And My Resignation, in Protest,
From Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
By Gary P. Posner
Accordingly, I recommend this 2020 article by Michael Shellenberger, and this March 2022 C-SPAN video presentation by Bjorn Lomborg or this transcribed 2023 speech by Lomborg (if you prefer to read). |
It should be obvious that my writings represent open-minded "skepticism" as opposed to close-minded "denial," especially after reading the following definitions
from Skeptical Inquirer's own website:
In response to this climate-science "exchange" on pages 61-62
The handling of my letter as fodder for an "exchange" on climate-science criticism
(January/February 2018, pages 61-62) lacked crucial context. Your introduction neglected to mention that as a
CSI* scientific consultant but climate non-expert, I have repeatedly urged
Skeptical Inquirer to engage with a politically independent
climatologist like Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
who eschews bandwagoning in favor of keeping a critical eye on her own field. But rather than inviting Curry to submit an article, speak at
CSICon*,
or (as I have most strongly advocated) sit for a hard-hitting interview with peers such as the exchange's "two noted scientists and climate experts,"
they instead were fed one of my other letters like shark bait.
Michael Mann accuses me of the classic logical fallacy of "special pleading" as if my uncontested meteorological points about Sandy and Harvey justify
the moniker of "denier." Rather, they were offered because those who mistakenly ascribe the catastrophic destructiveness of those storms to climate
change ignore their "special" circumstances. He then asserts that record-high global oceanic temperatures are fostering additional exceptionally strong
hurricanes "[as] now, with Irma, [which formed and strengthened over] the open Atlantic.
In lieu of occupying further valuable space dissecting Mark Boslough's ruminations, I will simply opine that participation in a moral crusade, even one
as noble as saving the planet, should not require enucleation of one's critical eye. My essay in the Summer 2013 "Skeptical Briefs"
(gpposner.com/skep-view-warming.pdf), as well as the other "Climate Change" entries on the Topic Index page of tampabayskeptics.org, account for
everything (to my recollection) that I have had published regarding the issues at hand. Readers can judge for themselves whether my efforts represent
close-minded "denial" or open-minded "skepticism."
Gary P. Posner, M.D.
*Notes: CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), formerly known as CSICOP, publishes the bimonthly Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Skeptical Briefs
(now discontinued) was its quarterly companion newsletter. CSICon is its annual national conference. Additionally, two links in my 2013
Skeptical Briefs essay no longer function as originally. The Scientific American article on Judith
Curry (warts and all) can be found here.
The article quoting the IPCC chairman can be found on
this
archived page.
My letter of resignation from CSI/Skeptical Inquirer can be found here.
*She does not mention his name (Michael Mann) here, but follow link near top of that page to
"'Deniers,' lies and politics," where she discusses this matter in detail.
*See "Hiding the Decline"
(and note that the link to "Hiding the Decline: Part II" is near top of page, and so on as you view its additional parts/pages)
Note: My own unique review of Steyn's book was rejected for publication by
both Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine:
My "One Skeptic's View
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.
… Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration. … Not all individuals who call
themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. Skeptics are those who have devoted much of their careers to practicing and promoting scientific
skepticism.
of the January/February 2018 issue of
Skeptical Inquirer
submitted the following letter, which the editor rejected for publication,
leading shortly thereafter to my resignation*, after 26 years, as a scientific consultant
to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), which publishes Skeptical Inquirer:
Editor:
Tampa, Florida
Reasons for applying critical thinking toward the "scientific consensus" on climate change abound in the writings
of Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The following selections from her "Climate Etc."
website may be of particular interest (these introductory page descriptions/links might not be
visible in "mobile friendly" view mode):
Excerpts: "The real issue is the magnitude of man-made warming relative to the whole host of other things that
go on in the natural climate system. And then the bigger issue is really whether this warming is dangerous. You know, a certain amount of
warming is generally regarded by people as a good thing. But a whole lot of warming isn't
Excerpts: "Politically, I'm an independent.
Excerpts: "In the years since the [IPCC's] 5th Assessment Report, the uncertainty has grown. The latest climate model results — prepared for the forthcoming IPCC 6th
Assessment Report — shows that a majority of the climate models are producing values of ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] exceeding 5℃. The addition of poorly
understood additional processes into the models has increased confusion and uncertainty. At the same time, refined efforts to determine values of the equilibrium climate
sensitivity from the historical data record obtain values of ECS about 1.6℃, with a range from 1.05 to 2.7.
Excerpt: "The mantra of 'settled science' is belied by the
inherent complexity of climate change as a scientific problem, the plethora of agents and processes that
influence the global climate, and disagreements among scientists. Manufacture and enforcement of a "consensus" on
the topic of human-caused climate change acts to the detriment of the scientific process, our understanding of
climate change, and the policy responses. Indeed, it becomes a fundamentally anti-scientific process when debate,
disagreement, and uncertainty are suppressed."
Excerpts: "Scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale
of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
Excerpts: "[P]reparing this testimony
Curry's conclusion (in part): "I have written many posts about Michael Mann — apart from my own
concerns* about the hockey stick.
= = = = = = = = = =
Read the October 2010 Scientific American article on Judith Curry (warts and all)
Read the January 2017 article/interview regarding Curry's retirement from academia
("I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science")
Read my letter of resignation from CSI and Skeptical Inquirer
Return to my Home Page