Is skepticism inherently bad?

[lawrocket 3]

It seems that all of us are skeptical of things in one way or another. Plenty of us are skeptical of things that others are not skeptical.

I think that the subject and debate surrounding "global warming" is a classic example of where skeptics and believers disagree.

Billvon supports the notion that skeptics are in denial. He even has posited "5 Stages of Denial."

Quote

There are five stages of denial:

1. There's no such thing as climate change!
2. OK, so maybe there is, but it's minor, and has nothing to do with us.
3. So the climate is changing significantly. It is certainly not caused by humans; it's probably a natural cycle.
4. OK, maybe we had _something_ to do with it, but it might be good in the long run. Warm is good, right?
5. So it's bad news. No one could have possibly predicted it would be, though, so it's not our fault.

This is not to say that there are not some who are in "denial." Obviously, there are plenty out there who are.

However, I view myself as a skeptic with many things: religion, climate, conspiracies in general, politics, environment, etc. I like to see somewhat of a scientific method applied to things - applying the laws of reasoning to results to test hypotheses.

Of course, I am also a firm believer in parsimony - taking extreme care in arriving at a course of action, and preferring the leat complex explanations for those things we observe. Of course, the "arriving at a course of action" part is the most interesting part. Once I start down a road, inertia takes over, and therefore my skepticism applies to those who attempt to alter that course in either direction.

---

We all have our opinions on things. The vast majority of my opinions are tenative in their nature - "based on what I have learned, I think this is my initial opinion." These opinions are subject to change upon good objective evidence, so the inertia isn't that strong with soe things, but stronger with others.

My opinions have changed often. Nobody does a better job at changing my opinion than the aforementioned billvon.

Which goes back to the "stages of denial" of climate change. I'm currently between Nos. 3 and 4 (more of a mixture - I believe the climate is changing, and we probably have something to do with it, but it's a natural cycle whose amplitude we are probably affecting). I am skeptical about claims that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. Because of that, I believe that careful consideration of the costs/benefits must be undertaken.

Assuming that humans ARE the main culprit behind global warming, does that mean we have little idea of what the climate would be like had we not altered it? Obviously, it's _possible_ that we have already inflated global temperatures by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, which means that our activity may have kept the earth from plunging into a catastrophic Ice Age! A look at the historical record shows that the temperature was steadily dropping until the advent of the Industrial Revolution. As our fossil fuel consumption increased, so did the temperature steadily rise to -.2 degrees from average global temperature.

Did human activity _reverse_ that possible catastrophe? As a skeptic, I doubt it. As a skeptic, I doubt that we are primarily responsible for global warming.

My question is: "Is there anything wrong with wanting to have some convincing proof?" Is it "denial" to say, "Well, interesting theory you've forwarded. Let's test it out." I was skeptical of successful cold-fusion experiments in the 1980's. I was skeptical that grunge music would last more than a couple of years. I was skeptical that personal computers would be at everyone's office space. I was skeptical that Republicans would take control of Congress before 2012.

So, is it wrong to be one who needs some convincing?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

Skepticism is healthy, and is one of the things that science is based on. The question is - what is too much skepticism? If you don't believe that the Minister of Nigeria will send you $13 million dollars if you just open a bank account for him (at least until he visits you and hands you a check) that's probably a good thing. If you don't think that smoking causes cancer, because it's never been 'proven' - that will probably result in health problems and a shortened life. In that case, skepticism could literally kill you.

There will never be conclusive proof of climate change by anthropogenic emission of CO2. Heck, every single prediction made by scientists could come true - from sea level rises to stronger storms to mass extinctions - and it would still be theoretically possible that:

a) some as-yet undiscovered process is mitigating the additional radiative forcing we are causing via our CO2 emissions and

b) some other as-yet undiscovered process is putting back exactly the same amount of heat, thus causing the changes we are seeing.

Needless to say, that's sort of unlikely. But it is possible.

Now, if there were no downside to having the earth gradually warm up, then it could remain an academic question - we could study it to our heart's content and write lots of articles for Nature and whatnot. I think most people, though, see that there are a lot of potential downsides to radically changing the climate. Some we've seen already - dead coral, stronger storms, retreating glaciers, permafrost melting and destroying buildings. It's unlikely that these effects will suddenly stop, since CO2 is still increasing, the planet is still getting warmer and the glaciers are still melting.

The good news is that we _can_ do something about it. We can reduce CO2 emissions drastically, and we can make a lot of money doing it. I've listed all the ways we can do this in other threads.

So there are four possible outcomes:

1. Climate change is hooey. The average temperature will stop climbing tomorrow and everything will go back to the way it was. We don't need to do anything.

2. Climate change is hooey. We decide to make the changes in CO2 emissions anyway. Result - we spend lots of money, we make lots of money, and nothing changes climatically because there was no problem anyway.

3. Climate change is a real problem. We do nothing and see mass extinctions and floods that make our lives miserable.

4. Climate change is a real problem. We decide to make the changes, and avert a disaster.

1), 2) and 4) seem about equal in outcome. 3) seems like a situation to avoid. Even a skeptic sometimes sees the value in mitigating risk. In the case of smoking, you may not be 100% sure if smoking causes cancer, but decide to quit anyway, just because waiting until you have cancer might result in your being, well, dead. You can still be skeptical but decide to not take the chance.

>"Is there anything wrong with wanting to have some convincing proof?"

Is it reasonable to want to see solid proof that you have cancer before deciding that smoking might be bad for you? It might be, but the outcome could be unpleasant.

Similarly, we could demand to see a global disaster before we decide that climate change is a problem. I'd prefer to avoid that if possible.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

4. Climate change is a real problem. We decide to make the changes, and avert a disaster.

There are more than four possible outcomes.

5. Climate change is a real problem. We decide to make the changes, but a disaster occurs anyway because we weren't the only cause the problem.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Misternatural 0]

Holy shmoly, do either of you actually have a job? Where do you find the time for all of this pondering and pontificating? I do not have much work this time of the year I admit it. So I will expound on the subject if I may since my frikken taxes are done, but I digress.
Scepticism is the buffer which prevents speculation from becoming immutable fact. Not to say that global warming is based purely on speculation as it for the most part is data based. Of course how you process and present any data can lead to more speculation hence a counteractive wave of scepticism. You see, it is a cycle just like climate change.
Since this is an experiment on a global scale the only way to prove or disprove this hypothesis is by actually changing the variables and note the results. For example. We humans begin a policy of developing alternative energy sources (non fossil fuel) and continue that for the next 10 years... and see what happens.What is the harm in trying the experiment, will the economy collapse, No I don't think so. Will global warfare get worse? probably quite the opposite. Of course that is part of the experiment too. The great thing is that it can be done on an individual scale. Maybe get some biodiesel or E 85 the next time you are at the pump. Drive less and spend more time with your kids at home. You know stuff like that.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[MC208B 0]

I'm skeptical of this thread.....

[champu 1]

Quote

Holy shmoly, do either of you actually have a job? Where do you find the time for all of this pondering and pontificating? I do not have much work this time of the year I admit it. So I will expound on the subject if I may since my frikken taxes are done, but I digress.

For some, pondering makes for a nice way to relax, and take the edge off of the stress encountered at work and/or school. I like reading discussions, they offer a great deal of insight into the different ways the human brain can break down a problem.

Some people watch television.

[Misternatural 0]

I'm just kiddin' around, long winded or not actually I am impressed by the insight and careful wording I find in some of these debates. I am lucky if I manage to string a few sentences together and get my point across.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm skeptical of this thread.....

Maybe so, but how can we really know that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>5. Climate change is a real problem. We decide to make the
> changes, but a disaster occurs anyway because we weren't the only
> cause the problem.

To believe that you'd have to believe THREE things not yet in evidence.

1) We are emitting CO2 that would normally cause a warming trend, but some as yet unknown mechanism is stopping it completely.

2) Some as yet unknown mechanism puts that exact amount of heat back into the atmosphere.

3) When we stop doing 1), 2) gets worse somehow.

Occam's Razor applies here.

Take the smoking example again. You could die from a meteor strike tomorrow. Does that mean smoking is a good idea?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You could die from a meteor strike tomorrow. Does that mean smoking is a good idea?

Not really, after that comment, now I feel like heavy drinking and binge spending......

THANKS, thanks a lot

stupid killer meteors, ruin the whole season.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Skyrad 0]

i doubt it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca