It’s possible because (scientific) skepticism is a learned skill. It is doubtful, though, that Deniers will ever become skeptics because: (1) they tend to be older with strongly held rigid political and/or religious beliefs that dictate how they see, interpret, and understand the world, and; (2) they have never had an interest in learning science (not to be confused with any general interests in scientific discoveries and inventions).
In fact, it is remarkable how many Deniers have the same 7th grade understanding of science – as if their brains all stopped learning at the exact same age and level. This also applies to people like Jim Z and OM who undergraduate degrees in technical fields. The fact that Jim Z honestly thinks that he is a scientist is a testimony to extent of his scientific illiteracy. Jim’s knowledge of science is no different than that of everyone with a technical job skill, from programmers to auto mechanics to welders – however, most of those people understand that they are not scientists.
‘Facts Matter’ makes an excellent observation: >>But it leaves me wondering; do Young Earth creationists ever abandon their beliefs to become contributors to the many *real* controversies in biology? <<
There are clear similarities between Young Earth Creationists and AGW Deniers - in part, but not completely, because the anti-AGW political agenda adopted the basic strategy and many of its tactics directly from the Creationists’ movement – such as claiming that they are “true” scientists and that real science is a religion. Overall, those who deny any science are confirmed Deniers and few will ever change their opinions – for the simple reason that they have no interest in education or scientific knowledge.
Over time, I suspect that more AGW-deniers than Biology-deniers will change their minds because the physical evidence for AGW will be observable by people during their lifetimes. On the other hand, since there can never be any scientific evidence for the existence of any gods (because, by definition, the scientific method does not allow the use of supernatural explanations) – Creationist denial of science is more open-ended and more likely to continue generation after generation with fewer ever coming to their senses.
====
edit ---
And from kano – who adamantly insists that he is not scientifically illiterate – we get the following concentrated example demonstrating Deniers general ignorance of science and their inability to understand, recognize, evaluate, and interpret scientific evidence (AKA scientific illiteracy):
>>Apart from temperatures have not increased for the last, 10 15 17 yrs whatever. CO2 is logarithmic so REDUCED effect I would agree with you, skeptics agree CO2 will produce some warming but not enough to be dangerous, possibly beneficial.<<
There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in kano’s answer that can e considered scientific.
Apart from temperatures have not increased for the last, 10 15 17 yrs whatever.
CO2 is logarithmic so REDUCED effect I would agree with you, skeptics agree CO2 will produce some warming but not enough to be dangerous, possibly beneficial.
Over the years I have learnt to be skeptic of every thing. I was originally suckered in with AGW with no doubt in my mind thanks to the media.... But then for university I had to do a journal based assignment and I got to choose the topic so I naturally choose GW. Finding Journals with the right sources criteria for GW was a nightmare. I ended up learning we were actually at the start of global cooling and I had to twist a lot of information just to prove GW so I could pass my assignment. I read a lot od deniers stuff and that makes me equally roll my eyes. I think if you are an actual denier based on scientific stats it would be natural to be sceptical of further information in the media.
*Honestly you can't complain about deniers using short term cooler weather when the GW-ists used short term warming to prove global warming. Why do you excuse one group from using it but not the other. The thing is short term weather doesn't matter at all, even if all of next yr was the hottest in 60yrs it wouldn't prove anything as gw doesn't work like that and neither does GC. Also That volcano claim actually originated from science but layman confused the facts and came out with a wrongly twisted version. The thing is natural CO2 created from volcanos sits at a completely different layer of the atmosphere then man made CO2. The fact that man made CO2 sits at a different level means that it may not even have an effect on the climate at all. It's still unknown. By the way I'm a scientist, an environmental scientist and I'm pro cooling because that is what ice core data has shown and ice core data is very reliable unlike the machines used to calculate how much CO2 is in the atmosphere which has proven to be faulty numerous time but they still use it coz it proves GW. I'm not the only scientist that is pro-cooling. I came across another scientist once that was prowarming and I showed him Dome C which proves GC and he was like oh yes the ice core with the last 7 glacial period and was like no that's not what it's called it's called currently entering GC with the end over GW shown more then 10000yrs ago which is why it is still relatively warm as gc takes 100000yrs. So this made me question the honest of any scientist who claims GW. I have no problem with this GW crap though because it keeps me in the job and it's better for the environment, you know, it's things we should be doing any way to help the environment out and not just coz we think it may effect us which is really selfish. But I'm certainly not going to lie.
I don't think anyone with integrity and knowledge would use any of the arguments you list. But it leaves me wondering; do Young Earth creationists ever abandon their beliefs to become contributors to the many *real* controversies in biology?
BTW, I saw "Deniers at Amazon" in the ad on this Q, clicked (has pegminer written a book, I wonderd?), and got details of nylon stockings. No doubt Google has noticed and will be sending me suitably kinky ads for a while.
People can change their minds about an issue. Human nature is to adopt a position and defend it with your last breath- never stopping to really consider the opposing view. But people do change. Some have even gone from supporting the AGW hypothesis to rejecting it (and vice versa).
Yes, as a psychological state as Freud postulated, it would be possible for someone in denial to become a skeptic. Freud said that if a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept he or she may reject it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The Elisabeth Kubler-Ross model of the five stages of grief helps explain the progression; denial first, then anger, of course, is the second stage, followed by bargaining, depression and acceptance.
So if you look at it purely from the standpoint of psychology, many people who are described as deniers may actually be either in the denial or anger stages, and those stages are evident here and elsewhere.
However, education, political ideology and other influencing factors such as religious belief-usually fundamentalist-can have an impact on denial. This can range from a simple lack of knowledge about the facts-understandable when it comes to the sciences and particularly in specialized fields such as the study of weather and climate-to deliberate attempts to undermine progress on any given issue such as climate change for political or economic reasons. People who may have agendas separate from science itself-and often very clearly do-are not as likely to move out of the category of 'denier,' and in fact may not be in denial as a psychological state.
The linkage of denial to the Holocaust was perhaps an unfortunate casual comment that inflamed a lot of people, but there was already a superheated emotional confrontation rooted in political ideology underway and a lot of name-calling going on so it is difficult to judge how much the linkage influenced the reaction to the term 'denier.' By definition, people in denial for any reason are not amenable to the influence of evidence. It can only be said that the term denier is an effective hot button to tap the emotions of others, many of whom are in denial about their ability to manage their emotions and already off balance emotionally, and more often than not actually in denial about THAT even when it is abundantly clear to everyone around them. Unfortunately, this state is quite counterproductive, with name-calling and inability to focus on the real issues at hand the outcome. We certainly have seen that in the political arena here in the U.S. in many different arenas to the point that it is nothing short of ludicrous.
Turning the tide of the "debate"-which is not at this stage as much of a debate about science as it is a p*****g match between two opposing political parties and therefore not the exploration of skepticism at any kind of real scientific level by most-is difficult, if not impossible. This could be considered in many if not most instances to be the goal of the political ideologues opposed to any kind of action that would disrupt the status quo as has been aptly demonstrated by parties out of power in the U.S. for many years now. 'Denial' in this instance is not likely to abate any time soon to be replaced by dialogue, so it doesn't really matter what term is applied...it will cause offense and anger on the part of the highly emotional ideologues. Nonetheless-the warmists, proponents, alarmists, realists-whatever people want to call them, it being obvious that the labels the opposition view has tried to apply have neither been effective at provoking the desired emotional reaction nor stuck-have too quickly applied the label of 'denier' to the very people they should be most interested in engaging in dialogue with. And that, while also understandable, is also unfortunate.
Scientific skeptics would not use those fallacious arguments. Scientific skeptics are distinct from climate change skeptics in that they embrace scientific method. The vast majority agree that AGW is real and happening but of course are open to change their minds in accordance with valid evidence, which of course is fundamental to scientific method. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
It's possible that deniers who ignore levels of uncertainty that are well beyond ridiculous will give the science of man induced climate change the proper amount of skepticism it is due.
I suspect that if a denier ever becomes an actual skeptic, he/she will tell a story about such a change with, "A funny thing happened on the way to Damascus." (reference to Saul of Tarsus.)
A fundamental distinction between deniers and true skeptics is that deniers persist in using obviously wrong arguments. Here are some that we've seen recently:
1. Temperatures haven't really increased (one version of this says that temperatures haven't increased, it's just the "anomalies")
2. Humans haven't increased CO2 (it's volcanoes is one variation on this, or CO2 used to be higher but biased scientists threw out the measurements is another)
3. If there's really global warming, home come _____________ has been so cold? (fill in the blank with your favorite location).
4. 31,000 scientists say there is no global warming
5. The effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so adding more to the atmosphere has no effect.
6. There is no greenhouse effect.
7. Global warming is just a plot of Al Gore to make money.
I'm sure there are plenty more.
The point is that none of these arguments would ever be used by true skeptics, and I doubt that they could find ANY scientists (including Lindzen, Spencer, etc.) that use any of these arguments.
My question is whether any of the people that make these obviously specious arguments ever "graduate" to skeptic status, where they try to make legitimate arguments. Personally, I haven't seen any.
rarely.
Deniers have already made up their minds and like creationists (and often they are creationists)
they try to talk sciencey hoping to sound smart but like most religious people they cherry pick
Some in the science industry to when they retire and towing the line matters not to them any longer
