In his article “Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name” published at American Thinker back in February, S. Fred Singer has a go at those he sees as ‘Warmistas’ and ‘Deniers’ whilst commenting about the group he includes himself in.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
“No problem there” I thought, “At the Talkshop, not only do we question experiments and theories,, we conduct new experiments and build new theories.” We discuss and have contrary opinions included (as long as they are reasonably presented), and in general we put what we perceive as errors on the part of the warmista (no ‘s’ required in this designation to signify the plural Fred) down to cockup rather than conspiracy. We tend to take the proverbial in good humour rather than take the hump with those we disagree with.
But as I read on, past the section on the IPCC and the forthcoming AR5, I became increasingly baffled by some of the things Fred chose to put into his ‘Denier’ category:
Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.
Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.
I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.
Now, I’m thinking that quite a few Talkshop reader and regulars will find themselves saying, “wait a minute, there is a lot of mischaracterisation of argument and ignorance of research going on here, and I don’t like getting called a ‘Denier’ by a fellow sceptic like S. Fred Singer because I think some elements of those arguments are genuinely part of the uncertainty of the unsettled science”.
So I’m throwing this one open to see what others think, because I’ve been grappling with how to respond to S. Fred Singer’s apparent desire to define quite a number of people who think of themselves as genuine sceptics as being ‘beyond the pale’ of rational scientific debate. He’s not the only one who has been labelling people lately, and I see the trend as cause for concern. People who label others close their minds to the ideas they are working with too, and true sceptics don’t do that. Mutual criticism and review of each others work should be part and parcel of healthy scientific debate, not an excuse to take personal offence and shut the door on potentially useful ideas.
Only 18 months ago, Some of those now seeking to label, define, and dismiss others were bristling at the production of what amounted to a blacklist of dissenting scientists organised by the late Stephen Schneider. I hope Fred and others reconsider the options for attempting to set the terms for the climate debate, and so enable everyone to soften positions and recreate the air of mutual tolerance which was such a strong asset to the sceptical community.
But…what is it beyond both sides?, cannot anyone of us ask ourselves, following the Socratic “mayeutic” method, what is it the cause of our discussions?, the obvious answer is: The Sun; then, let us forget our differences and study that shiny thing above us. If it would not exist at all, there would not be any arguments to fight for.
maleutic
Lots of sceptics seem happy just rocking the boat. Me, I want to turn it over and drown the whole miserable, greedy, unscientific crew…
Thanks Adolfo and Ed: an apposite word:
Wiki says:
Maieutics (play /meɪˈjuːtɨks/ or /maɪˈjuːtɨks/) is a pedagogical method based on the idea that the truth is latent in the mind of every human being due to innate reason but has to be “given birth” by answering intelligently proposed questions (or problems). The word is derived from the Greek “μαιευτικός”, pertaining to midwifery.
The idea is reminiscent of the 4th century BC philosopher Plato. In The Symposium and Theatetus, Plato discusses the Socratic method, a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one interlocutor may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer’s own point. As to maieutics, it is based on Plato’s theory of recollection (anamnesis), so that it holds that knowledge is latent in the conscience awaiting discovery. This discovery is sought through dialectic and in contrast to Plato’s theory, through inductive reasoning rather than deductive.
In Theaetetus, the basic question is “What is knowledge?”. Theaetetus is a young student of mathematics who proposed three definitions that are refuted by Socrates, according to whom, knowledge cannot be defined as a perception, nor as a true opinion, nor as an explanation besides a true opinion. Socrates debates these arguments from a critical point of view by posing more questions, but never poses a conclusion on the matter of knowledge itself.
Tenuc:
“We’re all in the same boat
Rockin’ on the same rock”
-Bob Marley-
There are only a certain number of things one can question seriously before his/her worldview becomes unstable. In every endeavor this rule applies; what differentiates one from another is what he is questioning.
If you think of all the uncertainties in the CAGW narrative, you can think that there is no possiblily of certainty at all. Of course, though, some apply positively and some negatively, so that a portion of doubt balances out. Singer picks up on this. He sticks with what he feels are the fundamentals. His “deniers”, and we can all recognize them, grab either the whole range or make their center piece, such as a conspiracy of silence or manipulation, overreaching but, more importantly, unproveable.
Singer is right about the similarity of the extremists. Hansen’s belief that Big Oil and “huge” resources from such are creating false doubt is from the same cloth as the denier’s claim that a conspiracy exists to blind the world to an ongoing attempt to impose global political control into the hands of an ideologically bent group of “eco-saviours”. Evidence exists for both, if doubt is accepted in being able to truly see what is going on, i.e. the waters are muddy by design. What Singer has done, though, is to see his particular level or target of skepticism is the ‘correct’ target or level. Those focused elsewhere are wrong and annoying because they do not support his worldview.
Our leaders and our spokesmen, like Singer, have large egos. And we need them to have them, as the strong ego is the one to stand up to those of others. But we do not have to accept their judgement of us. I have suspicions about much, much more today than I did 2 /2 years ago when Climategate brought me to the Global Warming debate. There is little that, upon my research, matches my expectations or the narrative I had been told. The world is more faceted than the simple stories we are capable of both learning and passing on to others. But as long as we catch the main thread as we muddle along, we’ll get to the end.
Skepticism has to be limited, as I noted above. But my skepticism doesn’t have to be yours, or vice-versa. What it has to be is useful and usable. Singer can work on his while we work on ours. Only the most conservative ‘skeptic’ will always be right, while only the occassionally wrong skeptic will lead to new knowledge. Progress arises when those who question find unexpected knowledge, not when they tweak the calipers to add significant digits (the astronomers reading will correctly disagree, but consider the point, not the example).
Singer speaks as an agenda-driven individual with dogs in the race. He sees the complaints of others as a distraction to his personal battle, a weakening of his position by an apparent confusion in his army. It is this sort of drive for consensus – about, ironically, the lack of consensus – that is at the heart of the CAGW problem.
Skeptics: question on and boldly, that is your purpose. Warmists: perhaps you could back-check a bit more, and reduce your benefit-of-the-doubt gift to the Hansen-Gore-Suzuki cabal. As for deniers of both camps, go ahead: history and the world have you in their grip. Things will out as they will.
Even Fred will find stuff out to surprise him. Annoying, isn’t it?
P.S. The number of things one can deal with effectively is in the 5 – 7 range. That’s the numbers in your licence plate, your telephone number, the members of your “team” with one manager. A platoon has 12, but there are two managers, a lieutenant and a sargent, there you are back to the 5 – 7. If you follow the PBS series, Mayday, which details disasters, you’ll see that it takes about 4 things wrong for a flight crew, for example, to lose control, so the intensity of the problem is also a factor. But the number, whether 4 or 7, is small. We’re really not very capable of understanding complex situations, when you think about it. Our skill is in breaking large things down into small pieces that are digestible. Pieces we can understand better than what pieces, put all together, do or cannot do.
Which explains a lot of strange studies as well as how well we manage, hmmm, most everything.
The problem of “consensus” is that it reminds “dogma”, where the uninitiated cannot reach knowledge. The Academia speaking “Ex-Cathedra”. Where we, commoners, are supposed just to believe and not to argue about or worse, to doubt.
Funnily, the “tops uranus” makes no preferences and chances are at our favor, in these apocalyptic (revelation from above) times.
So the philosophers “Agora” has moved from the Academia, turned into a church, to the real free agora of blogs.
Singer should know better. Putting labels on people is just as stupid as the English obsession with class (upper, middle, working..) – it adds nothing to the real debate. All of the points he makes need to be treated separately, and on their merits.
How many non-Kiwis understand the cartoon?
Good question Murray. I wondered what it is about.
Yep, we skeptics and deniers are paranoid. But … are we paranoid enough? On the evidence to date, maybe not. Listen to the UN agencies. They mean what they say.
Pass this little note on to the almighty Fred Singer for me please, let him know that I will be playing the Xbox for the rest of the night with my nephew, We will be immersed in virtual reality until the wee hours of the morning, ask him does he consider that I deny reality because I have decided to partake in this activity?
If he does indeed consider that I am a denier and he wishes to label me as such, please inform him that I couldn’t give a purple monkey’s furry nut-sack what he thinks, or what labels or brackets he files the people around him under.
Really! sometimes these “Intelligent people” can be so moronically two-faced and err, well, thick as two f***ing planks.
Excellent site guy’s!
I have been wondering why those in the Luke Warmer community have been trying so hard to drive wedges into the sceptic community. Afraid of losing their lucrative positions and income if the public really catches on and shuts down the climate scam?!?!?!
One has to wonder if some commenter’s (& scientists) really understand the basic technology and the limits of its applications particularly errors in measurement. I once asked Richard Lindzen a question (by email) and he politely replied that he did not know and suggested a couple of references (which were no use). I would suggest that Fred Singer has limited experience with heat and mass transfer. The correct thing would be to say that climate is a complex interaction of many have forces and physical states, No one has a complete understanding of what is involved, and some people (including some studying fields outside climate assessment- such as astronomy & engineering) are better placed to find some of the interactions if given the data.
TB this site is providing many interesting points of view and factual information. I used to look at Jeff Condon’s The Air Vent but some of the interesting technical discussions such as the posts from Dr Anastassia Makarieva about cyclones, hurricanes & tornadoes (which even drew in Gavin Schmidt before he realised his technical knowledge was limited and others knew more than he did) but I hardly ever look at that because the technical discussion is weak.
I agree with Brian H, including with his cheeky corrections of oft-repeated egregious spelling errors – gives me a laugh every time. Come on now, it’s = it is, its = possessive adjective like his, her; not that hard people.
Joking aside, the CAGW meme has induced a collective madness in Western societies that could still end very badly. Who would have thought that this craziness could last over 20 years, in total defiance of all logic and common sense? We were very unlucky that the extraordinary El Nino of 1997/8 arrived at just the right time for the alarmists – probably the meme would have petered out years ago if not for that.
It’s not at all surprising that after so many years in the trenches, fighting the good fight, using meager resources against the warmists with their massive government and NGO funding, that some of us skeptics have gone totally around the twist. I’m talking about the infighting, the fallings-out, the self-promoters, the wacky theorists, the occasional nasty pieces of work who waste a fair proportion of their excessive and obsessive blog-time deriding other skeptics, what a mess!
Despite all that, the remarkable thing is that we seem to be winning, or at least holding our own until the weary voters sweep the AGW bandwagoning politicians aside. Like it or not, that is the only solution in prospect. It is painfully obvious that it is not about the science. Hopefully not much longer now to wait. Let’s try and keep it together. Solidarity, people!
There tends to come a time when a skeptic becomes convinced of the wrongs (never the rights) of any scientific argument. One side is wrong and the other might just be right. If I become convinced that the flat earth argument is wrong, would Singer label me as a denier? The trouble with the CO2 argument is that the waters have been gloriously muddled by red herrings, leaving the keystone – back radiation -.hidden amongst the noise. If the warmistas and lukewarmers wish me to convert to mere skepticism, then someone has to come up with a detailed and sensible demonstration of where the second law of thermodynamics fails. I could be so convinced by a compelling argument, but to date I have seen nothing in this regard which extends beyond hand waving. No CO2 warming theory exists, or can exist, while the second law remains undemolished.
Hi Ken: and welcome. There are accusations tossed over the fence form both sides that theories break the Second LAW.. I have to ask each and every time what the argument is, because at the Talkshop, assertions need to be backed by argument and reason.
So hit us with it.
Sorry Tallbloke, you may have asked too much of this ancient layman – he of the still enquiring mind. I should read and reflect without intervening. The second law contains no explanation of its working and that may be seen as a chink in its armour. However, it has stood the test of time, insofar as that is a test, and it is perhaps more of a mere observation that the law applies wherever we are able to look. We could say the same of gravity inasmuch as it observable but no generally acceptable theory as to its precise mechanics has come to my attention. If a new theory were to arise that depended, at a well hidden centre, on a particle that reversed gravity, after identifying this, the nub of the matter, we would surely demand to be provided with a convincing theory as to the mechanics involved.
There are numerous anomolies in the CO2 argument that are glossed over – the variation in insolation, the carbon cycle, cloud formation, the extremely complex mechanics of the oceans, the unique nature of water etc., etc. They all cry out for more knowledge but without a convincing explanation of that backradiation, curtailing CO2 emmisions is not worth the spending of bus fare
Ken: Good answer. There are many important gaps in the theory between the computer console and the real world. Even if the theory doesn’t break the SLoT on screen, it reveals inadequacy wherever you delve into it with real considerations of actual physical processes.
just wondering…do they count as batwings in “Sun” terminology?
Let’s just consider for a moment the impact of “extremists” on both side of the issue. “Deniers” believe the theory of CAGW is malarkey and want to shout such from the rooftops and convince everyone they are right. If they’re wrong we’ll find out in a hundred years or so. “Warmists” want to have Governments use their power to confiscate your wealth and dictate your lifestyle – today! And if they are wrong we’ll have suffered years of deprived liberty with virtually no means to undue the damage. Governmental policies continue unchecked until a revolt.
Given the choices, I’m shouting from the rooftops.
I wonder if Fred may be being a touch over zealous in not wanting to appear to be sharing a platform with people who are just too far ‘out-there’. Willis Eschenbach occasionally come across the same way at WUWT. [It's worth remembering that not only is the IPCC approaching another big knees-up, but it's also election year in the US].
Sure, there are some sceptics who make me wince and think “With friends like that, who needs enemies”. I think the Second Law gets invoked so often primarily because it is perceived as being in the premier league of scientific sticks you can use to beat someone with. It’s overuse also often appears lazy, and sometimes people do need to be called on it. But if climate scientists had taken a similarly robust approach from their perspective then we could have put this problem to bed many years ago, before it became so political.
But, I think Fred could give a bit more thought as to what precisely is meant by the many and varied people applying the D-word to the many and varied others who constitute
‘the persuaded’‘the unpersuaded’. Often the label seems to merely fit the description of: “A denier is someone who refuses to accept what I insist is incontrovertible”.I have my own reasons for being highly sceptical, but it would take up too much time and space here. However, the sceptical arguments appear to making some headway for the most powerful reason of all: The real universe is not doing what the IPCC modellers say it should. If the models made significant predictions that held up, then I would have to shelve all my other objections. Good useful predictions, not hind-casts, is a yardstick I could accept, even if I still entertained serious misgivings about the scientific veracity of climate simulations and the claims and claimants that use them as a crutch.
One good reason to be skeptical of global warming is that climate model temperatures depend entirely on CO2 concentrations. I can in fact replicate the CMIP3 global multi-model means for the SRES a1b scenario almost exactly between 1900 and 2100 simply by using the formula t = 3.8 ln (C2/C1).
Guess that makes me an extremist.
I think that by dividing climate scientists into warmistas, skeptics, and deniers, the distinguished Professor Singer is attempting to find a reasonable middle ground in which people with open minds can have a civilised conversation.
Yes, there is a danger in any categorisation and I do think that Professor Singer’s use of the word ‘denier’ as one of his categories is unfortunate, simply because it annoys and upsets people and therefore may be counterproductive to his worthy cause.
However leaving such considerations aside, I suspect that his opposition is really mainly aimed at what we might more politely call the ‘slaying-the-dragon-istas’. They assert vociferously that CO2 and other GHGs have no effect at all on surface air temperature because back radiation from gas molecules in the atmosphere (by which they simply meant re-radiation in all directions, one of which of course is downwards towards the surface) has no influence in principle, due to some ‘new physics’ they have worked up which, unfortunately, they are unable to explain, at least in plain scientific language, apparently because it is too mathematical and complicated even for scientifically trained mortals to understand.
At the other end of the scale, we have dyed-in-the-wool alarmists (hanson-istas?) who apparently are similarly unable to explain, in plain scientific language, why they are so certain that adding GHGs to the atmosphere in largish quantities is going to cause a world catastrophe, pleading the difficulties of explaining the mysteries of the alleged complex science of radiative transfer to mere scientifically trained mortals, etc., etc.
In between, the majority of honest people are desparately trying to get a handle on the truth.
In that sense I am with Prof Singer. Let us indeed ignore the extremists at both end of the scale and open up a non-polemical and friendly scientific dialogue in the often-excluded middle, whatever our individual prejudices.
kuhnkat says: April 16, 2012 at 6:43 am
I have been wondering why those in the Luke Warmer community have been trying so hard to drive wedges into the sceptic community. Afraid of losing their lucrative positions and income if the public really catches on and shuts down the climate scam?…
kuhnkat, You are walking straight into the same trap as the extremists on both sides of this debate. I respectfully suggest it is best to leave other peoples’ presumed motivations out of the discussion altogether and stick exclusively to the science.
tallbloke says: April 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm
In The Symposium and Theatetus, Plato discusses the Socratic method, a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas.
TB: Huh! Quoting me again…
Like most people I believe that knowledge is never certain. But it is hierarchical.
In the climate game we sometimes assert what we believe to be a truth at a very detailed level. For example:
The mathematics of radiative transfer shows that the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is so minimal that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could not possibly cause significant warming.
This then leads on to counter assertions and, hopefully, a refinement of the argument and an agreed conclusion.
If/when that lower level argument fails, wise people know when to stop hitting their heads against the wall. They move up to a middle level. For example:
The instrumental temperature record shows a long term rate of warming over the last 160 years of about 0.41degC per century, fluctuating up and down over multi-decadal timescales by around plus or minus 0.25degC. That rate of warming has not changed significantly in the last 60 years so the large increase in post-World War II man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has clearly had no effect.
This then leads on to counter assertions and, hopefully, a refinement of the argument and an agreed conclusion.
If/when the middle level argument fails, a higher level is attempted. For example:
If you look at the extreme weather records properly, there is not the slightest sign of any alarming long term changes in climatic conditions. And the polar bears are doing just fine.
And when you fail to agree at any of the levels you know that the issue is political not scientific.