
Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic  - bootload
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html
======
DanielBMarkham
Awesome post. He did a good job of outlining the difference.

I'd add one piece -- it goes both ways. On the other side of the skeptic is
the true believer, which knows that the current consensus or opinion is
correct and is just looking for reasons to confirm his belief. This is the
scientific malpractice the leaked emails reveal.

Both of these positions suffer from the same problem: they already know the
answer before the conversation (or experiments) even begins.

By the way, these topics go way beyond climate science, or even politics.
These are the same types of conversations we have in technology teams about
things like TDD, or linux versus windows. There are lots of opinions and
consensus (or not) but most times what we really should do is have an open
mind, create a theory, perform an experiment, see what works, and adapt. Many
times teams would rather argue than do this. This is because we (technical
people) suck many times at being able to politely disagree.

The same problems we see with skeptics and true believers in climate science
are the ones we see all around us everyday. To me understanding and being able
to work these kinds of conversations have much more immediate and useful value
than the types of compression algorithms Google uses on its databases.

~~~
gaius
Right, but the term "climate change skeptic" ought not to exist, because
following the evidence where it leads ought to be default position of
everyone.

Also it's interesting that in that particular debate, there are "deniers" but
no "zealots". It's only one side that feels the need to label the others. That
ought to set the alarm bells ringing.

~~~
Tichy
Bot sides accuse the other side of all sorts of things. Your statement is
simply false.

In fact, doesn't a denier automatically, by his mere existence, claim that
"the others" are "zealots"?

~~~
numeromancer
No.

------
goodside
"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can,
in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form
of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory.
They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate."

If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data,
nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything
else). I'm trying to find a more charitable way to read this, but there really
is none. Presumably, if he supported some tax policy, being shown a dozen
nations that subsequently implement the policy and face unmitigated economic
disaster would do nothing to shake his faith in it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not
change them based on facts. An example:

I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then
suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I
would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing
some terrorist attacks.

Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistribution, the welfare state,
etc (i.e., "tax is an immoral act of theft, regardless of economic benefits",
or "the welfare state is a moral imperative, regardless of economic harms").

~~~
Tichy
I find that hard to believe. Surely there is some limit that would change your
mind? Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per
month?

I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture. Not saying
that torture is good, just saying that even in your example, science might
change your mind.

~~~
msg
This is a bullshit argument. Torture does not save shit and it is good for
nothing.

What if destroying the earth would save the universe?

What if Batman wanted you to torture someone?

What if cutting off the eyelids of a brown person meant that unicorns would
walk the earth?

What if I snuck into suburban households and cut up humans for body parts so
my nanobots could learn regeneration techniques? What if the nanobots could
reanimate all the dead humans after I cut them up?

The reason it is bullshit is because you can put anything in the place of
torture and justify it by saying it "saves lives". But for some reason, the
arguments that we want to justify this way always boil down to freeing
ourselves from the shackles of morality. It is the will to power dressed up in
the clothing of public policy.

What kind of life are we saving? Is there anything we value more than life?

~~~
Tichy
Learn to read. I didn't say that torture is good. In fact, I don't have any
data on it at all. Just saying that data might still affect one's opinion.

What if you family was abducted and locked into an air sealed room, and the
culprit was caught by the police. Your family has 1 hour left before air
supply runs out. Would you still be against torture.

Again, I can't stress this enough: please read carefully. I am not advocating
torture. This discussion is not about torture at all.

~~~
msg
I know how to read. The concept I am criticizing in your argument is "data".
And I am saying that taking a statistical approach to these questions is
misguided.

"Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per month?
I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture."

I didn't say you were advocating torture either. I am trying to show by
example that this decision calculus can be used to justify all kinds of evil
nonsense, torture being one example. You can always generate counterfactuals
of this form to justify anything... so this method of justification is
meaningless.

I don't know why you believe that we are not talking about torture. Maybe you
don't know that you are presenting a family-based reformulation of the exact
same ticking time bomb scenario used by Alan Dershowitz to justify torture.
You are reusing these arguments, so maybe you should think about exactly what
these arguments have justified in the last ten years.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario>

It's true, though, that you are not talking about torture per se. What you are
talking about is weighing some count of human lives against a moral imperative
not to do some evil thing. Torture usually stands in for that evil thing
because up until very recently, everyone agreed that it was so evil that the
kind of weighing you are talking about would not be countenanced.

Let me tell a story that may explain what I am getting at. In 1984 (the year),
a feminist named Carol Cohn went to a military school to learn about strategic
nuclear concepts like mutually assured destruction, first strike, credible
second strike, counterforce weapons, etc. What she found was that as she
became immersed in that world, she learned to make similar kinds of artificial
weighings of the destruction of cities against the loss of second strike
capability. The decision calculus she learned to use allowed her to think
about nuclear weapons in terms of numbers and geography rather than in terms
of human life ("collateral damage").

"If I was unable to speak my concerns in the language, more disturbing still
was that I also began to find it harder even to keep them in my own head. No
matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind
the words, over and over, I found that I could not keep human lives as my
reference point. I found that I could go for days speaking about nuclear
weapons, without once thinking about the people who would be incinerated by
them."

<http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml> (the whole article)

I suggest you should not be acquiring "data" at all on this question. The only
things the data could tell you would be artificial and dehumanized.

~~~
Tichy
Not sure I understand what you are getting at - what exactly has been
justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment? I am not arguing for bad
science.

I am also not using the ticking time bomb as a general example to support
torture - I was just challenging the original posters assumption that his
morals were unchangeable.

Nevertheless it is nonsense to refuse to weigh lives against each other. For
example, in big building projects, there is presumably an inherent risk that
innocent people will die in accidents during the building process. Yet the
decision is often made to build (perhaps build a hospital?). Or take streets -
thousands of people die in road accidents every year (and probably many more
are killed by exhaust fumes), but apparently society has decided their lives
are worth sacrificing. If the decision wasn't conscious, I'd argue it would be
an improvement if the decision were made consciously.

Also, nuclear weapons are a real problem. They don't go away by simply not
thinking about them. Frankly it might be a good thing that there are other
people than feminists thinking about it.

Lastly, I think morals are just a poor workaround for having no sound theory
for why a certain kind of behavior is beneficial. The more morals can be
replaced by reason, the better for society, in my opinion.

Morals may have a good reputation, but in some other countries people get
stoned to death for immoral behavior. Since morals have no scientific
foundation, at times we might be ashamed about our own behavior a couple of
years later, when understanding improves.

~~~
msg
"morals have no scientific foundation"

Your consequentialist philosophical views also have no "scientific
foundation". Science reveals the world as it is, not as it should be.

You claim that somehow you are beyond values by applying this crude calculus
of "lives saved". The truth is that you have not provided a foundation for
your ethics. So what is it?

I agree that you do not understand what I'm getting at. Maybe we should just
table this.

edited to add:

"what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment?"

If you read The One Percent Doctrine, you will learn about the people the
United States tortured to try to get intel about terrorist attacks, using the
ticking time bomb justification. And hello, "we don't want the smoking gun to
be a mushroom cloud." We invaded Iraq using similar justifications about the
risks of WMD.

~~~
Tichy
You don't understand what I am saying and misquote me. No point in discussing
further.

------
mynameishere
There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to
categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly
skeptical. It's important, when doing this, to paint the person in the
simplest "nutshell" terms. Those awful climate "denialists" for instance:

 _In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by
humans or (3) doesn't matter_

Well, #2 is certainly within the bounds of possibility. Evidence: The entire
history of the earth. And, as for #3, you could actually make the argument
that global warming would be a net positive. (Contrast warming with a new ice
age.) Not say that it's true, but it's a possibility, and shouldn't result in
intellectual exile.

He, of course, misses #4:

(4) Global warming is real; but it is #1 mainly intended to achieve a long-
standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital, and
otherwise generate billions/trillions for the well-connected and #2 is
hopeless because China and India aren't getting suckered into it, ever.

 _That_ is something they don't want to address, because, as far as I've seen,
it is the correct assessment. "Follow the money" almost always is. And if you
keep following the money, you will likely find that even the most committed
climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida
coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs.

~~~
rortian
It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a
conspiracy theory to boot:

>#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of
governments to control capital

No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific
consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many
countries. Most mainstream solutions to dealing with global warming have
absolutely nothing to do with controlling capital. In the US, we constantly
bend over backwards to makes sure private enterprise controls lots of stuff
(even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in
R&D and production).

>you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not
expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the
weight of their beliefs.

This statement is at best tremendously disingenuous and at worst an amazing
attempt at self-delusion. There is no good way to short houses. (Getting CDSs
on mortgage backed securities is possible but there are no houses on the coast
securities. Shorting those wouldn't even help, as mortgages will be paid off
before the sea rises enough). Also, all the global warming sea rise
predictions are on the order of decades and centuries. What highly
knowledgeable scientist in there late 30s or 40s will make at bet that will be
resolved when they are dead?

I'll bet you any amount of money that we will have a Korean president by 2150.
Don't believe me? Unless you do, you'd better make a bet with me.

~~~
mseebach
> No, global warming is not a government plan.

The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in
distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself:

> (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized
> in R&D and production).

Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government
money really aren't private.

I disagree with the OP that it's a scheme to control capital, I don't think
it's a scheme of any kind. I just think politicians happen to absolutely love
an issue with an absolute evil and a very difficult and expensive solution. No
matter how much, the other guy will never be able to do enough.

My main beef with GW isn't the science. I think it's highly entertaining to
follow stuff like ClimateGate, but my beef is with the politics. "Solutions"
to GW invariably includes hugely expensive government programs.

~~~
Tamerlin
"hugely expensive government programs"

That phrase is redundant.

Edit: grammar

~~~
arohner
Not entirely. It's a scale, that goes from "expensive" to "mind boggling
expensive". There's just plain expensive (The V-22 Osprey program), and then
there's _really expensive_ (The total expenditure of the Social Security
program, from inception to 2050).

~~~
Tamerlin
I know... I was making fun of government contracting. I worked for various
government contractors for around six years, so I feel like I'm morally
obligated to make fun of the whole thing whenever I can.

------
ErrantX
You know, my position is that I'm unconvinced that climate change is being
affected by Humans quite as much (it seems rational we affect it a bit) as
some people say.

(straight up; I'm not here to argue that out. This isn't the right forum, it's
just setting the story).

I usually get branded a climate denier (and sometimes a loon :)) even in
relatively high brow discussion. Which is amusing because you get real idiot
deniers sucking up to you and sensible people you want to have a discussion
with ignoring you.

This raises two points.

Firstly a poor assumption has been made; because every time I start trying to
compare which papers I have read with others in the discussion they either a)
point me to a magazine/paper article or b) don't know what I am waffling
about. It's annoying because you quickly realise that the most well read [non
climatologist] on the subject are almost exclusively in the "bit of both
camps" category - and, sadly, we are all still branded deniers.

The second point is it worries me that this is a Scientific field that is
based on the idea that not-believing in man made GW is akin to being heathen
sin and crazy talk. I hate that, it seems so irrational given the fact we are
still developing the theory!

~~~
lutorm
I applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are
saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting.

However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is
met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists)
because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is
argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its basic existence.
_Even_ if you have an good explanation of why the majority of scientists got
everything totally wrong, any community has more inertia than being swayed by
lone dissenting voices unless they are very well known and respected, because
you will basically be telling them all that they fucked up.

~~~
ErrantX
Honestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man
has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there
really is not much more we can honestly say than that.

It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a
fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no
easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elephant".

Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to
GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to
react?

Currently I have quiet confidence we will start to ask that within the next
decade.

~~~
lutorm
_Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected
to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to
react?_

You lost me here, how is the question of what is climate change going to do
completely unconnected to global warming?

~~~
ErrantX
Sorry, I forgot the qualifier "man made". :)

------
billswift
This is just one paper in an entire issue of New Scientist about "Denial"
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627605.900-special-r...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627605.900-special-
report-living-in-denial.html)

There was a post by Robin Hanson on Overcoming Bias about it, with a long
string of comments <http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/dumping-on-
denial.html>

------
aidenn0
I think he forgets one specific form of denial: demands for impossible
evidence.

Example: Creationists demand for a complete fossil record

Since things get destroyed, a complete fossil record is not going to happen.
If evolution is true: we don't expect a complete fossil record, therefore lack
of a complete fossil record is not evidence against evolution.

------
arethuza
This comment is pretty interesting:

"here are supporters on both sides of the climate debate ('warmists' and
'deniers') for whom the science is secondary. One feature of them both is that
recognise no shade of gray."

This kind of polarization happens a lot in the technology field (e.g. SQL vs
NoSQL, Flash vs HTML 5) - usually not by the leaders in these areas but often
by people who feel they have the need to strongly align themselves with one
particular perspective.

~~~
guelo
At least most of the debaters in those tech arguments have written a line of
SQL or a HTML page. The climate debate is filled with people who don't know
the difference between weather and climate and have never even heard of terms
like radiative forcing.

------
ErrantX
_Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn
out to be false._

Winning quote right there.

~~~
lutorm
True. That's exactly why claims that have many independent lines of evidence,
like global warming, should be taken seriously.

~~~
ErrantX
Well, although I don't want to get into any argument about it (I was meaning
it as a "winning quote" in general - not just r.e. climate science) I think
your wrong.

Because considering GW as a single claim in entirety is incorrect - there is a
lot of claims and elements that make it up. It is more a field than a claim.

~~~
lutorm
I thought that was what I was saying -- that there are a lot of claims that,
when taken as a whole, point to the conclusion that global warming is
happening.

But I admit that I'm biased -- I think that basic physical arguments will tell
you that it must be happening. We can argue over to what exact degree, though.

------
numeromancer
Summary: some people pretend to be thoughtfully considering, but really
they're just mean old baddies. The list of mean-old-baddies is below. don't
let them trick you! You'll go to hell!

We are the goodies. We believe. Follow us and be saved.

[See article for list of Satan's minions.]

~~~
limist
There was a common smugness to the tone of the article - borne of the comfort
of parroting conventional/majority opinions - which your summary/comment makes
explicit. Thanks.

~~~
numeromancer
This seems uncharacteristic of Shermer. He, of course, is not the only one. In
fact, most debate, and AGW debate in particular, has this character: the
proponent claims overwhelming evidence, but shows none. It's like playing
poker with someone who wants to claim the winnings without showing you their
hand.

I would prefer to see more "How I was convinced..." type of stuff. I've seen
more of that on the side of the skeptics/deniers, probably because they are
the underdog, and so more likely to be forthcoming. It doesn't make them
right, but it does coerce them into being better proponents.

------
william-newman
I have no particular sympathy with any anti-vaccine activism that I know of.
But I wonder how, other than by not being an important faction in the
appropriate big political tent, "anti-vaccine denial" ended up on this
article's excrement list along with Holocaust deniers, while "nuclear power
denial" and "genetic engineering denial" didn't.

My impression is that political opposition to nuclear power plants, to nuclear
waste facilities, and to GM crops have had at least as much economic impact as
political opposition to vaccines. Thus, it seems to me that they shouldn't be
left off this list because they're unimportant.

Perhaps the columnist thinks that the anti-nuke and anti-GM-crops political
movements should be spared because they have achieved their political impact
primarily by honestly making valid technical points? Granting for the sake of
argument that that is a tenable position, then why ignore them? Wouldn't the
anti-nuke and anti-GM movements make useful examples to clarify his position
by comparing and contrasting? Wouldn't describing what is healthy and good
about the thinking of the anti-GM and anti-nuke coalitions help us understand
better what is so characteristically diseased and vile about anti-vaccine folk
to justify grouping them with Holocaust deniers?

(I extended this comment, writing on an analogy to criticism of left-wingers
as "politically correct," at
[http://naturalspiritofgoodcompany.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-
ha...](http://naturalspiritofgoodcompany.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-hacker-news-
on-new-scientist-on.html) .)

------
rubidium
What's with the photo and caption beside this article? [Photo of refinery/
childhood cloud machine :) Caption:"Would you object to this sight even if
there was no evidence it was causing harm?"]

The newscientist.com editors injecting some of their own belief into an
otherwise reasonable article?

