One Astronomer's Noise

The blogosphere is amazing. Issues can flare up and come back down more quickly than I can get around to actually reading it happen.  Phew! And as so many things flare up and die down, sometimes it’s best to wait and see the reactions and counter-reactions unfold.

With “Climategate” and the Copenhagen Conference happening at the moment, global warming has been at the forefront of the news cycle and many people’s minds.  I noticed particularly in my occasional lurking about the JREF forums that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) was being heavily discussed on the science boards.  I was a bit surprised to see that so many skeptics are also skeptical of AGW, although the science weighs pretty heavily in its favor.  Climate change is no doubt a huge and complex issue that can only be well understood by a studious few, but the same goes for many topics that skeptics tend to weigh in on, such as vaccinations, medicine, and evolution.  Of course, these are much broader and heavier topics than the paranormal claims that were investigated for decades by “traditional” organizations such as CSICOP (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.)  Is it possible that as the skeptical movement grows and diversifies that we are collectively taking on bigger and bigger fish, or even overstepping our capabilities?

In order to tackle these big issues, skeptics need to ally themselves with the experts in these fields.  The Science-Based Medicine blog is a great example of real-life medical doctors weighing in on alternative medicine and anti-vaccination issues.  Many of the skeptical podcasts interview experts in a wide variety of fields in order to broaden our education.  However, trusting the experts runs counter to one common rallying call of skepticism, which is to “do the research yourself.”  For me, scientific research means actually sitting in the lab/office and doing the work that goes in the peer-reviewed journals, though skeptical research often means sifting through web or print sources for the information. In that latter case, you need to trust your sources.  Learning how the scientific method works, how science and scientists really work, and learning who to trust is actually an important part of skepticism, especially if we are to overcome a perfectly natural tendency to reject something that is complex and inconvenient.

So that brings me to the fooferah I mentioned in the first paragraph, that being James Randi’s post on the Swift blog about AGW.  Honestly, I don’t want to comment much on it and let his words, as well as a very thoughtful follow-up, speak for themselves.  Randi is darn good at what he does, and his commentary doesn’t change that.  Also, his opinions are not necessarily the official stance of the JREF or of the skeptical movement in general. That’s part of what is so great about skeptics, we won’t fall in line behind our heroes if they say something that we don’t agree with.  Also, our heroes are willing to self-correct when necessary, and that is invaluable.

So, I’m not going to get up in arms that the godfather of skepticism showed some skepticism of AGW, or at least admitted ignorance on the topic.  But it does make me want to work that much harder to make sure that the methods, as well as the results, of science are more broadly and deeply understood.  And I hope that skeptics will continue to reach out to the experts when tackling the “big fish” topics.

That being said, any actual climate change scientists want to meet for coffee? I know I have a lot to learn…