Know a climate change "skeptic"? Here are a few things to show them:

[Vay]

First of all being genuinely “skeptical” means:

1. scrutinizing oneself for bias (such as, say, a Christian bias that humans are incapable of affecting the climate, or a political bias that capitalism can do no wrong) and being extra-skeptical of ~yourself~ when the “truth” you perceive ~happens~ to coincide with that bias.
2. accommodating one’s opinions to logic and empirical evidence (the evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming), rather than vice versa.
3. considering what the majority of experts in a field have to say about a subject (the consensus of experts on human-caused global warming is near-unanimous).

Therefore, unless you are yourself in fact a climate expert, calling oneself a skeptic on this topic is in fact a misnomer. The more appropriate term is “denier”. However, telling your friend that won’t have any persuasive value and will probably only turn him off to what you have to say. Instead, you might want to mildly suggest he check out the following resources:

If he likes videos, I’ve actually seen die-hard conspiracy theorists and even ~Libertarians~ change their stripes after watching this series:

Climate Change - the Scientific Debate
(part one of a 13-ish part series)

The Medieval Warming Period - Fact vs. Fiction

The videos are short, to-the-point, non-ideological and packed with evidence. The series creator is also quite willing to answer questions posed in the comments section. He does a brutal debunking of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” video as well as other outspoken denialists.

Another excellent site for just about any challenge a denialist can throw out is this one:

skepticalscience.com/

Most of their articles offer basic, intermediate and advanced levels. The discussions in the comments section are often quite lively, and I challenge ~any~ denier to jump in there if you think you know your stuff. Here are a few favorites:

Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line

But the climate has changed before!

Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming

Finally, climate change deniers often mis-characterize the history of global warming science, making it seem that scientists have flip-flopped with the political wind. Here’s a great and very succinct overview of the history of global warming science going back to the mid-nineteenth century:

History of Climate Change Science - Nutshell version

History of Climate Change Science - Long Version

[BigJohn]

[quote=“Vay”]First of all being genuinely “skeptical” means:

1. scrutinizing oneself for bias (such as, say, a Christian bias that humans are incapable of affecting the climate, or a political bias that capitalism can do no wrong) and being extra-skeptical of ~yourself~ when the “truth” you perceive ~happens~ to coincide with that bias.
2. accommodating one’s opinions to logic and empirical evidence (the evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming), rather than vice versa.
3. considering what the majority of experts in a field have to say about a subject (the consensus of experts on human-caused global warming is near-unanimous).
   [/quote]

Source? Are you quoting from a dictionary or are you making this up yourself?

@Vay

Therefore, unless you are yourself in fact a climate expert, calling oneself a skeptic on this topic is in fact a misnomer.

Sorry, that is inaccurate. We live in an age where nobody can be an expert in everything, yet we still need to retain control over what we believe is true. Hence, critical thinking of expert opinion is required. This is often very different than denial.

Bottom line: your overly confident pronouncements are less than convincing.

[Vay]

@Big John

Source? Are you quoting from a dictionary or are you making this up yourself?

My definition of skepticism comes from a variety of sources from which it has been culled, including a pole at 2 online skeptics associations. Another major source was this:

Massimo Pigliucci’s Nonsense on Stilts - How to Tell Science from Bunk

Here’s how I actually expressed the definition in a lecture on Scientific Skepticism last year:

[b]Main Tenets of Skepticism:

1. Be highly aware of weaknesses and pitfalls in human cognition:
   A) Tendency toward false pattern recognition
   B) Pre-disposition to bias, such as confirmation bias (IE, Notice and remember evidence that agrees with what we already think.) and selection bias (IE, remember the hits and ignore the misses.)
   C) Cognitive errors, such as resorting to anecdotal evidence and “common sense”

2. Be aware of limits of one’s own ability to know much about anything outside one’s own limited area of expertise. Expertise and credibility do matter!

3. Hold beliefs in proportion to the best available evidence, preferably evidence which is long-standing and supported by a vast body of empirical research as well as solid logic.

4. Consider the how a specific claim fits into the wider scientific ecosystem – IE, does basically fit within the framework of everything science tells us about the world?

5. Demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims! When confronted with extraordinary claims, first hold to the null hypothesis, and seek dis-confirming evidence. Compare this with the confirming evidence in terms of logic and credibility.

---

Basic Qualities of Scientific Denialism:

(1) Appeals to conspiracy theory.

(2) Employs extreme selectivity, (EG cherry-picking) in supporting its beliefs.

(3) Relies heavily on “rogue” experts.

(4) Maintains impossible expectations (EG moving goalposts) to make its claims un-falsifiable.

(5) Tends to be fraught with logical fallacies.

(6) Resorts to “magic bullet” arguments, erroneously believing an entire scientific theory can be unwoven with a single piece of evidence.

(7) Resorts to a “I’m not saying X; I’m just a guy with some questions” position… but does not actively seek answers for these questions or supply an alternate hypothesis which explains as much of the evidence as the existing theory does.
___[/b]

Other pertinent sources:

What is skepticism?
The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

I’ll list a few more for you later; gotta run now.

Sorry, that is inaccurate. We live in an age where nobody can be an expert in everything, yet we still need to retain control over what we believe is true.

Agreed. This is why skepticism is so valuable.

Hence, critical thinking of expert opinion is required.

Sure it is. But challenging a huge consensus of experts in agreement on a long-standing consensus stemming from multiple lines of converging evidence isn’t “critical thinking”. It’s what Carl Sagan would call an extraordinary belief, and extreme hubris.

This is often very different than denial.

Not necessarily. See my definition of denial in this post.

[Winston_Smith]

At the risk of eternal damnation I must confess that for me the whole anthropogenic climate change “debate” strikes me as little more than a bunch of blind men running their hands over the hide of an elephant with one faction vociferously proclaiming that they’re certain it’s nothing more than a giant, hairless lagomorph and the other faction proclaiming that it can only be an alien life form left to roam the earth as a malicious experiment.

My humble view is that we’re really not entirely sure what it is yet due to a paucity of information but we shouldn’t take any chances nonetheless by doing our best to stay out of its way so we don’t end up as just another unfortunate, fossilized “carbon footprint”.

[Deuce_Dropper]

in before Fred Smith!

[BigJohn]

@Vay:

Good response. I see where you are coming from now.

I agree that the professional climate change skeptic is a psuedo-skeptic.

But, how would your “skepticism meter” react to this statement?

“I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.”

[cfimages]

[quote=“BigJohn”]

“I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.”[/quote]

I’m not responding to your question but do want to note one thing about it. In regards to cost / benefit analysis, there have been a number of them carried out by everyone from scientific research organizations to climate skeptics to the insurance industry. I don’t have links for you but if you’re interested I guess you’ll find them with a quick Google.

[fred_smith]

I’m not responding to your question but do want to note one thing about it. In regards to cost / benefit analysis, there have been a number of them carried out by everyone from scientific research organizations to climate skeptics to the insurance industry. I don’t have links for you but if you’re interested I guess you’ll find them with a quick Google.

Not responding eh? If only…

So, what is the chief basis of climate alarmist predictions? projections from computer-based models which have, to say the very least, not been very accurate.

So, when has it been the case that skepticism is to be “unscientific?” Seems to be the very definition of science continues to be skepticism until the results are proven.

Now, if I were to take a look at the last four, or is it five now?, IPCC reports and their executive summaries, would I find that the IPCC forecasts are increasingly dire thus proving the climate change alarmists were RIGHT ALL ALONG!!! or would we find that the severity of the effects of climate change are increasingly lowered in terms of severity? thus bearing out the skeptics criticism of the earlier, much more alarmist reports? But we already know the answer to this, don’t we? so, er, skeptics 5: climate change alarmists 0.

[Chris]

I see skepticism as a rational stance of doubt based on a lack of evidence or reasoning supporting a claim. Skepticism reasonably applies to things like telekinesis, telepathy, homeopathy, water divining, spoon bending, psychic surgery, alien abduction, the existence of ghosts, gods, fairies and leprechauns, and other “woo”.

So-called “skepticism” of things that are overwhelmingly evidenced, such as the spheroidal shape of the Earth, the Holocaust, global warming, the Apollo moon landings, the viral cause of AIDS, and evolutionary theory, is an irrational stance better termed “denialism”.

[Vay]

@Winston Smith

My humble view is that we’re really not entirely sure what it is yet due to a paucity of information but we shouldn’t take any chances nonetheless by doing our best to stay out of its way so we don’t end up as just another unfortunate, fossilized “carbon footprint”.

I appreciate your humility here, Winston, but if you read the “global warming science history” link I provided above, watch the Potholer series or explore the Skeptical Science website, you might find “we” know more than you might expect!

[Vay]

@Big John

I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.

Thank you for your compliment. This is a very fair question. Unfortunately, I didn’t really post this to address it, nor am I read up enough on this angle to do so (although you may want to explore the Skepticalscience site in that regard). My problem is this:

People with money, political or religious ideologies at stake on this issue are playing a very dodgy game. It’s a lot like the whole “Birther” non-issue: when you slap them in the face with evidence of Obama’s citizenship, they’ll be like, “Yeah, but why wasn’t he just ~up front~ about this from the beginning…?” or some other side-line.

At which point, I’ll be like, “Hang on, so before I answer that question, let me get this straight: you are in fact admitting that Obama is, was and ever shall be a US citizen?” To which they rarely if ever respond. They want to jump right past that point (leaving it hanging there of course) and go on arguing about a different topic.

Conservatives, conspiracy mongers and other various iconoclasts who have a problem with authority will play both sides of the table, bringing up the political ~consequences~ of global warming while maintaining that they are “skeptical” about the science. And unless your name is John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels or Roy Spencer (as far as I know, the only genuine climate skeptics left), you simply aren’t qualified to say this. What you should stay instead is “I’m not really very informed on this issue, but my biases incline me to feel I should disagree with the consensus of experts.” That would be the completely fair and honest thing to say.

The reason I get nitpicky about that is that we can’t even begin to seriously address the question of “What are we going to do about it?” if we don’t at least first broadly admit, as so many legitimate former skeptics have, that, yes, the climate is warming and, yes, it is primarily caused by human-emitted carbon. Once we can agree on that, fine, make any libertarian argument you want for the dangers of government intervention or what-have-you. But first, we need to finally out-and-out admit that no, a vast consensus of climate scientists are not engaged in a huge insidious conspiracy or simply dumber than your average person with internet access.

[Vay]

@Fred Smith

So, what is the chief basis of climate alarmist predictions? projections from computer-based models which have, to say the very least, not been very accurate.

Um, Fred, if you go to that site I recommended above, you’ll find the mis-characterizations you’ve probably been getting from that industry money-taking, goal-post moving, outright deceptive non-climate expert Anthony Watts are, to say the least, not very accurate. Have a look at this:

How reliable are climate models?

Here’s the summary:

@Skeptical Science

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

They then go on to back that up. Well.

Read it, and if you disagree, I strongly suggest you take it up in the comments section there. But be prepared for a painful spanking.

@Fred Smith

So, when has it been the case that skepticism is to be “unscientific?” Seems to be the very definition of science continues to be skepticism until the results are proven.

Then you don’t know much about science – at least not enough to spout off as you do! Science isn’t about the business of “proving” things. It is true that one should always maintain skepticism in science, but - in philosophical terms - only in the sense that conclusions are always tentative, pending new evidence. There is no “absolute certainty”. This does not, however, mean one must suspend judgement perpetually. Let me quote the Skeptics’ Dictionary to you on this point:

@Skeptics' Dictionary

(In contrast with Denialism,) Scientific skepticism… recognizes that even though some uncertainty may exist, the sum of the evidence may preponderantly support some claims. A reasonable person accepts what is most likely the case rather than demanding that we not give our assent to any proposition until one can say there is no doubt that this is the case.

So if you’re going to be skeptical of climate change theory for the reason you seem to, you might as well be skeptical of evolution theory, gravity theory, electromagnetism, quantum physics and the rest.

@Fred Smith

Now, if I were to take a look at the last four, or is it five now?, IPCC reports and their executive summaries, would I find that the IPCC forecasts are increasingly dire thus proving the climate change alarmists were RIGHT ALL ALONG!!! or would we find that the severity of the effects of climate change are increasingly lowered in terms of severity? thus bearing out the skeptics criticism of the earlier, much more alarmist reports? But we already know the answer to this, don’t we? so, er, skeptics 5: climate change alarmists 0.

Um, basically calling science “revisionist” is not the way to criticize science. Updating itself based on new information is the chief ~strength~ of science.

But in any case, I think you are again attacking a strawman of the actual history in question. I’ve seen you claim “Scientists in the 70’s predicted global cooling!”, “They were growing grapes in England at the end of the first millennium!” and other oft-parroted but well-refuted talking points, so this doesn’t surprise me (and leads me to my “Anthony Watt ditto head” hypothesis). In this sense you’re really no different than a 9-11 Truther, bringing up “molten metal”, “thermite” and “free-fall speed physics violations”. The fact is, you’re not interested in actually ~dis-confirming~ the stuff you believe, so you don’t even bother checking. Here’s the Skeptical Science response to the “alarmist” line:

@Skeptical Science

The IPCC lead authors are experts in their field, instructed to fairly represent the full range of the up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, the IPCC reports tend to be cautious in their conclusions. Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions.

Again, you know what should happen next.

Is the IPCC Alarmist?

[Vay]

@Chris

So-called “skepticism” of things that are overwhelmingly evidenced, such as the spheroidal shape of the Earth, the Holocaust, global warming, the Apollo moon landings, the viral cause of AIDS, and evolutionary theory, is an irrational stance better termed “denialism”.

BINGO! If, as a non-expert, you’re going to argue with the scientific consensus on AGW, you might as well start attending Truther conventions, stop vaccinating your kids, tell everyone HIV is a hoax and support “teaching the controversy” on evolution in schools. Same same.

[Chris]

@Big John

I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.

Given uncertainty, I’d rather err on the side of caution: i.e., not messing up our environment.

[BigJohn]

@Vay

[quote=“Big John”]I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.

Thank you for your compliment. This is a very fair question. Unfortunately, I didn’t really post this to address it, nor am I read up enough on this angle to do so.[/quote]

But that is a relevant angle, yes? Perhaps more relevant than an interesting but somewhat abstract foray into the land of “What is skepticism?”

I mean, it is a GW thread.

[headhonchoII]

[quote=“BigJohn”]@Vay:

Good response. I see where you are coming from now.

I agree that the professional climate change skeptic is a psuedo-skeptic.

But, how would your “skepticism meter” react to this statement?

“I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.”[/quote]

There are probably a few skeptics of GW that came to the conclusion due to a thorough reading of the science as it stands. The vast majority came to their conclusions due to having a political viewpoint first, being told from up high that this scientific viewpoint correlate with out political leanings, and then moving forward on that basis. Thats the problem I have, you don’t start with your political views first when making scientific conclusions.
You are not supposed to choose which ones to be skeptical on or not.

It’s like religion in the US or some other countries, you can’t be skeptical of the existence of God otherwise you will not be elected. There are people and corporations who would do that with issues such as AGW and then you and I and science will be in real trouble.

For what it’s worth I agree that the scenarios widely differ regarding AGW, which is normal. My main bugbear are there more serious immediate threats to the quality of the global environment, namely air pollution, forest clearing and massive species die off. Right now.

[Winston_Smith]

I may be blind but I’ve rubbed my hands over every square centimeter of its body twice and I’m convinced it’s just a giant mutant opossum and not some alien life form like those idiots on the other side keep claiming without any proof whatsoever.

[GuyInTaiwan]

[quote=“headhonchoII”][quote=“BigJohn”]@Vay:

Good response. I see where you are coming from now.

I agree that the professional climate change skeptic is a psuedo-skeptic.

But, how would your “skepticism meter” react to this statement?

“I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.”[/quote]

There are probably a few skeptics of GW that came to the conclusion due to a thorough reading of the science as it stands. The vast majority came to their conclusions due to having a political viewpoint first, being told from up high that this scientific viewpoint correlate with out political leanings, and then moving forward on that basis. Thats the problem I have, you don’t start with your political views first when making scientific conclusions.
You are not supposed to choose which ones to be skeptical on or not.

It’s like religion in the US or some other countries, you can’t be skeptical of the existence of God otherwise you will not be elected. There are people and corporations who would do that with issues such as AGW and then you and I and science will be in real trouble.

For what it’s worth I agree that the scenarios widely differ regarding AGW, which is normal. My main bugbear are there more serious immediate threats to the quality of the global environment, namely air pollution, forest clearing and massive species die off. Right now.[/quote]

I can’t even discuss this issue with my father (he always brings it up though) because of what you mention in your first paragraph. I don’t know enough about the real nuts and bolts of this issue to have an opinion either way. I can actually admit that I know little to nothing. I have actually asked my father if he has read the scientific reports about this (let alone understood them), and he has squirmed his way around the question, but eventually admitted that he hasn’t (but that he trusts the writings of a prominent newspaper columnist, who, as far as I am aware, has no background in science either – yeah, a five hundred word piece in the opinion section of a newspaper is where I’d go for my scientific information, but hey, this guy is supposedly standing up against [strike]peer review[/strike] a global conspiracy in the scientific community). I have asked my father to explain the carbon cycle, and he can’t even do that. Yet he has a very strong opinion about this entire issue, and then he gets really angry if someone such as me dares not even to disagree with him, but to suggest that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s ridiculous, but what can you do?

[Vay]

[quote=“Big John”]But that is a relevant angle, yes? Perhaps more relevant than an interesting but somewhat abstract foray into the land of “What is skepticism?”

I mean, it is a GW thread.[/quote]

Course it is relevant, and as cfimages points out above, with a bit of searching you can quickly dig up things pertinent to your question. On my obvious favorite, Skeptical Science, for example, I quickly came up with this:

Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?

Also thought this was interesting:
Calculating the True Cost of Climate Change

But see again, we’re doing the same thing we always do: leave the “climate skepticism” sitting there while we move on to talk about consequences. What I’d like (analogously) is for the Birther to, for once and for all, come out and either admit absolutely nothing will convince him Obama is a citizen (in which case his position is unfalsifiable) or else unequivocally recognize the fact that he is one. The consequences of global warming and what we do about them actually are irrelevant to the question of whether the climate is warming and whether we are mostly causing it.

[finley]

“I am skeptical about claims that we need to talk severe steps immediately to combat AGW because I still feel that the science is so complex that there are still important uncertainties about the extent of climate change and its consequences, nor has their been a satisfying cost/benefit analysis with regards to what people believe should be done. I feel that claims about the need for immediate severe action to avoid disaster may well be an exaggeration.”

I think there is a difference between deciding that climate change has enough supporting evidence and is therefore “real”, and deciding on specific actions to correct it. The former is a purely scientific question. The latter is a practical and political one. There is only the most tenuous connection between the two.

Climate models might not be very good, but they’re good enough to shine a spotlight on some underlying trends, such as massive waste of energy and resources for no obvious benefit. These problems can and should be corrected because doing so will make life better. Anthropogenic climate change doesn’t need to be addressed by itself, because it’s just a symptom, not the actual problem. The corollary is that it doesn’t matter whether you think climate change is real or not: making the changes which might fix it (if it’s real) will deliver huge benefits, regardless.

Yet, when people start wittering about “cost-benefit analyses”, they’re usually talking about the awfully modern method of treating symptoms without looking at causes. Just take a pill and you’ll feel well enough to go to work in the morning! I’ve heard virtually nobody talk about the benefits inherent in reducing our resource burn rate. The only person who (AFAIK) has even touched on the issue is Bjorn Lomborg, yet even his analysis of what ought to be done is weak, unimaginative, and shows no understanding of the technology available today and how it can be useful to us.

We have the know-how to look after our environment and deliver incredible social and economic benefits. it’s just that nobody wants to.