Global Warming "Skeptics"

[bascule]

This was a rather interesting article, especially in the light of the recent flurry of activity involving "skeptics" in certain other threads on these boards:

 

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6621.html

 

Those who disagree with the consensus position of working climatologists--that there is strong evidence that anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases is causing and will cause harmful lower tropospheric warming--like to call themselves "skeptics". "Skeptic" is a highly respectable label. No mere synonym for "doubter" or "one who disagrees", it carries with it connotations of modesty, caution in forming an opinion, and careful consideration of evidence. A skeptic does not choose a side and set out in search of evidence for his chosen side; a skeptic bases his position on the evidence and is openly aware of that position's weaknesses, tending always toward modesty and toward qualifying his statements when in doubt.

 

Skepticism is the behavior expected of working scientists and social scientists of all disciplines, and it can be said to be institutionalized in the written and unwritten rules for communication, evaluation, and validation of scientific conclusions. There's thus an implicit insult in the adoption of "skeptic" by doubters of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to set themselves apart from climatologists and those who have been following their work. Such usage carries with it the implication that scientists, especially working climatologists, are acting in an unscientific manner, that they are not being skeptical but have instead rushed to a conclusion. The "skeptics" have yet to substantiate this with a scientifically sound argument against AGW or even against the mainstream assessment of the strength of the evidence. Some might say that such arguments are being made but have been, to date, suppressed, but with rapid electronic transmission of hundreds of pages of text and graphics to thousands of readers well within the means of anyone in the developed world, such suppression is unlikely. Nonetheless the doubters have succeeded in convincing a considerable proportion of the public that, to the exclusion of people who agree with the mainstream assessment of climate science, they are the skeptics.

 

The article continues beyond that but I found the lead captures the issue quite elegantly in a nutshell.

 

I have seen many people self-apply the label "skeptic" when expressing doubt about the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. However, there seems to be a common prevailing attitude among many of these people: they seem to have started with the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way climate science research is being performed, and proceed to seek out information which supports this position without first doing a thorough examination of the scientific argument.

 

This issue hits home particularly hard for me because for many years I worked for a climate science research group headed by a man regarded by the scientific community (but not himself) as a "skeptic". However, if you asked him his opinions on the fundamental science behind climate change, such as if CO₂ were the strongest radiative forcing affecting the climate system today, he would agree. He was among the many scientists who peer review the IPCC Assessment Reports, and his concerns were not so much that recent climate change isn't anthropogenically forced, but that there were anthropogenic forcings other than greenhouse gases which were going underreported by the IPCC, such as the many effects of land use. This sort of skepticism is a far cry from the sort of "skepticism" I've typically seen from laymen questioning the mainstream scientific opinion.

 

The real problem, as noted in the article, is that implicit in the self-application of the title "skeptic" by this group of people is the notion that climate scientists are unscientific or unskeptical. From my observations, this is typically coupled with the notion that these scientists are misstating their position due to political reasons. If I had to guess, self-ascribed "skeptics" disagree with the politics of the scientists involved, and by virtue of the political disagreement proceed to disagree with the science without first seeking to understand it. I've done some Googling on various arguments I've seen presented, such as the notion that the climate has been cooling since 1998, and found these arguments repeated over and over again by rather dubious looking blogs created by non-scientists. I can't help but feel that "skeptics" have all the trappings of conspiracy theorists: these people are repeating arguments they read on blogs without scrutinizing them first. That is the exact opposite of skepticism.

 

It's for this reason that I have very little patience for "climate skeptics" and am unafraid to bandy around the title of "denier" in the same way I would call a creationist a "cdesign proponentsist". These people are not acting in a skeptical manner, do not seem particularly willing to engage in a discussion of the facts, cannot provide information to support their positions, and are generally unwilling to take the time to actually understand the mainstream scientific position. Their behavior is more akin to conspiracy theorists: any information coming out of the prominent scientific organizations researching this topic (e.g. NASA GISS, NOAA) is inherently tainted and immediately disregarded, whereas information which fits their confirmation bias despite coming from dubious sources is implicitly trusted.

 

All that said, I do appreciate people who take the time to try to understand the mainstream scientific position even if they continue to question it. On these forums, JohnB gets an honorable mention in that regard. He does a good job of questioning the mainstream scientific opinion while refraining from making untrue statements about it. It's possible for true "climate skeptics" to exist but they are few and far between.

 

And as an aside, oddly enough when I first started discussing global warming on these forums I often found myself on the side of the "skeptic", challenging various statements about climate change which I found to be in error. However, over time I saw the people overzealously touting the dangers of climate change evaporate, replaced with a legion of "skeptics" baselessly expressing fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the mainstream scientific opinion.

 

What do you think? What is the best way to deal with climate science "skeptics"/deniers? I'll certainly admit I very quickly grow impatient with these sorts of people, but the same can be said for anyone who has an antiscientific agenda, including creationists. Is that bad? Is there anything that can be done to promote sound, rational, scientific, and truly skeptical discussion with these people?

Edited July 16, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

I agree.

 

I do think that at least part of the problem is in the attitude of pro-GW advocates (the way they react sometimes to opponents). Bashing the anti-GW crowd is kinda pointless because they just use it to make it sound like you're actually bashing the innocent-but-ill-advised people who are listening to them. Still, one has to at least make the statement that they're wrong, and explain why.

 

Even more significant is the systemic difficulty surrounding the acceptance of (and interest in) science by the public. Not everyone has a subscription to Scientific American/Science/Nature, much less a peer-reviewed science journal, not that many of those cater to uneducated readers anyway. It's a nasty Catch-22 -- they aren't really interested in the subjects, but they are interested in getting edutainment that they don't realize is spin from people who aren't interested in accurately portraying the information.

 

And in fairness we also have to recognize that the nature of GW is such that it's less definitive that we're used to dealing with in the hard sciences, with studies often sounding almost like economics or anthropology or history -- the social sciences. Which raises perfectly legitimate questions about how a "consensus" was achieved, and whether it was more a matter of politics than science (questions which I believe have basically been put to rest at this point, but it was legitimate to ask them). But my real point here is that we haven't been as good at explaining this kind of science to the public.

 

And finally, from where I sit, watching a lot of conservative forums as I do, I think one of the biggest problems is the currency of the information that people bandy about in discussion. Science is very much an ongoing effort, with new information coming out all the time. But the nature of the Internet is such that discussions and facts stick around and aren't deprecated or tagged with corrections as they might be in a journal or textbook. It seems like every discussion we see on global warming HERE (a very up to date science forum with bright, hard-working, well-informed scientists at hand!) end up spending half their posts just updating participants on the latest information. It's not hard to see why those who aren't "in the work" aren't getting the best information even when they're not affected by anti-GW spin.

 

With all of this taken into consideration, maybe we're better served NOT labeling opponents with pejorative tags like "denier". After all, beating up on the bad guys has been the practice for a while now. How's that working out so far?

[swansont]

Calling them deniers or not isn't really the issue. The so-called skeptics have already made up their mind and have chosen an intellectually dishonest path of argument. Their minds aren't going to be changed.

 

The underlying problem, IMO, is that it's not a fair fight. It's the observer of the discussion who can potentially be convinced, and the observer doesn't know that fight is unfair because they don't know that the two sides are using different rules. The AGW deniers are free to use deception in the form of logical fallacies; their credibility is measure in their ability to score rhetorical points, while the science crowd sticks to facts, because their credibility is measured differently. If they manufactured data, they would be outcast. So a denier is free to claim that e.g. we've been cooling since 1998 by cherry-picking data to support that conclusion, and a scientist can only present data that shows this to be false. The onlooker thinks the question is undecided.

 

I blogged about this, in a more general sense, just this morning.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2820

[GutZ]

To seek truth you have to be willing to let go any personal views and attachment to what you feel is correct because that may change as you discover more. It's not an easy thing to do. There is chance that you can convince someone otherwise, but ultimately it's up to the person. It may just so happen while discussing it with you.

 

The fear of abandoning an idea that you hold to be true is scary, it mean you were wrong. Then you have to ask what else are you wrong about. It's for some people better to defend then it is to attack their own view point.

 

The only aspect I hold reserve to is the future outcome of GW. We haven't seen nature take it's course. I also know that there has been tons of research involved, and if I want to abandon the research then I might as well abandon the concept of gravity. I can attack the work that is being done, but I don't have the knowledge to do that. Maybe I have faith in scientist that they themselves are skeptics, that they test their models and theories. In that aspect I see no reason to doubt.

 

I may not doubt it, but I am sort of glad others do, however misguided they maybe. It seems to me that things in life are not one or the other. There is wide range view points that comes natural. I would not be comfortable knowing people like john b don't exist, that everyone places faith in the same thing because human's make error, of all types.

 

Lastly I think what a lot of people don't get bascule as well and I am pretty sure I am correct in saying that you hold your reserves, you haven't permanently settled your idea of what the world is. You're willing to change if information comes about, I've seen that (bastard! you let us to drown in that thread way back there!) People don't see that when you are arguing a point. It's just not a relevant thing to constantly state or prove, when you are debating "whatever". The other person or other people will view that as if it were "us vs them" it's natural and makes it easier. While all you are really doing is defending facts, not your person view (though I am sure the truth is something you want to be your view to be). Then you have to accept the fact that your POV can fall into the paragraph I was stating above. being a true skeptic is not an easy lifestyle. It almost seems that holding any view is pointless.

 

Main point you're screwed either way. Keeping a distance, is all you can do.

Edited July 16, 2009 by GutZ

[bascule]

And in fairness we also have to recognize that the nature of GW is such that it's less definitive that we're used to dealing with in the hard sciences, with studies often sounding almost like economics or anthropology or history -- the social sciences.

 

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare it to something like economics, anthropology, or history. I think a better comparison could be made to biology. There is no way biologists can know the specific and intimate details about every part of the system. Are humans more closely related to rodents or bats and flying lemurs? Different biologists will give you different opinions on that matter. There are gaps in our understanding of biology.

 

This is where a creationist steps in and goes "you can't even tell us definitively if humans are closer to rodents or bats, therefore everything you say must be wrong!" (and oh by the way, god did it)

 

As I see it, this is akin to a climate science denier stepping in and going "you didn't predict an unusually strong La Nina event in 2007, therefore everything you say must be wrong!" (and oh by the way, humans have no impact on the climate system and it's all part of the natural cycle)

 

Some sciences do lack evidence needed to understand the system in its gestalt. The systems are too big and to fully understand them we need information about the past that can only come through estimation and statistical analysis.

 

However, climate science still rests upon a strong physical science basis. It's not a mushy topic like economics or anthropology. The physical science behind the climate system is rigorously studied and well understood, and where the details grow fuzzy, the margins of error are well understood.

[JohnB]

On these forums, JohnB gets an honorable mention in that regard. He does a good job of questioning the mainstream scientific opinion while refraining from making untrue statements about it.

I would not be comfortable knowing people like john b don't exist,

:embarass: Aw, shucks. Thanks guys.:embarass:

 

bascule, that's an interesting site you linked to. Did you happen to notice the link to the other article comparing consensus on Keynesian economics to AGW consensus? An interesting comparison, I don't know if it's valid but it is interesting.

 

I do view myself as a skeptic because I'm willing to be proven wrong. (But it's an uphill fight, more on that later.) I find the term "denier" to be highly objectionable and insulting. It was introduced into the debate in an attempt to link AGW "denial" with holocaust "denial". As such it is offensive and a poor effort to "poison the well".

 

There are those who still cling to the old "Steady State" theory for the Universe. Are they called "deniers"? Nope. "Denier" in current debates is used in two areas, the Holocaust and AGW. An attempt to connect the two to score some sort of debating point is, in my view, disgusting and morally repugnant. I also note that holocaust allusions are not limited just to the use of the word "denier".

 

As I said, I'm willing to be proved wrong, so if anybody can find any other topic of public or scientific debate where the term "denier" is thrown around as much I'll recant. I've looked, you won't.

 

I have no degree but am an avid reader. My main area of interest is history from 6,000 BP - 2,000 BP. However I have still read a lot about the last 2,000 years or so. For preference I enjoy reading the original documents (tranlations) as well as books and papers.

 

History is not an absolute like physics, but some very meaningful things can be drawn from it. Quite often the reasons for the decline of towns and cities as well as the reasons for settling areas can be found. Towns may decline because the rivers they used for trade started to ice up during winter, preventing trade boats. Trade routes through mountains can be re-established because passes were no longer impassable during winter. These things can indicate warm/cool/warm changes. This is where my skepticism started.

 

I didn't really pay too much attention to the AGW debate until I really looked at the "Hockey Stick". Flat out, it was wrong. For it to be correct, then there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Climatologists might accept it, but it was a direct contravention of all known historical records. Because it was in direct contravention of established records it had to be viewed very skeptically. So rather than some form of intellectual dishonesty, it's the fact that the claims contradicted everything I had ever read.

 

And it was wrong, wasn't it? Both Wegman and North found it to be so. They also found the choice of Bristle Cone Pines as proxies to be untenable due to CO2 fertilization and precipitation effects. Yet they keep being used. Why? For the simple reason that without them the hockey stick and all it's variants disappear.

 

And it is vital to one side of the debate. Without it or it's children climate becomes a dynamic process rather than a steady one.

 

With a MWP, the statement "The 20th C is the warmest in 400 years", while true becomes meaningless. Of course it's the warmest, we went into, had, and exited from, a bloody mini Ice Age. What a stupid statement. It's as sensible as waiting for Summer and saying "This month is the warmest in 9 months". Of course it is, the others were Autumn, Winter and Spring, by definition cooler in general than Summer.

 

On a related point. I admit to discounting the argument that skeptics are in the pay of "Big Oil" or whoever. I've been in and around various ecological debates for more than 30 years and the simple fact is that this is the first response by any "green" group. Their opposition is always in the pay of big oil, big mining, big pharma or someone.

 

What makes it particularly dishonest in this debate is that the first port of call for the AGW supporters is a website owned and operated by an advertising company. I can only presume that advertising companies in the US differ from those in other nations, spending time and money on philanthropic pursuits for the betterment of mankind rather than simply trying to make money for their clients. (And it's not like General Electric don't stand to make billions as the major supplier of wind turbines.)

 

It leads to an interesting question. If Mann et al wanted to set up a website, why go to a major advertising company? Is there no-one with the required ability at NASA or Penn State University? Or did Fenner Advertising go to him?

 

So swansont, where is the "dishonesty" really? Is it at Science Daily? "Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland" Everything in that article is strictly and factually true. But, and it's a big but, do the cores go back past 1200 AD?

 

As a matter of fact the Lomonosovfonna cores do.

 

So how "honest" is the statement "Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland"? It's true, but is it honest?

 

How honest is it for the same people to use the same wrong data and call their reconstructions "independent"? Sorry, but I call rewriting the dictionary to suit yourself "dishonest".

 

Would you care to read Bishop Hills comment on the process of WAhl and Ammanns refutation of Mc Intyre and Mc Kittrick? Would you describe the evolutions of those papers as "honest"?

 

If the above is not "honest", why would I trust what realclimate has to say?

 

The AGW deniers are free to use deception in the form of logical fallacies; their credibility is measure in their ability to score rhetorical points, while the science crowd sticks to facts

Right. So we get called names and equated with holocaust deniers. There have been calls for trials for "Crimes Against Humanity", even as recently as last month the question was asked 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

 

Many on the pro side stand beside "the facts" in the same way (and if they got the chance, by using the same methods) as the Inquisition stood beside their "facts". /rant:D

 

On a slightly different theme, I have wondered if there isn't perhaps a psychological aspect to the GW debate.

 

From my readings over the years concerning possible cataclsymic events at the end of the last Ice Age, I found, and it was never denied in the literature, that from early times climatology was divided into two camps, "Gradualists" and "Cataclymacists".(sp?) The gradualists basically held the influential positions and believed that Earth was huge and the climate could only shift slowly. (.2 degrees per century was considered extreme) Arguments were quite vocal from some accounts.

 

Anyway, by the 1970s it was apparent that climate was changing faster then the gradualists believed was possible and the science (if I read things correctly) was heading for a major shift, something similar to what happened with Continental Drift or Big Bang theory.

 

Either the gradualists were wrong and climate could change rapidly (remember that this is before too many ice core studies had been done) or there was something else going on. AGW would have been a Godsend to the gradualists. They could keep their previous notions and had a reason for the sudden warming.

 

I do wonder if AGW would have been a topic if the ice cores showing rapid climate shift had been available earlier and the paradigm shift had occurred in the 1970s.

Edited July 18, 2009 by JohnB

[bascule]

bascule, that's an interesting site you linked to. Did you happen to notice the link to the other article comparing consensus on Keynesian economics to AGW consensus? An interesting comparison, I don't know if it's valid but it is interesting.

 

It's an interesting site in general because they have authors all over the political spectrum and every article is accompanied by the author's position on the "political compass"

 

I find the term "denier" to be highly objectionable and insulting. It was introduced into the debate in an attempt to link AGW "denial" with holocaust "denial". As such it is offensive and a poor effort to "poison the well".

 

I don't know if that really holds water in my mind. If it was intended as this sort of invective that's not how I'm trying to use it. That said "denial" seems a rather apt description of what these self-ascribed "skeptics" are doing in most cases:

 

"Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." (courtesy the always trustworthy Wikipedia)

[GutZ]

JohnB:

 

sorry I kinda wrote that sentence as you being like a denier by being vague (my speciality!), what I meant was that like for there to be people willing to critique properly you will always have those people who overbearing. A spectrum of people and for the right people who do it properly (such as yourself) you have to take the other with them.

 

So my sentence was reflecting on the fact that I feel safer knowing that deniers exist because within the spectrum of people there are people like you.

 

I see you got what I was saying so....good. just wanted to clarify.

[JohnB]

GutZ, no problem, I got what you meant.

 

bascule, that's what I meant about the site. While writing my post yesterday I was "detoured" for about 3 hours reading articles there. I do like that the authors political leanings are openly stated.

 

I don't know if that really holds water in my mind.

Then take up the challenge and find another debate where it's thrown around.

If it was intended as this sort of invective that's not how I'm trying to use it.

No, you're just joining the chorus, rather disappointing really. Believe me, as a reader of history, I've seen it before, many times.

 

I will add that the concept of "denial" in general is, I believe, often used in a non scientific manner. It's an out used to dismiss contrary ideas. By classifying the person as "in denial" you automatically suggest the person is mentally deficient and their thoughts therefore valueless. I suppose it's easier than actually looking at things.

 

The use of the term also precludes the possibility that the person using the term is wrong. It "denies" falsifiability. The person using the term is right because;

a) The second person agrees with them. or

b) The second person disagrees, but is in "denial".

 

We saw this in Oz with the now discredited "Repressed Memory Syndrome".

 

DR: "You're suffering from RMS"

Patient: "No, I'm not."

Dr: "Ah. You're suffering from RMS and Denial."

 

Or on point.

Pro AGW: "I'm right."

Skeptic: "I'm not so sure about that."

Pro AGW: "I'm right and you're in denial."

 

Not falsifiable = not science in my book.

 

Circular logic like this is the food of religion, not science.

[iNow]

John - Would you at least be willing to stipulate that some folks are out just sharing blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations as pertains to climate science, and perhaps it would (in fact) be accurate to brand them as liars, or people who have no idea what they are talking about?

 

That's what I see more often. They are preachers, not teachers.

[Phi for All]

I will add that the concept of "denial" in general is, I believe, often used in a non scientific manner. It's an out used to dismiss contrary ideas. By classifying the person as "in denial" you automatically suggest the person is mentally deficient and their thoughts therefore valueless. I suppose it's easier than actually looking at things.

Unfortunately, this happens all too often, and not just with AGW topics. Part of the damage it does is to immediately put people on the defensive, and suddenly a person who might have been more willing to listen to an opposing stance is adamant and unswerving in their defense for having been unfairly marginalized.

[bascule]

I will add that the concept of "denial" in general is, I believe, often used in a non scientific manner. It's an out used to dismiss contrary ideas. By classifying the person as "in denial" you automatically suggest the person is mentally deficient and their thoughts therefore valueless. I suppose it's easier than actually looking at things.

 

I think your arguments are more aptly applicable to "deniers" than they are to those who are applying the label.

 

It is a label I would place on someone who has been presented with the scientific argument and completely ignores it, then goes on to continue to not only spout unscientific falsehoods, but claim the science is wrong without reasoning.

 

My guess would be these people are politically motivated. They are tired of hearing liberals talk about global warming, so they take the contrarian position by default. From there they have their position firmly set in their minds, then they go about trying to cherry pick "evidence" to show that the scientists are all wrong.

 

I wouldn't label you a denier, but sometimes your opposition is a bit... overzealous. From earlier in the thread:

 

I didn't really pay too much attention to the AGW debate until I really looked at the "Hockey Stick". Flat out, it was wrong. For it to be correct, then there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

 

Here is the graph from Mann et al 1999:

 

 

The graph does show a general downwards trend from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age.

 

And it was wrong, wasn't it? Both Wegman and North found it to be so. They also found the choice of Bristle Cone Pines as proxies to be untenable due to CO2 fertilization and precipitation effects. Yet they keep being used. Why? For the simple reason that without them the hockey stick and all it's variants disappear.

 

More recent simulations generate similar graphs:

 

 

The blue (not dark blue) line shows Mann et al 1999. The red and dark red lines show more recent reconstructions from 2005. (Click the image for more information)

 

I still don't understand why there is so much controversy surrounding the "hockey stick", or why for that matter the phrase "hockey stick" is inextricably linked to Mann et al 1999. Mann didn't coin the phrase "hockey stick". More recent simulations yield similar results. Perhaps you can tell me if you see anything in the more recent reconstructions that you find questionable which shared data with Mann et al 1999.

 

What makes it particularly dishonest in this debate is that the first port of call for the AGW supporters is a website owned and operated by an advertising company. I can only presume that advertising companies in the US differ from those in other nations, spending time and money on philanthropic pursuits for the betterment of mankind rather than simply trying to make money for their clients. (And it's not like General Electric don't stand to make billions as the major supplier of wind turbines.)

 

It leads to an interesting question. If Mann et al wanted to set up a website, why go to a major advertising company? Is there no-one with the required ability at NASA or Penn State University? Or did Fenner Advertising go to him?

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with going to an advertising company. Climate science has a PR problem, especially in America. The reporting is awful, undue publicity is given to unqualified people, and in general the way the population as a whole perceives climate change is a far cry from how the general scientific community sees it. There is also a cacophony of disinformation being spread by countless sources I would label "deniers". Fear, uncertainty, and doubt about climate science abounds in the American public.

 

It's going to be an uphill battle for climate scientists to even convince the general public that their work is credible science and they're not part of some UN conspiracy to use global warming as an excuse to take over the world.

[swansont]

There are those who still cling to the old "Steady State" theory for the Universe. Are they called "deniers"? Nope. "Denier" in current debates is used in two areas, the Holocaust and AGW. An attempt to connect the two to score some sort of debating point is, in my view, disgusting and morally repugnant. I also note that holocaust allusions are not limited just to the use of the word "denier".

 

Steady-state vs Big Bang doesn't have much of a political aspect, so it's not being "debated" by non-scientists very much, and doesn't get many op-eds in newspapers. And it's when the discussion leaves the scientific sphere that we start having the problems with people trying to sway you not by facts, but by any means possible. If steady-state had some ideological or financial backing to it, I'm sure we would see the same thing, as we have with creationism and the tobacco industry. BTW, "evolution deniers" garners > 50k Google hits, while "global warming deniers" gets just under 100k. It's out there, but "creationists" is a more convenient label and gets more press.

 

I think it's ironic for people to complain about a tactic to score debating points, when that's the very behavior that earned the label in the first place. If the discussion hadn't spilled over into rhetoric and attempting to convince the lay audience with lies and appeals to emotion and other fallacious tactics, we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

As far as the purer pursuits of science goes, we do have labels. We call people engaging in anti-science various things: crackpots, cranks, wingnuts, hoax-believers, woomeisters, etc.

[Pangloss]

But what you're ultimately saying there is that it's justified, and actually desirable, to use a derogatory label in order to accomplish a socio-political goal.

 

Is any evidence that that approach is superior (more successful) than a more polite/respectful/education-oriented effort?

[Phi for All]

As far as the purer pursuits of science goes, we do have labels. We call people engaging in anti-science various things: crackpots, cranks, wingnuts, hoax-believers, woomeisters, etc.

Do you think these labels help in any way? Are they applied only to those you feel are actively promoting an anti-science agenda even though they know better, or does it include people who may just be parroting a response they heard elsewhere that makes sense to them?

 

I think there are more of the latter. I think these people could actually be corrected if they weren't labeled a crackpot at the outset of a discussion. If they continue to ignore evidence then they may deserve the label but I think marginalizing a stance makes them unnecessarily intransigent.

[iNow]

I think these people could actually be corrected if they weren't labeled a crackpot at the outset of a discussion. If they continue to ignore evidence then they may deserve the label but I think marginalizing a stance makes them unnecessarily intransigent.

 

It doesn't appear to me that swansont ever suggested that the label be applied at the outset of the discussion.

 

 

In response to Pangloss' point, it's not always about socio-political change. If someone says that 2+2=7, then I'm going to argue against them as well. Just because it's not about climate change doesn't mean I'm not going to argue in favor of truth and accuracy. If they fail to see the error of their ways, or if they fail to support their reasoning in a valid way, then yes... they get a label.

 

Ostracism if often very beneficial to the group. We ostracize racism, and pedophilia, and even theft. Ostracizing denialist ideas which are counter to practically ALL available evidence is just an extension of that same phenomenon.

[Pangloss]

Maybe so, but we've been doing that for a very long time, and we still have racism and pedophilia. And what of the fact that ostracism has played a role in driving those problems underground, making them harder to fight?

 

All of which begs an interesting question: Is it necessary to change everyone's mind? Or is it just... entertaining?

[swansont]

Do you think these labels help in any way? Are they applied only to those you feel are actively promoting an anti-science agenda even though they know better, or does it include people who may just be parroting a response they heard elsewhere that makes sense to them?

 

I think there are more of the latter. I think these people could actually be corrected if they weren't labeled a crackpot at the outset of a discussion. If they continue to ignore evidence then they may deserve the label but I think marginalizing a stance makes them unnecessarily intransigent.

 

As iNow has already said, I am not advocating any label at the outset of a discussion — that would be poisoning the well. Finding that someone is a crackpot, denier, etc. has to be a conclusion drawn from what they have said and the arguments and tactics they have (mis)used.

 

Is it desirable? No, I'd say not. But it's unreasonable to expect two groups to play by different rules, and ridiculous for people engaging in such behavior to complain when they are the target instead of the instigators. It's like a mud-slinging politician complaining about defamation when his opponent calls him a liar. Hypocrisy.

 

Some people are never going to be convinced, so saying that the tactic hasn't worked is misplaced IMO. No one tactic is likely to work with everyone. Mostly I think it "resonates with the base," much like calling liberals elitist or conservatives war-mongers (or whatever). Did any liberals stop being liberal because they had been called an elitist? Selling AGW (i.e. the politics of it) breaks predominantly left/right. All I'm saying is stop kvetching because the left finally has a useful tag to use; the right is usually much better at this sort of thing.

[GutZ]

I would think too that people, us, and me like to label things. Swansont is a physic expert. Phi is a moderator. I am a layman. It has to be at some level, even if it's negative be useful. I think it's a matter of mislabeling more than anything.

 

The funny thing is no one is going to be upset by being labeled a genius whether they are or not.

[Phi for All]

As iNow has already said, I am not advocating any label at the outset of a discussion — that would be poisoning the well.

Both iNow and now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said you *advocated* it, I asked if you thought the labels were helpful. I mentioned that, for people who might just be parroting misinformation they heard elsewhere and thought valid, not labeling them too early might help keep them from being too defensive to learn.

Finding that someone is a crackpot, denier, etc. has to be a conclusion drawn from what they have said and the arguments and tactics they have (mis)used.

A conclusion based on more than just a few statements, no matter how erroneous. Again, if the person is not spreading misinformation or misrepresenting science due to a hidden agenda (an oil lobbyist who stands to lose money if people use less gasoline, for instance), they probably will remain more open to evidence if they aren't demeaned with a quick-draw label.

 

Is it desirable? No, I'd say not. But it's unreasonable to expect two groups to play by different rules, and ridiculous for people engaging in such behavior to complain when they are the target instead of the instigators. It's like a mud-slinging politician complaining about defamation when his opponent calls him a liar. Hypocrisy.

I can see your point.

 

Some people are never going to be convinced, so saying that the tactic hasn't worked is misplaced IMO. No one tactic is likely to work with everyone.

Agreed.

Mostly I think it "resonates with the base," much like calling liberals elitist or conservatives war-mongers (or whatever). Did any liberals stop being liberal because they had been called an elitist? Selling AGW (i.e. the politics of it) breaks predominantly left/right. All I'm saying is stop kvetching because the left finally has a useful tag to use; the right is usually much better at this sort of thing.

I would say the "base" are definitely those with some kind of agenda that is hurt by a stance which recognizes AGW. These are not the kinds of people I want to give leeway to.

[bascule]

if the person is not spreading misinformation or misrepresenting science due to a hidden agenda (an oil lobbyist who stands to lose money if people use less gasoline, for instance), they probably will remain more open to evidence if they aren't demeaned with a quick-draw label

 

From my experiences these people are not open to evidence whatsoever. These are the kinds of people who label themselves "skeptic" then don't bother to research the scientific argument, instead they judge the science based on the arguments of laymen who argue to their existing position. They have their minds made up and don't even want to bother to examine the scientific position.

 

Good luck convincing them of anything. They are extremely stubborn and incapable of evidence-based thinking. Instead they sit around and regurgitate disinformation and propaganda being spouted by an unscientific audience of laymen.

 

My general pattern talking to these people is one part trying to convince them of the science, one part trying to get them to defend the assertions they are making, and one part complete and utter frustration when they won't do anything but regurgitate disinformation. Oh, the whole time professing they're "skeptics".

 

I don't know how to deal with these people. It's the same problem I have with creationists. What's a good word to describe them?

[Phi for All]

I don't know how to deal with these people.

All I know is that calling them names (which is the way they see it) just entrenches them, makes you seem like the bad guy and destroys any chance of meaningful discussion.

It's the same problem I have with creationists.

Again, I think there are two different types, the ones who have an agenda for promoting creationism, and those who are merely parroting something that happened to make sense to them at the time. You can't deal with the former, but the latter may come around if they aren't dismissed as "X" or their argument labeled "stupid" or "crap".

What's a good word to describe them?

Human?

[bascule]

Again, I think there are two different types, the ones who have an agenda

 

I am almost exclusively discussing these type of people.

 

You can't deal with the former

 

That's what I'm discovering.

 

Human?

 

I think that may be a bit too vague. Clearly there are some humans capable of actually responding to the arguments of others and defending their assertions.

[Phi for All]

Clearly there are some humans capable of actually responding to the arguments of others and defending their assertions.

I would imagine they respond best to people who haven't pigeonholed them with a dismissive label, which can seem like a judgment with no recourse.

[bascule]

I would imagine they respond best to people who haven't pigeonholed them with a dismissive label, which can seem like a judgment with no recourse.

 

Well then, I invite you to have a discussion about climate change with jryan and see how long it takes before you start tearing your hair out.