Which side requires more critical thinking skills, the AGW advocates or skeptics and why?

Question

pegminer: What if those "facts" keep changing?

Answer 1

Sketicism requires more intellectual rigor - you have to keep asking questions and keep refusing to accept the "emperor's new clothes" responses like "you hate science" or "the consensus has spoken" or "you're a bushbot paid by big oil" etc....    You have to keep reading up on it, keep noting the changes in the story, keep noting the revision of the climate history, keep digging - - - - in the end it still comes down to CO2 traps heat, we've increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and there's a very, very rough correlation between that and the two 30-40 year warming periods we experienced during the 20th century.

And please, I'm in long sleeves on July 6th, it's been cooler than average all year, so please don't tell me it's still warming.

Answer 2

Skeptics of course.  We don't travel in flocks and are difficult to herd.

We don't have much media or money backing us, or even an official spokesman.  It's a lonely life at times, lol...but somebody has to do it.

Answer 3

Faith does not require intelligence and intelligence does not preclude it.  AGW is based on trust that the alleged experts really do know something that the rest of us don't but due to it's complexity are unable to share it with us.  

Pegminer - you sound just like an angry undergraduate political activist.  

It might take a while, but I think you'll mature eventually.  You might have a different interpretation of things when AGW is forgotten and the next generation of undergraduate activists are angry about something completely different.

Answer 4

The skeptics must have highly refined critical thinking skills indeed to arrive at conclusions that escape the > 99% of the finest scientific minds.  Well, thats their perception.  The reality was stated quite well by Bob.

Answer 5

Excellent question.  Starred.

However, the answer is very clear.  Advocates, and here's why.

The issue with global warming is that you can't see or feel it.  You have to analyze the scientific data, and figure out that it PROVES man made greenhouse gases are the major (not the only, but the biggest) cause.  That's hard for some people, especially if their only training in science is below college level.

Skeptics do no analysis of the data.  They rely on "intuitive" arguments, or political bias.  They believe that, because climate changed naturally in the past, there is no possibility that the conditions have changed from those in the past, and that natural causes are not the reason now.  Gut feeling beliefs like that are easy.  

Analyzing data is hard.  But, this is science and what counts is the data, not people's intuition.

For those that do analyze the data, there is only one conceivable answer.  Conditions most definitely have changed, and global warming has been proven to be not a natural change.  I quote the Admiral often, because he says it best:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

EDIT - For example a skeptic here thinks global warming is wrong, because it's been a little cool for a few months where he lives.  The perfect example of someone who can't be troubled to look at the global data over many years, and try to understand what it means, preferring to go on his VERY limited personal experience.  This is CLASSIC skeptical thinking around here.

"And please, I'm in long sleeves on July 6th, it's been cooler than average all year, so please don't tell me it's still warming."

Everyone involved here is smart enough to understand this example, and how much it reflects many skeptics beliefs.  I rest my case.

EDIT2 - If a skeptic truly wants to understand the data, here's a good start.   This site has a great deal of it:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 6

Skepticism is a critical thinking skill for every one; denial of facts in evidence requires not thinking at all.

EDIT: Facts don't change just because you lie about them dumdum.

Answer 7

Bob said:

"The issue with global warming is that you can't see or feel it. You have to analyze the scientific data, and figure out that it PROVES man made greenhouse gases are the major (not the only, but the biggest) cause."

Theories cannot be proven.

Then Bob said:

"Skeptics do no analysis of the data. They rely on "intuitive" arguments, or political bias. They believe that, because climate changed naturally in the past, there is no possibility that the conditions have changed from those in the past, and that natural causes are not the reason now. Gut feeling beliefs like that are easy. "

A ridiculous generalization, and is barely even worth this response.

And finally Bob goes onto quote Admiral Truly...again. An opinion that is utterly worthless, but is continually posted by Bob. I thought he was going finally post an all original response, but then comes Truly.

Many "proponents" I come by continually spout things like "The consensus says this", "the science is settled", or

"go see An Inconvenient Truth". All of these require no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

I don't know the answer to your question. Inside the scientific realm, all scientists have to think critically, and both skeptics and proponents do. Though I guess you could say that it is easier to go with the crowd ("consensus").

Answer 8

I think with the advocates it's more or less a prepackaged deal. Most just re post but not all.

Skeptic's have a difficult time stepping over dogma. They've become susceptible to criticism even when right, or in agreement.

Answer 9

AGW skeptics have more critical thinking skills.  We do look at the data and frankly it's not impressive.  I glanced through Al's Inconvenient Truth and found a lot of emotional hand-wringing about the weather which didn't match what the weather was.  

Critical thinking is what is not being taught in schools, it's all memorization or "look and feel."  s*x ed is being taught earlier and earlier, stupid time wasters are being added to the curriculum, "The Current Needs of the g*y Man."  If the sun is so far away, how come we can still see it?  Are earthquakes caused by global warming?  Are thunderstorms caused by global warming?  

We were threatened with an ice age in the 1970's because supposedly the burning of fossil fuels was causing soot to build up and that was reflecting sunlight back.  Didn't happen.  But the scare was based on several years of deep snows.  Same as the yearly heat waves, all suddenly caused by man.  The last few scares didn't work because I for one, questioned its validity.  I was right.  My question was, did CO2 in 30 years change its properties?  Answer, no.  

And when the questions are asked they're as bad as the answers:  "u ppl don't no wat da wether dose.  liek wen it rains, lolz!"    

Hard to believe people have never seen a thunderstorm before.

Answer 10

A person who is willing to challenge the daily bombardment of global warming propaganda, definitely has the critical thinking skills on their side.

To takes 0% brain power to parrot back sound bites and have done no research for yourself to investigate if the claims are true.

Answer 11

Neither necessarily requires any critical thinking skills.

You can either accept the scientific consensus or what you hear on right-wing talk radio without any critical thought.  Thus you can be either an advocate or 'skeptic' without any critical thinking skills whatsoever.

You can be a 'skeptic' by only examining some of the data and ignoring the rest.  Or you can be an advocate by examining all of the data.  Thus overall, I'd say being an advocate requires more critical thinking skills.

Answer 12

YOU and only YOU should do your own evaluation, it is your responsibility to gather information, research, evaluate, etc... and make your own decision.

As a rule of thumb, I usually stay away from those who try to push me into believe what they believe....