Ironic New Cover of Skeptic Magazine

[Pangloss]

Skeptics are supposed to pay attention to the facts, but just look at how exaggerated this cover art for the new issue of Skeptic Magazine is.

 

"Evangelist" would be a better name for this magazine nowadays.

 

 

And look at the article list -- four articles about global warming. Apparently there is scarcely else to talk about in the entire world of science but global warming, and about that there can be no... skepticism. So, uh, what's the point of having a magazine about skepticism, then? /boggle

 

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

[ecoli]

what's there position on it then? Is the cover supposed to be satire, making fun of the stranded polar bear hysteria?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because the magazine's type of skepticism is "to stay neutral until the facts are out," and presumably they're insinuating that global warming "skeptics" choose the negative side even when the facts are out.

 

One of the cover stories' descriptions is "The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable," so I suppose skepticism of the true sort is certainly involved...

[ecoli]

I guess the same logic can be applied to gravity... We're still collecting data by observing apple orchards, so stay neutral, everyone.

[Dak]

And look at the article list -- four articles about global warming. Apparently there is scarcely else to talk about in the entire world of science but global warming, and about that there can be no... skepticism.

 

it's a 'global warming' special issue (as it says on the cover)

 

as for no skepticizm, read the article list: 'global warming skepticizm and the problem with predictions', etc.

[Pangloss]

Sure, but they're not promoting skepticism about global warming, they're shunning it, saying everyone needs to shut up and stop opposing it, because skepticism in this case is (in their view) a BAD thing. Everyone needs to get on board and stop fueling the "global warming deniers", a phrase that Skeptic's editor, Michael Shermer, practically coined, writing the most popular treatise on the subject back in 2006. (We've talked all this here before.)

 

And yet this is supposed to be a magazine for... skeptics. And here you thought skepticism wasn't based on ANY specific viewpoint, but that in fact we should be skeptical about EVERYTHING. Oh no, you were quite wrong. They're telling you so. Don't you believe them?

[iNow]

There's been like 50 years of skepticism already. It's all failed. Shall I suggest that the kid who got an F passes the class, too?

 

No child left behind clearly means that no successful child gets to move forward.

[Pangloss]

Shall I suggest that the kid who got an F passes the class, too?

 

I tell you what, it sure seems that way sometimes. The school I'm working for is suffering from declining enrollment, and I'm really starting to worry about their academic integrity. I had a student get PO'd because the class was taught in one programming language but he didn't know that language and wanted it taught in another language. He asked, I said no but offered to help him convert his knowledge on the side, but he ignored my suggestion and started turning in assignments in the language he preferred!

 

When I told him he couldn't do that, he complained to administration, got withdrawn from the class and put in his own directed study, and my email (in which I was the soul of courtesy!) was circulated amongst management as an example of "how NOT to perform retention" (i.e. keep students at the school).

 

(Er, sorry for the digression, but I guess it's General Discussion anyway.)

[iNow]

No, your personal story actually helps my point, and I'm glad we have common ground on this.

 

When you suggest that people are being driven out of town on a rail for trying to talk about warming not happening, it's NOT EVEN as good as this kid who hands in assignments in other languages. It's like a kid who doesn't do the homework or reading, has no knowledge of other languages or codes, and then pretends that you don't know what you're talking about because he can't turn in a synopsis of last night's South Park episode to receive a legitimate grade on the homework...

 

If you're thinking "WTF," right now, then you understand how people who have studied climate science to some extent feel when people attack the early Mann study, or the politics of how to deal with human induced global climate change, as if that's somehow the "end all, be all" of climate science.

 

 

Now... I'd also like to say this. Faith based initiatives are clearly against the establishment clause, and it's time they are removed from our books.

[Pangloss]

I agree with all of that, except the last.

[iNow]

Well, then it's my fault for including it, and I can only hope that you'll look past it as non-relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

We DO agree on the thrust of the point, and that's where I choose to place the importance in this context.

[Dak]

Sure, but they're not promoting skepticism about global warming, they're shunning it, saying everyone needs to shut up and stop opposing it, because skepticism in this case is (in their view) a BAD thing. Everyone needs to get on board and stop fueling the "global warming deniers", a phrase that Skeptic's editor, Michael Shermer, practically coined, writing the most popular treatise on the subject back in 2006. (We've talked all this here before.)

 

And yet this is supposed to be a magazine for... skeptics. And here you thought skepticism wasn't based on ANY specific viewpoint, but that in fact we should be skeptical about EVERYTHING. Oh no, you were quite wrong. They're telling you so. Don't you believe them?

 

well, i haven't read any of the articles so i'd be limited to making assumptions based on the article titles (e.g., 'the problem with predictions' sounds healthyly skeptical); however, there is a whopping great big difference between skeptisizm and denializm: skepticizm is the reluctance to accept a new idea, whilst denializm is the refusal. skeptisizm is 'belief inertia', where it requires a lot of weight to move your beliefs but they can be moved, whereas denialism is 'belief immotility'.

 

i'd guess the magazine feels that we've reached a point whereby, as iNow's pretty-much allready said, it's sufficiently proven to not warrant any more skeptisizm for the core propositions of 'anthropogenic global warming theory' and we should now accept it, and the burdon of proof lies with those trying to argue that, no, actually, against all the evidence accumulated so far it's actually false; and, given the weight of evidence, refusing to acknowledge this crosses over from skeptisizm into denialism.

 

in fact, skeptizism would now demand that all claims that AGW is false be treated with skeptisizm and reluctance to accept, and it's our belief that AGW is real that should now have inertia and require oodles of evidence to change. I assume this'd be the thrust of the 'how we know GW is real' article. at the end of the day, any individual skeptic can choose to allow the article to sway them or not, but allowing enough evidence to sway your beliefs, and exposing yourself to such evidence, is a part of skeptisizm.

 

otoh, the newer ideas associated with AGW theory should still be met with skeptisizm, hence (i'd assume) 'the problem with predictions' (i.e., not all of the science is 100% reliable -- skeptisizm is still justified here)

[Pangloss]

Sure, but we don't allow skepticism on GW any more than we allow denialism.

[Dak]

what do you mean? If you mean 'the magazine doesn't print skeptisizm on the core parts of GW', then sure. that's because there's no longer any justification in being skeptical on them, barring remembering that any accepted idea can actually be false, and giving new evidence a chance to sway your beliefs away from GW. that skeptisizm is ok, but unless any new eveidence emerges that throws doubt on the main claims of GW, you're left pretty-much forced to accept -- at least tentatively, and based on the evidence -- that GW is happening, and is significantly caused by humans. and will suck.

 

otoh, the more peripheral parts of GW and 'GW-related stuff', such as the exact accuracy/interpretation of the predictions, the claims of what H2 power will do, etc, seem to still be being viewed with some skeptisizm by the magazine (just guessing from the article titles)

[iNow]

Sure, but we don't allow skepticism on GW any more than we allow denialism.

 

Nonsense.

 

If the skepticism is based on data, and is shown in an academically honest way, it is respected. If it is based on hand waving and lack of education, false representations of the actual information, or other similar logical fallacies then it gets torched and discarded. This is more than a mere subtlety, it's of the utmost importance.

[swansont]

At what point does skepticism become just nay-saying crankery? At some point you have to agree that a body of evidence is convincing, else what you are doing religion rather than science. This is not a proposal presented in a vacuum, where one is saying "I won't take this as a given — I'm not going to agree until I see some supporting evidence." That's skepticism. But one needs to acknowledge the large body of evidence gathered over the decades that the warming is real and largely anthropogenic. Without justification of refusing all that evidence, is questioning that stance really skepticism?

 

Take ecoli's example of gravity. Someone who said they didn't believe in gravity would rightly be called a crackpot, not a skeptic.

[Royston]

But one needs to acknowledge the large body of evidence gathered over the decades that the warming is real and largely anthropogenic.

 

Unfortunately the GW debate has suffered a bout of Chinese whispers. If you check the original IPCC report, it clearly states, that the primary cause of GW is due to a Mrs. Anne Thropic, who has particularly bad flatulence.

[CDarwin]

Sure, but we don't allow skepticism on GW any more than we allow denialism.

 

I've seen a couple of articles lately in New Scientist, as supposed bastion of GW orthodoxy, talking about how specific events once attributed to global warming are more likely to be due to other factors. That certainly shows that the skeptical approach is still alive.

[bascule]

Sure, but we don't allow skepticism on GW any more than we allow denialism.

 

Having worked for a renowned "climate skeptic" (who also happened to be the state climatologist) I can assure you skepticism in climate science is certainly "allowed" and vigorous debate continues in the peer review process.