« Student Says Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Planted More Questions (UPDATED)
GOP Launched Petition Drive Demands Details Of Hillary Clinton Library Card »
How to Respond to Global Warming Deniers
With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalizing its 2007 report, the BBC helpfully examines “10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.”
For each argument, the so-called “sceptic” presents his/her case, which is then rebutted with a “counter.” I would hasten to add that many of these arguments aren’t really arguments at all, at least not in the scientific community, given that widely established facts are known, consensus achieved. The case made by global warming deniers are driven by what I will henceforth call the three “ayes” (‘I’s): ignorance, ideology, and industry.
This case is given credence (and a platform) in the media, if not in the scientific community, largely because its backers are powerful and because cowardice and unprofessionalism run amok in newsrooms everywhere. These backers, many of them from the energy industry, buy up advertising space, generating revenue for the conglomerate-sized parent companies of major media outlets. To say that they or their mouthpieces, from lobbyists to pundits, are merely sceptics is to make them seem reasonable. They’re out there spinning lies, pushing a partisan and pro-industry agenda, not contributing to some admirably healthy debate with genuinely skeptical objections to the consensus on global warming and the climate crisis.
Still, they’re out there, a lot of them, well-funded and influential, and for that reason we who do not deny global warming but see it for what it is, namely, the most pressing crisis of our time, potentially a world-catastrophic phenomenon, need to be prepared to challenge their claims and assertions, to respond with the truth to their lies and distortions.
It is not an argument, and they are not skeptics, but the BBC has nonetheless provided a useful tool. Make sure to read it and to keep it handy.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
28 Responses to “How to Respond to Global Warming Deniers”
Yes, I read them, and according to them the data in the mid 1900s is too poor to be conclusive and yet “LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS” is not considered a valid counterpoint.
If you want people to believe that Global Bear most pressing crisis of our time then you better stop making excuses for the Al Gore’s of the world with the extravagant lifestyles. When you make excuses for preserving Ted Kennedy’s beach view, you betray the idea that it is a pressing issue.
More to the point, such silly alarmist hype as
is immature and irresponsible, to say the least.
Here’s the deal SD: GW doesn’t care in the least what Ted Kennedy and Al Gore do or don’t do, anymore than does a hurricane, tornado, or the change in seasons. Using those guys as some kind of yardstick for validation of climate change and the need to address it is ridiculous and counterproductive. I continue to marvel at how environmental issues (and respect for science in general) are so subject to partisan and ideological divide. Just how low can the bar go?
You have to ask the lefties, who are the true descenders and pullers-down here, no matter what you view of what Superdestroyer had to say as some kind of cheap shot. Global warming is their beloved pet cause, which they have made political and ideological far more than anything the critics, including Bush administration “editors,” have done.
This “cause” simply has had more support and staying power so far than global cooling or acid rain. (Have Pluto Press or Verso or South End Press published any books yet about global warming and the Plutocracy?)
The hard part isn’t going to be the deniers, it’s going to be the people like me who read the reports and go “yeah, but this looks pretty adaptable to me”.
The other hard part, is that while the deniers are bad in their way, the global warming screechers are hurting the cause too, since the incessant chicken littlish cries tend to make people numb out to things.
Anyone who says that is self-discrediting, immediately.
Are they going to start crying about it someday, the way some would do about US and European nuclear weapons (but not the USSR’s) in the 1980s when Reagan was in the White House?
I don’t find these guys bad, for example (series, “The Deniers”). People deluded by their leftist politics will hate these guys.
This reminds me of acid rain, just a bigger pet cause (because it can “justify” broader, stronger government interventionism and “solutions” that resemble typical changes to society sought by the Left, unsurprisingly). There was actually something to acid rain (and remains so today, something to remember as more coal-fired power plants are built in addition to gas-fired plants, while the crazies continue to fight nukes); since I’ve moved to the eastern US for several years I have seen unpleasant, even tragic results of acid deposition on structures (ruining them). But it never was the enormous crisis the screechers claimed it to be (nor did it demand powerful government interventionism, nor was it some evil scheme by evil man, or at least the corporatist Plutocracy). Global warming has even less substance and more, worse politics, broader in scope, underpinning it. Air pollution is a known problem; global warming is hyped, and the object of all kinds of lunacy (such as we have seen by the most rabid-mouthed advocates of the Kyoto Protocol as some kind of idol of theirs).
The point being missed here has to do with the politicization of science. When people make the choice (consciously or otherwise) to align themselves with ideology first, and science – that is peer reviewed research last, then we all lose. Couching the argument in pet terms, pet rationalizations, pet loyalties, pet dislikes, and pet comfort zones, does zero, zip, nada toward furthering useful and relevant discourse. Reality doesn’t care whether you approve of it or not. It just IS, and that is precisely why Science matters more than partisan one-upmanship – reGARDless of your political stripe.
Academia has been one place long overrun by leftist politics.
“Academia has been one place long overrun by leftist politics.”
You still don’t get it. Science is a discipline, it isn’t governed by partisan politics. If you need surgery, do you quiz your surgeon on his politics before determining his fitness to operate? Your airline pilot before flying? Are you concerned about the political provenance of your microwave, your automobile, or the medication you take? Somehow I don’t think so. Again, scientific principles don’t care about Al Gore, George Bush, or Slim PIckens either. Mathematics, physics, and chemistry, etc. are Apolitical.
Yes, I do. The Bush “editors” are far from the largest group that mixes politics with science; the members of the scientific community themselves (and publishers of scientific periodicals) mix politics with science.
… their abuse. That they’re abused is the far more important issue here.
DLS, the “abuse” can’t occur when empirical, observable evidence and principles are in use. That is the beauty of science and peer review. In the end, science will always win out over politics, because it can be tested and held to account. Argument and debate are fine, but every now and then people need to examine their reasons for believing or disbelieving in a phenomenon. I recall some arguments not so long ago about evolution and “intelligent design” for example. The advocates of “intelligent design” attempted to portray it as science, but their argument just didn’t hold up. Of course all of us have beliefs that don’t require scientific validation, and scientists usually have political views, but scientific disciplines and procedures are not subject to, nor protected by anything political. Think oil and water.
No, DLS, you don’t get anything. If you are going to claim that thousands of scientists and over 90% of the world’s climatologists are saying what they say because of politics why don’t you actually prove it? I do mean prove it, not just repeat your opinion about it ad nauseum. Where is your proof other than the fact that you simply refuse to consider the possibility that they might be right?
bellisaurius says
But what about decades of droughts in some places and floods in others is pretty adaptable? Would you feel so comfortable about it if you lost your home to the floods or your livelihood in agriculture to a lengthy drought? What about the likelihood of political instability in countries suffering from these effects providing a breeding ground for terrorists? What about the shortages of fresh water supplies that we are already heading towards because of warming’s effect on mountain snowpacks?
The truth is that it is entirely possible that things could fall on the better side of the climate models, possibly because of something that has not been accounted for in the models because the researchers just don’t know something. But it is equally likely that things could be worse. There are factors that are not included in the models because they admit that there is not enough data to adequately model the potential effects they might have. These include the methane being released by the thawing of Siberian tundra and the (hopefully) much less likely event of the release of even more methane into the atmosphere by the melting of methane clathrates in the ocean. And if it is possible that there is something they don’t know that would make things better then it is just as likely that some unknown factor could worsen things.
There’s where you sink especially quickly, this time. I’m simply not blindly rushing in lockstep with the global warming “consensus” (actually, not one), much less rushing stupidly in “crisis” mode to push questionable and even crazy “solutions” to such, even if I’m subject to surly loser attacks as a result. *sigh*
In this case the burden falls much more heavily on the “believers,” particularly when they discredit themselves by engaging in ridiculous hype (“cooking the planet”) and being even sillier (or have darker motives) in pursuing what at the very least are questionable “solutions” to the “crisis.”
This is like acid rain, but much broader in scope and worse.
DLS, you still appear to be hung up on the Al Gore connection, which is likely why you’re not getting much traction. Suit yourself, the truth isn’t hidden… if you choose to ignore those bits of it you find here, don’t be afraid to look elsewhere. As for acid rain, I sense from your reference to it that you don’t credit it with being real? If that’s the case, you need to do a quick search on wikipedia. That will give you a good basic understanding. Again, it’s simple science… absent of ideology.
Hi Jim,
I know what you mean about the potentially personal relevance of some of this, but stuff like that goes on already, and it seems difficult to get people to care anyways.
The easiest, most effective solution is usually the one that will appeal to the most. In this case, that will mean most of the fix will be adaptation, with a little prevention.
In the end, apathy often trumps activism.
I like this quote
Few people would argue that having a cleaner world is bad, but many are concerned that a blind rush could put us in a worse situation than GW may put us. Doubting the accuracy and objectivity of those espousing what most times are political beliefs is far from crazy and the rabid attacks afterwards just solidify opposition.
I’m waiting for some proof, DLS. Especially since your claim about academia being overrun by the left actually pretty much only applies to the social sciences and arts. You constantly refer to the “believers”. I’m talking about the scientists who’ve done the research.
You’ve decided it’s not true and the only people you listen to are those who agree with your viewpoint. You strongly resemble the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to marching in lockstep because in fact it is you who are doing that with the section of the political right represented so well by Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma among others. You have to claim that the scientists who disagree with you are just like you, all politics and no science or betray the essential weakness of your stand on the issue. But no matter how many times you make the claim it doesn’t make it true. And yes, there is in fact consensus in the scientific community concerning the existence of AGW, just not some of the details. And like the creationists who try and misrepresent the scientific consensus by saying that disagreement among biologists about details means that they don’t agree about evolution, your misrepresentations will not change the fact that there really is consensus among the overwhelming majority of scientists concerning the broad view that AGW does exist.
The more I read and hear the argumentation from the deniers, like DLS. the more this reminds me ot the Intelligent Design controversy.
Spme people just don’t get what science is all about, and they will refuse to get it, because they just ‘know’. No reasonable analysis, no science, no proof would ever be good enough, because they have a belief, and that’s as far as their thinking can go.
Odd how what the believe and know always fits so well with what’s most comfortable for them.
So much easier to do nothing, you know, so much more comfortable.
Bellisaurius-
You have a point about how some people react.
Obciously, logic will never convince some people, because much of the resistance is not based on logic.
The subject is urgent, however, since there is no magic bullet for a solution. To counteract man’s afffect on global warming and the environment
it will take a long process. All the more important to take the first steps ASAP.
What people may not like to hear is sometimes the exact thing they should hear. When the house is on fire, you don’t to waste time singing lullabies to soothe the occupants. You want to yell ‘fire’ to alert them, whether they like the sound of your voice or not.
In that vein, I wouldn’t waste time on the incorrigles.
Let them catch up when they’re ready. All that is needed is a critical mass of those who understand and strong leadership.
I like the fire analogy, domajot, but I don;t think this is quite that (although, ironically, for some people, it will be…) on the far scales of humanity, as opposed to the smaller scale of regional issues like a couple states/countries in drought conditions, or flodding from a periodic monsoonal event.
Rather, this is going to be more like a pot of boiling water, it will slowly reach a higher temperature over a couple hundred years, and events like droughts will go from once every 50 years to once every 20-40, and hurricances will probably become fewer, but more intense; in essence nothing different in kind from what we have now. Hence why I don;t necessarily believe that reducing carbon will be the major portion of the way to go (as adaptation will probably be the route we understand most: Build higher sea walls, and concentrate food growth in areas that are going to be given longer growing seasons by the warmer climate, et al).
Of course, this could be because the engineer in me sees the fact that we’ll stop putting a lot of carbon in the atmosphere as peak oil hits us, and after about another 300 years when coal runs out, and maybe 500 after other petro sources are exhausted. Scarcity will increase cost, and cost will reduce consumption on it’s own, in other words, and the tech solutions to fix it are still in developement (unless you’re onboard with me for a massive increase in nuclear power, for which we have something like 100 times as much over what we have in oil, and we can do today, unlike solar). On the other hand, we have the technology to solve a lot of the adaptation issues now, and we can deal with those through somewhat predictable outlays.
Bellisirius-
Adaptation is becoming a necessity, but so is thinking long range. I wouldn’t want to spend all the money on adaptation, because those are only temporary patches. Adaptation can also lead to complacency, a dangerous and money-wasting state of mind.
I don’t share your relaxed view in terms of hundreds of years. The permafrost peat bogs of the Arctic are very close to melting now, and when they do, they will release big quantities of methane into the air and the water. That could have catastrophic consequences.
There is urgency involced here that can’t be pooh-poohed away.
What we should be doing is developing joint venture projects with China and India to deal with emissions and alternate energy projects. Global warming is global, not defined by borders.
A lot of this can also be approached from an environmental standpoint and healh costs due to pollution.
While some complain about the fear inducing element in global warming alerts, the same, and more, is ture when it comes to thosw who use costs as a reason to fo nothing.
We will go broke if we attempt anything!
For one thing, we are paying now for the costs of pollution induced health problems. lack of planning re land usage, wetlands preservation and on and on.
It’s not like not doing anything is free. We are bleeding money right now.
For another, there is money to be made from the new technologies, once you get over the R+D stage.
Invest now, save and make money later.
As I said, it’s not an overnight projuct . It will be a long process of trial and error. If we are to see progess, however, we have to start now.
More fiction. Good going, “champ.”
I say, we continue to find out what’s happening, and avoid doing anything swift and stupid, which may upset you, but it doesn’t upset me. I’m hardly avoiding environmental issues — I raised the subject of acid rain already, and have addressed air pollution, which is already known to be harmful. I’m not sorry, nor should I be, if you ignore these altogether.
NO ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming
All the “counters” made on the BBC argument are easily refuted as they don’t have supporting evidence or are deflected criticisms. I am a computer analyst by trade and can make a computer climate model do whatever I want it to and to think that using biased and incomplete data coupled with poorly understood systems can predict the future much less 50 to 100 years from now just shows how computer illiterate the general public is.
DLS,
You still haven’t provided any proof of your claims that the climatologists who say that AGW exists are motivated by their politics and not their research. What’s so hard about it if it’s true?
Poptech doesn’t even know that the Oregon Institute piece of garbage has been refuted. And apparently he believes in conspiracy theories in order to claim that every researcher has rigged their models.