The unskeptical skeptic

Skeptics pride themselves on their hardheaded, hard-nosed realism. Unlike gullible "believers," the strong-minded skeptics will accept no claims without rigorous analysis and will advance no theories or prognostications unless they are sure of their facts. They are cautious, methodical, serious, sober, and implacably committed to the rules of rational discourse and logical thought.

Or at least, so they like to think, and so they would have us believe.

But take the case of Susan Blackmore, the most prominent media skeptic in England, who has embraced the global warming crusade with an apocalyptic fervor that would make the Club of Rome proud.

"The archbishop was right about climate change on the Today programme this morning," she wrote in an opinion piece posted on The Guardian's Web site on  March 28, 2006.

In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet simply cannot take much more. As Jim Lovelock points out in his "Revenge of Gaia," she has a fever, and we are the bug that's causing it. The carrying capacity of the earth is possibly a billion or two; it's certainly far lower than the current plague of humans.

I know this. The science has been building up for years and is now clear. When sea levels rise further millions will drown, when the deserts grow bigger millions will starve, when the glaciers end their present flood of excess melt water vast cities will become uninhabitable almost overnight. Then what?

Britain looks set to be one of the few places on earth that might remain habitable for some time. If the Gulf stream switches off our climate will cool, offsetting the general warming. We may still have drinking water, be able to grow crops, and lose only a few of our finest cities to the floods. As an island nation we might be able to protect and rehouse our own flood refugees. But what about everyone else? The world will be awash with eco-refugees, desperate to get to anywhere with land and fresh water. What do we do?

Well, there's some sober analysis for you.

Whatever anybody thinks about global warming, a theory that is largely based on the dubious premise that computer models can accurately predict long-range climate changes, one thing is certain: the evidence for catastrophic global warming in the near future is far, far less compelling than the evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and even life after death -- all subjects that Blackmore has made a career of disparaging.

Observe that she does not say she worries that such a scenario might come about, or that there is some evidence supporting this scenario and other evidence suggesting otherwise. No, she writes bluntly, "I know this. The science has been building up for years and is now clear." And what does "the science" so irrefutably tell us? "Sea levels [will] rise ... millions will drown ... the deserts [will] grow bigger ... millions will starve ... the glaciers [will] end ... vast cities will become uninhabitable almost overnight."

That's quite a series of predictions to base on "the science." Personally, I doubt there are more than a handful of respected climatologists who would publicly, and in writing, endorse the particulars of Blackmore's end-of-the-world scenario.

But Blackmore has no time to back up her allegations with such trivialities as evidence and facts. She's in a hurry to get to the real point of her column -- laying out the ethical alternatives that we face in the ultimate lifeboat scenario.

If we save our own nation by protecting our borders and doing our utmost to feed and protect our own citizens then we will have to watch the suffering of the billions dying elsewhere....

If we take the unselfish route and try to save everyone the outcome is likely to be horrific conflict in the fight over resources, and continuing devastation of the planet until most, or all, of humanity is dead.

If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilisation and of everything we have achieved.

Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population - weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example - a prospect that does not look at all easy from here.

At this point we appear to be in the realm of science fiction -- specifically florid, overwrought 1950s science-fiction along the lines of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, in which the handful of really valuable and worthwhile people survive a global catastrophe and come down from their mountaintop at the end to rebuild the world, or maybe the George Pal movie When Worlds Collide, in which humanity's best and brightest are selected to man a rocket ship that will serve as their escape vehicle from a doomed Earth.

Incidentally, I would guess that in Blackmore's scenario, parapsychology-denying archskeptics who've logged a lot of BBC airtime would rate pretty highly among the chosen elites whose lives would be spared for the good of all mankind. Nothing new about that -- the fantasy of the end of the world, in which only oneself and one's best friends survive, is a common enough narcissistic preoccupation.

But to return to the main point: Blackmore's cool, clear-eyed, objective analysis. Which in this case consists of predicting (Plan A) "the suffering of the billions dying elsewhere," or (Plan B) "the continuing devastation of the planet until most, or all, of humanity is dead," or (Plan C) "the destruction of civilisation and of everything we have achieved," or (Plan D, our best-case scenario) '"a drastically reduced population" made possible by ruthlessly weeding out everyone less vital to our common welfare than the above-mentioned, all-important BBC commentators. 

"Indeed," Blackmore concludes soberly, "none of these choices looks easy,

but if we fail to make any decisions then I believe the most likely outcome is that we in the rich west will go on trying to salve our consciences by giving aid to the poorer parts of the world until we realise, far too late, that Gaia is going to chuck us all off whatever we do, and nothing can be saved at all.

So there you have it. Science, in the person of great Britain's premier media skeptic, has spoken. Either surrender to the remorseless logic of Blackmore's argument and choose one of the endgame scenarios she's so thoughtfully laid out for you, or prepare yourself for Gaia's unceremonious eviction of the human race.

Such doomsday alarmism is common in every era, whether the purported threat is overpopulation, energy depletion, nuclear war, an impending ice age, global warming, or the Second Coming. There's nothing new about it, or even particularly interesting. What is a little interesting is to see how really serious and thoughtful and cautious and rigorous and methodical and logical and rational and analytical this famed superskeptic turns out to be.

Answer: not very.

And that leads us to a question worth pondering. Could it be that the skeptics' incessant declarations of intellectual seriousness are only so much bluster and self-serving bombast, and that they are actually quite shallow people with little or no understanding of the scientific method or even of logical thought? Could it be that they are mere poseurs, arrogant, ignorant wannabes whose top priority is wangling an invitation to A-list parties or securing a quote in the local newspaper, and who formulate their opinions on the basis of whatever media speculation or ballyhooed junk science happens to be prevalent at the moment? Could the skeptical fraternity (and its few sorority sisters) be, in fact, every bit as prone to bias, to shoddy thinking and indefensible leaps of logic, as any of the deluded "believers" they despise?

Is it possible that the skeptical Emperor wears no clothes?

Say it ain't so, Sue!

Comments

[Art]

In the last century the earth's temperature has gone up 1 degree. At that rate it will take several centuries before it's too warm for me, at which time I will be long gone. I'm a whole lot more worried about peak-oil than I am about global warming. Peak oil is a heck of a lot scarier than global warming. check out

http://www.dieoff.org/

Now that's some scary stuff.

[Matthew C]

Ouch!

That's gonna leave a mark!

[william]

Do these skeptical organizations really know how to do a valid experiment? My research shows they have tried twice to do an experiment and both times their experiments were a disaster. One was poorly designed and the other they fudged the data.

That poor Russian girl was set up to fail and she still came through with results (4 out of 7) that were of statistical significance. And what does one experiment prove? Does anyone really believe this group of debunkers would have admitted to her paranormal abilities if she had achieved 5 out of 7 hits? Five out of seven could have been a lucky guess and this one experiment would have proved nothing; other than more research needs to be done. This was a very poorly design experiment.

I have also read they fudged the data on the first experiment they attempted because it proved something they did not believe in. I trust ultra skeptics about as much as I trust the pope to give me factual data. Two sides of the same coin: believers and nonbelievers.

To Susan’s credit she stated something about the Buddhist teachings about dependent origination that was in error, I emailed her to cite her research, and she emailed back and stated to me she was in error and had stated this in her article without doing any research on this term.

[MickeyD]

"That poor Russian girl was set up to fail and she still came through with results (4 out of 7) that were of statistical significance."

She was "investigated" by Dr Richard Wiseman who was recently overheard boasting that "skepticism is very lucrative".

[Bob Wallace]

She reminds me of Agent Smith in "The Matris": "Humans are a virus."

[Leo]

Yes I agree with you Art that in the last century the earth's temperature has only gone up 1 degree that is suppose to continue then reverse into a ice age perhaps. As far as peak oil goes I would not be worried about it we have different other thing like hydro and other alternative stuff.

[Tony M]

Global warming is a potentially serious problem even if the projections fall far, far short of Blackmore's dire forecast. (Did she stay up too late the night before watching Children of Men?) Many of the proposed solutions make sense in and of themselves, without even bringing global warming into the picture: renewable energy sources, cleaner energy, conservation, etc.

Unfortunately this sort of hysteria only causes too many people to turn off the more reasonable message. It is like the Victor Zammit example: he is so hysterical in his pronouncements that me makes the field of after life studies look absurd.

However, Michael's main point - that Blackmore exhibits no 'skepticism' when it comes to 'science' she has an a priori belief in - is excellent and unquestionably true.

[Marcel Cairo]

Here's another quote from Susan Blackmore...

“We live in a pointless universe. We’re here for no reason at all. There isn’t a soul. There isn’t a spirit. We’re not going to live forever in some kind of heaven, or something like that. And, I think there are no paranormal phenomena, although I can’t be sure of that. Yet, we have extraordinary experiences.”"

If you want to listen to more dribble from Susan Blackmore's mouth, here is a link to an interview she did on Skeptico.

[Tim]

Susan Blackmore's unwarranted surety is yet another example of what I like to call "I KNOW disease." It's particularly common at certain periods in history when the scientific community becomes so full of itself that it decides it has all the answers in order to massage its own very human ego and sense of self-importance.

So we get Susan Blackmore stating she KNOWS climate change will destroy humanity while KNOWING that psi is not real and we live in a purposeless cosmos. Daniel Dennett KNOWS that the mind is 100% produced by the brain and that we're just animate zombies with no free will. Richard Dawkins KNOWS that all religion is delusion and a cancer on the earth. And so on.

The funny thing is, as in the past, all this certitude will turn out to be 100% WRONG. As in the past, when scientists have stated that we had discovered everything there was to be discovered and the rest was just refinement, we'll find out that QM, consciousness, dark energy, psi, and even reality continue to be confoundly, thrillingly complex, counterintuitive, and inexplicable.

Hence the utter foolishness and egotism of stating, "I KNOW." We don't know, and part of the joy of the journey is finding small pieces of truth. It's only the desperate fear of the unknown and the need for self-importance that makes people like Susan Blackmore so certain.

[Tim]

BTW, the peak oil crisis forecast is right on. $8 a gallon gasoline is likely to do a lot more damage a lot faster to our car-centric, suburban way of life in this country than climate change. Ironically, that collapse will actually improve the climate as we're forced to go local and completely change how we think about the economy and our lifestyles.

[Art]

As far as peak oil goes I would not be worried about it we have different other thing like hydro and other alternative stuff. - Leo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too little too late. The world uses billions of barrels of oil every year. The huge population increases of the twentieth century are directly attributable to cheap energy in the form of oil. It takes hundreds of tons of food to keep a city the size of New York running; and agriculture and food production are completely dependent on fossil fuels. We should of been building the infrastructure to wean ourselves off petroleum decades ago. Peak Oil is upon us, and I predict the consequences are going to be dire. Let's just say that the obesity epidemic will take care of itself.

[Robbie]

I personally agree that Susan Blackmore is a poor skeptic and does not deserve the title 'skeptic'. We need skeptics to ask questions that believers and other people would not ask but people like Blackmore take it too far and I find it hippocritical. One good thing about blackmore is that her riduclous theories on NDE's made them seem less likely to be workings of the brain and alternative theories that disprove the thought that NDE's may be an insight into an afterlife.
I must admit I agree that global warming is occuring and some disasters may occur, but I don't think that they will occur to that level. Its just ridiculous.
The next thing I would like to add-even though irrelevant to this blog I cannot add this to others is a comment on Michael Prescott.
I would like to say that i think ou are one of the most intellectual, open minded, nicest guys I've ever, well, read about, and if there were more people like you, Science and alot of things would be much better.
Keep up the good work.

[Darryn]

I wonder if Michael has learned yet that he's even been mentioned in a message from the beyond!

http://www.montaguekeen.com/articles/montague/apr8.htm

[Michael Prescott]

>I wonder if Michael has learned yet that he's even been mentioned in a message from the beyond!

Cool. I didn't know. Although actually it was Tony M who referred to Veronica Keen as "research royalty."

Robbie - thanks very much for the kind words! I don't know if Susan Blackmore would be feeling quite as charitable toward me, though. (For the record, from what little I know of her, she seems like a nice person, and much easier to get along with than some other high-profile skeptics.)

>I must admit I agree that global warming is occuring and some disasters may occur

Yes, I think there is probably some global warming, but it may be part of a natural cycle. Mars is heating up, too, and its icecaps are melting. There aren't any factories on Mars, so isn't solar activity the most likely explanation? Some scientists believe that this solar activity goes in cycles and is self-correcting.

[william]

Tim, are you sure these people will be 100% wrong? Sorry cheap hit. I agree with you that this journey is much about finding those small pieces of truth. What would the journey of life be like if we were all knowing? The answer to that question helps to reveal the origin of our ignorance.

Maybe this is the day to stroke Michael. I for one am amazed that someone can change their personal paradigm is such a short period of time as Michael has done. I wonder but don’t know that there may have been a significant emotional event in his life that caused this? My experience has been that personal and societal paradigms are almost impossible to change without some kind of transformational event occurring in one’s life.

Take the gun control paradigm in this country; (see how I got that in blog) now many are advocating concealed guns for college students. If this happens I predict not sure but predict that there will be grade inflation for college students at a rate this country has never seen in its history. Professors beware of giving that deserved B instead of the student’s perceived A.

The rest of the modern world looks at us in disbelief in our inability to have effective gun control.

[Tim]

William,

Completely true. Last summer I was a complete, arrogant skeptic. Then I faced my wife's barely avoided death, and as a result of my own post traumatic stress reaction, became obsessed with death and afterlife. I dealt with this fear (beyond my therapy) by finding out everything I could about the paranormal: was it real? What did it say about survival? What did it say about being human? And so on.

As a result, not only have I passed through the dark tunnel of PTSD and am myself again, but I'm different. I'm much more open minded, and I see that many things I did not believe to be possible are true. I see the holistic nature of our reality. A new world has opened to me because of this trauma. If this is what it takes to make people change their paradigm, it may not happen very often.

BTW, on the new Skeptiko interview, Richard Wiseman calls for more collaboration between psi researchers and skeptics, which you have to respect. At least he's trying.

[Bill Ingle]

I believe Susan is not your typical Randi sort of sceptic; rather she is more like someone who fell in love and was spurned.

In "Why I gave up parapsychology" found on her
website, she writes:

"Come to think of it, I feel slightly sad. It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic."

To my way of thinking she simply went about this incorrectly, without carefully examining her assumptions regarding the nature of such experiments and how unsuited they are -- for the most part -- for exploring non-physical regions of self and reality. This is a shame, really.

Regards

Bill I.
RealityTest
Magnolia, MA

[Eteponge]

It seems to me, IMHO, that in her case, she had an inaccurate OBE, several bad experiments, and then apparently came to the conclusion from these events that, "It's all bullshit!", becoming in turn a one-sided pathological pseudo-skeptic who is unfair to the other side of the argument, rather than becoming a neutral investigative fair-to-both-sides researcher, which she should have been in the first place. Rather, she seems to have gone from gullible one-sided believer to gullible one-sided skeptic, from one extreme to the other. Just a personal observation, I may be wrong though.

[william]

Thanks Tim for that insight. So sorry to hear about your wife.

This book I am reading and rereading now called "no living person could have known” a German soldier shows up near his gravesite in Poland in full uniform where he was killed and asks that a letter be written to his wife so she can remarry. Sure enough his wife after receiving the letter petitions the polish government to dig up this gravesite and lo and behold there he is in full uniform just like the polish woman saw him that day at her front door when he insisted that she write his wife in Germany.

Bet Susan would have a ball with that story. When I started this research 16 years ago for the most part atheist and materialist I never dreamed I would find such stories. This material world appears to hide many mysteries. Please note that Susan always leaves the door open in her statements for the paranormal. I think what might have happen to Susan was a drug overdose hallucination not a valid NDE.

Thanks Bill Ingle for sharing your website as I read the first sentence with interest. Spending 30 years teaching technology courses and seminars I look forward to reading your website.

[Tim]

Thanks, my wife is fine now (and pregnant).

I'm with you. I'm a journalist by profession, so my first impulse and my training is when I have questions, investigate. Dig and ask with an open mind. But I never thought I would have my certitude so shattered by what I've found looking into survival, anomalous human cognition, intuitive knowing, healing, holism, etc. It's been a thrilling experience to discover that so much that I dismissed is real, while retaining a healthy skepticism about some more preposterous, unproven New Age matters.

[Bill Ingle]

Dear Etaponge:

(Here we are interacting in Michael's comment section -- I hope he doesn't mind.)

I hope you enjoy my site -- it would be much more comprehensive if only I didn't have to work for a living. (Much of that work has been connected with "high technology," usually on the information side and going back into the heyday of industrial automation. I've burned out more than once, losing any desire to keep up with the ever changing buzzwords, acronyms, and whatnot.)

Bill

[Tony M]

>Cool. I didn't know. Although actually it was Tony M who referred to Veronica Keen as "research royalty."

Just to clarify. I was referring to Montague Keen in his premortum activities. For more information on a distinguished career in parapsychology, use the link:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/researchers/keen.htm

[Urban Mystic Dee]

I've always wondered why is it nobody ever complained to Mt. Pinatubo when it erupted in '91. After all it did release more carbondioxide in one day than humans have in the past hundred years, so it's at least as much to blame for global warm*wink* as we are. These people, the skep-dicks, crack me up sometimes. They flame everyone who doesn't believe what they do and then come out with a bunch of beliefs that are just as outrageous, if not more so.

In my new book (All Hell Breaks Loose! Season Two, which is being reviewed by my publisher as I type this) I take the time to tear apart the whole man-made global warming thing and even poke fun at skep-dick leader Michael Shermer who was suckered into the Church of Global Warming.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of this site and keep up the good work!

[Veronica Keen]

The change in the energy of the World happened in February, Spirit are now closer than ever in the history of the World and so can influence people as never before. Monty talked about Stem Cells and how the World needed to look to them instead of drug based medicine. The Senate in America have approved the research and in England last week there was a big debate in the House of Lords approving research on Stem Cells just as he said would happen. Believe me there is so much going on, we will see many changes this year. Everyone who is aware of Spirit had amazing experiences in February that is when they made their final breakthrough. Even I have difficulty keeping up with what is going on at the moment. All the best, Veronica Keen