Is there a limit to healthy skepticism, and how is it different from denial?

Question

I admit I may just be gullible, let me put that on the table right now. I first started hearing about global warming as a teenager in the early 1980's, it was called the Greenhouse Effect back then, and I just figured it must be true because scientists were saying so. (Actually scientists have been concerned about rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since the 1950's.) But many of you have more healthy skepticism than I do. My question to you is, are you looking for evidence? I do see that many skeptics quote facts and figures, and it would take an expert to sort through the competing claims. So let's just look at evidence that anyone can confirm and which I would consider irrefutable: measurements of high average temperatures and observable changes in polar ice caps. This stuff makes the news. So my question is, if scientists say it will happen, and then it starts happening, doesn't that give the theory credibility?

Answer 1

It's the ambiguity of the science I have a problem with.Both sides present creditable arguments,which I would just as soon avoid.Can we deny CO2 increases ?...no we can't.Has it happen before?...yes it has.Is CO2 a pollutant?...no it's not.Is CO2 a driver or a consequence?...same with water.The chicken or the the egg philosophy.

My overall consensus is to protect the world we live in.There are many land based pollutants that do more harm to our environment then Co2.In a nut shell CO2 would be about third or fourth on the list.(1.) nitrates(2.)clearcutting/run off /land management/buffer zones(3.)infrastructure improvements.

Answer 2

Yes it does and it is happening.  The polar ice cap has shrunk about 60 percent since the 1960's, I saw the photos to prove it.  Get ready people, we are all going to be like those dinosaurs soon enough!

Answer 3

You asked several questions.  I'll give several answers.  :-)

Yes, I am looking carefully, continuously, and agenda-free (other than to know the truth) for credible evidence, no matter whether it points to human-induced change or purely natural change (and I'm already aware there has been natural climate change for millenia).  Because of the heavy repetition of scientific warning -- old and new -- that I've found so far, I'm not currently a skeptic at all.  I believe that humans are inadvertently and substantially accelerating the climate changes which Earth has experienced only by natural means throughout most of its history.  

I don't know if there's a limit to *healthy* skepticism.  It is, after all, one of the essential elements of science and critical thought.  But it is clear to me that many people here at Y!A have gone way past healthy skepticism and into closed-mindedness.  

Healthy skepticism is different from denial in this way: With healthy skepticism, one investigates claims and hypotheses with great caution, avoiding bias from emotion, agendas, wishful thinking, preconceived notions and ulterior motives at all cost... being very careful to consider the source, and not to jump to conclusions.  But a person with healthy skepticism *can* still be swayed by *credible* and repetitive evidence.  Whereas...

A person in denial cannot or will not *see* the evidence (at least not that which differs from his/her beliefs or wishes) and is therefore unable to make a rational decision or do any sincere and productive investigation or experimentation.

As you seem to be aware, the latter is frighteningly easy to find on this site (and elsewhere) on the subject of global climate change.  

I suspect many factors are in play to generate such common doubt -- understandable revulsion and annoyance with crazies or uneducated extremists who say it's *all* our fault and predict the imminent end of the world (resulting in thinking *whatever* they believe is wrong)...disbelief in the ability of little ol' humans to profoundly change the planet's natural systems... abject mistrust (which I can appreciate) of politicians who speak on this cause, especially liberals, in this case (so those with disdain for liberals are less likely to accept anything they say).  Self-disclosure: I am a moderate. ... lack of understanding how human-induced change is even possible, due to ignorance of the process... lack of trust and respect for science (believing that it can be bought out or politicized, or that it's all guesswork)... being swayed by carefully-crafted misinformation from disreputable sources... fear by doubters that acknowledging a problem means the next step will be a costly increase in taxes or some other financial hardship... and probably other factors I've failed to think of.

For doubters to change their minds (and only some ever will), they must know that...

-science is extremely rigorous and demanding of evidence; not mere guesswork.  Climate scientists are in fact the only *hope* for truth, as they are the ones who uncover and collect the data, and the only ones who can be trusted to interpret it...

-sometimes even the left-wing extremists are right (no pun intended, and no matter how often they may be wrong on other things).  Further, though it may be an unpopular thought, not all politicians are lying at all times about all things.  To be reasonable, you have to trust a *little* bit....

-scientists (as you pointed out) have been concerned about this decades before Al Gore or any of today's TV news talking heads jumped into the fray giving their essentially-worthless opinions (showing it has nothing to do with these people or any "conspiracy")

-humans *can* and *have* made profound changes to the planet, not just in the landscape but in the oceans and atmosphere.  Consider that the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole -- widely accepted by science to be almost entirely due to human use of chlorofluorocarbons -- was also highly doubted in the 70s and 80s, until NASA showed us all a picture of it, supporting the data scientists had been giving...

-the process of global warming, while it's only part of the whole climate change picture, is basically caused by the greenhouse effect (which is due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).  Some of it is fine, natural, and even essential to our existence!  But as CO2 increases, so does the greenhouse effect, and the warming.  Solid evidence shows CO2 levels have been increasing due to widespread and inefficient use of fossil fuels, and widespread destruction of forests and other vegetation.  (This is a woefully simplified explanation.)...

-those who say it's *all* human-induced are quite simply wrong, and not helping the cause.  (They're raising red flags in reasonable doubters' minds.)  Likewise, I don't see that we're at the stage of knowing just how bad things could get, so it may be premature to suggest horrendous results.  But those who say it's all *natural* are wrong, as well, based on the scientific consensus. Naysayers can argue that point, but you'll find they rarely provide credible evidence.  The science is just not on their side.  And though I suspect life and the planet will go on, even if climate change is as bad as some fear, it *could* become a much less hospitable place for our children or theirs, and for Earth's other life forms.

-some so-called scientists (and probably some real ones) can and have been bought by political and corporate influences.  Be careful to know who is funding the study a given scientist reports on -- ExxonMobil, for example, is *not* a disinterested party.  It is their product, after all, which has been implicated!  To their credit, other oil companies have acknowledged this.  Science cannot, in the end, be influenced by anything but empirical evidence.  You cannot "buy out" the entire peer-reviewed scientific community.  Whistle-blowers will point out a rat.

-individual scientists can and have been censored in various ways, on *both* sides.  But no socio-political force can squelch the entire science community which, based on my careful and continuing research, says that humans are accelerating the heretofore purely-natural process of global warming.

-the cost to fix the problem is another issue, but may not be as bad as some people fear.  There is a *lot* we can do in our own homes -- as has been repeated many times from many sources.  I'll decline getting into the details again here.

When these points are more widely accepted and understood, I suspect there will be a consensus not only in science, but in more of the general public.

Here's to continued healthy skepticism, and (through cautious research by individual doubters) the elimination of denial.

Answer 4

The scientific argument is 100% credible. The argument over whether we should believe scientists is just pathetic. I mean, they are the only people who actually know what they are talking about, yet they are ignored as long as possible until politicians and ordinary people HAVE to do something about it. Who elses argument could be more credible? A politicians? An oil company executives?

This is what we are seeing now. The is now a GLOBAL consensus that mankind is causing global warming because we've reached a point where we have to do something, or else. We have hard evidence which can not be explained any other way (e.g. permafrost melting).

The scientific argument was credible before we have irrefutable evidence - a wide-spread scientific argument normally is. We have just been hoping that it's not true, ever since the 70's when the idea first became popular. Some people (there are loads of them on Y! Answers) are still hoping it isn't true, even now we have this evidence.

Ignorance is bliss. It is also the biggest hurdle when it comes to the huge challenge we have ahead.

Answer 5

Very good question.  But you're on the wrong track--though its not you're fault--and it's fairly easy to fix (if you don't mind doing a little learning!).

First--what is "healthy skepticism?"  Here's how  taht works: Someone tells you something. You can just take their word for it (gullibility) or you can check what they are saying.  BUT-and here's where you went of track--and is te point the "deniers"  count on) you hae to know HOW to check the facts.

When that applies to science, it requires three things:

>a knowledge of basic logic

>a basic understanding of the scientific method

> making enough effort to learn what are and are not  reliable scientific sorces.

Here's why these are the tools the "healthy  skeptic" needs --and uses (and not  just about science).

>logic.  Many (in fact,all, at this point in time) of the "denier" arguements are based on logical fallicies.  Here's one, jsut to illustrate:  "Global warming is just a hoax. I know this because its proponents like Al Gore are hypocrites--he wastes power, flies a private jet, etc."

Now, lets assume Al Gore is a jerk (I on't, but that's not the point).  WHAT does that have to do with the validity of the scientific facts (or lack tereof)?  Ansswer: nothing.  This ia logical fallacy known as the "ad hominum" arguement J(attacking a speaker's motives or character, rather than addressing the actual issues or facts).  

Learning how to spot those logical fallacies is a VERY  useful skill, BTW, in almost any part of your life.  here, at the very least, it wil help you sort out real skeptics from deniers.

>the scientific method.  Not going to try to explain it here (not writing a textbook today!). But think about it: how can anybody expect to make head or tail of an issue if they don't understand the basic methods and assumptions? And--no offense, but a number of your comments show your understanding of what scientific method entails is pretty hazy.   An easy way to   educate/refresh  yourself on this is to  get a (short) intro text on "philosophy of science" and read it

>learning what soruces are valid.  This does not happen all at once.  I'm a grad student--to me this  almost second nature by now!.  But here's a good way to start:

First, DON'T rely on any  Intrernet ".com" sites, on poppular magazines, or even on people like Al Gore.  They may be absolutely reliable and honest--and many are.. And many are not.  You can come back to them later once you know enough to tell fact from propaganda.  Example: don't use wikipedia for now--it's texts aren't secure and thus not reliable. Now, I do use it occasionally--but I know how to do so without getting burned.  And I did NOT use it for quite a while until I was sure I knew how it worked so I would not get burned.

Here's where to look for starting off:

>on the Internet: ".edu" sites (these will be university based) or government (.gov) sites --IF they are science sites like NASA, the CDC, etc.

>library:

books--look for ones published by a university press.  

  articles: rely only on articles from scientific journals. If you are not familier with these, ask a referance librarian--tey can show  you  what to look for  and help you to pick ones that have articles that aren't so technical it takes an expert to understand.

You don't have to stick to these types of sources forever--but on any topic (not just global warming) that's how to start learning enough to have an informed opinion.  Then you can spot other  (and usually easier to read) soruces and know they are reliable.

Now--to finish up this overlong post: a "skeptic" who does these things is exercising healthy skepticism.  Otherwise, not.   I know, that's a good bit of effort.  But real thinking takes a lot of work.  The good news is that developing these skills applies to EVERYTHING in our life.--so much so tha **** worth months of work to really do it right.  But even jst getting the basics  will help no end--and that isn't all that hard.

So--are the  "global warming doubters"  healthy skeptics or just deniers.  Answer--don't ask me. GO FIND OUT. I just told you how--and that's what health skepticism is all about: finding out for yourself!  :)

Answer 6

Healthy skepticism would be applied to both sides of the topic.  For example, if you didn't accept last year that thousands of weather station thermometers showed global warming over the past 100+ years, why would you believe 18 ice core pollen counts as accurate to .07 degree to show that the Medeival Warm Period was warmer?  You wouldn't.  If the two sets of data were switched, would 18 ice core pollen counts show us that warming was occurring, and was global?  Of course not, yet the "skeptics" instantly accept the report without question because it's convenient to their position.  Therefore they clearly aren't truly skeptical at all.  That's just a favorable label that they grant to themselves.

So we have a lot of people who can see a link to research that is summarized like this:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/...

"blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation. "

Then in their next response say that "it's that big fiery ball in the sky".

But pointless exchanges aside, you make a good point: "then it starts happening, doesn't that give the theory credibility?"

A willfully denying person can ignore any amount of evidence.  They're proud to ignore it.  Each new piece of evidence they ignore proves their intelligence and strength (to themselves), making them more entrenched to ignore the next bit.

I just noticed that Lake Mead may be dry by 2014... 6 years... a huge problem for us here in the Southwest.  I assumed that we had decades.  This could all be coming much faster than we expect.  Try drinking the phrase "it's just natural cycles"!

I tired to sort through the competing claims, and I found that it's really not that hard.  Just look at the credibility and funding of the sources.  The dynamics of the discussion become clear in a hurry.

---

Lake Mead Could Dry Up by 2021

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

The study’s findings indicated that there is a 10 percent chance that Lake Mead could be dry by 2014 and a 50 percent chance that reservoir levels will drop too low to allow hydroelectric power generation by 2017. There is a 50 percent chance the lake will go dry by 2021, the study says.

"We were stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it was coming at us," said study coauthor Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California at San Diego. "Make no mistake, this water problem is not a scientific abstraction, but rather one that will impact each and every one of us that live in the Southwest."