Shermer flips GW stance

I think this is a major difference in my position versus Shermer's, and probably yours and, it seems to me, the majority of people here. I'm for all practical purposes convinced that global warming is happening and that there is, at least in part, a human origing. However, this does not affect my skepticism one whit, tittle, or jot. The frontiers of science are in that insignificant 1% or 0.1% or whatever it may be.

I think Shermer's shift was from 'there is not enough support to justify action' to 'there is enough support to justify action', and this does not mean he's stopped entertaining contrary views.

Forteans are people who do not judge the debate. Skeptics are using rules to find out how to act.
 
The increasing denialist focus on climate models never being perfect smells very much like the anti-evolutionist focus on transition species and "missing links".
I think the desire to demonize those who disagree is unfortunate. It only breeds resentment and divisiveness. Folks like Shermer are honest and rational.

Shermer
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.
I don't think it is necessary to paint skeptics out as fanatics. Eventually the intellectually honest skeptics will embrace that side of the debate if the science is there. I've been skeptical for a long time and even debated AUP and other on this forum, however I haven't involved myself nearly as much in the debate for a year now. I'm willing to change my mind.
 
I think Shermer's shift was from 'there is not enough support to justify action' to 'there is enough support to justify action', and this does not mean he's stopped entertaining contrary views.

Maybe. My reaction was to his last statement about the need to flip from skepticism to activism. That one seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe he just sucks as a writer. But since he gets to write for SA, which I don't, I think it's important to point that out.
 
I've been skeptical for a long time and even debated AUP and other on this forum, however I haven't involved myself nearly as much in the debate for a year now.

I'm strictly an amateur at this. However, I did ask my friend who is a scientist specifically studying all this, if he would join in a few debates, and he said he couldn't see the point in it. Those who have already made up their minds wouldn't be swayed no matter what he said.
 
Maybe. My reaction was to his last statement about the need to flip from skepticism to activism. That one seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe he just sucks as a writer. But since he gets to write for SA, which I don't, I think it's important to point that out.

Well, he's also the founder and head of the Skeptics Society. Consequently, if I'm saying that he's not being a real skeptic, but my contrary view is "true skepticism", I think it behooves me to reconsider whether I really understand what skepticism is.
 
I'm strictly an amateur at this. However, I did ask my friend who is a scientist specifically studying all this, if he would join in a few debates, and he said he couldn't see the point in it. Those who have already made up their minds wouldn't be swayed no matter what he said.
Anecdotes are so cool as evidence. Sorry AUP, I'm giving you a hard time. There is some truth to what he said but it isn't absolute. There are rational people who will change their mind if reason shows that they should. Look at red shift, solar wind, etc. These things were rejected when first introduced but they are now embraced because logic and evidence will eventually triumph with folks that are rational. Taking a defeatist attitude is of little help to anyone. Thank Ed Randi doesn't throw up his hands in such a fashion.

And let's point out that there is much history to make skeptics skeptical. Environmentalists and Malthusians have been pounding the drums of doom and gloom for decades with bad science and BS statistics.

If AGW is as the proponents believe it to be then the process is working precisely as it should. The data is being analyzed and the skeptics are forcing the scientists to sharpen their pencils and improve the science and modeling.

It's a good thing.
 
I think the desire to demonize those who disagree is unfortunate. It only breeds resentment and divisiveness. Folks like Shermer are honest and rational.
A somewhat elliptic response.

Do you think my tentative analogy is wildly inapt? Creationism's demand for transition species cannot be satisfied, and that's where they make the most noise. Greenhouse denialists' demands for perfect climate models can never be satisified. And they increasingly concentrate their noise on that subject.

By denialists I don't mean honest sceptics, some honest sceptics question evolution but they aren't creationists. Denialists are the true disbelievers, cultists who can never be persuaded. See, for instance, my comments on the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier.
 
And let's point out that there is much history to make skeptics skeptical. Environmentalists and Malthusians have been pounding the drums of doom and gloom for decades with bad science and BS statistics.
Malthus is bad-mouthed a lot. There's plentiful evidence in history for the ideas he formalised. What makes our time so different? Some new paradigm?

Environmentalists got so much into SO2 and acid rain, and it turns out that's what the planet needed! Deluded bastids.
 
A somewhat elliptic response.

Do you think my tentative analogy is wildly inapt? Creationism's demand for transition species cannot be satisfied, and that's where they make the most noise. Greenhouse denialists' demands for perfect climate models can never be satisified. And they increasingly concentrate their noise on that subject.

By denialists I don't mean honest sceptics, some honest sceptics question evolution but they aren't creationists. Denialists are the true disbelievers, cultists who can never be persuaded. See, for instance, my comments on the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier.
I don't know if it is apt. The issue has been controversial for some time. There have been many questions and problems with the modeling. If the weight of the evidence now is such that rational people should now move to that side then fine but I would say that it is relatively recent that it is so. Darwin's Origin of The species was published in 1859. There has been how much research and empirical data uncovered? No, I'm really not leaning to think that the analogy is apt. In the future perhaps.

If I have some time I'll look at the Completive Enterprise Institute.
 
If AGW is as the proponents believe it to be then the process is working precisely as it should. The data is being analyzed and the skeptics are forcing the scientists to sharpen their pencils and improve the science and modeling.

It's a good thing.

I don't think you understand the scientific process, that work is being done constantly, AGW sceptics or not.
 
Malthus is bad-mouthed a lot. There's plentiful evidence in history for the ideas he formalised. What makes our time so different? Some new paradigm?

Environmentalists got so much into SO2 and acid rain, and it turns out that's what the planet needed! Deluded bastids.
Malthus and others who have been prediction doom and gloom have made a major miscalculation. Actually, they simply left out the most important veriable in their calculations. The ability of the human mind to solve problems. That is why Julian Simon's predictions were correct and Paul Ehrlich's were wrong.

The Doomslayer (Julian Simon)

Ehrlich, a Stanford University entomologist who as a youth had seen his best butterfly hunting grounds churned under the real estate developer's plow, wrote the runaway best-seller The Population Bomb. Published in 1968, the book was solidly Malthusian.

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over," it began. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to 'stretch' the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production and providing for more equitable distribution of whatever food is available. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control." And so on, The Complete and Authoritative Litany, for the next 200 pages.

...

The battle lines now drawn, it was not long before Ehrlich and Simon met for a duel in the sun. The face-off occurred in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" - a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with - Simon countered with "a public offer to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."

You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted - copper, tin, whatever - and select any date in the future, "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.

In California, Paul Ehrlich stepped right up - and why not? He'd been repeating the Malthusian argument for years; he was sure that things were running out, that resources were getting scarcer - "nearing depletion," as he'd said - and therefore would have to become more expensive. A public wager would be the chance to demonstrate the shrewdness of his forecasts, draw attention to the catastrophic state of the world situation, and, not least, force this Julian Simon character to eat his words. So he jumped at the chance: "I and my colleagues, John P. Holdren (University of California, Berkeley) and John Harte (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory), jointly accept Simon's astonishing offer before other greedy people jump in."

Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price rises: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference; if the prices fell, Ehrlich et alia would pay Simon.

Then they sat back and waited.

Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped through the floor. Chrome, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.

Which is how it came to pass that in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07.
 
I don't think you understand the scientific process, that work is being done constantly, AGW sceptics or not.
No, it is you that doesn't understand the scientific process. Criticism does engender scientists to work harder and critics can point out the flaws with protocol and methodology assuming there are any. Science often involves controversy and competing theories. It is that competition and criticism that spurs good science. In fact, it is a critical part of the scientific process. There is another term for it. I hate to be patronizing but it is called peer-review. Of course it would be rather arrogant to assume that only peers could find flaws with protocols and or methodology. I'm assuming that you never read James Randi's commentary. This is precisely the issue that he deals with all of the time. He is not a scientist so how could he criticize scientists.

I'm sorry AUP but on this one you are quite incorrect. Science might be done constantly but it is the peer-review and the critics that corrects the science.

I would strongly recommend that you read Randi's commentary.
 
When did they ever stop working on their models, for example? When did they ever stop peer review? They are constantly working on the science, AGW denialists or not.
?

Strawman. No one said that they stopped working on their models. No one said that peer review did stop. That is NOT the point. The skeptics spurred the scientists to work harder and develop better models as does peer review.

Criticism and skepticism, like peer review, is a good thing. If a skeptic makes a valid argument against the models or the methodology then it can spur scientists to improve their methods.

And much of the data in the past has been controversial. Shermer is a very rational human being and calling him and rational and reasonable skeptics like him denialists is just an ad hominem argument that is really beneath you.
 
I would like to see evidence of that.
I don't have any evidence at my finger tips. Don't believe it. I don't think it is controversial that competing ideas and skepticism contribute to scientific inquiry and I don't think it is at all a stretch to say that the skeptics of AGW made good and valid arguments that caused the scientists to work harder to overcome the objections of skeptics.
 
Well, he's also the founder and head of the Skeptics Society. Consequently, if I'm saying that he's not being a real skeptic, but my contrary view is "true skepticism", I think it behooves me to reconsider whether I really understand what skepticism is.

I've been wondering about that for a long time.

1) There's traditional skepticism, which is Hume and people like that, and is sometimes called philosophical skepticism.

2) Then there's the skepticism that is practiced as an integral part of the culture of science, which is what Richard Feynman wrote a lot about.

3) Then there's the skepticism practiced as part of the culture of what might be called the skeptical movement, which is what this newsgroup is about, what the Skeptical Inquirer is about (or was before their quality dropped), what Skeptic is about, etc.

4) Then there's religious skepticism, which is more what Free Inquiry is about.

I am operating from the position of 2, which is what I consider real scientific skepticism. That's just to tell you where I'm coming from. I'm not going to try singing its praises, and I doubt it would have any effect if I did.

A lot of what I see as the success of the skeptical movement has involved comes from the overlap of 3 with 2. There has also been a traditional agreement that 3 not overlap much with 4, due to some sort of coalition building.

My concern, however, is that 3 is becoming less and less overlapped with 2. This is why I criticized Shermer's statement.

Your reaction, and the reaction of others, seems to be confirming my observation. I see it as essentially a social response of a community protecting itself. I see your argument as essentially an argument from authority, which is very much disjoint from meaning 2.

Note also that I seem to be the only one saying that.

That is, skepticism is what Shermer said it is, and he has the right meaning because he founded the Skeptics Society. So what I call the skeptical movement is becoming more and more like a waterfall community, where what skepticism is, what one is supposed to consider an appropriate target for skepticism, and to some extent what one is supposed to conclude are determined by leaders, and that trickles down. Being a member of the community becomes more and more defined by acceptance of these dicta. And then the community protects itself and its leaders in an emotional manner, involving contempt and gang behavior. So, basically, I'm an upstart and have little or no alpha male status, and that makes me wrong.

Trouble is, that in itself is not what I consider a skeptical process. Yet I notice it happening a lot in the skeptical movement. There's gang behavior in this forum.

I've also noticed quite a few of what I'd call shibboleths in the skeptical movement. Global warming is one of them. The Monty Hall problem was the first that I noticed, and I found it notable because the Gary Posner article specifically missed the actual skeptical content (in sense 2) in the original question that sparked the controversy. (One letter to the editor printed in SI got it, out of dozens that played follow-the-leader.)
 
He appears to be saying there is enough evidence to warrant action. I don't think that precludes a change in thought if the evidence changes sometime again in the future.

I don't think he quite said that. I think that's what he meant though and it does seem like to me that epepke is working too hard too get deep meaning out of a short statement. My assumption is that if one actually asked Shermer about this he would agree that he meant something like AUP, et al. have suggested.
 
I don't know if it is apt. The issue has been controversial for some time. There have been many questions and problems with the modeling. If the weight of the evidence now is such that rational people should now move to that side then fine but I would say that it is relatively recent that it is so. Darwin's Origin of The species was published in 1859. There has been how much research and empirical data uncovered? No, I'm really not leaning to think that the analogy is apt. In the future perhaps.
My original comment was directed at the way denialists argue against AGW. The subject involves more than just climate models, there's plenty of basic science, such as the infrared spectrum of CO2 and thermodynamics. But the denialists constantly witter on about the models not being perfect, as if that is the subject.

There's a very accurate - dare I say perfect? - analog model being run just outside our windows, but denialists prefer to concentrate on the digital ones. For obvious reasons - the analog model isn't behaving the way they'd like it to.

The similarity between the imperfect models and the absence of an unbroken line of fossilised transition species is that they aren't going to go away. Persuade people, by constant reference to them, that these are the important points and the arguments will never be lost.
 

Back
Top Bottom