seems to have gone the way of Skeptical Inquirer (SI).
After almost 30 years I have allowed my subscription to SI to lapse. It has ventured away from cheerfully piercing various pseudoscientific claims for patently unscientific claptrap (to do with ESP, UFOs, medical charlitans, and such) and has inexplicably started cheerleading climate science. Quite apart from anything else, cheerleading is not the role of a publication with the word “skeptical” in its title.
Interestingly, stage conjuror and long-time SI contributor James Randi once noted that the easiest people in world to fool are professional scientists. They don’t expect liars, cheats or fools.
SC-Slywolf says:
July 23, 2012 at 11:07 am
When history looks back at this, it will not be to question how a small group of skeptics could prevail. It will be to question how a small group of pseudo-scientists could have successfully propagated such hoax/scam “Climate Crisis” at all!
_______________________________________
It is interesting that a recent post showed the “recently published climate scientists” were only 77 in number out of the three thousand or so who were polled.
Gail Combs says: “A Psychobabblist from the two most Marxist states, MA and CA, about what I would expect. It is worth taking a look at the rest of the Bio. The list of books he has written is illuminating”
Shermer is most definitely a socially liberal guy (whether this is cause or effect wrt his atheism I cannot say) he is certainly no Marxist. However I wouldn’t praise him on his reasoning abilities.
Reading his wikipedia page he is apparently a self described libertarian. He was once a skeptic of AGW, but for sufficiently shallow reasons that he could have his mind changed by essentially people yelling at him loud enough.
Donald Prothero wrote two articles for eSkeptic, ‘Denialist Demagogues and the Threat to Science’, eSkeptic Newsletter September 28 2011 and ‘How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused’, eSkeptic Newsletter February 12 2012. I finally sent an article to eSkeptic, ‘Climate Rationalists vs Denialist Demagogues and Catastrophic Warming Bandwagoneers’, which Michael Shermer replied to kindly, but saying they would ‘pass’ on publishing it. I replied that at least Donald Prothero should be called on his misunderstanding of the cosmic ray – cloud – climate hypothesis and his ad hominem against Richard Lindzen. Michael Shermer asked me for something on cosmic rays, which I sent, and am still waiting. I should point out that Skeptic published Patrick Frank, ‘A Climate of Belief’, Skeptic, vol. 14, no. 1, 2008, 22 – 30, which is an excellent critique of the use of models: amongst other points, he shows that if uncertainties in real (not virtual) empirical studies are plugged in to these models, ‘The rapid growth of uncertainty means that GCMs cannot discern an ice age from a hothouse from 5 years away, much less 100 years away. So far as GCMs are concerned, Earth may be a winter wonderland by 2100 or a tropical paradise’. I’ve also tried to find some source for the ad hominem against Richard Lindzen, but haven’t found anything reliable yet.
To call skeptics of AGW “deniers” is the logical fallacy ad hominem, or criticizing the person rather than the argument. A magazine claiming to practice skepticism should at least get this right. Shame on the Skeptic for failing to do so. Where is the referee at Michael Shermer’s mag?