10 ms·
Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoAwesome post. He did a good job of outlining the difference. I'd add one piece -- it goes both ways. On the other side of the skeptic is the true believer, which knows that the current consensus or opinion is correct and is just looking for reasons to confirm his belief. This is the scientific malpractice the leaked emails reveal. Both of these positions suffer from the same problem: they already know the answer before the conversation (or experiments) even begins. By the way, these topics go way beyond climate science, or even politics. These are the same types of conversations we have in technology teams about things like TDD, or linux versus windows. There are lots of opinions and consensus (or not) but most times what we really should do is have an open mind, create a theory, perform an experiment, see what works, and adapt. Many times teams would rather argue than do this. This is because we (technical people) suck many times at being able to politely disagree. The same problems we see with skeptics and true believers in climate science are the ones we see all around us everyday. To me understanding and being able to work these kinds of conversations have much more immediate and useful value than the types of compression algorithms Google uses on its databases.
- gaius 16y agoRight, but the term "climate change skeptic" ought not to exist, because following the evidence where it leads ought to be default position of everyone. Also it's interesting that in that particular debate, there are "deniers" but no "zealots". It's only one side that feels the need to label the others. That ought to set the alarm bells ringing.
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoYes. I tried to say that, but looks like I failed. If you already know the answer to some complex issue that is not direct, hard science, then you are cognitively limiting yourself. If it's reproducible and demonstrable, of course, then we can still remain properly agnostic and rely on induction to save the day. If it is not, we have to be very, very careful about what our hidden assumptions are.
- Tichy 16y agoBot sides accuse the other side of all sorts of things. Your statement is simply false. In fact, doesn't a denier automatically, by his mere existence, claim that "the others" are "zealots"?
- numeromancer 16y agoNo.
- ErrantX 16y ago> the term "climate change skeptic" ought not to exist, because following the evidence where it leads ought to be default position of everyone. True enough. However coming to a discussion with no opinion is next ot impossible for someone to do. It's reasonable to imagine someone who follows the evidence will have a pre-conception of what the answer is. What sets him/her apart is a willingness to be proven wrong (or even just a bit less right).
- phenwoods 16y agoYou are kidding, right? You've never heard someone use a term like "alarmist", "warmist" or "true believer" applied to those who accept the evidence for AGW?
- phenwoods 16y agoHere you go, http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=climate+change+zealot&meta= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=climate+change+ze...
- arethuza 16y agoThis comment is pretty interesting: "here are supporters on both sides of the climate debate ('warmists' and 'deniers') for whom the science is secondary. One feature of them both is that recognise no shade of gray." This kind of polarization happens a lot in the technology field (e.g. SQL vs NoSQL, Flash vs HTML 5) - usually not by the leaders in these areas but often by people who feel they have the need to strongly align themselves with one particular perspective.
- guelo 16y agoAt least most of the debaters in those tech arguments have written a line of SQL or a HTML page. The climate debate is filled with people who don't know the difference between weather and climate and have never even heard of terms like radiative forcing.
- ErrantX 16y agoScepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Winning quote right there.
- lutorm 16y agoTrue. That's exactly why claims that have many independent lines of evidence, like global warming, should be taken seriously.
- ErrantX 16y agoWell, although I don't want to get into any argument about it (I was meaning it as a "winning quote" in general - not just r.e. climate science) I think your wrong. Because considering GW as a single claim in entirety is incorrect - there is a lot of claims and elements that make it up. It is more a field than a claim.
- lutorm 16y agoI thought that was what I was saying -- that there are a lot of claims that, when taken as a whole, point to the conclusion that global warming is happening. But I admit that I'm biased -- I think that basic physical arguments will tell you that it must be happening. We can argue over to what exact degree, though.
- billswift 16y agoThis is just one paper in an entire issue of New Scientist about "Denial" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627605.900-special-report-living-in-denial.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627605.900-special-r... There was a post by Robin Hanson on Overcoming Bias about it, with a long string of comments http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/dumping-on-denial.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/dumping-on-denial.html
- goodside 16y ago"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything else). I'm trying to find a more charitable way to read this, but there really is none. Presumably, if he supported some tax policy, being shown a dozen nations that subsequently implement the policy and face unmitigated economic disaster would do nothing to shake his faith in it.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoOne's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistribution, the welfare state, etc (i.e., "tax is an immoral act of theft, regardless of economic benefits", or "the welfare state is a moral imperative, regardless of economic harms").
- goodside 16y agoThere's a difference between being able to conjure up a few examples of things you think are immoral in any situation, and the conviction that evidence cannot, in principle, have any impact on what policies one should enact.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- numeromancer 16y agoSummary: some people pretend to be thoughtfully considering, but really they're just mean old baddies. The list of mean-old-baddies is below. don't let them trick you! You'll go to hell! We are the goodies. We believe. Follow us and be saved. [See article for list of Satan's minions.]
- limist 16y agoThere was a common smugness to the tone of the article - borne of the comfort of parroting conventional/majority opinions - which your summary/comment makes explicit. Thanks.
- numeromancer 16y agoThis seems uncharacteristic of Shermer. He, of course, is not the only one. In fact, most debate, and AGW debate in particular, has this character: the proponent claims overwhelming evidence, but shows none. It's like playing poker with someone who wants to claim the winnings without showing you their hand. I would prefer to see more "How I was convinced..." type of stuff. I've seen more of that on the side of the skeptics/deniers, probably because they are the underdog, and so more likely to be forthcoming. It doesn't make them right, but it does coerce them into being better proponents.
- mynameishere 16y agoThere's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical. It's important, when doing this, to paint the person in the simplest "nutshell" terms. Those awful climate "denialists" for instance: In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter Well, #2 is certainly within the bounds of possibility. Evidence: The entire history of the earth. And, as for #3, you could actually make the argument that global warming would be a net positive. (Contrast warming with a new ice age.) Not say that it's true, but it's a possibility, and shouldn't result in intellectual exile. He, of course, misses #4: (4) Global warming is real; but it is #1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital, and otherwise generate billions/trillions for the well-connected and #2 is hopeless because China and India aren't getting suckered into it, ever. That is something they don't want to address, because, as far as I've seen, it is the correct assessment. "Follow the money" almost always is. And if you keep following the money, you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs.
- Agent101 16y agoIs there a market for long time scale shorts on EFTs? I know long term oil futures go for 7-8 years generally. I wouldn't place bets except on the time scale of 20-40 years and even then I'm not sure it is worth it in terms of likely pay off and time taken to research.
- weego 16y agoThere's also the possibility that it is a social engineering effort to get people to switch away from fossil fuels in a positive way ("I've switched to hydrogen cells to save the planet!" rather than "Goddamn fuel prices are so high I can't even drive to work anymore! And what the hell are the politicians doing about it?") in a timescale that allows a transition without impending widescale economic meltdown. "Things have to change within 100 years" is not something that will get shareholders signing checks for R&D and wholesale changes to business practices unless there is considerable pressure from the overall consumer population. That does assume that benevolence has a higher priority in the world than profit of course. I'm not sure.
- rubidium 16y agoWhat's with the photo and caption beside this article? [Photo of refinery/ childhood cloud machine :) Caption:"Would you object to this sight even if there was no evidence it was causing harm?"] The newscientist.com editors injecting some of their own belief into an otherwise reasonable article?
- aidenn0 16y agoI think he forgets one specific form of denial: demands for impossible evidence. Example: Creationists demand for a complete fossil record Since things get destroyed, a complete fossil record is not going to happen. If evolution is true: we don't expect a complete fossil record, therefore lack of a complete fossil record is not evidence against evolution.
- ErrantX 16y agoYou know, my position is that I'm unconvinced that climate change is being affected by Humans quite as much (it seems rational we affect it a bit) as some people say. (straight up; I'm not here to argue that out. This isn't the right forum, it's just setting the story). I usually get branded a climate denier (and sometimes a loon :)) even in relatively high brow discussion. Which is amusing because you get real idiot deniers sucking up to you and sensible people you want to have a discussion with ignoring you. This raises two points. Firstly a poor assumption has been made; because every time I start trying to compare which papers I have read with others in the discussion they either a) point me to a magazine/paper article or b) don't know what I am waffling about. It's annoying because you quickly realise that the most well read [non climatologist] on the subject are almost exclusively in the "bit of both camps" category - and, sadly, we are all still branded deniers. The second point is it worries me that this is a Scientific field that is based on the idea that not-believing in man made GW is akin to being heathen sin and crazy talk. I hate that, it seems so irrational given the fact we are still developing the theory!
- lutorm 16y agoI applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting. However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists) because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its basic existence. Even if you have an good explanation of why the majority of scientists got everything totally wrong, any community has more inertia than being swayed by lone dissenting voices unless they are very well known and respected, because you will basically be telling them all that they fucked up.
- ErrantX 16y agoHonestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there really is not much more we can honestly say than that. It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elephant". Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react? Currently I have quiet confidence we will start to ask that within the next decade.
- william-newman 16y agoI have no particular sympathy with any anti-vaccine activism that I know of. But I wonder how, other than by not being an important faction in the appropriate big political tent, "anti-vaccine denial" ended up on this article's excrement list along with Holocaust deniers, while "nuclear power denial" and "genetic engineering denial" didn't. My impression is that political opposition to nuclear power plants, to nuclear waste facilities, and to GM crops have had at least as much economic impact as political opposition to vaccines. Thus, it seems to me that they shouldn't be left off this list because they're unimportant. Perhaps the columnist thinks that the anti-nuke and anti-GM-crops political movements should be spared because they have achieved their political impact primarily by honestly making valid technical points? Granting for the sake of argument that that is a tenable position, then why ignore them? Wouldn't the anti-nuke and anti-GM movements make useful examples to clarify his position by comparing and contrasting? Wouldn't describing what is healthy and good about the thinking of the anti-GM and anti-nuke coalitions help us understand better what is so characteristically diseased and vile about anti-vaccine folk to justify grouping them with Holocaust deniers? (I extended this comment, writing on an analogy to criticism of left-wingers as "politically correct," at http://naturalspiritofgoodcompany.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-hacker-news-on-new-scientist-on.html http://naturalspiritofgoodcompany.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-ha... .)