Climategate: who are the skeptics?
It is interesting to me that people who doubt AGW are often referred to as skeptics—and that’s one of the nicer things they’re called.
What is the definition of a skeptic? Let’s see:
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy
a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).
We can safely discount meaning number three here. But if we take the first definition, it’s clear that inherent in the use of the word “skeptic” to refer to those who question AGW is the idea that AGW is generally accepted truth. As for the second definition, it encompasses the oft-expressed perception (by the AGW-“skeptics,” that is) that AGW in now functioning more as a religion than a science.
And after all, isn’t a fair amount of skepticism inherent in the practice of science? Isn’t questioning previously held ideas and subjecting them to rigorous empirical, mathematical, and logical analysis one of the main functions of the scientific method? When does a working hypothesis turn into a full-fledged theory, and then become accepted as a leading theory, and then perhaps even become a law? It ordinarily takes an amount of evidence far more vast, impeccably reasoned, and proven, with a foundation far more firm, than AGW appears to have at this point.
And even then, is not a theory always susceptible to new information requiring revision? And is not one of the most basic functions of science and scientists to open the mind to this new information, evaluate it with an objective eye, and adjust the theory accordingly?
So, who are the skeptics and who the scientists here? Who is working on faith and who is working on logic? I would submit that logic is now quite strongly on the side of the so-called skeptics—and that the AGW-believers, especially the ones who say that there’s no reason to doubt the findings of the CRU team at this point, are the faith-based ones.
Neo, you’ve highlighted the essential problem within Climategate: scientists not doing science, but instead becomong advocates for a policy and pimping the science towards that end.
If a scientist is not constantly questioning results, then they are not doing their job. It becomes so ingrained that it should be a personality trait. My wife and friends often get annoyed with me and comment how I question everything. I try to explain that it’s not personal, but instead a desire to find all the details and make sure those details are interpreted correctly.
“Laws”, “Theories”, and “hypotheses” are often confused in the public mind, where “theory” is sometimes relegated to an inferior status. A Theory, at least in physics, is the most complete description we have of a broad segment of Nature. For example, Electromagnetic Theory (Maxwell’s equations), which includes things like Coulomb’s Law ( a precise equation describing the force between two charges). EM theory was not complete and was modified by Feynman into Quantum electrodynamics, and now the attempt is being made to integrate it with the other forces.
The science is NEVER settled. Anyone who says this is a fool, and is showing their gross ignorance of science.
It’s problematic. Some AGW skeptics, like our own Gray, believe that AGW is entirely and virulently a hoax, and I doubt that anything could change their minds any more than many AGW advocates could change theirs.
Personally I believe that there is something to AGW. (Shoot me now!) CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases, humanity is increasing those, therefore we are causing some of the current warming.
But how much, I don’t know. How dangerous, I don’t know. What we could realistically do about it, I don’t know. Sometimes I call myself an AGW agnostic.
But one thing I believe is settled, much as you say in your last graf, the science is not settled.
The CRU Hack materials put the cherry on the top of that one.
physicsguy,
Bravo! And neo, too. I’ve had similar exchanges with my nephew, who has a PhD in ecology and considers himself a scientist. He’s not, of course, he’s an environmental advocate who is never skeptical of anything the green left believes and favors. He gets impatient with me because, as he sees it, I want to debate everything. That’s not it, of course, I’m just being scientifically skeptical.
These guys aren’t doing science. They don’t test anything with a view to ruling it out. They’ve never done that even one time. And in science, nothing is ever proven.
They also try to account for anomalous data by saying that their theory accounts for everything that happens with the climate. This is absurd. A theory that explains everything, explains nothing. It can’t be tested, and it is, by declaration, unfalsifiable. Any theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered scientific. There must be no compromise on these points.
Is it possible to be skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming skepticism?
I agree with Good Ole Betsy…I’ve talked with ecologists and even dealt with the EPA at the Motherhouse in DC.
I can state with 99+% confidence (not certainty, you note) that NONE of them would know what science is about even if their lives depended on it.
The mindset is one of a Medieval monk, diligently copying at best and interfering with souls at worse. Think Renaissance Popes (without the good taste in Art) hectoring and bullying their time on the Throne. Heretics must burn at the stake…
Part of the problem is the dumbing down of sciences to get the maximum number of bodies through schools. And part is – as many here have suggested – political philosophy in aid of perconal power and wealth.
Follow the money…
I’m amused by the “science is settled” nonsense. Conservation of parity – parity, mind you! – was overthrown in 1956. Conservation of parity was considered rock solid, rather like conservation of energy and angular momentum, but one experiment (and one real Nobel Prize) later, poof! Gone.
Allotropy in carbon was settled science too, until Kroto and Smalley observed anomalous peaks in the mass spectrum of carbon vapor, and postulated the existence of polyhedral allotropes. “Experts” ridiculed them; the consensus held that carbon existed in only two allotropes, graphite and diamond. Oops. We now know there are a whole bunch of allotropes of carbon, buckyballs and carbon nanotubes being just two.
So the science is never settled even in no-foolin’ rock hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Now turn to climastrology. Please. If they get anything right, it’s probably due to the fortuitous cancelation of errors. And people propose turning our way of life upside down on that basis? A racetrack tout with a system is more reliable.
When those who loudest shout THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED wouldn’t know the difference between an eclair and an equation if it hit them in the face, one tends towards skepticism.
That they are RUSHING to get something done at a time when it has become known that data has been fudged, those with the data have been very reluctant to release it, and peer review” has been perverted, amng other issues: it would take a great deal of faith NOT to be a skeptic.
How many of these now pushing AGW would have been pushing AG Cooling thirty years ago?
I generally refer to the AGW crowd as “credulists.”
I generally refer to the AGW crowd as “credulists.”
My favorite: the “Branch Carbonians.”
One for the AGWers: Dubito ergo cognito.
Skepticism is Science,
Science is Skepticism.
It’s problematic. Some AGW skeptics, like our own Gray, believe that AGW is entirely and virulently a hoax, and I doubt that anything could change their minds any more than many AGW advocates could change theirs.
Whoa, whoa, whoa…. I am not a True Believer, a Luddite or a Know-Nothing. I don’t know how I’ve invited such slander.
I am a guy who has enough science, computer and engineering background to see, and understand, how the trick was pulled off with data normalization techniques verging on data torture techniques with an unproven (and likely unproveable) hypothesis inflated by political clout and grant money.
I’m like the guy at the magic show who saw the woman crouching in the bottom box before she was ‘cut in half’.
I don’t ‘believe’ Man-made Global Warming is a hoax. I know it’s a hoax.
What would change my mind:
A theory, testable and replicable with real-world data from two different temperature record sources that doesn’t rely on any bullshit nonexistant ‘positive feedback mechanisms’ in nature and doesn’t just correlate, but explains and demonstrates the relationship between CO2 amounts in the atmosphere and land temperature.
And, as always, show your work.
AGW, as a theory, is so nebulous that it is actually unproveable.
The interesting question is: “Why do people need to believe why things are getting all bad n stuff?”
AGW, as a theory, is so nebulous that it is actually unproveable.
Untestable. I should have said “untestable” rather than “unproveable”.
Global Warming is as manufactured a hoax as Tiger Wood’s Good Guy, Family Man image.
Woods’
Giving up now; can’t get anything right….
huxley Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Hey, I want to be included in that list. I’ve emphatically said that AGW was a damn fraud from the word go, all the way back to the 90s.
rickl,
That’s two of us, that’s me ‘n’ you, man.
The interesting question is: “Why do people need to believe why things are getting all bad n stuff?”
Exactly. As mentioned on a previous thread, some people seem, paradoxically, to need an existential threat to feel alive.
I saw this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. It was heartening to see a newspaper article that explicitly describes the totalitarian mindset among the environmental fanatics.
The Totalities of Copenhagen
Gray: If you have an open mind about global warming to any degree whatsoever, if you have done a bang-up job of concealing it.
I’ve emphatically said that AGW was a damn fraud from the word go, all the way back to the 90s.
rickl: Congratulations on your pride in having a closed mind.
I really don’t get how anyone how anyone can be sure, one way or the other, that global warming is a fraud or a near-certain threat.
The interesting question is: “Why do people need to believe why things are getting all bad n stuff?”
Yeah, kinda like the idea that the United States Constitution is, like, over and we’re just waiting around until they round us up for the camps.
Huxley,
“I really don’t get how anyone how anyone can be sure, one way or the other, that global warming is a fraud or a near-certain threat.”
I assume you really mean anthropologic induced warming based on CO2 emissions. If so, then I would say that the models being put forth are basically total bunk. The one simple fact that those models failed in predicting the global temperature since 1998 is all that is needed to show the models are fatally flawed. Add to that the contents of Climategate, and I think you have evidence of outright fraud in the manipulation of the data.
I certainly don’t deny that the earth has been warming for at least 150 years or more, nor do I deny CO2 has a ‘greenhouse” contribution. However, that contribution amounts to about 1.5 oC total and any further CO2 increases, whether from humans or natural sources, will only add at most another .2-.4 oC rise. The catastrophic temp rise that the AGWer’s are promoting is not supported at all by either the basic physics nor the observations.
Gray: If you have an open mind about global warming to any degree whatsoever, if you have done a bang-up job of concealing it.
Oh….. You don’t have any scientific or technical background, do you?
The interesting question is: “Why do people need to believe why things are getting all bad n stuff?”
Yeah, kinda like the idea that the United States Constitution is, like, over and we’re just waiting around until they round us up for the camps.
Yes, very much like that. That is loopy.
However, I don’t like it when the administration threatens to us the EPA to impose “command and control” (Obama’s words) solutions to CO2 pollution.
Unlike Global Warmianity, there is some evidence of Obama Administration antipathy toward citizen rights.
I certainly don’t deny that the earth has been warming for at least 150 years or more,
I do. Nobody knows that. Some data sources support that, some do not. It is not demonstrated.
“nor do I deny CO2 has a ‘greenhouse” contribution.”
No one has demonstrated that theorized lab effect on a large scale let alone demonstrating a link between that phenomenon and “earth” temperature.
huxley Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 2:28 am
No, I don’t believe I have a closed mind. It’s just that I have known this was poppycock all along. A big part of it was noting that the proponents tend to be anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. That was a huge red flag (so to speak).
And I’m feeling rather vindicated these days.
Check out this WUWT link, which I found minutes ago:
Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data
Even though I’m not a scientist and haven’t had access to the data, on some level I’ve known this all along. The temperature variations in recent centuries are miniscule if you step back and take in a longer view.
No, I don’t believe I have a closed mind. It’s just that I have known this was poppycock all along.
rickl: And that’s exactly what I meant by a closed mind.
Knowing that “this was poppycock all along” is a closed mind.
Back in the 90s the temperatures — what you read in the papers and what you sensed when you put your hand out the window — were going up, up, up.
But you knew global warming was poppycock.
Oh….. You don’t have any scientific or technical background, do you?
Gray: That’s basically the same sort of response Gavin Schmidt gave me. You are both intellectual thugs in my book.
If you want to argue substance, lay it out, but mostly, like Schmidt, your postings are all ipse dixit.
Did you happen to look at my link?
By the way, the term “intellectual thug” is much more aptly applied to the likes of Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et al.
rickl: I read that link before you posted it. Unless you read it in the 90s I don’t see how it justifies your position that you knew that AGW was a fraud back then.
As far as I’m concerned, “intellectual thug” applies to anyone who wades into a discussion and constantly appeals to their own authority as though that’s some BFD.
That’s Gavin Schmidt, Gore, Jones, Mann, Gray and Mitsu. We don’t lack for those sorts.
Gray: That’s basically the same sort of response Gavin Schmidt gave me. You are both intellectual thugs in my book.
Actually, I happen to be a physical thug as well.
OK, I’ll lay it out. As I have said over and over and over here, even before “climategate”:
“The recent warming trend shown in the graphs is an artifact of data normalization, not a physical event.”
There. But the problem is, you don’t know what I am talking about ‘cuz you have no scientific or technical background.
“intellectual thug” applies to anyone who wades into a discussion and constantly appeals to their own authority as though that’s some BFD.
But that’s what those Climate “Scientists” do everyday.
“Climate Science” isn’t even a real scientific discipline. It’s ideological horseshit.
No one has ever said: “We’ve got a real problem here! We need the Climate Scientist now!”
However, people do say: “We’ve got a real problem here! We need the Electrical Engineer now!”
Consequently, I don’t have to cook up bullshit to have a job and make money, they do.
(I’m going to print up an “Intellectual Thug” sign and put it over my desk. People will appreciate it….)
Gray: Yep, you’re a thug. Glad you’re proud of it.
And you don’t know who I am or what I know.
Gray: Yep, you’re a thug. Glad you’re proud of it.
Yeah–I got “jumped in” the gang with a vicious brow-beating