Not Really Skepticism (Part III)
The Charlatan Skeptics (I think this should be my new band name).
In the thrilling conclusion of our skepticism miniseries, we tackle FAKE skepticism (the nerve!)
Read Part I about skepticism here, and Part II here.
The third definition of skepticism that isn’t really:
This type is really ideological certainty masquerading as skepticism.
These are people who claim to be purveyors of caution, prudence, or of further inquiry, but instead they actually act as prosecutors - trying to persuade us of exactly the opposite claim. It includes many of the people who were originally identified as ‘climate skeptics’.
In reality, the climate skeptics (we now call them climate deniers) were really trying to make sure they sowed so much doubt about the science, that policy aimed at beginning to address the issue never stood a chance. This is the opposite of true skepticism.
In the case of global warming, their claims (and the real translation) ran something like this:
Claim: The scientists disagree. There is probably no such thing as climate change.
Translation: We don’t want any more environmental policy, so we will attack the science and the scientists until public trust is eroded.
Claim: Even if there is some climate change, it’s natural. There is no proof that it is caused by humans.
Translation: We’re trying to demonstrate that we know something about how climate has changed in the past to lend ourselves credibility when we reject the same science that shows us where we’re headed.
Claim: Even if it is caused by humans, it won’t be that bad - the scientists are alarmists - climate change might even be good!
Translation: We will paint the scientists as scare-mongering, so you won’t pay too much attention to our political motives of trying to scare you with how much climate policy will cost you.1
Oy.
In fact, the ‘climate skeptics’ clearly enjoyed the term they were given (or adopted themselves), because it lent them a sort of credibility and simultaneously removed the same kind of credibility from the scientific establishment. When scientists released findings with the appropriate caveats of evidence-based understanding (i.e. they were transparent about the probability of a specific change happening, and their scientific confidence in that finding), the politicians jumped on it claiming ‘the science is uncertain’.
And if that didn’t work, they challenged the competence and the motivation of the scientists themselves. The climate deniers were the people whose scientific competence and political motivations were questionable, but deflected this criticism by claiming the apparent moral high ground of ‘wise skepticism’, and turned the same criticism outward, towards the scientists2.
In other words, the people who were most deserving of our skepticism, avoided it. Many people bought into the ‘climate change hoax’ idea without any skepticism of its initiators, including those who received campaign money from ‘Big Oil’.
Not only was this immensely irritating, it was dangerous. In the 1990s and early 2000s, I would venture that most prominent climate scientists received threats of harm. I certainly did and I was nowhere near prominent.
This is happening again today with many other issues, which is why it’s so important that we reclaim actual skepticism and identify the fake kind for what it is: unprincipled prosecutorial hubris.
If skepticism is based on doubt or distrust, these climate deniers were the opposite: certain that their way of viewing the world was right and better. The mark of these ideologues is that they cannot abide questions or criticism of their stance. Whereas good scientists (and curious, psychologically secure, and appropriately skeptical people) welcome them. This is the major difference. Actual skepticism is defined not just by throwing around real (or fake) doubt, but listening to the evidence-based answers.
So, the bottom line on skepticism:
Real and useful skepticism is based on judgement of trustworthiness. It is essential that we all have a measure of skepticism when there might be reason to distrust people or information (when motives are self-serving for example!), but becomes negative and distancing when overused, and is completely NOT what is being used by those who have a position to sell you.
We are at a pivotal moment in history. The autocrats are winning in some places. Public trust in science and scientists is low. Rights and freedoms are being eroded while we are being told the opposite. A safe, clean, equality-based society is no longer the goal for some of our leaders. And most of us will lose out if society is not based on it becoming more equitable over time.
This little series about skepticism is not only super fascinating (riiiight?), it’s part of our solution.
We MUST learn to be discerning about who deserves our trust and who has motives about which we should be deeply suspicious. We must have confidence in our ability to follow the thread of inquiry to real unbiased information and not rely on our peers or ‘our tribe’ to tell us what to think. And we must be dismissive of those who seek to sell us a viewpoint by undermining our mainstream institutions and authoritative sources of knowledge (even when that knowledge is evolving - perhaps especially so).
It’s time to reclaim real skepticism as part of our toolkit for writing the next chapter - A chapter based on vision, evidence, wisdom, and equality, not on ideology and self-interest.
Even though it likely won’t cost you much, if anything. Whereas not addressing climate change will likely cost you a LOT. Possibly also your livelihood, life, community, favorite places etc.
I mean, how hard is it to doubt claims that ‘the climate scientists are in it for the money’. ??