Climate change sceptics and Skeptics

How do I feel when “climate skeptics” dominate the search results for “skeptic”? Well, I hate that. Climate change “skeptics” aren’t skeptical in the scientific sense. They are scientific denialists because they deny the evidence and they deny the process of science, focusing on their ideology. It’s not the evidence that is keeping them from accepting the consensus about global warming, it is their strongly held belief.

I found this article in Science Daily today. The researchers use the everyday version of the word “sceptic” to mean doubt  (for whatever reason). [Sticking with their English version of sceptic with a ‘c’]

Climate Sceptics More Prominent in UK and US Media

Climate sceptics are being given a more prominent, and sometimes uncontested, voice in UK and US newspapers in contrast to other countries around the world, new research suggests.

In the US, 34 per cent of all climate change stories appearing in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal during this time had a sceptical voice. Of the 511 climate change articles appearing in the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph during this time, 19 per cent contained a sceptical voice.

This was surprising considering the strong association of climate scepticism with the political right, especially in the US, and previous studies showing that right-wing newspapers were more inclined to question climate science.

The researchers also chose to look at the type of climate sceptics that were being quoted in these stories. The types of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming at all appear almost exclusively in the UK and US newspapers. These two countries also give a very strong presence to the type of sceptic who challenges the need for robust action against climate change.

In this case, it’s not scientific skepticism, it’s not doubt for the best reason. And, it’s not the kind of skepticism practiced by the critical thinking community.

This past weekend, I gave a talk at the PA Atheist/Humanist convention about skepticism.

While not all Skeptics [capital ‘S’ with a ‘k’] are atheists, most lean that way. Far more atheists lack understanding of the application of scientific skepticism. So, I thought it was important to talk about effective Skepticism. The talk was well-received. Some people commented that they didn’t ever think about the real difference between skeptic and atheist before (one applies a method, one has reached a conclusion). I’m going to share part of my talk here:

Being a Skeptic is ALL about a method of evaluating claims. Practicing Skepticism. It’s not really about a conclusion at all. In fact, you can probably legitimately call us wishy-washy about stuff and I’m prone to say “I don’t know”. It’s not a weakness to be indecisive when you don’t have sufficient information to fairly decide.

You really can boil scientific skepticism down to a core. It’s all about the way you evaluate claims. It’s a scientific approach, a respect for scientific consensus, a strict adherence to natural laws… Practicing scientific skepticism will get you to the most reliable answer to your questions.

The word ‘skeptic’ is WAY overused and misused. You know, it has that common connotation of being “on the fence or withholding judgement” which is fine but people say that too often. And paranormal people like to say they were “once a skeptic”. Or Skeptic (capital S) is used to mean closed-minded cynic. I get thrown back at me OFTEN when people don’t like what I questioned. Well, these are connotations that are misappropriated.

Organized skepticism is part of the professional scientific community, always has been (though science as a profession is not that old), and it requires critical review of ideas.

Skepticism is not a rejection of ideas. It’s a critical review. If the idea fails critical review, it’s not accepted. I’d posit that climate change “sceptics” are only assessing the science as far as it will support their position. But the science overwhelmingly shows us climate change, from several different angles.

I’d really love for the non-scientific “sceptic” (meaning denialist) idea to crap out. But it is what it is. We have to do what we can to counteract that.

See last question here: Helping the Truth Get its Shoes On.

About idoubtit

Fluent in science, animals, paranormal culture. Expert in weird news.

0 thoughts on “Climate change sceptics and Skeptics

  1. Is a little ideology rearing its ugly head? Don’t want to be confused with those silly politically-motivated skeptics, huh? How dare they call themselves “skeptics?” That’s OUR word!
    In all seriousness though, I think the situation gives those who identify as “Skeptics” a little push to specify that they are proponents of scientific skepticism. Just like your informative talk, there’s an opportunity to set more than the general public straight about what skepticism actually is. Apparently, some atheists in your audience assumed they were naturally skeptics, while they barely had a clue what skepticism actually is. Like the climate change skeptics, you can’t just isolate the process to one topic and voila your practicing skepticism.

  2. To those climate change denialist who keep trying to post, I’m not interested in a debate about it. Go state your case on your own blogs. I won’t allow mine to be polluted with propaganda from your few items that you want to overthrow evidence from multiple angles that support the current scientific consensus.

    That was NOT the topic of this post, by the way.

  3. spam Put flowers on the tables when taking pictures. He further argues that Hell is lacking and arguably weak due to its brevity, his responses to the bass fisherman on the fact that it’s not taught in the human soul” p.7. Crockett’s arguments are compelling though it remains to be hit and miss on whether which view is true.

  4. how would you classify someone like me – who reads for hours every week about the science yet remains unconvinced of a looming catastrophe? how can you just toss me to the bin of ‘propaganda’? do you not want to know the truth? i sure do.

    1. Unconvinced about climate change? Well, it’s an extremely complex topic, I could also read about for years and not understand it completely. It’s a safer bet to trust in a expert community who have no bias against the truth vs business interests who certainly do. The scientific community is self-correcting and full of those who would like nothing better than to find something wrong with a research study. If there is a problem, it will be sussed out eventually. But the evidence accumulates, from SEVERAL fields, strenghtening the conclusion every day, not weakening it.

      1. no, unconvinced of catastrophic man made climate change – big difference. a community who’s funding relies on results cannot be unbiased, no?
        when i dig deeper into the evidence, it seems to evaporate into correlation. is there a single piece of evidence that is most convincing in your mind?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *