Hard to believe that another month has passed by. But it must have as another Bedford Skeptics In The Pub event has just taken place. Close to 40 people were in The White Horse to hear Dr Andy Russell talk about Climate Change and, more specifically, how 'bad science' and 'bad skepticism' form the basis for climate change denial.There are plenty of websites and blogs on the web concerned with man-made climate change (aka Anthropogenic Global warming - AGW.) From those that believe climate change is a reality we have to face, such as Skepticalscience.com to others who think quite the opposite such as Watt's Up With That.
This blog entry isn't going to run through all the various arguments. So please feel free to dive on in and have a look at what they have to offer and make your own mind up as to their relative merits.
Instead we'll outline Andy's thinking that the term 'Skeptic' is being used by many who, in fact, are not 'Skeptics' but simply 'Deniers'.
Andy sees himself as a 'Scientific Skeptic' in that he will attempt to investigate claims, weighing up the relative validity of evidence on both sides of the argument, before forming a judgement on an issue. Whilst some who claim to be equally 'skeptical' in their thinking do not do this. In fact, it would seem that any evidence , however strong, that is put before them which challenges their position will not cause them to re-examine their belief, let alone actually change their stance. Surely, the correct position for a true 'Skeptic' to take would be to change/abandon their position when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary? If not, then are they simply 'Deniers' and their belief is more akin to a faith that the scientific-rational thought process they claim to adhere to?Andy cited various counter arguments to the beliefs of such 'Deniers'. You can find a handy list of some of them at www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
More disturbingly, Andy went on to talk about how labelling yourself a 'Climate Change Skeptic' or indeed a 'Skeptic' in general can actually be used as a handy disguise by those who have an agenda to discredit those practicing good science and skepticism. He cited the book 'Merchants Of Doubt' which examines how well respected scientists, funded by powerful lobby groups, purposely set about misleading the public and erroneously calling well evidenced and proven scientific knowledge on subjects such as smoking, acid rain and global warming into doubt.Andy pointed to the work of Leo Hikman who is uncovering the financial interests that some of the UK's most prominent climate change deniers have in the oil industry.
All this must make it sound like this talk was pretty serious, grim and a bit depressing. But quite the opposite. Andy was a lively, funny and informative speaker. This was especially admirable considering he was suffering serious jet-lag. I know the train journey from London to Bedford can be torturous at times. But I'd never seen it provoke jet-lag before! 
So, what can we take from this event? Perhaps this, when someone claims to be a 'Skeptic' - delve a little deeper. What would it take for them to change their position on an issue? Examine your own stances. Are your 'beliefs' arrived at by good science and skepticism? A reminder: You can add your thoughts, comments on this issue or Bedford Skeptics in general by going to the bottom of this blog post and clicking on the 'Comment' link. This will open up a window in which you can add your thoughts.
Next month: On Thursday 18th April we welcome a speaker from The English Collective Of Prostitutes who will be talking about the legalisation of prostitution and what form any such legalisation should take. More details from the Bedford Skeptics In The Pub website.
I did enjoy the presentation of Dr Andy Russell. The problem was that we, as sceptics, were not living up to the name. Quite the contrary. It seemed more like a Young Earth Creationists meeting ridiculing Science. A simple example was a graph purporting to show how CO2 and other gases were stopping heat leaving the atmosphere. What is wrong with that? The graph only has two points ( 1970 and 1997) . If a full blown climate sceptic had presentation at two point graph to defend their view they would have been rightly savaged. But no one spotted that weakness
ReplyDeleteThe section ridiculing a number of prominent individuals is rather shabby. Ernst Mach publically berated Boltzmann saying that he ( “Mach” ) did not believe in atoms. However, Boltzmann was emphatically right, despite being in a controversial minority. I do have a degree in Mathematical Physics and I know that the case for man made global warming is definitely not as strong as suggested by the presentation. The case for temperature rise is struggling. The conservative models suggest 2C per century. They already in error by 0.3 as there has not be rise since 1997 ( source Met office HadleyCRUT3 ). CO2 is known to be effectively saturated ( source Met Office ), then no significant rise should occur in the next decades. That topic is included in Andy's site t www.skepticalscience.com. But that section itself is weak, both in evidence and logic.
I don't subscribe to collusion or subterfuge for the enthusiasm for global warming to be true. Digging and drilling for coal, oil and gas is wasteful. My view is the we need to forget about renewables, and build nuclear powerstations, until the fusion power is ready, and that programme should be accelerated. Whenever a case for any major change is being made, then two reasons are better than one. Greens – fossil fuels are wasteful AND GW. Western governments depend upon unstable countries and regions AND GW. So they present a united front, making the right changes, but GW is weak. Therefore it is a marriage of convenience, under the veil of GW.
If GW does not reappear soon, and I don't think it will, then the entire credibility of Science is undermined. If the graph does not start rising soon, say by 2020, the Science will become devalued and lose a place of eminence. It is under attack from the rise of religious fundamentalism, and alternative thought systems such as new age medicines, homeopathy etc. There are too many complexities to discuss details. There are plenty of sites to satisfy everyone.
I hope that there will be some more robust scepticism at future meetings
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI thought I should respond to a couple of the points you make.
Firstly, it's quite remarkable that the graph with 2 points even has those 2 points! Satellites are very expensive to put into orbit and the fact that 2 satellites (one from 1970 and one from 1997) had similar instruments on was very useful and relatively unlikely.
I thought I was being quite sceptical in the talk by highlighting many of the problems with the data used by climate scientists. This includes the graph with 2 points (see Harries et al 2001 for more info on that graph). However, the analysis of how radiation escape has changed between 1970 and 1997 is an interesting point as it's what we'd like to know for every year (i.e. it would be much better than surface air temperature). Sorry you didn't think that!
Secondly, global warming/climate change hasn't disappeared (I mentioned why 1998 was so warm in the surface air temperature record in the talk) and model projections aren't wrong. Granted, the observed temperature is on the low side of projections - have a look at this great plot from the RealClimate blog - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're "wrong".
Finally, I was doing my best not to ridicule some of the prominent "sceptics" but instead try and look at some of the bad arguments that are made over and over again. Apologies again if it didn't come across that way!
Thanks
Andy Russell
Models don't make predictions they make projections. The IPCC glossary is quite clear: " Projection (generic)
ReplyDeleteA projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. See also Climate projection; Climate prediction."
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm