Just on the heels of the most recent Token Skeptic podcast (where my opening question was : The media’s adoption of the word ’skeptic’ in conjunction with ‘climate change skeptics’ seems to be widespread and perhaps the public perception of the word will always link the two together. Is it possible this could change?)
Adam Corner in The Guardian: Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name? There is a crucial difference between scepticism and non-belief in the face of overwhelming evidence.
In January a group of self-declared “sceptics” hit the headlines with an attention-grabbing publicity stunt. If you instinctively interpret that sentence as a reference to the battle-scarred topic of climate change, then it is a mark of how successfully those opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change have appropriated the term sceptic”.
In fact, the event in question is the mass homeopathy “overdose” staged by the Merseyside Skeptics. Do the Merseyside Skeptics (and hundreds of other groups like them) share much common ground with the army of Freedom of Information requesters currently swarming around climate science databases? Or could it be that climate change sceptics are giving wider scepticism a bad name?
…But embarrassingly for climate change sceptics, the people who have thought longest and hardest about what it means to be a truly sceptical thinker seem in a hurry to distance themselves from their fellow sceptics. Michael Marshall, from the Merseyside Skeptics group that organised the homeopathy overdose is clear about the legitimacy of climate change sceptics: “In our view, climate change sceptics are not sceptics. A sceptic looks at the available evidence and makes a decision, and for homeopathy the evidence is that it doesn’t work. But the sceptical position on climate change is that it is happening.”
John Jackson, from UK Skeptics, agreed, addied: “Terms like “climate change sceptic” are very damaging to scepticism – basically because this is not what scepticism is. We often get people calling us, referring to themselves as climate sceptics, but we argue with them. We accept global warming because the evidence is overwhelming.”
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Skepticism is skepticism, not just believing scientists because they must be the proper authority. In general, they are but not always, and it pays to be critical of what they say. This is why we know that certain stem cell results and cold fusion experiments are bogus. Science as we know is a self correcting system of discovery, but only if lively debate is allowed and the data on which conlcusions are based is freely available for critical review by all parties. In support of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, this has not been the case.
I agree that terms such as ‘climate change skeptic’ are damaging to skepticism, as the shorter version ‘skeptic’ will suffice. It muddies the water as those of us who doubt a primary human causation of current climate changes do not dispute the fact that the climate is indeed changing.
Yes, the most recent Token Skeptic podcast discussed the use of the word ‘denialists’? http://www.tokenskeptic.org.
You must log in to post a comment.