BPSDBTo some that might seem to be self-loathing, but contrary to the climate change Denier claims, the fact is that real skeptics are not climate change deniers, and vice versa.
In this post I hope to convince you of that, then discuss the perspective real skeptics have on climate change science, and finally issue a question, with an edge of challenge, to the skeptic community.
Now generally climate realists make the ‘Deniers are not skeptics’ point by critically examining the Deniers and demonstrating that they are not actually skeptics based on what a real skeptic is. I propose to look at the skeptics and show that they are not climate Deniers (yeah, I’ve always been somewhat backwards 😉 ).
Without getting into it too deeply at this point, let’s be absolutely clear that we are talking about a difference of method, not conclusion. Those who who honestly and openly use logical, rational analysis to critically interpret the data are skeptics, no matter what they conclude. Those who indulge in a range of dishonest and disingenuous practices such as misrepresenting or distorting data, using logical fallacies, etc are not skeptics, regardless of their conclusions.
With respect to the issue of anthropogenic climate change there are people who claim that the science is flawed and/or corrupt. This group often self-identifies as skeptics, whereas many within the sciences refer to them as Deniers. This post proposes to look at which they are based on yet a different method than has been done in the past.
Of course skeptics have been around for a very, very long time. In the Western tradition skepticism as a formal way of thinking and intellectual enquiry goes back to ancient Greece. Not surprisingly skeptic societies and associations have also existed for a very long time, and they now have a strong internet presence.
Let’s begin with a skeptic blogroll that I copied from Respectful Insolence and put in the table at the bottom. These were chosen completely arbitrarily and it was only subsequently that I noticed that several of the linked sites such as Deltoid and Real Climate are what we would consider climate blogs. This was not planned and frankly I was a bit surprised, but there’s some foreshadowing for you.
To make my point convincing I have a few exercises that I would ask you to do; after all, how credible would I be without some empirical evidence? You can do them now, later, or just take my word for it that they do make the point; whatever works for you.
Exercise #1
Randomly select blogs from the links below, or from the Wikipedia “List of skeptics and skeptical organizations” or start with one from either list and then select links from there. It really doesn’t matter how you approach it because strictly speaking this is not very scientific, I just want you to feel that you have reasonably sampled the skeptic webiverse (Skeptisphere?), whether that is 2 sites or 2,000 doesn’t matter (2,000 would be a lot, but frankly the ‘skeptisphere’ is kind of a cool and interesting place, so it wouldn’t be a waste of time).
At each site search for posts/articles expressing climate change Denial. Try and find any of the standard Denier claims, be it ‘global warming is a hoax’ or ‘climate change has ended’ or any of the dozens of memes listed by Coby Beck. As you go, also try to notice the types of things that skeptics actually do discuss and post articles on.
Prior to trying this myself I knew of only one example of a denial post on a skeptic site, and that was a guest post done as an exercise. When I did the exercise I did find one fairly uncritical article about Plimer, but the same site also had a post talking about how climate change is outpacing all predictions, so really the site was more uncritical than a denial site.
Regardless, my prediction is that you will find very few, if any articles denying climate change. Not what you would expect if the Denier claim that skeptics reject climate science and only the “useful idiots” like us “alarmists” “believe” in climate change were true, is it?
Of course one infamous exception would be the Penn and Teller episode of “Bullshit” that allegedly debunked global warming. Less commonly known is the fact that i) that episode was bullshit, part of which potholer54 exposes in “Climate Change anatomy of a myth“, and ii) Penn and Teller were confronted at the 2008 skeptics gathering The Amazing Meeting 6 and had to admit that their climate stance was politically motivated bullshit; hardly real skepticism.
Exercise #2
Have a look at some skeptic resource pages, ie collections of links organized by topic, such as (or find your own, that’s what google is for):
Try and find global warming or climate change as a topic area that skeptics debunk. It’s not there. Zero, ziltch, nada. What’s wrong with these skeptics? Haven’t they read Plimer’s book? 😉
Exercise #3
I suspect the point that skeptics are not Deniers is made, but if one needed confirmation that Deniers are not skeptics there is a similar exercise to try. Did you remember to notice the kinds of things that real skeptics discuss? If not, you can cheat and glance through the topics of The Skeptics’ Circle archive.
With those topics in mind google ‘global warming hoax’ and just arbitrarily wander through the Denialosphere. See if you can find any posts or articles about any of the topics that real skeptics actually discuss. You’ll want to get this over with quickly since the Denialosphere is, for the most part, a collossal waste of time. Expect to find few or none, because that is what you will find.
So it would seem that far from Deniers being skeptics, there is actually very little overlap between the two communities. This is not news to anyone active in the popular climate science discussions, but I thought this was an interesting little test of the claim.
Granted this is a slightly odd approach since the definition of skeptic vs Denier is determined by behaviour, not membership in a particular community or not. However, that analysis has been done repeatedly by myself and many others. I just felt that an interesting further test of the question would be to look at the group who are legitimately skeptics based on the critieria of skeptical behaviour generally and see how they regarded the issue of anthropogenic climate change, and just how much overlap there was with the group who reject climate science.
Clearly they are two different groups.
Detest?
Now “detest” is not actually my word. I got it from The Pseudo Scientists Podcast-Episode 18 | Young Australian Skeptics in the piece “ON THE STREET: Climate Change Denialism” which begins at about 4:50 into the podcast. However, for several reasons it would not be accurate to claim that the attitude is universal among skeptics.
First, apparently there are those in the skeptic community who do self-identify as not accepting climate change science. On the one hand (emphasis added):
I quoted Tim Farley, who referred to those who don’t believe that humans are a significant factor in global climate change as “Global Warming Deniers.” These were Tim’s words, and I failed to make it clear that they did not express my opinion in the matter. They DO express a widely held view among the skeptical community that anyone denying the evidence for global warming is wrong.
but then
There is an equally vocal minority opinion that this is just a manifestation of the often-hyperbolic environmentalist movement.
Of course the skeptic community is not the College of Physicians and Surgeons and you are a member by choosing to be one, not by passing some rigorous examination of your skepticism. As such there is no particular reason to expect uniformity of opinion or of depth of skepticism.
However, I will note that, if I read Jeff correctly, that the reason for these skeptics denying climate science is because of it’s presumed source ie the environmentalist movement, rather than actually examining the evidence (which, by the way, comes from the scientific community) and presenting a rational, empirical case. That would be a classic Ad Hominem Fallacy and should be absolute anathema to a real skeptic. QED.
The quote that Jeff is referring to is:
The global warming deniers absolutely LOVE the word “skeptic,” and they have two sites at least: http://www.climate-skeptic.com and and those who do not http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com
This site seems to be run by Shroud of Turin believers, but check out the name: http://www.skepticalspectacle.com
Those are just a few I was able to drum up out of my “list of woo websites” that I’ve been working on. –Tim Farley
Yes, the Deniers really do LOVE the word skeptic because it gives them a totally undeserved and false credibility. The point has been repeatedly made that skepticism is an rational, intellectual mode of enquiry (eg see here and here) whereas climate Deniers are endlessly gullible and seemingly willing to believe the most outrageous idiocies as long as they allegedly refute climate science (eg here and here).
Nonetheless, something else you may have noticed about the skeptisphere is the absence of climate change articles, either pro or con. If they are not “debunking” climate science (how could they?), they don’t seem to be debunking the Deniers either. Someone who is a part of that community could explain it better than I, but I did get some clues in my own wanderings.
For one thing it seems that many skeptics try to be apolitical (eg here), at least as a community. Of the Skeptics Circle
“…did not want political or ideological biases to come into it. I’m not sure how that will be possible, unless the topics are restricted to science and pseudoscience, and I’m not sure such a carnival should be so narrowly restricted.”
It also seems to be because the scientific issues are fairly complex and it is a lot of work before you can be assessing the peer reviewed literature with any degree of comfort.
That’s the conundrum of the modern skeptics movement: Intelligent Design theorists and deniers of global warming may very well be phonies and scoundrels, but no one is going to debunk them in the classic sense. You can’t reveal their hidden microphones or mimic their tricks with sleight of hand. Intelligent Design, after all, is an attempt to recast (even to “rebunk”) Creationism in scientific terms. The best weapon against it isn’t dramatic exposé, but scientific argument. So a change in tactics makes sense for the movement. (emphasis added)
For a skeptic the peer reviewed literature is the level some would feel they ought to be examining it if they are to comment at all, so it’s definitely a conundrum for them.
Nonetheless skeptics have been co-opted, they’re certainly aware of it, and many don’t like it. Who would? particularly given what an empty headed, irrational, slogan chanting group the Deniers tend to be. Apparently at this years SkepchickCon they “… talked about the need to reclaim the word “skeptic” from the denialists.”
A question, or is it a challenge?
In fact much of the time one does not need to know any climate science at all in order to debunk the Deniers. One can critically examine the claim to be a skeptic in terms of method rather than the factual content of a claim. Not always easy if one does not know the material, but often it is fairly straightforward. I have yet to see a Denier argument that did not depend on at least one or more logical fallacies. Not having any actual facts or evidence makes that inevitable. If you know your logical fallacies 90% of the Denier claims are easily exposed for the stupidity that they are.
As such, one can debunk the Deniers claims to being skeptics by exposing their arguments as logical and scientific gibberish without necessarily knowing any climate science at all. Naturally this would not be evidence for anthropogenic climate change, but it would expose the Deniers for the phonies and scoundrels” that they are, and reclaim that honourable intellectual pursuit known as “skepticism.
So the question/challenge to the skeptic community would be: why not debunk the climate change Deniers claim to being skeptics rather than their claim to have falsified climate science? The latter may be onerous for those unfamiliar with the issue, but surely the former is perfectly suited to your knowledge and skill sets. Indeed, who better than you?
Skeptic blogroll
This warming trend has been particularly pronounced during the pre-monsoon month of May, which is now on average 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in the late 1970’s. The Indian Ocean warmed to a much lesser extent during this period, enhancing the temperature gradient between the ocean and the land. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 302 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
David: Skeptic by ::: Billie / PartsnPieces :::
clean your soul skeptic by constantskepticupdates
The Skeptic (front) by Jason Permenter
The Skeptic (back) by Jason Permenter
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Totally amazing post, would you consider cross posting it on the YAS blog?
Sure, you want to go ahead and do it, or do you need me to do anything? … and thank you 🙂
Hi Greenfyre,
I will put this on the YAS tonight :).
Elliot Birch
Creator
Young Australian Skeptics
COMPLETELY unrelated to the topic (I’m posting past midnight and am exhausted; will re-read with a clear mind tomorrow), but it was a real shock to me to see that first picture.
Why? Because I helped make that trifold, and will be sitting next to it for a chunk of next week. [1] The photo’s from last year’s clubs fair – and if I’d been on the early morning rotation that day (instead of late morning until closing), I would be in the previous photo in Bill’s University of Alberta flickr stream (the source of the shot) instead of Ian.
Funny how you’d stumble on to it through the Google.
.
In an effort to contribute to this Amaz!ng Post, I have seen “denial” posts on one skeptical blog before: Reason.com (i.e. libertarian skepticism; I periodically read it in an effort to find common ground with the people most likely to both oppose climate action and be willing to accept science). However, the author of the articles changed his mind over time, due to what appears to be perception of peer pressure (he re-evaluated his own understanding after realizing skeptics he admired were all climate realists, which was (I believe) around the time of the AR4). Even then, I don’t recall the originals being that strong (the exact content eludes me, but it’s in the same vein as Penn and Teller’s take on it; they’re idolized by Reason). [2]
Either way, though, I’ll pass this along to the local skeptical groups (there’s a handful, including a branch of the Center for Inquiry (I had a (admittedly small) hand in getting that started here), which you’ve linked to before) and see if we can’t get more publicity.
—-
Greenfyre, check out the draft programme of the NZ CSICOP’s Skeptics Conference. 🙂
— bi
—-
Fantastic post. Thank you.
—-
Nice post!
Here’s a skeptic who did pretty much what you’re asking for, and who did it well:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
“One does not need to know any climate science at all in order to debunk the Deniers.” That’s a favorite theme of mine as well, and I think it’s important to stress, because the vast majority of people don’t have the scientific knowledge to check each and every claim they hear on its scientific merit. So they have to come to a conclusion via a different route. The appeal to libertarian ideology has worked tremendously well for the contrarians; we should also come up with a workable strategy, though rooted in logical examination of the claim as you say. There are more possibilities besides logic, see e.g. my list of clues for laypersons to decide on what to believe, that don’t require any specialized knowledge:
Seeing the forest for the trees
Consensus matters
Beware of conspiracy theories
Timescales
Spatial scales
Logic
Confusion of cause and effect
Think in terms of likelihood
Think in terms of risk
consistency
Expertise
Motive
—-
Brilliant post, Greenfyre. You have had some very good posts in the past, but truly, you’ve done a brilliant job here. Thank you!
—-
Nice to see this post on Grist’s “News We’re Following.”
I suppose the author did not see my website
http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com
It is everything he says that doesnt exist.
GP
—-
John, with all due respect, many other scientists have followed the scientific method and found anthropogenic global warming to be a fact. You might reasonably be able to claim that those of us who disagree with you by finding with the consensus opinion “deny the scientific method, assume a religious position” and “abandon all reason” if you were insisting upon the reality of the Dorian migrations (because there is no evidence of those having taken place) but that is hardly the case with global warming, where evidence abounds.
Mike, I`m glad you liked my post on Penn & Teller`sIBS.
It does seem to me that in one sense at least, some “skeptics” really are, not on the science, but one whether the benefits of likely government policy will be worth its costs.
I think that Ron Bailey, Jonathan Adler and Lynne Kiesling would be a few of the people who have grave concerns about climate change but to whom Waxman-Markey looks like a train wreck. Jim Hansen and others advocating for carbon taxes might fit in that group too.
I think that these small-government/libertarian types have a good point, though many (not those I`ve listed) frequently discard it to rather reflexively wade in science denialist nonsense. You might have noted that my blog is hosted by a libertarian, Austrian-school economics group, so I have seen this up close.
Sincerely,
Tom
—-
well i got the reaction i expected, attacking the messenger and not addressing the science [1]. if this is skepticism, then call me a denier. the scientific method states that if observations do not meet a predicted outcome then the theory/hypothesis MUST be dismissed. not ONE of the climate models put forward by the agw crowd has proven acurate. [2] a scientist would have to dismiss these models and look elsewhere [3], a zealot would deny the flaws of their hypothesis and name call all those who have a differing opinion. guess what that makes you. [4]
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
Thomas Jefferson
looks like you are wearing the bs you are spewing. move it yourself.
[5]
—-
nuh-uh is not an argument.
—-
And where are your arguments, John? We need more, I’m afraid, that your assurances that you are right. Calling the consensus opinion bs isn’t a very compelling argument, you have to admit.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
So, what have you found, and where has it been published, and where are we supposed to “read more”?
is a big claim to make so I’m sure you can back it up.
Mike, I’m sorry I keep jumping in like this but I’m fascinated by John’s thought processes.
John, are you sure when you said that “nuh-uh is not an argument” you weren’t talking about yourself?
—-
I suspect John’s thought process is simple; he’s a troll. At least I hope he is; the alternative is just sad.
You are a total fraud . I searched your site for “stefan boltzmann” and “kirchhoff” and found neither .
How can one possibly claim to being working to understand the science of planetary temperature with no references to those names ?
FRAUD !
—-
Is this a parody?
I had the same thought until I made the mistake visiting his website. Though I’m still not sure.
You don’t even recognize those names do you ?
They are the 19th century physicists who quantified the relationship which shows than any object in our orbit is constrained to be about 1/21 the temperature of the sun .
OK by me if you delete this . I’ve copied it to my CoSy.Forum anyway .
It just will prove you are a liar to yourself when you claim to be a skeptic .
—-
Stefan, Boltzmann and Kirchhoff were indeed indeed important 19th Century scientists.
They are part of the bedrock supporting modern climate science, and are a vitally important part of the curriculum for any budding climate scientist.
And of course explaining why the Moon is on average 38 °C colder than the Earth – even though they are the same average distance from the Sun – pretty much led us to where we are today (along with the works of people such as John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius).
If you would like to discuss why you think Stefan, Boltzmann and Kirchhoff disprove AGW then I would be happy to do so – but (as Mike has repeatedly pointed out) this isn’t the thread for it.
Open up a thread in “Challenging the Core Science”, and maybe we can have some fun. 🙂
Excellent article.
====
But there is a minority, I think fairly small, but vocal.
I offer the following example:
The May/June 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer published a straightforward article explaining AGW by NASA scientist Stuart Jordan. Much to Editor Kendrick Frazier’s astonishment, this elicited a firestorm of angry “cancel my subscription” letters. The first dozen letters were all quite critical; the only positive response he got was mine, although others came in later.
In the next issue, he wrote:
“”Critical e-mails from readers skeptical of global warming began arriving as soon as our May/June cover story on the subject began reaching them. They are furious. Almost all began by expressing disappointment, even anger, that a magazine with “Skeptical” in its title hadn’t debunked what they obviously think of as a myth. Two canceled their subscriptions. Most didn’t refer to the detailed scientific information in our cover article by NASA scientist Stuart Jordan or in the excerpts we presented from the latest IPCC report. So I couldn’t tell if they’d even read the articles. One did admit he (they were all males) hadn’t gotten beyond the third paragraph. And all this before we even publish, in this issue Part 2 of Jordan’s report.”
Jordan had a followup essay.
There were some good email discussions back and forth, helping Kendrick get up to speed on the denialism business.
BUT this reaction did lead me to a conclusion.
The folks who really do skeptical inquiry are real skeptics, including some fine scientists. (Recall that Carl Sagan was one fo the founding members of CSICOP/CSI).
But, there is a minority of *readers* who follow Skeptical Inquirer and similar publications who:
a) Take pride in being rational and skeptical.
b) (Probably) feel good to laugh at some of the silly pseudoscience that gets exposed.
But that’s a “cheap thrill”: there is no particular cost to thinking people can believe silly things.
But if someone has one or more of the reasons for anti-science in climate (I have a list of about 30), that’s *real*, and “cancel my subscription” happens.
—-
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
You thought I was kidding? I’m not. Put the comments in the right thread or kiss them bye bye
Will you answer my questions (in the appropriate thread)?
John, I’m beginning to suspect you studied everything briefly, since despite repeated calls for some data to back up your claims, you’ve resorted to simply dodging the issue and then complaining that you’re being called names. Where’s the meat, John? Where’s the meat?
Hi Mike,
Interesting post, occasionally amusing. You seem obsessed with your opponents[1], Mike, yet you include precious little actual science with which to refute them. [2] Actually, no science at all, I just checked again. A link to Real Climate’s home page doesn’t really count, do you agree?
A point of sequence raises its head: I seem to remember that the term “sceptic” was applied to your opponents several years ago as a term of abuse and it was not a term they chose for themselves, as you state here. [3] They were annoyed by it, and soon afterwards the term “denialists” began, attempting to link them with the holocaust deniers. [4] At various times, “flat-earthers”, “moon landing conspiracy theorists” and worse also bounce about the blogosphere, as I’m sure you’re aware. [5]
Many of your opponents cling, of course, to the term sceptic, knowing its true meaning, the meaning you attempt here to reclaim for the AGW side, so when you say they call themselves sceptics, that is now true; but that’s not how it started. Still, you tell a great story!
Will you get back to the science in another post? Like, quoting observations of reality and that sort of thing? I’ll look forward to that. [6]
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.
—-
Ah, yes – the old “every article that does not explain *all* the science with meticulous referencing to peer-reviewed papers is to be rejected – no matter what the subject matter” ploy. Tried and tested to work… on idiots.
* Of course, this standard does not apply in reverse.
P.S. Richard, re. your mast head:
> Apparently we destroy the climate with our carbon dioxide, which makes up only 0.00008 of the atmosphere…
You might want to go find a credible source to tell you how much CO2 is in the atmosphere because you’ve got it badly wrong. It don’t look too good when you’re trying to ‘do science’ if you get the very basics wrong before we’ve left the header of your blog.
And we’re not “destroy[ing] the climate”. I thought *we* were supposed to be the alarmists?
Does anyone know when “sceptic” was first used to describe global warming “dissenters” (is there a more neutral word?), and who did so?
I can’t see that “sceptic” could ever be used as an term of abuse, especially in science.
—-
the data i have would bury this website and is available to anyone who is curious. besides i tend to refrain from casting pearls before swine.
—-
You may not cast pearls before swine, but this comment is a gem! LOL.
—-
This website? What the hell do you think it is? Global Warming Central? And what could “bury” possibly mean?
Get those papers published and “bury” where it matters.
—-
That will always be a mystery to me but given their belief in some huge leftist conspiracy to pervert science and take away their freedoms, the disconnect from reality allows just about anything.
LOL What, are we in kindergarten now? “I have the data but I won’t show you.” How convincing is that?
I needed a good laugh today and I have to thank John for accomplishing that much, at least. I mean seriously, you have to have the pearls to begin with before you can worry about casting them anywhere, and it’s clear, John, that you are fresh out of pearls.
That is because most skeptic sites are run by liberal skeptics who have severe cognitive blocking.
You see a liberal skeptic is capable of critical thinking, but only against right wing interests. The liberal skeptic has a seizure when confronted with liberal lies. Because liberalism requires absolutely no questioning of liberalism at any single point in time, the liberal skeptic pretends nothing has happened and moves on to critiquing some right wing lunacy.
—-
Why are most sceptic sites run by liberals? Why so few conservative ones?
—-
I was hoping for a reply from ‘anon’ 😉
I got to the part where you list RealClimate.org as a skeptic site.
Epic fail. [1]
Based on that assumption, the fact that most of the sites you list have nothing to do with climate change (i.e. anthropogenic global warming), and the fact that you rather viciously attack anyone who dares to think differently [2] leads me to believe that you’re essentially not a skeptic at all.
—-
It seems you have failed to understand the whole point of this thread.
Spooky!
Greenfyre,
You state, “It also seems to be because the scientific issues are fairly complex and it is a lot of work before you can be assessing the peer reviewed literature with any degree of comfort.”
Questions:
Can the truth of science be accurate without appearing in peer reviewed literature? If the answer is yes, then is it possible that non peer reviewed information could provide valuable input? [1]
Do you really believe, as you seem to have indicated, that anyone who is skeptical of AWG is either spouting “scientific gibberish” and are “phonies and scoundrels”? [2] Is there no room for the possibility of honest questioning with valid information? [3] If so, perhaps that statement is somewhat more harsh than required.
Finally, you stated that one can “debunk the Deniers claims” as being “scientific gibberish […] without necessarily knowing any climate science at all.” How can one claim their scientific “argument” to be gibberish without having any knowledge to refute it? This seem counter-intuitive to me. [4]
—-
A very obvious way to detect denialism which requires no knowledge of the science itself is to see claims which are contradictory or mutually exclusive (some might be true but they can’t all be). Denialists don’t notice or care, as long as the claims oppose the thing they deny.
—-
Yes, but that depends on an understanding of climate not being weather and of trend analysis. It’s not self-contradicting.
Let me get this straight…a majority opinion is meaningless, but a minority opinion is not? How, exactly, does that work?
I love this particular meme. In essence, the claim is that the “deniers” and “heretics” are usually right and the “mainstream” wrong.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that that is rarely true (we celebrate the few “heretics” who were right and know nothing of the many who were wrong because, well, they didn’t change anything), let’s follow the logic.
The lone “heretic” is right so we should all accept here/his claims. But wait, his ideas have now become the mainstream so we must accept the claims of the next “heretic” who comes along…which become the mainstream…
That’s a recipe for madness and anarchy, not advances in knowledge or indeed anything.
> …a majority opinion is meaningless, but a minority opinion is not? How, exactly, does that work?
They all think of themselves as little Galileos – or attach themselves to one of the Honest Brokers ™ they perceive to be Galileo-esque, e.g. Watts, Morano, etc.
The identification with Galileo is not just a case of hilarious and offensive delusions of grandeur; it doesn’t even make sense. They are the ones refusing to accept a recent and evolving discovery based on established evidence.
The Deniers are not Galileo. They are the religious dogmatists pointing at the sun and shouting (shrieking, even), “See, it moves, it moves!”.
We have other useful ways of making decisions that do not require we know ‘the scientific literature’. Most businesses uses risk analysis and scenario planning. Most of us are not even remotely equipped in the scientific method – to review the data…I laugh at anyone but a qualified climate scientist who acts like they can on the interwebs. That alone makes me dismiss a person.
I advise anyone overwhelmed by the strange scenes among the climate change discussions to review this guys work:
And highly recommend going through his whole series:
http://manpollo.org/education/videos/how_it_all_ends/how_it_all_ends.html
Rational people make decisions about very very critical and expensive choices every day. Use their methods and feel clear about your choice. It’s much easier than getting bogged down in false ‘debates’ the energy industry has tried to engender for the last 30 years.
—
In addition to watching Greg Craven’s inspiring videos, folks can now also read his new book “What’s The Worst That Could Happen?”. This book should be mandatory reading for those who always forget to ask themselves the important question “What if I’m wrong?”. From reading the comments in this thread, many posters seem to fall into that category…..
—-
Okay, Mike, I wasn’t sure how obvious a plug for the book I should/could make! Here is the link to Greg’s website: http://www.gregcraven.org/en/home with more information and various links to order the book.
—-
Steve,
I’m familiar with the scientific method. I also know that the world functions just fine without every single scientist agreeing. That has never happened and will never happen. In the end, some will be right and some will be wrong but they will have all of them vehemently defended their positions and backed them up with hard scientific data.
It is also possible to draw multiple conclusions from the same set of data. There are various possible explanations. That is why scientists argue; why they have always argued; why they will always argue.
The problem as I see it is that you’re asking me to believe what the minority think and to dismiss the majority’s views. That’s not logical. First of all, if the opinion means nothing, then the opinion of the minority also means nothing. Second, you can’t say the minority is basing their opinion on hard data while the majority is just “making it up”.
Finally, what you seem to be saying is “it’s consensus opinion that consensus opinion has no meaning”
And that’s gibberish any way you look at it.
I have a question.
Skepticism consists of comparing any assumption, assertion, hypothesis and theory with all available empirical data. And the above article asserts that “real skeptics detest global warming Deniers”.
Several here have posted comments which are typified by this one that Hrafnkell directs at Interglacial John.
“And where are your arguments, John? We need more, I’m afraid, that your assurances that you are right. Calling the consensus opinion bs isn’t a very compelling argument, you have to admit.”
But in this blog any provision of evidence that contradicts the “consensus opinion” is deleted and replaced by: [1]
“Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.”
In the light of this behaviour by the operators of this blog, how is it possible to provide an evidenced refutation [2] of the ridiculous and untrue assertion that “real skeptics detest global warming Deniers”? [3]
—-
Greenfyre or Mike (I’m a little unclear to whom I am speaking),
I’m sorry. Perhaps I misinterpreted the context of what was posted, but I believe I have a better understanding now. It seems that you are describing (in your answer to me in #3) two subsets of individuals. One set is a group you would define as a true skeptic (like scientist) who present rational and supportable information with clear and rational logic.
The second set is a group of individuals who support their “beliefs” without knowledge, investigation or understanding. They, I believe, are the Deniers you are describing. I agree that those who promote any ideology relentlessly, without regard to evidence, provide little value and probably instead confuse the uninformed. (although occasionally they may stir some to pursue their own investigation)
However, I fear that the tone of the post may cause those who read it to perceive that you are saying everyone who questions AWG is dishonest and corrupt. But since there are certainly scientists who question AWG, I believe I now understand that you are quantifying subset #2, and I would agree and suggest that such Deniers exist on both sides of the debate.
—-
A well-written article of rhetoric and positional logic (if not this, then that.) But no science that I could see. That is, the skeptics are not proven wrong, nor are the AGW believers proven right, simply by making observational statements about the behavior of either group.
CO2 is not causing global warming and that’s basic science [1], not politics or polemics. That’s not say that there might no be an AGW signature. We have more trees in the northern hemisphere because of fire safety and forest reseeding after logging. Trees emit water vapor, which is the real “greenhouse” gas. Plus man can change some effects in his immediate environment because of land use, according to Dr. Pielke, Sr.
But people develope their religion around the evil of CO2 and the advancement of socialism through “concern for the environment” and the science is cast aside.
—-
“Global warming is real, and it’s the trees that are doing it…”
I really hope ron moves his post, it’s a gem. 🙂
Ah, Richard S. Courtney! Good to see you again! As I said on Deltoid (but you didn’t reply, it was a busy thread):
I’m glad you showed up, and I’m sorry you’ll miss my thanks. You see, your recommendation for deniers to endorse geoengineering as, and I quote, “a political ploy” was so transparently, well, political that it’s helped me expose Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus to some of his (now former) disciples. These people remain skeptical of AGW, but they are now checking the sources of each claim they hear. How long would it have taken to deprogram them without your blunt, honest words? Truly, you’ve been a great help.
Mike, sorry for the slight off-topic, but I figure it’s important to try to figure out what angle people are taking.
—-
Consensus amongst experts matters, especially if large risks are involved.
If 99 out of a 100 engineers tell you it is unsafe to board a particular plane, what would you do?
If the professionals do their work seriously, than the existence of a consensus amongst them is absolutely relevant (though of course it is not absolute proof). The only way in which you can ignore a consensus as being irrelevant, is if you can somehow show that the professionals are all lying (hoax alert!) or incompetent.
Oreskes has some excellent writing on this: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
She writes (p 80): “The relevant question for us as citizens is not whether this scientific consensus might be mistaken, but rather whether there is any reason to think that it is mistaken.” She goes on to explain the different scientific methods that have been used to arrive at the current conclusions. Moreover, “Contrarians have repeatedly tried to falsify the consensus, and they have repeatedly failed.” It’s about taking all available evidence together, and come up with the most likely explanation. Hansen has repeatedly stated that this evidence comes from three basic pillars: -observations – paleoclimate – modeling (and in contrast to popular opinion, rates modeling as the least important of these three).
I stand by all I say, but the anonymous person (?) who provides this blog wrote:
“I know getting Courtney to stand by what he says is like nailing jello to a wall.”
I defy him/her/it/they to substantiate that slur. [1]
It is as silly and as untrue as the assertion that “skeptics detest Deniers”, and the assertion that it is not necessary to know any science to refute “Deniers”. [2]
But the slur is an example of how him/her/it/they think “Deniers” can be refuted.
The reality of climate behaviour demonstrates that there is no discernible AGW. [2] This reality is a problem for the him/her/it/they who operate this blog, and him/her/it/they have an inability to face this reality. [3] Indeed, this blog is a response to those who provide evidence which reveals that inability.
The contents of this blog consist of:
1.
refusal to consider the evidence that shows there is no discernible AGW [3] (it is repeatedly deleted above), [4]
2.
lies, smears, and misrepresentations of those who provide the evidence that shows there is no discernible AGW (they are called Deniers and and are subjected to slurs such the one I am now replying), [5]
3.
appeals to ignorance (e.g. there is no need to know the science to refute the scientific evidence that shows there is no discernible AGW, and AGW is demonstrated by a need to include an anthropogenic effect – or the malign influence of witches – to obtain a match between what has happened and what is understood, and …), [6]
4.
appeals to authority (the IPCC or Al Gore or Monbiot says it so it must be right) [7]
I make statements and I stand by them. My points are always statements of demonstrable scientific fact, [8] and I do not need to repeatedly assert a point to stand by it. [9] But, as I list above, the points made by this blog are untrue attempts at self-justiciation by the person (?) providing this blog. [10]
—-
Greenfyre you demonstrate possibly the most pompous and smug opinions and are guilty of the very behavior you place on anyone who disagrees with you
—-
Actually, Greenfyre, I did read your post and (believe it or not) understood it quite well. I don’t question your logic; I question your motivation.
What is to be gained by purportedly making the claim of “skeptics aren’t deniers”? Surely you realize that the “deniers” are, in fact, quite skeptical of the IPCC reports. If this is true, then it holds that (contrary to your claim) deniers ARE skeptics. [1]
The puerile wording of your responses lies in stark contrast to the content of the article. I can appreciate the effort put forth to demonstrate that being skeptical isn’t the same as being heretical, but the vitriolic moderation of comments belies your stance. [2]
I think Mike Bell (above) put it best when he said you are “guilty of the very behavior you place on anyone who disagrees with you.”
P.S. I stand by what I said earlier. RealClimate.org is anything but a skeptical website. [3] They are clearly in favor of the AGW theory, so to list them as “skeptical” in any way is utterly false.
—-
“How could they be skeptical when it is clear that the overwhelming majority of them have obviously never even looked at the table of contents.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment that there are many uninformed, misinformed, and generally-well-intentioned-yet-ignorant posters out there. This is a little bit like saying there are “jerks” in every country. There are, no doubt, but to generalize an entire group of people based on this assumption is a bit pretentious. [1]
“FYI (since you seem to be unaware of it) “Skepticism” is informed, intelligent, and rational. Hysterical, uninformed reflexive rejection is known as … “Denial” ”
As a professional scientist (a geologist, actually), I’m quite well aware of the definition. But thank you for your rather childish effort at condescension as it somewhat reinforces my belief that a majority of pro-AGW bloggers are suffering from psychological issues. [2]
“[2] It is true Miss Manners may not approve of my style, but I get frustrated with people who claim to have read posts when they clearly have not done so.
Thankfully I have never descended to anywhere near the depths of abuse, profanity and threats that I am regularly subjected to. I delete the ones that occur here, but you can find examples in other places.”
While I can’t take the position of apologizing for other’s behaviors, I have to point out one thing — If one person does another person wrong, is it okay for the person on the receiving end to turn around and dish it out to the next person to come along? Just saying…. [3]
“[3] Did I say it was? where did I say that? HINT (again) read what is actually said.”
Unless that “Skeptic Blogroll” at the bottom of your post is auto-generated by the website (and if it is, then please excuse my comment), then….well…THAT is where you said that (or implicity stated it at any rate). [4]
On a side note, I checked out that “debunk the deniers” page you linked. There appears to be an interesting comment from a certain Pete Ridley asking you to respond / debate.
—-
James, “as a professional scientist”, is this how you judge the validity of scientific arguments — by examining whether they use terms such as “Sir”, “please”, “thank you”, “may I”?
— bi
James – From your previous comment:
A major point of the article was to illustrate that “real” skeptics (or sceptics in the Old World) are sane, rational people who think for themselves.
Your comment suggests that you believe the opposite – RealClimate bloggers cannot be skeptics because they happen to think (rationally) that AGW is real.
In other words, you believe that someone can only qualify as a skeptic if they deny AGW.
I can understand Mike’s frustration, and why he thinks that either you didn’t read or didn’t understand the article.
Can you?
Anonymous blogger:
Thank you for giving me a belly laugh: I get few of those so I am truly grateful for it.
I also thank you for providing clear and undeniable proof of each of my points.
Explaining jokes spoils there humorous effect, so I will only respond to the first few of yours.
I said:
“I stand by all I say, but the anonymous person (?) who provides this blog wrote:
“I know getting Courtney to stand by what he says is like nailing jello to a wall.”
I defy him/her/it/they to substantiate that slur.”
You have anwered this by citing a page of demonstrable falsehoods (e.g. the claim that I have never done any cimate research) which would not substantiate the slur if they were true.
I said – and say – it is nonsense to assert that those who are ignorant of science can refute scientific evidence. You claim my saying this is akin to my pretending I have divine omniscience (this is so funny that I could not make it up).
If you want “actual scientific research” and not my “beliefs” then I commend, for example,
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
I said this blog includes “lies, smears, and misrepresentations of those who provide the evidence that shows there is no discernible AGW (they are called Deniers and and are subjected to slurs such the one I am now replying),”
And your response is
“What evidence have you or any of them ever provided? and why won’t you post it in the Core Science thread? What slurs? cite specifics”
Well, of course, I did cite two “specifics” in my point you challenge; viz. your use of the term “Deniers” and your lie that “getting Courtney to stand by what he says is like nailing jello to a wall”, but I am standing by what I have said here, as I always do. As for “evidence” then try reading
Click to access AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
and
Click to access Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf
and etc., etc., etc.,
But I give you full marks for imagination when you claim I have presented straw men. No, I have not presented straw men because I do not need to. It is easy to defeat assertions of catastrophic AGW because all – yes, all – available empirical evidence denies it. Indeed, this is why AGW-believers rarely make the foolish error of having public debates of their assertions, and it is why they always lose when they do; e.g. see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
I could go on, but I think I have said enough to show how much I enjoyed the laughs you have given me so I will merely again thank you for them and leave it at that.
For anyone who finds that examples make a point better than any amount of description, the above pretty much sums up AGW denialism and its complete absence of true scepticism. I doubt that anyone could do it better in fewer words.
Richard S Courtney said:
Mike replied:
What Courtney claims that Mike’s reply was:
Nailing Jello to a wall is being polite. 🙂
Oh and if you do read this, Richard, scroll to the top of the screen and click on the “About” tab. Mike has given you hints before, continuing to claim that he is an anonymous blogger is not likely to win you any support.
For the benefit of anyone who claims that Greenfyre is anonymous (and is too lazy or incompetent to click on a link), I’ll make it easy. Go here
Oh wait. That’s another link. Doh!
Double doh! here .
Courtney said:
Nothing that is published in E&E on climate can be considered “actual scientific research”. It is a garbage bin for unadulterated rubbish. So kind of you to prove your lack of scientific ability by referring to a “paper” published in E&E.
What kind of people are you? You provide insults and lies but no evidence and/or fact.
Yes, the blogger of this site is anonymous: he writes under a pseudonym. Of course one could research who the blogger is, but that does not alter the fact that the blogger is anonymous. And the amount of effort (large or small) to conduct the research is not relevant. [1]
The fact is that the blogger is not willing to put his name to the lies and nonsense that he posts so he writes under an alias. [2] And nobody can blame him for that because anybody would be ashamed to present the lies that he does. [3]
Indeed, the only response to disproof [4] of his lies is presentation of more lies by supporters of the anonymous blogger: e.g. assertion that peer reviewed scientific research is to be ignored when it does not support the lies of the AGW supporters [5] or when it is not published in journals that they like. [6]
I am leaving this web site now. Having been exposed to here I need to take a bath. [7]
—-
Neither your attitude, Richard, nor your inability to hit the “About” tab will be missed. You speak of insults but I’ve seen more than a few from you. How you think clicking the “About” tab is “research” I’ve no idea. Is it too much work for you? If you’re that lazy, it’s no wonder you have the attitude you have. You’re a hypocrite of the worst sort, Richard and I don’t think anyone feels more need for a bath than those of us who have been exposed to your bile these past couple of days.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
(Courtney)
It might be interesting to see if Courtney ever uses those ploys himself.
It wouldn’t be off-topic either as we would be looking for differences between scepticism and denialism.
—-
That’s good I’m sure that a few of us can add some more quotes to it.
Global Warming debate wrote, in a comment which apparently will be removed:
“….., the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer.”
A conservative research organization? It is not very common for research organizations to declare a political affiliation…. But of course, HI is not really doing science.
Heartland, like many thinktanks, is like a combined PR & lobbying organization, but with plusses:
1) It’s labeled a nonprofit, which saves tax money.
2) It has an independent existence, i.e., no one says “We’re XYZ PR firm, and here is out opinion”, because nobody would believe that.
If you study the Tobacco Archives, Heartland has a long history there, including various memos extolling their ,a href=”http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qol24e00/pdf”>skills at reaching politicians, one of plenty.
Climate change seems a recent focus. In many ways, confusing that is much, much easier than helping tobacco companies get children addicted while their brains are developing. (Much later than that, it’s too late, and the addiction doesn’t usually set.)
—-
LOL Conservative research center…Is that like a propaganda ministry kinda organization?
I somehow missed this when it first came out, but it’s worth highlighting the Center for Inquiry’s Senate Minority Report Credibility Project.
That’s a *lot* of work.
This is related to my comment Augsut 27, 2009, on the 2007 kerfuffle over Stuart Jordan’s articles in Skeptical Inquirer.
—-
That is excellent.
Thank you. 🙂
Edit: My only quibble with it is that they describe Courtney’s skeptic status as
Plainly from his performance here, that’s wrong.
S2,
Courtney can be found all over. Need I mention Google?
RichardSCourtney and variations.
—-
I made a quick pass through the CFI report, and there are a number like that, and I’ve sent them some notes. I *am* a little surprised they missed that one.
But, I know (from experience doing the APS analysis), that it takes time to track people down, especially if you haven’t seen them before.
Also, some cases are more interesting than others, so you spend more time on them, i.e., real scientists. When there are ~700 people, even 10 minutes apiece is a lot of work, and especially, finding publications or lack thereof via Google Scholar
“Study reveals that 80 percent of ‘dissenting scientists’ in report haven’t published peer-reviewed climate research”
Why is that no surprise at all?
Right you are, Bob Armstrong! How can a climate blog stake any claim to scientific rigor if it fails to prominently post the names of illustrious scientists like Stephan Boltzmann (to spell it properly) and Kelvin Kirchoff? Those two were among the most puissant natural philosophers of the nineteenth century, surpassed only by Arrhenius Lavoisier.
😉
James wrote (in part): “I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment that there are many uninformed, misinformed, and generally-well-intentioned-yet-ignorant posters out there. This is a little bit like saying there are “jerks” in every country. There are, no doubt, but to generalize an entire group of people based on this assumption is a bit pretentious.”
And a bit later: “As a professional scientist (a geologist, actually), I’m quite well aware of the definition. But thank you for your rather childish effort at condescension as it somewhat reinforces my belief that a majority of pro-AGW bloggers are suffering from psychological issues.”
And yet, you claim to feel generalizing is pretentious.
So Mr. Courtney’s background is with the coal industry? No wonder he opposes the idea of global warming
James, “as a professional scientist”, is this how you judge the validity of scientific arguments — by examining whether they use terms such as “Sir”, “please”, “thank you”, “may I”?
– bi
Of course not, bi. I suppose if I had ended the paragraph between “I’m well aware” and “thank you”, it might’ve been easier for you to understand. Next time, try not to twist my words so that they fit your worldview of purported “enemies”.
***********************************************
Your comment suggests that you believe the opposite – RealClimate bloggers cannot be skeptics because they happen to think (rationally) that AGW is real.
-S2
A skeptic (as has been stated many times above) keeps an open mind and is hesitant to rush head-long into proclaiming anything as “set in stone”. A scientist, in particular, knows that science can only be advanced when a theory is tested to its utmost limits. Whether proved or disproved, the science is advanced. RealClimate claims to have settled the science. In fact, they actively seek to disprove any work that could conceivably marr their own studies. This is hardly being skeptical. It’s also hardly being scientific (i.e. the numerous claims of data doctoring and sensationalism). I guess you’re cool with the hockey-stick graph, hmmm?
Do yourself a favor and read this:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Then get back to me one whether or not RealClimate can honestly be considered an unbiased, skeptical website.
***********************************************
And yet, you claim to feel generalizing is pretentious.
– Chris Winter
On the contrary, Chris. I base my opinion (as much as humanly possible) on observation, not generalization. Maybe you should study science a little bit more and THEN comment/blog about it. Case in point, one need look no further than the lion’s share of comments on this one blog alone to see the possibility of psychosis. But hey, don’t let me spoil your sunny day in la-la land.
Wow, you claim that RC is not sceptical and you cite outrageous propagandist Bishop Hill as a witness!
At some point, certain scientists will say “Enough!” and sue the shameless liars of the denialist industry.
I’d certainly call most of the right-wing anti-science nutters highly delusional and some maybe psychotic (has Graeme Bird been here?).
Mostly it’s a depressing level of ignorance combined with the arrogance of the incorrigible bigot.
Precisely.
But citing a blog post on the hockey-stick “controversy” is irrelevant to this post (I’d be happy to debate it under “Challenging the Core Science”, though, if you care to bring it up there). It doesn’t belong here.
The point that I made was
Your point above does not address this.
Please address the topic at hand, rather than trying to use diversionary tactics.
(I’m inclined to think a 24 hour warning is appropriate here)
—-
Greenfyre,
Isn’t it instructive how denidiots not only keep repeating the same old fallacious garbage but they can never stay on topic either?
What sort of Stupid are they?
—-
When you don’t have a real argument, that’s what you have to do…keep repeating the same tired old talking points. We saw the same thing from the Republicans in the 2008 elections.
—-
Mike, you`ve made a useful point that many self-described climate-science “skeptics” aren`t true skeptics at all, but already have their minds made up, and so are apparently trapped in self-deception and confirmation bias.
However, it seems to me that you and others have taken this too far: the likelihood that many skeptics are self-deceived doesn`t mean that those who are alarmed about climate science (and political difficulties) are correct, and are not beset by similar problems of confirmation bias.
Climate is tremendously complex, and our efforts to understand it are certainly nowhere near complete. I suggest that we need a little more humility on the science score, even as a I feel that we know enough to start acting. For some, this is reason enough to villify those who disagree, either on the science or on the policy implications. But I see ample room for compromises on policies that ought to be agreeable all around, such as ending tax disincentives to capitla investment, and encouraging more transparent and flexible electricity pricing – so I consider it counter-productive to treat all those who disagree with me on the science as “enemies”.
—-
On the science, readers should note that the overlay of natural cycles on climate change, the lag of temperatures behind projections, and recent papers blaming Arctic melting on soot from China and like that by Hansen and Choi (arguing that satellite data indicate cloud feedbacks are a negative feedback, so climate sensitivity is not 3C, but more like .5C), all play havoc with our ability to decisively determine the degree of climate significance of GHG emissions.
See, e.g., http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/the_more_i_study_climate_science_the_more_confused.html
Personally I feel we have enough to go on, but I am sympathetic of doubters, include those who doubt that the existing cap and trade bill in the US is the right approach – as opposed to leaner approaches like rebated carbon taxes.
—-
Hi, thanks for prompting me into action to finally add a Climate Change/Global Warming section to Debunkatron.com. I had been putting it off. I blame inertia, haha.
Please let me know if there are any particular links that you would like me to add. Thanks.
[…] skeptic vs denier, see (for example) Greenfyre Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers, Climate Deniers literally are “Flat Earthers”, That “Denier vs Septic” thing again. As […]
[…] to the cognitive biases that affect all of us, that organised skepticism on the whole does not hold a clear position on the science of global warming – although there are a few exceptions, both among individuals and organisations, such as CSI. […]
[…] have not been skeptical at all. You have been, if anything, quite gullible. In fact real skeptics detest the climate Deniers for the charlatans that they […]
[…] been, if anything, quite gullible. In fact real skeptics detest the climate Deniers for the charlatans that they […]
100 Engineers said the Brooklyn Bridge wouldn’t work. Only one did. It doesn’t matter how say it will or won’t work but the validity of their argument. You say you understand the atmosphere, prove it – tell me tomorrow`s weather with 100% accuracy then I be happy with a less accurate described far future. Put up or shutup. To describe the atmosphere would take many trillions of data locations measured every millisecond and a computer bigger than the world have ever seen.
—-
[…] […]