Shermer flips GW stance

[epepke]

http://www.skeptic.com/

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/meet_michael_shermer.html

Thank you. I have sent the following text to mshermer@skeptic.com:

I was somewhat taken aback by your recent column in Scientific American on global warming. Not that you have changed yor mind, as I think that evidence has been building up for some time such that the preponderance of evidence that global warming has occurred.

What took me aback was your final comment, that it was time to flip from skepticism from activism. The reason for this is that I consider skepticism an important property even after one has decided that the preponderance of evidence is in a certain direction. I do not see how the preponderance of evidence is reason to turn off skepticism. I do not see skepticism as something that must be flipped from. Rather, I see it as something that should always be maintained, and as something that has been empirically determined to be important to the progress of science.

It occurs to me, however, that you may conceive of "skepticism" in a way that is different from how I conceive of it. So, I would appreciate your description of what skepticism is, informed by the ideas that I have presented. I would also like your permission to quote your response on the James Randi Educational Foundation fora.

Very truly yours,
Eric Pepke

 

[a_unique_person]

I think there are many such people. My dad, for example! He literally spits on the ground when anybody mentions "global warming," or "climate change." His explanation: "Buncha pinko ****."

That's outright denial. He's not even remotely interested in discussion. I could ignore it, except I sit at sponsored events in his golf club and rotary club meetings where speakers from the Fraser Institute lecture in front of a packed audience with this exact narrative: It's all a conspiracy to destroy their investments, and their patriotic duty is to do anything they can to stop it. These guys own newspapers, advertising companies... one is an MLA, and another is a senator at UBC. These are what I would call denialists.

Yet it could be his attitude to AGW that is the biggest contribution to investments losing value. I don't know that more than a few here have that attitude, but I don't doubt that it is behind a lot of the 'skepticism' out there.

The only skeptical opinion that ever seemed to be based on actual science was the statement by John Christie that someone linked to here. The rest of it is mostly sheer ignorant waffle.

 

[blutoski]

Yet it could be his attitude to AGW that is the biggest contribution to investments losing value. I don't know that more than a few here have that attitude, but I don't doubt that it is behind a lot of the 'skepticism' out there.

The only skeptical opinion that ever seemed to be based on actual science was the statement by John Christie that someone linked to here. The rest of it is mostly sheer ignorant waffle.

This investment issues may be a disproportionate phenomenon of Canadians. We're a hydrocarbon exporter, and many of our retirees are heavily invested in the energy (gas and oil) sectors, because it has a good risk/return ratio. In particular, gas and oil are major tax shelters, because many investments are exploratory. The expression is "Northern Arabs."

As it happens, even I own gas property. I inherited a farm in Lacombe AB years ago, and it is producing some natural gas with one wellhead. Unlike my dad and his peers, however, this jeopardized future income does not shut the door on scientific debate regarding the long-term effects of carbon emissions.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that there is such a thing as a "denialist". I think that is simply a rhetorical device. It is ad hominem.

I have tried to draw a distinction between denialist and honest skeptics. Just as some people are skeptical about evolution without being creationists, some are skeptical of AGW without being denialists. But there are creationists and denialists, people who loudly and actively promote beliefs. Not conclusions, but beliefs. They seek not to educate but to persuade, either because they hold to the belief or because they're ethics-free lobbyists.

There's another class, the wishful-thinkers, which is not persuadable. They can exists on both sides of the argument, I'm sure some people wish for the downfall of civilisation at its own hand because it doesn't conform to their preferred model.

My original comment was directed at the way denialists make their case, in particular their emphasis on (inevitably) imperfect climate models. The real world does not suit their case. By constantly bringing up the models they convince sloppy thinkers that the models are supremely important.

The facts are that the world has been going through periods of warming and cooling both severe and moderate for just about as long as we can tell. There are many variables for this fluctuation. Humans have only been apart of the equation for a short time. It has been quite valid to note that it is very difficult to access to what extent humans have contributed to GW. It's also worthy to note that the problems inherent in the modeling because there are so many variables.

Forget the digital models. There's an analog one right outside your door. The severe fluctuation that's occuring on the relevant timescale isn't at the beginning or end of an ice-age or because of an unnoticed torrent of melt-water down the St Lawrence. It's because of something, and the atmosphere's increasing CO2-load is the only viable candidate.

Many if not most skeptics haven't been skeptical of GW and then AGW for lack of anything better to do. The skeptics have rightfully questioned the science. I realize that you feel that you find yourself on the winning side of a debate and therefore feel that it is appropriate to now lump those skeptics in with those who have fought evolution. This is simply wrong IMO. And disappointing and it has nothing to do with advancing your argument. In the end it is simply ad hominem. But, hey, it's human nature. I get it. Revel in it. I can't stop you.

It must be galling for true-believer denialists that the world just keeps on getting warmer, when a reversal would so justify them. The common discourse of the day increasingly assumes the reality of AGW, even at high political levels (and even though policy is barely affected). They must do a lot of shouting at the TV. I do get a quiet (slightly guilty) satisfaction from that as it applies to the more mendacious and offensive denialists. Would that it applied more to creationists.

I understand the science, and I'm effectively on the losing side of the debate about how much influence AGW would have. I thought it would be slight. That there would be an influence is not in debate, given that our planet's balmy climate depends so heavily on the Greenhouse Effect. I didn't have much to go on, and I was brought up in the "Get over yourselves, humans" and anti-catastrophist philosophy. A philosophy that appealed to me, as a natural-born atheist and history-buff. I have since come to recognise and question the assumptions I was making.

Humanity really has become a force of nature.

 

[CapelDodger]

This investment issues may be a disproportionate phenomenon of Canadians. We're a hydrocarbon exporter, and many of our retirees are heavily invested in the energy (gas and oil) sectors, because it has a good risk/return ratio. In particular, gas and oil are major tax shelters, because many investments are exploratory. The expression is "Northern Arabs."

On the quieter side, don't you guys export a lot of hydroelectric energy? Not as sexy as oil (turning on a light lacks the impact of filling up one's 4x4 Ford Compensator) and no obvious catch-phrase.

When you consider the life-experiences of retirees, "who ever got fired for not investing in oil and gas"? From a niche market in the 1850's it's been a strategic imperative - militarily and economically since, what, the 1930's? Probably earlier. In the long-term the Oil Age will appear fleeting, but everybody alive today has lived in it and so did their grandparents or even great-grandparents. Whether we'll see it out is another matter.

 

[RandFan]

I have tried to draw a distinction between denialist and honest skeptics.

I have no idea who is who in your distinction and based on the rest of your post I kinda doubt anyone does.

Forget the digital models. There's an analog one right outside your door. The severe fluctuation that's occuring on the relevant timescale isn't at the beginning or end of an ice-age or because of an unnoticed torrent of melt-water down the St Lawrence. It's because of something, and the atmosphere's increasing CO2-load is the only viable candidate.

Wow, for millions of years the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically and not so dramatically without humans and now the only possible way that the earth could be warming is due to humans. Really?

That's breathtaking. I guess if you say so. But this raises the question, if you are correct then how, oh how could there be honest skeptics? It doesn't wash. And what of William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado who is an expert in tropical meteorology? Does he not know that the earth is getting warmer? Has he not looked outside his window? Let me guess, an ad hom, right? Something must be wrong with Mr. Gray if he can't see what you so clearly see.

It must be galling for true-believer denialists that the world just keeps on getting warmer, when a reversal would so justify them.

This is such a straw man when everyone admits that the earth is getting warmer. The question is how much and what is the cause? If there is such a thing as AGW and if there is then to what extent are humans contributing?

I'm sorry Capel but I really have no basis for understanding your POV. It seems steeped in a religious zeal of some sort. You know the truth so what difference does it make? Like Shermer you changed your position so the fact that you once held a contrary position is somehow proof that your view is the only correct one?

You might be correct, I don't however think you have established that there is such a thing as a "denialist" and that they are some how different from skeptics. I have no idea what the hell a "denialist" is in the context of this debate. In the end it seems an attempt to use intimidation and ad hominem argument to sway those who disagree to your point of view. Why not simply stick to the argument and not label people who disagree in a pejorative fashion?

RandFan

 

[davefoc]

I read the article you linked to RandFan.

I agree that it does go to the point you are making with regard to the use of the word denialist in that it seems to be an article written by a respected atmospheric scientist who believes that AGW is insignificant.

I believe the point you are making is that the situation is different than with the use of the term in connection with the holocaust since it is not possible to find a respected historian that would claim that mainstream view of the holocaust is not essentially correct.

I agree with you to some degree, but I think it still may be possible to use the term in a legitimate way with regard to people's views on global warming. The fact is that there are many troubling signs that in fact that the earth is warming significantly including sea level rise, loss of tropical glaciers, loss of permafrost land, and the shrinking of the extent of the winter time ice cap freezing. Additionally there is reasonable evidence that this warming face is unusual for the speed that it is happening and that the known natural mechanisms for climate change don't seem to be fast enough to explain the climate change.

I don't doubt that the professor that you linked to would be aware of all of the above and not disagree with it. He might disagree that those facts and others are enough evidence to make the case for AGW. Still I don't think he represents the kind of individual that the term denialist was intended for by those who have used it. I think what is being referred to who is an individual who wants to believe that AGW is not a significant threat for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence for or against AGW. For instance he might align himself politically with people who discount the possibility of AGW and as a result allows his biases to filter out all evidence contrary to his beliefs.

 

[epepke]

Here is the response I got from Michael Shermer:

I prefer to think of skepticism as a verb, not a noun, as something you do, not a position you hold. It is an approach to claims, a scientific approach.

I don't know that it answers my question, but I said I'd report it, and so I did. I think it might leave open the possibility of picking and choosing.

I am going to interpret this provisionally as the idea that skepticism is a tool, and that whether or not the tool is applied is based on other considerations, which in and of themselves may be chosen by other means.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have no idea who is who in your distinction and based on the rest of your post I kinda doubt anyone does.

Wow, for millions of years the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically and not so dramatically without humans and now the only possible way that the earth could be warming is due to humans. Really?

It's not something that just happens, there is always a reason. In this case, the reason is us.

That's breathtaking. I guess if you say so. But this raises the question, if you are correct then how, oh how could there be honest skeptics? It doesn't wash. And what of William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado who is an expert in tropical meteorology? Does he not know that the earth is getting warmer? Has he not looked outside his window? Let me guess, an ad hom, right? Something must be wrong with Mr. Gray if he can't see what you so clearly see.

He says that just because the world is getting warmer, it doesn't mean there will be more/and/or more powerful hurricanes. Heat is the basic engine for hurricanes, other factors such as wind shear may change to stop hurricanes, but that appears to be more like wishful thinking to me.

 

[Nova Land]

... However, [Shermer's] final statement is troubling.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

... I think that Shermer's statement may be an example of a kind of disease that I have noticed in organized skepticism, in which the term is only used for something one doubts beyond a certain threshold. and "skepticism" becomes nearly synonymous with "opposition."

I agree that Shermer worded that poorly. In the public's mind, that definition -- "opposition" or "hostility" -- is what skepticism means, and Shermer appears to have accidentally fallen into using the word in that sense in this passage. It's sometimes hard to avoid doing so, when so many people around us misuse the word that way, but it is something I think we need to watch out for and be careful not to do.

I define skepticism as fair-minded questioning, and think it is as wrong to be excessively antagonistic in one's questioning as it is to be excessively credulous. The aim is to find a reasonable balance -- a way of looking at things which brings out both the strengths and the weaknesses, and weighs these fairly, so that what is true will stand up to scrutiny and what is false won't. Thus we need to be very careful we are not setting too hostile a standard when we examine things we are inclined to disagree with (and ask ourselves: If we applied this same standard to the things we do believe in, would they stand up?) And we need to be very careful we are not setting too lax a standard when we examine things we are inclined to agree with (and ask ourselves: If we applied this same standard to the things we don't believe in, would we really have grounds to dismiss them?)

Holocaust deniers are hostilists, not skeptics. They are looking to debunk the holocaust, and will seize on any evidence, however flimsy, if it supports doubts, while rejecting any evidence, however substantial, if it indicates the holocaust was real. That's not skepticism.

A skeptical inquiry into the holocaust leads a reasonable person to believe that the holocaust did in fact occur. Reaching that conclusion does not mean one is abandoning skepticism, it means one is continuing to practice it.

The same thing applies with other matters, such as global climate change. Weighing the evidence, and coming to a reasonable conclusion, is not the same as abandoing skepticism, and we need to be more careful to avoid implying that it is.

 

[Nova Land]

I don't see that there is any difference, in principle, between working hard to find flaws in what Shermer says and working hard to find flaws in what Geller says.

Yes. Both would be equally wrong, and equally anti-skeptical.

The point of skepticism is not to find flaws. It is to give a fair examination. Everything has flaws; nothing is perfect. The anti-skeptic goes in with a pre-made conclusion, and tries to find evidence to back that conclusion up. It doesn't matter whether the person is a credulist who is determined to find evidence that something is true, or a hostilist who is determined to find evidence that something is false -- both are behaving in a manner diametrically opposed to skepticism.

That's why Randi has often drawn a distinction between a debunker and a skeptic. One is looking to prove a thing false; the other is looking to see whether a thing is true or false.

That's why many of the critics of global warming don't qualify as skeptics. They are trying to debunk global warming. In the process, they are willing to seize on any flaw (however minor) in evidence that indicates global climate change is real and a significant danger, at the same time turning a blind eye to the much larger flaws in evidence that indicates global climate change is not real or not a significant danger.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is the response I got from Michael Shermer:



I don't know that it answers my question, but I said I'd report it, and so I did. I think it might leave open the possibility of picking and choosing.

I am going to interpret this provisionally as the idea that skepticism is a tool, and that whether or not the tool is applied is based on other considerations, which in and of themselves may be chosen by other means.

He appears to be saying that scepticism is a process that is followed, till a conclusion is reached. He has reached the conclusion that AGW is real and action must be taken. I think most of us have concluded, for example, that evolution is real. If big horsemen appear riding in on the clouds, angels start blowing on trumpets and people start floating up into the sky, we would possibly change our minds.

 

[RandFan]

I read the article you linked to RandFan.

I agree that it does go to the point you are making with regard to the use of the word denialist in that it seems to be an article written by a respected atmospheric scientist who believes that AGW is insignificant.

I believe the point you are making is that the situation is different than with the use of the term in connection with the holocaust since it is not possible to find a respected historian that would claim that mainstream view of the holocaust is not essentially correct.

I agree with you to some degree, but I think it still may be possible to use the term in a legitimate way with regard to people's views on global warming. The fact is that there are many troubling signs that in fact that the earth is warming significantly including sea level rise, loss of tropical glaciers, loss of permafrost land, and the shrinking of the extent of the winter time ice cap freezing. Additionally there is reasonable evidence that this warming face is unusual for the speed that it is happening and that the known natural mechanisms for climate change don't seem to be fast enough to explain the climate change.

I don't doubt that the professor that you linked to would be aware of all of the above and not disagree with it. He might disagree that those facts and others are enough evidence to make the case for AGW. Still I don't think he represents the kind of individual that the term denialist was intended for by those who have used it. I think what is being referred to who is an individual who wants to believe that AGW is not a significant threat for reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence for or against AGW. For instance he might align himself politically with people who discount the possibility of AGW and as a result allows his biases to filter out all evidence contrary to his beliefs.

Thanks Dave, I will concede that there could be someone who fits your definition of "denialist" but I'm not sure how we spot them and I sincerely doubt that the use of the word has any useful function in the debate of GW. It is ad hominem. It seems to me that it's only usefulness is to intimidate and silence criticism I.e. "oh, you are one of those..."

 

[RandFan]

It's not something that just happens, there is always a reason. In this case, the reason is us.

I did not say that it "just happens".

He says that just because the world is getting warmer, it doesn't mean there will be more/and/or more powerful hurricanes. Heat is the basic engine for hurricanes, other factors such as wind shear may change to stop hurricanes, but that appears to be more like wishful thinking to me.

I don't understand your point as it concerns the discussion.

 

[blutoski]

On the quieter side, don't you guys export a lot of hydroelectric energy? Not as sexy as oil (turning on a light lacks the impact of filling up one's 4x4 Ford Compensator) and no obvious catch-phrase.

Yes. And nuclear. Lots of juice flowing south. And we've got some people in jail for their role in colluding with Enron et al for price-fixing. You can blame, in part, some Canadians for those artificial rolling blackouts in California.

When you consider the life-experiences of retirees, "who ever got fired for not investing in oil and gas"? From a niche market in the 1850's it's been a strategic imperative - militarily and economically since, what, the 1930's? Probably earlier. In the long-term the Oil Age will appear fleeting, but everybody alive today has lived in it and so did their grandparents or even great-grandparents. Whether we'll see it out is another matter.

Probably earlier. My grandfather was a navigator on a whaling ship in his teens (he ran away from home at 14). That would have been in the 1920s. The whale industry was essentially the oil industry of its day (whale oil was both a fuel and an industrial raw material)

Captain Ahab was an oil baron, basically.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have no idea who is who in your distinction and based on the rest of your post I kinda doubt anyone does.

davefoc seems to. Perhaps he's preternaturally perceptive. As I posted earlier,

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.

Wow, for millions of years the earth has warmed and cooled dramatically and not so dramatically without humans and now the only possible way that the earth could be warming is due to humans. Really?

The coming and going of ice-ages happens on an entirely different timescale from the warming we're seeing now. The orbital influences that are very probably responsible are not causing this warming, so that variation is irrelevant. The coming and going of ice-epochs - ice-ages are not always a feature of the planet - is on an even longer timecale, and the geological influences involved are not causing this warming. So that variation is irrelevant. Changes of the current magnitude, on the relevant timescale, are not common events.

That's breathtaking. I guess if you say so. But this raises the question, if you are correct then how, oh how could there be honest skeptics?

Honest sceptics are persuadable by evidence. Often they're not aware of the evidence, or have been deliberately misled.

And what of William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado who is an expert in tropical meteorology? Does he not know that the earth is getting warmer? Has he not looked outside his window? Let me guess, an ad hom, right? Something must be wrong with Mr. Gray if he can't see what you so clearly see.

Gray agrees that the world is warming, but is of the opinion that the AGW "bandwagon" is not the one to be on. We (the consumers of the world) are "almost assuredly not" responsible. This "small" (sic) warming is "likely" a result of "natural alterations in global ocean currents" which are "as yet little understood". AGW "has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject". Such polemics from a scientist? Almost passion. Very odd. I must look this guy up.

This is such a straw man when everyone admits that the earth is getting warmer. The question is how much and what is the cause? If there is such a thing as AGW and if there is then to what extent are humans contributing?

You do not address my point. The AGW argument would be undermined, perhaps fatally, if temperatures fell for a few decades without any obvious cause. The denialist argument would win by default. That decline continues not to begin. There's no reason why it shouldn't, since any unspecified natural cause, unrelated to human activity, might well go into reverse. It doesn't have to be inexorable.

I'm sorry Capel but I really have no basis for understanding your POV. It seems steeped in a religious zeal of some sort. You know the truth so what difference does it make? Like Shermer you changed your position so the fact that you once held a contrary position is somehow proof that your view is the only correct one?

You might be correct, I don't however think you have established that there is such a thing as a "denialist" and that they are some how different from skeptics. I have no idea what the hell a "denialist" is in the context of this debate. In the end it seems an attempt to use intimidation and ad hominem argument to sway those who disagree to your point of view. Why not simply stick to the argument and not label people who disagree in a pejorative fashion?

I'll continue to use "denialist" just as I'll use "creationist" when appropriate - do you object to that term too?

 

[blutoski]

Thanks Dave, I will concede that there could be someone who fits your definition of "denialist" but I'm not sure how we spot them and I sincerely doubt that the use of the word has any useful function in the debate of GW. It is ad hominem. It seems to me that it's only usefulness is to intimidate and silence criticism I.e. "oh, you are one of those..."

It may not have a useful function face-to-face, and I agree that it sounds punitive.

But I think we can use the term in a meta-discussion, to describe a catergory of participant. Just like we have to distinguish between Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates, and as Nova Land showed, we distinguish between debunkers versus skeptics (in the CSICOP world, it's debunkers versus investigators), we benefit from distinguishing between critics and deniers.

It's a continuum, in this case, and my rule of thumb is that when you bring contrary information to a denier, they will reject it as false by definition. There is nothing you can show them that will change their mind. They may pay lip service "...of course, I could be wrong, but I haven't been shown anything that's convincing so far." But they're pretty cavalier with that 'convincing' rule.

That's why Creationists are a good analogue. I've seen creationists caught dead-to-right in a lie, and they admit it. Then, next week at a different church, they haven't removed it from their presentation. They just aren't too worried about every single details' inaccuarcy, because they think overall they're right. I think it's a cognitive dissonance of sorts.

The other thing is that there's sometimes evidence of unreasonable expectations. This is why the AGW side has had a shifting argument. Strategic manoevres to the rear, as it were, in stages:

1. there is no evidence that the world is heating up
2. there is no evidence that the world's heating is significantly anthropogenic
3. there is no evidence that the anthropogenic heating will be so serious as to merit action
4. there is no evidence that action will help reduce GW
5. the action that will help reduce GW will cost more than GW itself
6. OK, OK, we could have saved a fortune by acting, but it's too late now, so there's no point. Oh, well, it's our grandkids' problem now.

Another sign is the dependence on conspiracy theories: that scientists have some... motive... to reduce carbon emissions. Motives cited are usually quite incredible. Scientists have an agenda. The overlap with bible-thumping is not coincidental.


ETA: link to NESS podcast. Skip to about 45 minutes into the podcast, where the hosts discuss the chronic problem of denialism within skepticism.
NESS Podcast #38 (NESS is the home of Rebecca Wilson, of Skepchics fame) Here's the article he discusses in the podcast: Skepticism and Denial by Steven Novella, MD

 

[RandFan]

davefoc seems to. Perhaps he's preternaturally perceptive. As I posted earlier,

I conceded to him that there could be such a distinction. I just don't see how you tell the difference or what benefit it serves other than ad hominem argument.

The coming and going of ice-ages happens on an entirely different timescale from the warming we're seeing now.

I'm not talking about the coming or going of an ice-age. I have no idea why you are using this straw man. Non-AGW does not always lead to an ice-age. As I pointed out there have been many fluctuations of many varying intensities.

The coming and goings of ice-ages is not relevant to this discussion and does not advance an argument counter to my point and does not justify your use of the word "denialist".

The points that are relevant are;

1.) Is the earth warming?
2.) Why?
3.) To what extent if any are humans contributing to GW?

#2 and #3 are to some extent controversial. There is not a consensus as to #2 and #3 and #3 is even more controversial.

So can we dispense with the coming and going of ice-ages?

Honest sceptics are persuadable by evidence. Often they're not aware of the evidence, or have been deliberately misled.

Ad hominem if you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is either unaware of the evidence or has been misled.

Gray agrees that the world is warming, but is of the opinion that the AGW "bandwagon" is not the one to be on. We (the consumers of the world) are "almost assuredly not" responsible. This "small" (sic) warming is "likely" a result of "natural alterations in global ocean currents" which are "as yet little understood". AGW "has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject". Such polemics from a scientist? Almost passion. Very odd. I must look this guy up.

Oh, right, as if calling critics of AGW "denialist" is not engaging in polemics.

You do not address my point. The AGW argument would be undermined, perhaps fatally, if temperatures fell for a few decades without any obvious cause. The denialist argument would win by default. That decline continues not to begin. There's no reason why it shouldn't, since any unspecified natural cause, unrelated to human activity, might well go into reverse. It doesn't have to be inexorable.

This is completely beside the point. AGW is falsifiable. That it hasn't been falsified is not proof that AGW is correct.

I'll continue to use "denialist" just as I'll use "creationist" when appropriate - do you object to that term too?

Duh, I have no doubt you continue to use "denialist" (which isn't a word BTW). Rhetoric and fallacy are very persuasive. Why would you stop?

 

[RandFan]

It may not have a useful function face-to-face, and I agree that it sounds punitive.

But I think we can use the term in a meta-discussion, to describe a catergory of participant. Just like we have to distinguish between Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates, and as Nova Land showed, we distinguish between debunkers versus skeptics (in the CSICOP world, it's debunkers versus investigators), we benefit from distinguishing between critics and deniers.

Hey blutoski,

Just letting you know that I saw your post. I need some time to digest it and to check out the links.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[articulett]

Epepke,
Michael Shermer is holds a doctorate in philosophy, I believe--not in science. But scientists all over the world are becoming increasingly convince that global warming is a major problem and that human's need to do something about it. I suspect Shermer was saying that it's time to stop debating the issue and start pressing our leaders to take action. I'm interested to hear if he replies to you and what he says. There are multiple threads on the topic at the skeptic societies forum, along with information from those who attended. (I did not).