I have now officially filed self-professed “global warming skeptics” with:
a) “global warming denialists” and;
b) “evolution denialists”
I say this because global warming skeptics (GWS) tend to adopt the following positions:
a) I don’t know much about it and don’t intend to educate myself about it so I’ll drape my lack of interest in the faux noble cloth of rubbing my chin, pausing thoughtfully and saying “I’m skeptical” — as if adopting an actor’s guise of looking “thoughtful” was the same as actually thinking. This is often followed by the phrase, “Prove it to me.”
b) Saying “I’m a skeptic” makes it sound like one has actually educated themselves on the topic and is still “not convinced.” This posture automatically conveys the presumption that the person has actually studied the topic so intensively that they have a thorough, working knowledge of the underlying science. Since the “skeptic” is aware they have not done this, they are also aware that they are faking it.
Many people, especially men, have an odd tendency to falsely profess knowledge of a subject rather than simply admit they don’t know much about it. As if there is something so wrong with not knowing much about something that it is better to lie.
To be a “skeptic” one must be familiar, knowledgeable and conversant in the subject matter one is “skeptical” about.
The word for someone who is not familiar, not knowledgeable and not conversant on a subject is “ignorant.”
One cannot be skeptical of a subject of which they are ignorant. The two words are mutually exclusive.
Few people like to think of themselves as ignorant on a subject. Skeptical sounds much better — much more thoughtful and authoritative.
Perhaps this is because in our culture, the word ignorant is used as a synonym for stupid or dumb, ie. an ignoramus. This is unfortunate because the word ignorant actually carries a much different meaning. Used correctly it simply means to lack knowledge on a particular subject, with the direct implication that this can be quickly remedied by learning about that subject.
It is common for illiterate people to spend much of their lives trying to hide their inability to read instead of trying to fix it. This is in part because of the social stigma attached to someone who cannot read. To learn to read one must admit to someone else that they can’t read. Often this hump is perceived as too shameful to confront.
This stigma also attaches to scientific illiteracy. This is unfortunate for both the individual and society. The individual feels like an inhibited outcast; while society loses what could and should be an educated, informed and unique person.
So are all self-professed “skeptics” of Global Warming either ignorant of the subject or in willful denial?
No. Scientists themselves tend to be natural skeptics in the carpenter’s sense of “measure twice, cut once.” In fact, the entire practice of peer review in scientific journals is an institutionalized and refined program of skepticism.
However, when a research paper on a specific and often very narrow aspect of the immense field of climate science is presented for peer review, a reviewer is not allowed (nor do they) dismiss a paper by saying, “well, I’m just skeptical of the whole thing.” Being a skeptic is by definition a two way street.
Faux skeptics, the type described herein, fail to grasp or heed this concept.
The site Real Climate contains a virtual library of up-to-date information on the subject, at all technical levels from layman to Ph.D., in an easily readable and usable format. Best of all it is operated and moderated by actual, real, living scientists who make their living doing climate science.
I highly recommend it.
