More ammo against skeptics

Posted by David Roberts at 12:32 PM on 27 Aug 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism

If our How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic series doesn't fully scratch your skepticism itch, check out Skeptical Science, a well-organized site devoted to tracking climate skeptic arguments and rebutting them.

For story: More ammo against skeptics
14 Comments | Post a Comment

interesting title

"more ammo against skeptics"
Historians of science will one day look back at headlines like this and shake their heads.

by carboncat at 6:34 PM on 03 Sep 2007

True

They don't really deserve the title of "Skeptic"

At best they are "Contrarians" or Denialist is a better term.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 3:50 AM on 04 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

skeptic is the right word

no, I think "skeptic" is quite appropriate.
There's a theory. There are people who are uncertain about the veracity of that theory.
A contrarian disagrees with everything for the sake of disagreeing. A 'skeptic' expresses doubts about someone else's claim.
For exmaple: you're claiming that we're headed for a preventable man-made global climate catastrophe. I'm skeptical about that claim.

by carboncat at 4:37 AM on 04 Sep 2007

Yes, but

And most of the people you see discussing the issue on that side of the fence are not skeptics.

They uncritically accept any information that agrees with their own position.

For instance the whole 1934 issue,
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/15/95526/4527

and the recent Energy and Environment posting (By a medical researcher in an unreviewed social science journal)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/1/12556/89102

Or just in general adopt talking points which are completely not grounded in any scientific basis, but they repeat them over and over. (i.e. Richard Lindzen saying global warming would result in calmer weather, despite no scientific basis)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M

They aren't really "Skeptics" unless they are skeptical about BOTH sides of the issue.

And frankly finding true skeptics in that side of the fence are few and far between.

Most do not deserve the title of skeptic.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:23 PM on 04 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

The other issue being

"Skeptic" is actually a neutral term.

To say that researchers who believe global warming is man made are not skeptical about their data would not be true.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:24 PM on 04 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

By using the phrase Skeptic

It gives the perception that those on the warming side of the fence are not critical of their research. Are not "rational".

And frankly thats just not true.

For instance there are those who are "Skeptical" that cosmic rays have any significant influence on warming.

One shouldn't lump the a neutral word like "Skeptics" all on to one side of the issue.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:31 PM on 04 Sep 2007

Being skeptical

Being skeptical is synonymous with being objective.

And I'd say it's illogical to say only one side can be objective.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:39 PM on 04 Sep 2007

asymmetry in scientific debate

They aren't really "Skeptics" unless they are skeptical about BOTH sides of the issue.

There's an asymmetry in the debate however.
One side of the argument has a complicated, highly structured theory which says that urgent political action and financial expense is needed to avert disaster. The other side has no such elegant theory. Or, to put it another way, the AGW position claims

humans are creating too much C02
C02 is driving temperature change
this will continue
at a point in the near future the increase in temperature will be highly detrimental or catastrophic
this is preventable through CO2 reduction

Skeptics think that at least one of those propositions is likely to be false. They don't have a contested theory, they are merely skeptical about this existing scientific theory. If even one of these pillars is wrong, the whole edifice comes down.
It's a bit like arguing against fundamentalist Christians. They complain that you're too negative, because one minute you're talking about cosmology, the next you're criticizing the historical record. They don't get that these things don't need to have anything in common. For the skeptic, it's about shedding doubt on the different components of their much-loved theory.

Coming back to the title, I was actually much more intrigued by the "more ammo" part than the word "skeptic", because it betrayed the truth: facts are merely weapons for defending the theory. The theory comes first, the facts ("more ammo") come later.

by carboncat at 2:08 PM on 04 Sep 2007

But thats the point

But thats the point.

If you aren't being critical/objective/skeptical, then you are not being scientifically honest.

You are merely being dogmatic, by suggesting more than the evidence can reasonably support.

By awarding only one side exclusive use of the term, it makes them appear more credible than they really are.

That said, this specific situation, the "ammo" is merely to diffuse the talking points of contrarians with peer reviewed scientific analysis.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:35 PM on 04 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Certainly

It would be a lie to give those who disagree with the global warming theory to have a monopoly on scientific honesty.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:38 PM on 04 Sep 2007

Just a question...

To what extent have the following processes been incorporated into climate change models:

(1) CO2 stimulates plant growth, including root development.

AND

(2) Roots, especially deep roots, promote chemical weathering, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

Is it possble for this feedback loop -- the chemical weathering -- to set a limit on atmospheric CO2 even if humans continue to burn fossil fuel?

I'm not asking this from the point of view of a "denier". I just want to know how important this is in regulating atmospheric CO2.

Incidentally, if one looks beyond pure biomass, trees might be more effective at all latitudes when it comes to removing CO2 from the atmosphere because they promote chemical weathering, essentially "sequestering" more carbon than their biomass contains. This would provide the tree planting lobby and the carbon offset lobby -- groups I do not support 100% -- with more "ammo" for their own causes.

Oh... and I never realized liberals and conservative were equally obsessed with such violent imagery!

by wiscidea at 3:15 PM on 04 Sep 2007

yes!

Is it possble for this feedback loop -- the chemical weathering -- to set a limit on atmospheric CO2 even if humans continue to burn fossil fuel?

Yes, it is possible. Of course, nobody knows for sure, but it cannot be ruled out.

by carboncat at 2:00 AM on 08 Sep 2007

CO2 isn't the limiting factor

CO2 is often not the limiting factor in plant growth.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:42 AM on 08 Sep 2007

Mind numbing

Blog killing, trolling.

What would happen without it? Actual coherent comments from real people. Instead of trollish wing nuttery.

Brain damage from too many ciggs and too many drinks and too much o'really and limboob? "It can't be ruled out."

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:44 AM on 09 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.