Is there a "skeptical" argument that does not require most scientists to be stupid or dishonest?

Question

Most all of the "skeptical" arguments I've seen here absolutely require most scientists to be stupid or dishonest.

Examples include "this is a hoax", "it's the Sun". "this is a natural cycle", "the data is no good", "they're lying to get grant money". In each case in order to believe them, you must believe that most scientists are stupid, and don't understand the data; or are engaged in some gigantic conspiracy to deceive the public.

To me these arguments are not credible. The idea that the National Academy of Science scientists are stupid or dishonest is silly. For just one thing, the vast majority of them get NO GRANT MONEY for global warming.

This is basically the same argument the Creationists use to deny science. "God created (fossils, the Grand Canyon, whatever scientific evidence) to test our faith". If you believe the majority of scientists are stupid or dishonest, you can deny any scientific fact.

Answer 1

Even NASA says half the warming is from the Sun, Bob.  Are you saying NASA isn't credible?

For myself Bob, I wouldn't care what the scientist say about so-called "global warming".  I'm scared of the politicians who use this incomplete science to justify raising my taxes.

I know if my taxes are raised two things will happen.  The money raised will be spent on feel good programs that cause more harm to the environment, like the corn based ethanol fiasco, or like the added tobacco tax, the money will be spent elsewhere and not for the reason we were told the taxes were for.

We don't know if the climate will be warmer or colder 5 years from now.  So how do you find a solution to a problem that can't be determined?

Answer 2

what was the question again ! toooooooooooooooo longggggggggggggg

Answer 3

Yes Bob, the argument that it's not the Scientists that are exaggerating or lying to us, but it is the Media, Politicians, Business men and Bureaucratic agencies, that they work for, are exaggerating the situation. It is what happens to the theory after it leaves their hands and is piped to us through the media. I think most skeptics are turned off by the end of the world scenarios crammed at us.  It's the politicians that use it to get votes that turn us off.  It's the business men making half an effort just so they can sell their product that drive us away. Personally I think Newt Gingrich is an excellent example.  I always did think he was a party-line boy/Republican stooge. If he is agreeing with the AGW theories there has to be a buck/vote to be made on the issue. If that is a conspiracy theory then it is no worse than the one that claims big oil is funding and persuading the skeptic scientists.

Answer 4

Somewhat "sadly" and certainly unusually I agree with the questioner! (wholeheartedly), it's very surprising to find such a close "soul mate"!

Given time (which I don't have tonight unfortunately) I will try to support his/her proposition to the hilt. In the meantime many thanks for the organised way in which you have posed the question.

Answer 5

Once upon a time there was glaciers where I know make my home. There was no industry, there was no automobiles, there was not man made pollution. Yet, somehow it managed to warm up (seemingly by the raw power of the sun!) and there is no longer glaciers where I live.

Answer 6

I had a very long discussion about global warming with a skeptical friend of mine. He adores rush limbaugh. After about an hour of talking about global warming, we finally began getting into some of the scientific details. He said something like "couldn't it just be the sunspots or something? How does anyone know?" At that point it dawned on me that he was determined not to believe in AGW due to his obsession with right wing politics, and that he had never done even a cursory analysis of the science.

I suspect alot of people are like that. They don't understand what constitute good evidence and bad evidence. They find that if there is any counterpoint to an argument at all, then that instantly makes the skeptical stance equally as credible as the mainstream opinion. We live in a scientifically uninformed society. Our science test scores are some of the lowest in the western world. Almost half of the U.S. population believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Is it any wonder people come on here and blabber this garbage every day? They aren't even aware when they've lost a debate hands down. It's like the god of the gaps. As long as there are any gaps at all in our knowledge, they'll find a way to deny.

Answer 7

A couple of points:

Firstly your statement:  

"If you believe the majority of scientists are stupid or dishonest, you can deny any scientific fact."  

You can say the same thing when skeptical scientists come up with arguments to appose the AGW theory.  And when they can not come up with any argument they attack them personally and question their motives.  

Secondly, If all of these scientific organizations waited for the science to come in before coming to a conclusion, I would of had more respect for their opinion.  They never did that.

Lastly, honest scientists do not want to "get rid of" the MWP as Demming testified before the senate.

Answer 8

OK, this question really sums up why a lot of people believe in AGW.  You have an authority that you regard as having an infalibility.  How then do you reconcile that there are a lot of intelligent people who just don't accept it.

You don't have to be stupid to believe in god - lots of intelligent people do (many of them experts in the field devoting their lives to researching the subject).  You don't have to be stupid to believe that there are four elements (again this was once universally accepted and human nature hasn't changed since then).

The other thing is that people lie.  People tell white lies for what they think is a good cause.  Many people regard it as a moral imperitive to lie.  Surely you've noticed that Al Ghore and James Hansen acnowledge that it's quite ok to exagerate to raise peoples awareness.  Haven't you noticed that doctors lie all the time to protect the rights of their patients.

(edit)  Bob you are starting to sound like Jonny Cochrin "If you don't believe that these people are dishonest OR stupid then you HAVE to believe they are right".  This is no logic in that statement.

Answer 9

Bob you incorrectly stated that Sea level will rise in the question about Antarctic ice sheet that melted recently this is incorrect science. I think you are on some kind of Government agenda.

If all the floating sea ice in the world melted, there would be no change in sea level at all, as the floating ice will have displaced its own weight of water.

Only land ice will cause the sea level to rise.

Answer 10

i found a little nest of blogs by genuine skeptics, doing their own modelling and slowly going through the different issues.

i was reading a good one that was exploring the effect of volcanoes, and saw an obvious 'denyer' post with the usual link to junkscience, which i replied to with the usual history lesson. the blogger replied very politely, thanking me but saying she welcomed all and would be visiting the junkscience site to check it out for herself.

that kind of attitude i can admire. (btw, her model was turning out very interesting, showing a significant effect from volcanoes pre-1960, with less correlation after that.)

Answer 11

When I was in High School the USA was 5th among developed countries in education.  Today it is 26th.  That is the real problem.  The first response to your post is from someone who doesn't know the difference between the concepts of "theory" versus "unproven" in science.  How sad.

People get their information from television and the internet.  I'm attaching a local news story that underscores several main ideas about the DENIER/skeptics.  It's about a professor at the University of Missouri.  The Nobel Prize Committee made a point of including a few of the skeptics in sharing the prize about Global Warming.  That was nice and politically savvy.  Obviously it's pretty hard to find many at the academic level who would expose themselves to the ridicule associated with this position, so I doubt there was a lot of competition.  But peace prize or not, he's an embarrassment to the University, and they don't know what to do about it.  This isn't the sort of character who would attract students seeking a career in science.  The author makes the point that skeptics shared in the authorship of the IPCC Report, contrary to what you read here.

He makes the point that the professor is a member of a rapidly dwindling "tribe", as we have seen in the past year the desertion of Pat Robertson, George Bush, Newt Gingrich and the Southern Baptists.

He makes the point that there weren't that many to begin with in 1998, when this fellow proclaimed there was no consensus about AGW and that it was unproven theory.  Since, he's waffled sideways with the rest of them, admitting the truth of Global Warming, but denying that there is a human component.

He's now starting to talk about the BENEFITS of Global Warming.

So Bob, Ken, Dana, I think the question you need to ask yourself is what is the appropriate way to address these stragglers?  I don't mind serving as a substitute for a library on occasion because I recognize that not everyone had the benefit of education.  At the same time, a person who just wants to zig when everybody else zags yet expects me (or you) to force feed them knowledge while they throw a tantrum is just trying to take advantage of my good nature (or yours).  As their small numbers continue to dwindle, it gets clearer all the time that any time spent dealing with their disability is an act of charity.  Since everything predicted by the Global Warming scientists in the 19th and 20th Centuries has come true, but decades or centuries ahead of schedule we really have no idea how much time we have.  Is this the best way for the people with the knowledge base and reasoning ability to perhaps affect a change to spend that remaining time?  Yesterday we saw posts about an event with the antarctic ice shelf occurring right now, though less than ten years ago scientists predicted it was at least 30 years away.  So I repeat, Is this the best way for the people with the knowledge base and reasoning ability to perhaps affect a change to spend that remaining time?

Answer 12

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you show a remarkable lack of understanding of the scientific method.  Just to remind you:  In science, it is not the skeptics who need to mount and argument, it those who propose an hypothesis.  These arguments are then evaluated to determine if provide sufficient support to advance the hypothesis to the status of theory.

The process you seem to be discribing is more like the political or legal process, neither of which have anything to do with science.

Answer 13

You know this is actually a really good question.  Looking through the 'skeptics' answers so far, none of them have come up with one, so I had to think about it myself for a minute.

The answer is yes, there are a few.  For example, Lindzen's theory that clouds will be the strongest future feedback, and so there's no reason to be concerned about global warming.  Because clouds and water vapor are the least understood forcings, this doesn't require that scientists be stupid or dishonest.  The galactic cosmic ray theory is another possible argument.  While it's very unlikely to be the correct explanation, the theory has not yet been completely disproven.

However, essentially all the 'skeptic' arguments here on YA do require that scientists are either stupid or dishonest, and many 'skeptics' come right out and say that (i.e. 'scientists are in it for the money').

The argument that climate scientists are "mistaken" is the same as calling them stupid.  They've studied climate science for decades, and the 'skeptics' think that with zero education and almost no research on the subject, they know something the climate scientists don't.  Sorry, but if that were true, climate scientists would have to be stupid.  That's like me knowing how to perform open heart surgery better than a practicing surgeon.

Answer 14

The far more likely situation is that the 'skeptics' are stupid or dishonest.  Some are simply deluded and so caught up in their own political ideology that they're unable to accept any evidence that doesn't agree with their dogma (i.e. all environmentalists are evil, all government is evil, everyone but them is stupid and/or evil).

I've spent enough time in my career to have an appropriate level of respect for research scientists.  They didn't get in their positions because they are stupid or dishonest.  The vast majority of them got in their positions because they are near the top of the charts in intelligence, they love their field of study, and their passion is the pursuit of truth.

But regardless of any individual scientists intellect or honesty, the scientific process as a whole is self-correcting (without the armchair amateurs we see all over the web) and it works.

Edit:

John - you have apparently done no serious reading on this subject.  Warming is definitely happening.  And climate science is definitely science.  The problem is that some people (on both sides) are mangling and obfuscating the sound science for their own political ends.  But that does NOT mean global warming isn't science.

Answer 15

How about "apophenia" - "the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data".

No one can adequately explain past ice age glaciation cycles.  Lots and lots of theories, but nothing that fits the data very well.

Since past glaciations cannot be explained, there is no reason to accept attempts to explain the current cycle.  

Especially when the current cycle includes mankind burning fossil fuels, and changes in land use.  Folks can't model past events, but suddenly can explain even more complicated current events with more variables?

That make any sense to you?

Scientific theories are just convenient ways to organize data, and they vary from spot on to, "well, this might be happening, but no one has enough data so we are just speculating since we have to publish something or not make tenure".

Science that makes weapons, and science in medical research tends to be high quality because the stakes are high.  As compared to folks that speculate why the dinosaurs died out, and study crop circles.

Where do you think climate research falls within this spectrum?

The US Air Force really wants to know what the weather is like in the next couple of days, so as to bomb the heck out of any enemies.  That is why all the weather satellites, supercomputers devoted to weather, doppler radar, etc.  Not to worry about what might happen 200 years from now.

So if you have any data that shows current temperatures are significantly different from past glaciation cycles, now is the time to come clean.

And I want the accuracy, precision, and variability of the data clearly delineated.  With error estimates.  And no distorted coordinate axes, or graphs that don't begin with zero.

If someone is going to raise taxes and lower my standard of living, I want evidence better than that used to wrongfully convict death row imates.