Entry 1655, on 2014-05-29 at 22:50:13 (Rating 4, Skepticism)
Sometimes when I debate people on subjects which might be seen as somewhat controversial I like to demonstrate their bias by illustrating a similar point using a comparable issue which I hope will have a bit less emotional attachment for the person. For example, if someone refuses to accept the fact of evolution because "some scientists disagree with it" I might point out that there is some disagreement with similar, otherwise well accepted theories, as well.
So the conversation might go something like: sure, you can find some people who claim to be experts who don't accept evolution but there are also people who don't accept the theory of gravity, or some aspects of world history, or climate change as well, and few reasonable people would deny these.
By now you can probably see the problem with this approach because denial of various well accepted science tends to happen in groups: people who deny evolution also often deny climate change, for example. So in reality I am weakening my argument rather than strengthening it. Why? Because I tend to underestimate the degree to which some people live in a world ruled by a deluded, anti-intellectual, anti-science narrative.
In this fantasy world evolution, Big Bang cosmology, climate change, and many other ideas which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt are all viewed with equal suspicion. What I like to say (in a somewhat unkind way) is that if you are a crazy on one subject there's a good chance you will be a crazy on many others as well!
A similar phenomenon occurs with conspiracy theories. I know people who think many conspiracies, such as the Moon Hoax, 9/11, JFK, chemical contrails, water fluoridation, etc, are all true. Do they really think the Illuminati, the New World Order, alien reptile overlords, or whoever else is behind all this stuff could really successfully execute all of these conspiracies?
Up until now I have mainly mentioned crazy beliefs which conservatives tend to back but I have to say that there are similar problems with many beliefs of those on the political left. I was discussing this with a person from Greenpeace the other day. I told them I support a lot of their work but I think their total rejection of technologies like genetic modification and nuclear power is wrong and based on ideology rather than facts.
To be fair the person was pretty good about it (probably because she wanted a donation) but I doubt whether my well reasoned approach made a lot of difference to the way she felt about GM or nuclear power.
So I think I need to be a bit more careful about the comparisons I use in future. For example, if I am debating a religious nut who thinks evolution isn't true because some scientists doubt it (in fact I know of no scientists who doubt the essential truth of evolution sufficiently to publish a paper about it in a respected journal) then instead of comparing it with climate change, which they will probably also reject for equally invalid reasons, I could use the historicity of Jesus.
Because there is a lot of doubt about Jesus. I admit that the majority of experts (but not all) think there was a person (or persons) that the stories we now know were based on, but few think those stories are completely true and the doubt, confusion, lack of evidence, contradictory details, and general lack of certainty in the Jesus myth is far greater than anything in the scientific realm which is remotely comparable, including climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang.
So if people want to doubt evolution or climate change because of the "significant level of disagreement amongst experts" (which actually doesn't even exist) then they should be even more skeptical about Jesus. But, of course, they won't be, because they are happy to become "skeptics" (which is not the correct word, it should be "deniers") about some subjects but are totally credulous when it comes to others.
Well I'm sorry, but part of being a real skeptic is checking the authenticity of everything, not just the things which contradict an existing religious or political view. And anyone who finds themselves settling into a pattern of denying the standard set of conservative topics should be very skeptical - of themselves!
When you said “people who deny evolution also often deny climate change. I think we should stop and look at that very closely, bearing in mind that I accept descent with variation as put forth in the Grand Synthesis. Since the Moon revolves around the Earth very close to the ecliptic (hence the periodic eclipses), the distance of the Moon from the Sun, averaged over a month, is identical to the average distance of the Earth from the sun. The average temperature of the Moon is -10F. If the Earth did not have carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the troposphere, it would be 69F cooler than it is, on average. So no one denies greenhouse gases warm the Earth. And there have been periods when the ice has covered Canada and Europe, and the Sahara was green. So no one denies the climate changes. What remains to be determined is whether mankind digging carbon out of the ground causes climate change. Some people believe it does, and this belief amounts to a religion, such that they are willing to fake data to influence public policy to prevent their own prophecy of a thermal Armageddon. If we hold to one superstition (warmism) and denigrate another (creationism), then we have moved from the realm of science to simple tribalism. It then becomes a matter of which group we have invested our emotions in.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2014-05-30 at 10:22:08:
Some global warming deniers deny the fact that the climate is changing at all, others just deny the fact that human activity is the major cause. Apparently you belong to the second category which is certainly easier to defend than the the first.
Unfortunately instead of trying to justify your belief you launch into an unsubstantiated attack on climate science calling it a religion and using loaded terms like "prophecy". Climate science is science not religion. A religion is a belief in a supernatural entity based on faith. Climate science is a thoroughly peer-reviewed science based on evidence.
You are doing exactly what this blog entry is all about. You need to be more skeptical of whatever belief system you are invested in (libertarianism, conservatism, whatever else it might be) which prevents you from accepting the science of climate change like you accept most other science (I presume form your comments).
Comment 3 by Linuxgal on 2014-05-30 at 14:50:22:
“Climate science is a thoroughly peer-reviewed science based on evidence.”
I don’t believe you understand how science works, if you put stock in the idea of something being “peer-reviewed”, which means that researchers, many of whom are not even in the same field, put their stamp of approval on a paper they read. The man who proposed plate tectonics died years before the catcalls from his “peers” subsided. See, science works like this: A researcher publishes a paper with his findings and a detailed breakdown of the experimental procedure used to obtain the data. An example would be Pons and Fleischmann’s cold fusion “breakthrough”. Other researchers attempt to duplicate the experiment, and publish THEIR results. Lather, rinse, repeat. Slowly a model is constructed (like the Standard Model of physics, stable since the 1970s) based on these experiments, not the opinions of “peers” weighing in at cocktail parties.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2014-05-30 at 14:50:37:
I actually do believe I know how science works and both peer-review and repetition of reported research are part of the process. I can't see how your argument above in any way disproves climate change research. Its findings come from many different areas of research and from many different scientific teams, just like every other area of science. And yes, science has made mistakes in the past which have been corrected. If climate change was a vast conspiracy based on no evidence as you suggest it would be corrected very quickly.
You seem to be a reasonable and fairly knowledgeable person so maybe the explanation of your refusal to accept climate change is a political one. Can I ask: would you count yourself as a libertarian?
Comment 5 by Linuxgal on 2014-05-31 at 12:23:15:
I don’t think you comprehended my reply, if you insist that I deny climate change. I said “What remains to be determined is whether mankind digging carbon out of the ground causes climate change” and I also mentioned that some people who have taken that to be an article of faith have been caught falsifying data because they believe it is imperative to get the political ball moving down the field. It appears that you reflexively want to dismiss objections by lumping the objectors into political groups to be discredited by association rather than listening to what they have to say on a specific issue.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2014-05-31 at 12:23:30:
Fair enough, I should have been more specific: you deny human induced climate change. Naturally the cause of a phenomenon is more difficult to prove than the fact that the phenomenon itself exists but the evidence is very strong and the vast majority of experts think human activity is the major cause.
I'm not sure what falsified data you are referring to but the fact is that the vast majority of the evidence is real science confirmed by multiple studies from multiple teams.
I'm not dismissing your objections because I think you might have a political bias, I'm dismissing them because they're wrong. However the original theme of this post was how different (usually false) ideas tend to occur together and I have found that libertarianism and climate change denial are often related. I also notice that you didn't answer my question...
Comment 7 by OJB on 2014-05-31 at 12:29:16:
Please read this page and tell me how so many completely independent organisations and individuals from such a wide range of backgrounds, and so many climate experts (97%) agree that climate change is real and primarily caused by humans.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE