Arguments
Climate Denial Video #1: The Difference between Skepticism and Denial
Posted on 5 August 2011 by dana1981, John Cook
Skeptical Science has collaborated with TreeHugger to produce a series of six videos on climate skepticism and denial. The first of these videos, narrated by our own John Cook with his lovely Australian lilt, discusses the difference between climate skepticism and denial. Enjoy.
That being said, there is a huge gulf exhibited on this blog between those who base their skepticism on science...and those who base their "skepticism" on "cycles".
Climate scientists are in the former camp; "squeptics", the latter. And ne'er the twain shall meet.
Maybe you missed the part in the video that talked about denial as willfully ignoring the evidence. Until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural,' there is nothing to deny on that side.
Even if you think that no one sits in the "deny natural" section, you can't say that it doesn't exist.
Also I question your comment "until there is some credible evidence of 'it could be natural'". I hate to point out that there's ~15 billion years of natural climate change on Earth. That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur. It's just this time, it may or may not be (depending on your view).
You can deny that a proposition is true - in which case you are just on one side or the other of a debate.
That is not denial, however. Denial is when you refuse to accept a proposition despite clear evidence that the proposition is true.
The only thing different about the current situation is that humans are producing the CO2.
FYI... earth is only 4.5 billion years old. You're thinking of the universe.
Alas.
With my speakers in their normal position I heard " ss p gg dd cll ". With one speaker right up against my best ear I could clearly hear the busker in the street outside.
Please boost the recording volume next time - and shut the window! ;-)
I did like the image of the graffiti reflected in floodwater.
I couldn't make out the narration, but imagined: "The only benefit from rising sea levels will be the drowning of graffiti artists."
That said...I actually don't know anyone who denies that climate has changed in the past - and I don't see it in the papers every day. Point me to a citation perhaps.
Since you brought it up: of course there have been cycles and of course it could be natural. You have a much better chance of swaying me to your position if your argument was phrased that human activities are influencing a natural cycle.
[DB] I learned long ago the futility of spitting into the wind or arguing with a mind already made up.
And the warming of the past 3-4 decades is anthropogenic in origin. If that means "natural" in your book, so be it.
Well that's easy enough. Humans (who are in fact a part of nature) are affecting the natural carbon cycle, which influences climate through natural physical mechanisms that have always acted in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Does that work ?
Is the text below (from WUWT) written by you? Do you also post at WUWT as "Dale"? Because the quoted text is a great example of someone who is not a true/genuine skeptic, but rather of someone who is in denial about the inconvenient truths of AGW, and who is uncritically willing to believe anything that supports their position.
"Dale says:
July 28, 2011 at 11:24 pm
This seems as good a place as any to mention this recent paper:
[Albatross removed hyperlink to paper]
The paper shows how current AGW models break the laws of physics (that the amount of radiation emitted is proportional to its temperature) which explains the findings of Lindzen (and now confirmed by Spencer-Braswell in this paper) that Earth’s radiation emitted is actually fluxing with temperature.
The paper also slams the AGW models as they use equations which physicists use to model stars, which do not work for terrestrial bodies. Thus all the AGW models are completely useless."
So human activities are significant enough to influence these unnamed natural cycles, but we are not significant enough to cause changes on our own? We have to be 'helper engines' at the back of a naturally moving train? This requires that these same cycles are somehow moving with the same frequency and phase as our activities: heating when we are pumping out CO2, cooling when we are putting out the aerosols. But we already know that's not true; the past climate change you are fond of citing operates on a much longer time frame than anything we could possibly do.
I'm skeptical of this model.
If you haven't had a look, see the Loehle and Scaffetta thread. Natural cycles run rampant there.
I also read two newspapers too, one critical of AGW and the other supporting AGW. Does that make me a denier as well? IMO, anyone who only reads one source is denying that other opinions and evidence may exist.
"Isn't that the point of the video, look at ALL the evidence."
What a very telling comment. You are naively assuming that all 'evidence' is equal in terms of credibility and relevance and validity. That is most definitely not true and not how to properly access where the science is at. That is faux balance. Next you will be insisting that medical students seriously consider the views of people who are of the belief that HIV and AIDS are not linked, or that governments should not take action on AIDs in Africa (e.g., Mugabe) b/c some people question the link between HIV and AIDS. Or mathematicians to consider that pi should be a nice round 3.0.
And your post at WUWT demonstrates that you are very unskeptical and uncritical of seriously flawed work that seems to support your position.
What is more WUWT do not present evidence, they present, for the most part, propaganda and fodder for "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. WUWT also offers a podium for certain people who disparage, threaten and harass climate scientists. WUWT is not a genuine skeptic site, far, far from it.
In light of some of the disparaging comments you have made at WUWT, I find your posts here disingenuous and strikingly similar to those that would be posted by a "concern troll".
PS: Do you also post at BishopHill?
The pan-Canadian skeptical blog Skeptic North has a series overviewing skepticism in its modern context.
I have also heard that neurologist & notable skeptic Steven Novella (who also is involved in the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast) came up with a good, short definition of modern skepticism; I have been unable to locate it to share here, however.
I would summarize the definitions above as saying that the contemporary skeptic provisionally accepts or rejects claims based on the body of evidence available to support them (or lack thereof), and the logic by which the evidence is marshalled to support the claims. The modern skeptic also adjusts acceptance or rejection of claims as better evidence or logic is assembled.
Ah, that is the beauty of 'selective skepticism.' Anything that supports your position is by definition free from all flaws; anything said by the opposite side is total bunk.
What is refreshing about SkS is that you can't get away with that.
If somebody publishes a paper in some obscure journal concluding that elephants are blue, you can call that evidence, and argue that it's entirely possible that elephants are blue, because we need to consider all the evidence, including this obscure paper. It doesn't change the fact that in reality, elephants are not blue.
And if you seek out evidence to support that view because you want to believe that elephants are blue, it's hard to dispute that you're in denial about the fact that elephants are not blue.
I much prefer a fact-based discussion than the echo-chambers of the already convinced. There are already far too many of those.
Priceless...
You may say I'm unskeptical and uncritical, so be it. I just don't think the climate is as sensitive as claimed. I could raise points to support my belief, but this is not the thread for it.
"What is more WUWT do not present evidence, they present, for the most part, propaganda and fodder for "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. WUWT also offers a podium for certain people who disparage, threaten and harass climate scientists. WUWT is not a genuine skeptic site, far, far from it."
I find this an interesting comment, since wouldn't the WUWT diehards say the same thing about here (substituting relevant terms)? That is why I read and post at both sites. As I said above, I come here for an AGW slant, and I got to WUWT for a non-AGW slant. At least them I see both sides of the story and can assess the truth of everything being said. If anything, isn't that the intelligent thing to do rather than fall into a trap of becoming warped in your belief from a single sided message? Gee, isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about?
Which comes back to what I originally said, you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. Denial sits on BOTH sides of skeptic as portrayed in the OP video.
How do you do that? What do you bring to the table, so that you can 'assess the truth' of the likes of Hansen or Trenberth vs. Goddard or Watts?
"isn't that what all the Murdoch News problems are about?"
No, that's about breaking the law. We'll see how far the hacking investigation goes. Remember that hacking incident?
"you can deny the positive argument, or you can deny the negative argument. "
No again. As several folks have pointed out, it is not the arguments that are being denied. What separates skeptic from denier is denial of the facts.
If there were relevant facts on the 'negative' side (something more germane than 'it's changed before'), then there would be both sides to the story.
For a genuine scientific conflict, there are no matters of opinion. The matter gets settled by data. A conflict involves alternative models of reality. You look to where the model make different predictions from each other and see which one matches the data best. However, beware of those trying to pull the wool. If the result is valid, then it needs to stand scrutiny from science peers. This is the role of scientific publishing. The unpublished papers are either self-delusion from amateurs or downright medacity aimed at Joe Public.
Do it. You could do nothing more helpful here than to present your case.
That is the difference between SkS and WUWT. Here you have an open forum to present your case. You will not be shouted down unless you refuse to address counterarguments, and even then it takes a very long time (see the 2nd law thread). You will not be whipped with ad hominem and sharp rhetoric (well, Sphaerica gets a little pointy occasionally). AGW supporters here will take you seriously as long as it's clear you're not playing games. If you support AGW but present a crappy argument, other AGW supporters will point out the brown stuff. None of this is true for WUWT. The comment stream at WUWT is like a transcription of conversation at a UFO convention: everyone has been abducted, and each abducting alien is different, yet everyone believes each other's stories.
Anyways I am out of this conversation. Its obvious that on this site it is "bad" to be skeptical of the AGW mantra.
Thank you all for your time.
Do you believe in evidence-based thinking, Dale? If so, provide some for your "hide the decline" interpretation. And do it on the appropriate thread.
Contrary views don't get published? Which views? Let's circumvent the official organs right here and now: you represent those views, and posters at SkS will work through them. Maybe you'll bring something valuable to the table. Who knows? If you can't represent those views, though, you shouldn't talk like you can. And, hey, there's always E&E; if your views can't get published there, it's possible that they are actually totally worthless, or at least unreadable. Ad journalem? Deservedly so.
No, I meant the illegal hacking incident that subjected scientists to a lynch-mob in the media. Only to find that independent review found no wrong-doing of any kind. Let's hope the actual criminals will be discovered this time. But there are other threads for that.
"obvious that on this site it is "bad" to be skeptical of the AGW mantra."
DSL#34 asked you to present your case; your response was to bug out and it is somehow turned into a criticism of SkS.
But since it was asked, explain the recent temp flat line in the face of exponentially rising CO2, NASA satellite data showing no increase in aerosols, and CERES satellite data showing increased IR leaving the system.
"I find this an interesting comment, since wouldn't the WUWT diehards say the same thing about here (substituting relevant terms)? That is why I read and post at both sites. As I said above, I come here for an AGW slant, and I got to WUWT for a non-AGW slant."
So you come to Sk Science for the science, and WUWT for ....?
The fake graphs by Steve Goddard on Arctic sea ice and such?
Watts and Goddard - Sea Ice
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/24/lively-times-at-wuwt/
"Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010"
"... recent post by Steve Goddard which casts doubt on the fact that we've experienced record hot temperatures over the last year, citing falling sea levels in 2010."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html
"Arctic death spiral: Naval Postgrad School’s Maslowski “projects ice-free* fall by 2016 (+/- 3 yrs)”
"But in the land of make-believe, Watts and Goddard say: "Arctic ice extent and thickness nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago."
June 6, 2010
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/06/arctic-death-spiral-maslowski-ice-free-arctic-watts-goddard-wattsupwiththat/
The fervor over a meaningless paper by Spencer?
"Just Put the Model Down, Roy" (Spencer)
by: Barry Bickmore July 26, 2011
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/
The faked graphs that an article by Watts and D'aleo used to make this claim?
"NO WARMING TREND IN THE 351-YEAR CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE RECORD"
Open Mind
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/summer-and-smoke/
They get their heads handed to them by Tamino
Long story short, Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That) and D'Aleo left out the 19th century and only used summer data, leaving out winter data, to arrive at their quackery graph. Of course summers in the period were relatively cool, while winters were relatively warm. Even for skeptics, this one takes the cake for cherry picking.
there are many more examples where those came from
What you see as balance, is like having to present someone who believes the moon landing was faked, everytime NASA has something to say about space research and exploration.
That's some pretty credible evidence that natural climate change does occur.
An utter strawman. We all know that climate change occurs naturally. We also know that this means the climate will change when forced to do so.
See if you can guess where I'm going with this.
I was going to ask you to provide cites, but Stephan already did that. Your reply:
So what you're saying is that some ordinary punters think that recent warming (I assume you mean the last 30 - 50 years) is entirely anthropogenic in origin.
That appears to be pretty much the case. A proper rendering would include caveats, but the basic, unqualified view given out by Joe Blow isn't that far off the scientific view.
--off topic content deleted--
Sometimes, the message contradicts the observation. That leads to questioning.
Perhaps you check
a/ that temp is "flat line".
b/ the NASA satellite show no increase in aerosol
c/ what the solar forcing is currently
then ask why does CERES show increased IR? (Hint, temperature).
And finally, what actually do the model predicts?
(eg look at Keenlyside et al 2008 and surrounding controversy and maybe the actual model outputs, eg as
shown here )
Now if global temperatures did stay static or decline over a 20+ year period, while total forcings increased, then I would be asking for an explanation from modellers.
Not a bad way to phrase it, but if you are not implying that CO2 is the driver of the climate.
CO2 is not driving climate change. Does it have a significant affect - maybe. But, it is not the driver. The 4 peaks prior to the current one had to be caused by natural cycles, not anthropogenic because we weren't here!
Moving to the current interglacial and the human population boom in a geologically short time, and the resulting rise in CO2 that is partially caused by our FF use and land use practices - you can see why I state that my buying in to the AGW hypothesis depends on statement that says "we may be influencing natural phenomena". And, even though CO2 levels have skyrocketed, the temperature is not following it. At best it is sort of hanging around before it begins it's next drop.
I hope you can understand my skepticism.
I think what you mean is "fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 have not historically driven major changes in climate."
Why is the temp "hanging around" when it has sharply dropped at each of the last four peaks? Do you have a physical mechanism that explains this?
"Anything that supports your position is by definition free from all flaws; anything said by the opposite side is total bunk."
This appears to be more true than we would like to believe. A true "skeptic" would be critical of either, and look for the proof in the pudding.
Dale,
If you are really interested in two competing sites, read realclimate and Roger Pielke, they often present opposite sides to the same story, with references to each other on occasion. Judith Curry's Climate etc. would be better than WUWT.
"Pertaining to natural cycles. Looking at the figure from the USEPA website, temperature rises - followed by CO2 and temperature falls - followed by CO2."
Yes, historically CO2 levels have risen as a result of increased temperature caused by some other forcing. It was a feedback that made things even warmer.
That was then.
Now CO2 is rising ahead of the temperature and acting as the forcing as well as a feedback. The previous peaks were not anthropogenic, and no one denies that. This CO2 peak does not follow the previous pattern. That is what makes today different from years (eons) past.
That is my understanding of the science anyhow. YMMV
The graph you posted shows exactly why there is nothing natural about the current situation: the red spike at the far right (present) never happened in the 400k yrs shown until now.
Yet you cling to 'it's not us' or whatever variant that suits the current topic. The point made by this video - and multiple comments on this thread (and many other threads on SkS) - is that clinging to a preconceived notion in spite of all evidence to the contrary is not skepticism.
I have a very difficult believing anyone who claims that the red spike is not due to us. Also, since concentrations have not been at the current level during the past 400k years, the past history may not be the best indicator of the current (or future) situation.
Expanding on your final point: we as scientists should examing all the evidence, especially if it is contrary to our beliefs, before coming to conclusions. Paraphrasing Einstein, a hundred scientists will not prove me right, but one scientist can prove me wrong.
Very nice video. It's really pleasant to see and listen to.
Congratulations to you, particularly. I remember the time when you said that you were not confortable with hearing your own recorded voice (or something to that effect). Talk about overcoming one's own self-imposed limitations!