Why are skeptics so skeptical?

Question

Could it be that they have learned to not make critical decisions on limited evidence or information for good reasons. The content of this question came to me last year while reading a very skeptical historical research paper by a world famous history researcher and professor. While working through the heavy reading in this document trying to nail down his reasoning I took a break and looked at something slightly related that is a matter of great controversy world wide.

In what month of the year was Jesus Born?

This is the question and following is some working data that I worked from to reach a very different conclusion from any of the consensus dates.

Roman Catholics and derived protestant churches use the winter solstice December 25th.

Orthodox Catholics use a date in the middle of January.

Muslims and eastern Christian’s use varying dates in March or April.

But Jesus was a Jew from a very conservative faction that wanted to restore the teachings of the Judges before the first Temple. So he would by tradition have been born in the late days of the month prior to the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah.

So in what month of the Roman calendar was Jesus born That is the question?

The reasoning applied here is the same reasoning that keeps me from being able to accept the rather vague and inconclusive evidence presented in favor of AGW or ACC by the believers.

Answer 1

The reason most AGW skeptics are so skeptical is political, not scientific.

In the US, environmental issues are considered by many on the right to be a "Democratic" political point. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has made a career of railing against what he calls "environmental wackos." For a certain class of low-information voter, that's all they need to know: environmentalism = Democratic Party = wrong. No thought required. James Inhofe, US Senator from Oklahoma, falls squarely into this class. Inhofe isn't a scientist, but that doesn't prevent him from using his official Senate website (and his Commerce Committee Chairmanship, when he was in the majority) for campaigning against climate change issues and the urgent need to act. The strategy is simple: pretend that there is a scientific debate, even though there isn't. Then you can dither away doing nothing "until the evidence is in." Of course, the political goal IS to do nothing; so by manufacturing a nonexistant "debate," you win by default.  

None of the above has anything to do with science. It's all political. In fact, if you go over to Inhofe's website, you will find link after link after link that attempt to show you that there is a real debate out there. And in all that apparent evidence you will find NOT ONE LINK to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's all a political echo-chamber with nothing at the bottom.

But the simple scientific facts are inescapable. There is overwhelming evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is increasing, that CO2 is the primary culprit, and that this is driving climate change.

1. World surface temperatures are getting warmer, and this trend has accelerated since the mid 1970's. See the data from NASA / GISS (Ref 1.)

2. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's increased greenhouse effect causing the warmth, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Data is found in Ref. 3.

3. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, nighttime temps have risen about twice as fast as daytime temps during the last 100 years. (Data in Ref. 6.) As a result, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. (Peer-reviewed science in Ref. 7.)

==>> PAUSE HERE <<==  

Consider what we've just covered. We have THREE fully-sourced, science-based datasets that show three different long-term climatic changes: increasing surface temps, decreasing stratospheric temps, and decreasing diurnal temperature range. Increasing greenhouse effect explains ALL THREE of these trends. There is NO OTHER HYPOTHESIS that explains all three. If you think it's NOT greenhouse, you have a scientific duty to explain the data, and NOT JUST the surface temp data, but ALL the data for ALL THREE trends we've been seeing.

And that's why 98% of climatologists agree that our current episode of global warming is being driven by increased greenhouse effect. Because, in spite of what James Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh might tell you, there simply is NO OTHER EXPLANATION that explains everything. Of course, that doesn't prevent Inhofe from digging up that 2% in order to "prove" that there is a "scientific controversy." Don't be fooled. That 2% can't explain the data, either.

<<== END PAUSE ==>>

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. (Data in Ref. 10.)

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. (Peer-reviewed science in Ref. 11).

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 385 ppmv, with no end in sight. (Link to graph and science in Ref. 12.)

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. (Peer-reviewed papers, Refs. 17, 18, and 19).

So what's left to prove?

Answer 2

Which limited evidence are you referring to

1) The temperature record rising 1deg F, going back 140 years the last 30 being highly accurate satellite data

2) The co2 record, from air sampling going back 60 years or ice cores going back 500,000 from cores collected by several different countries.

3) The lack of solar activity, from satellite records going back to the 70s

4) The increased acidity level of the oceans caused by increased co2 absorption.

5) The shrinking Arctic ice cap, based on satellite images dating back to the 70s

6) Retreating glaciers around the world

All the above are not relying on computer models which deniers seem to hate so much but are direct observations or direct sampled evidence. If you plan to try and state that the 70s isn't long enough for a reliable record please don't add anything about cooling since 98' or it will make you look silly. All the evidence points to the earth warming over the last century with the process speeding up in the last 30 years, the Sun has shown no sign of increased output in the last 30 years the only new and increasing source of co2 is us.

There have been a number of questions stating why don't scientist do real experiments and stop relying on models, the answer to that is simple scientists are doing experiments, this one is almost a decade old

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=...

I like jellos comment

"The difference is that believers follow subjective science and conclude a theory to be proved when a certain percentage of scientists believe that the theory is correct. The work cannot be duplicated by other scientist"

That would be things like ice core which are collected by a number of countries the ones I know of are the U.S., U.K. Australia and Russia there are probably others as well but these four have independent records taken over the last 40-60 years that all agree closely on co2 levels over the last 500,000 years (90,000 for the Australian record)

Is that your idea of work that can't be duplicated, there will of course be no reply to this as you have nothing but pseudo science and heartland instant-twit nonsense as your science base.

Answer 3

I pulled up the Jewish Holiday Calender and the Jewish New Year Rosh Hashanah lands in September. I also knew for a long time that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th and that churches picked that date to coincide with the Pagan holidays to help convert them into the Christian faith.

I also know that Jesus was about a year old by the time the three kings reached him to bestow their gifts.

Everyone had to go to their birth cities to take a consensus.

If my memory serves me correctly, when my sister and I looked into this together we came up with August.

Answer 4

Narrowing it down from gestation, Judeo Christan holidays, lunar eclipses, old transcripts, Roman appointments, and astrology. This link suggest that September of 3BC was the birth of Christ.

http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html

(Mikia), excels.

Answer 5

The difference is that believers follow subjective science and conclude a theory to be proved when a certain percentage of scientists believe that the theory is correct.  The work cannot be duplicated by other scientist, it just has to be plausible and reasonable and supported by research that tends to support the conclusion you're seeking.  Data and research that contradicts your theory is almost always dismissed and the researchers are blacklisted while being accused of not being scientific enough.  

In the end, there is no direct evidence, just enough supporting evidence to give credence to the idea.

Objective science depends on just the facts that can be repeatable by anyone with the ability and can be described by using physics.  Nothing but the math is needed to prove that the theory is correct.

Subjective science hs been wrong so often in the past, it has such a poor track record that I'm shocked that there are still otherwise reasonable people who gravitate to using this low standard.  Subjective science is no different than the snake oil salesman selling you a bottle to cure all with no evidence to support his claims except for the planted stooge in the audience.

Answer 6

I just WONDER??? was Galileo a skeptic? How about Einstein? or maybe Edwin Hubble?

http://www.edwinhubble.com/

Probably not--- more than likely they were labeled DENIERS by the established scientific community.

Answer 7

Why are skeptics so skeptical?

Maybe it's because you're making a decision on AGW without having all the necessary climate science knowledge. Throughout history, people have looked to experts when their knowledge is lacking, with the exception of climate change. That indicates people are using other than critical thinking.

Answer 8

Deciding that we don't know enough to take action to mitigate global warming is a crticial decision.  Deciding to ignore and reject the conclusions of the experts who know a whole lot more than you do about the subject is a critical decision.

It's not that 'skeptics' don't make critical decisions, it's that they make poor decisions.

Answer 9

Well I am as usual to late for a good question Mikira beat me to it and answered it cleaner as well.

Answer 10

An offshoot of this question might be: why does skepticism exist at all? Depending on your beliefs, it was because Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree. Or we just evolved to not believe first impressions. Or, because past experience has taught us that just because experts proclaim something to be true and unquestionable, sometimes it needs to be questioned, and it is found to be false.

In this instance of climate change, I blame the media overload of 24 hour news channels. I have no blame towards the parade of experts on both sides of this issue - all life is a matter of perception. Melting ice in Greenland is seen as a catastrophe to those in America, it is seen as great news to people living in Greenland.

Where the problem with news reporting facts about climate change stems from can be summed up in two words: red wine. One day, red wine is bad for you. Then the next day it is good for you. The next week, it is bad for your liver so stop drinking, later it is good for your heart, drink up.

Over and over again, several different products from coffee to chocolate and eggs are paraded out as bad for you, then the next month all is good with them. All this proves is the same argument that can be used to explain why skeptics exist: no one knows the whole story about anything yet. Those that proclaim to know, will only be proven wrong next month. Perhaps it is not so much waiting for verified evidence as much as waiting for an unambiguous choice.

Answer 11

If I were walking down the main street, and someone stood before me taking a survey asking... “In what month was Jesus Born?” I would probably answer “December”. I would do this because it’s the answer that‘s commonly held to be correct (and probably what they want to hear) and I would be able to go on my way without needing to think about it further.

My whole upbringing taught me about Jesus, and that we celebrate Christmas because that’s when Jesus was born. Everyone always told me that it’s so, so it must be true... I guess.

If, as I tried to walk, away from the person conducting this survey, they said, “But do you realise that in other communities Christ’s birth is celebrated in January, March and April” I’d immediately assume that they’re either trying to sell me a book, or invite me into attend a meeting of their ‘group’. I would make a hasty escape knowing that their ‘information’ on the topic would exceed mine, and that their argument would appear persuasive. We’ve all been trapped at some time like this I think.

But the question was would still be interesting... December, January, Feb, Mar?. If the question was interesting enough, (as in this case) then I’d have given it a ‘once over’ when I got home.

This is what I got after a limited (and I apologise now to those more knowledgeable) study of the question.

Overwhelming consensus is that Jesus was born in December... ask anyone in the street and they’ll tell you that. Our family, like and millions of others goes to church on Christmas morning (Dec 25th) to celebrate Jesus’s birth.

However it only takes a few minutes of research to show that this (Dec 25th) is actually not very likely.

“Was Jesus born on December 25? There is no evidence for this date.” .” http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/was-j...

I found this next one much more persuasive at a pragmatic level... “It is too cold in Bethlehem end of December to find shepherds with their flocks of sheep out in the country during night time”.

http://www.luziusschneider.com/Papers/Je...

Compare this with Luke 2, 8 “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” (You don’t need a link to the Bible do you?)

and.. “Again note, Christ was not born in the winter month of December but in the fall, as the sheep were in the fields not in mangers.” http://graftedforlife.com/didyouknow.htm

In researching this question I learned far more than I otherwise needed to know (but was fascinated to discover) about the Jewish calendar, and I won’t repeat what Mikira has said. But I would recommend this as an interesting read additional read.

http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

Some of the evidence for timing depends on when John the Baptist was born... (I suppose you might consider this a ‘proxy’), but in most part it guides us only to the year, and not the month. We also shouldn’t overlook the point that some calculations are based on a normal gestation period of 280 days... which might not valid for a virgin birth (which was actually quite common at the time, but that’s a different discussion). However, neither of these has any major bearing on evidence for the birth month.

I took me a long time to get here but the answer to your question is... Jesus was definitely NOT born December, but most likely during the ‘Feast of the Tabernacles’... usually September in our current calendar.

I could not find any current studious text suggesting that December was the birth month for Jesus.

Having learned all this, if I went onto the streets tomorrow and asked people, “In what month was Jesus born?” I’m sure the overwhelming response would be ‘December’. It remains a truth for them, it’s a matter of faith; they don’t need or seek further evidence, they believe what they’ve always been told.

As an aside, I notice that none of the AGW proponents actually responded your question. They chose to comment on something entirely different. My Daughter is 12, and she understands ‘ATQS’... Answer The Question Set!

Answer 12

The consensus scientific view is that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old.  Some people have studied the issue and agree that the 4.5 billion year age consensus is probably correct.  Some people have not studied the science in any depth and argue the planet is only 10,000 years old.  Who's the real skeptic?

Disagreeing with a consensus view (in science or history) doesn't make a person a skeptic. True skepticism is a process it's not a position. It's often the case that a person who expresses doubt in a consensus view is either ignorant (it's outside of their own realm of expertise or research) or it's driven by their own religious/political biases.