Giving Skepticism a Bad Name

There seems to be confusion in the media about what constitutes skepticism. I’ve taken the moniker “The Skeptic” for our radio show/podcast with careful thought.  Skeptic comes from the Greek word skeptikos (skeitkos) which means thoughtful, and implies careful consideration.  The modern skepticism movement is based on a search for truth.  Although we don’t believe that absolute truth can be found easily, we rely on the scientific method with repeatable results and a strong theoretical foundation.

This is becoming a concern in the area of climate change.  The media calls people who simply deny climate change as “skeptics.”  This is not a correct use of the term, and casts aspersions on the true skeptics.  Senator Inhofe declared 2009 to be the “Year of the Skeptic.”

Although I would very much like to see a “Year of the Skeptic”, I don’t think Inhofe means it the same way I do.  He is referring to the so-called “ClimateGate” issue under current scrutiny.  (Also I don’t like the term “ClimateGate” or any of those “x-Gates” The Watergate hearings were not focused on a scandal associated with Water!)

Most of you reading the blog know about this – someone hacked a server at the University of East Anglia and released to the internet many personal emails written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit.  Consequently, there have been claims that these emails reveal convincing evidence that climate change is a scam.

These were private emails written amongst friends.  The language is informal, and sometimes reveals emotional responses that would never be presented to the public.  Much of the controversy relates to discussions about historical weather data and the use of tree ring data as opposed to thermometer data.  The use of words such as “trick” and “hide” in these informal conversations are seen as critical aspects.

I’m not going to review the content of these emails here – there are plenty of websites addressing these, and East Anglia is doing their own evaluations.

To me the key part is that climate is a very complex, highly scientific issue.  When we try to simplify things, confusion results.  In many cases, both sides are using reductionist arguments to make their case to the public.  This is understandable, as the details are highly technical.

As a skeptic, I look at the issue and recognize that I do not have the formal training or access to experimental data to make a truly informed decision and draw a conclusion on my own about what is happening to the planet and why.  What I have to do is rely on “argument by authority,” which is a weak position.  When I see the authority opinions, I conclude that the planet is warming.  I see reasonable arguments that human activities play a role in this warming.

I don’t know how much influence human activities have on the observed climate change because the science is beyond my training.

Deniers simply reject information.  Skeptics question and are comfortable with uncertainty as an answer.