Debunking the climate-change denialists' talking-points
Here's Grist's answer to that, a point-by-point debunking of the climate change "skeptic's" talking points:
I. There's nothing happeningLink (via WorldChanging)1. Inadequate evidence
* There is no evidence
* One record year is not global warming
* The temperature record is simply unreliable
* One hundred years is not enough
* Glaciers have always grown and receded
* Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
* Mauna Loa is a volcano
* The scientists aren't even sure2. Contradictory evidence
* It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
* Antarctic ice is growing
* The satellites show cooling
* What about mid-century cooling?
* Global warming stopped in 1998
* But the glaciers are not melting
* Antarctic sea ice is increasing
* Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
* Sea level in the Arctic is falling
* Some sites show cooling3. No consensus
* Global warming is a hoax
* There is no consensus
* Position statements hide debate
* Consensus is collusion
* Peiser refuted Oreskes
What's most amusing about the greenhouse denial trolls:
They're basically unpaid shills for a FUD campaign whose original backers have moved on.
They're like the libertarian fanboys I met in college who were carrying a torch for tobacco companies. ("You can't prove smoking causes cancer! Liberals are just attacking tobacco companies because they have a successful product!") These guys didn't smoke, they didn't own tobacco stock; they were just being contrarian dickheads. Or maybe they thought siding with big business would earn them a place at Ayn Rand's side.
I don't want to name any names, but they'll be here in three, two, one...
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) recently laid out the "facts" of global warming, warning of the "well financed propaganda campaign behind the manmade global warming theory." Since we have his speech in a wiki, it might be fun to inline some of these rebuttals/debunking alongside his remarks.
I didn't see mr sun mentioned or the ice receding on mars. I'm still tracking those and I'm pretty sure the mars rovers are zero-emission. Thoughts? Something is going on with the sun anyway - the sunspot cycle is off. Last time it was off for any large period we fell into a minor ice age.
This of course interests me somewhat.
I'm not taking sides but riddle me this:
How does one explain global warming to a nay sayer that lives in the Washington Cascades when snow pack is 150 - 200% of average and temperatures have been very cold for this time of year?
Truly, I'm not trolling but when posed with those comments I'm stumped. Thoughts?
The UK is predicted to have a climate like Labrador's when melting polar ice pushes the gulf stream further south. It's not warming, but I don't think they're going to be too happy about it. You don't have to understand all the workings of the internal combustion engine to know that you're in trouble when there's a truck bearing down on you. Global warming will have many unpredictable results. Most of them will be disruptive.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/209407,global-warming-lull-only-temporary-german-researchers-caution.html
Denial seems a bit silly.
Now, whether trying to stop climate change is a lost cause or not (i.e, put money into adaptation rather than prevention) is a more valid argument.
Fixing the problem for everyone sounds noble, but saving your own hide might be more practical for those in industrial countries.
mgabrysSF@4: "I didn't see mr sun mentioned or the ice receding on mars."
That's because you didn't look.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
Being skeptical about an agenda behind Global Climate Change should not be equated with being a "denialist" (gee, how that nicely lines up with "Holocaust denial" - in the spin zone.)
I don't think anyone can be against increased efforts to reduce carbon emmissions, conserve energy, eliminate waste and profigacy, etc. In addition to improving the environment, the Global effort to conserve will lead to a huge economic boom (see how that nicely lines up with Y2K hysteria to upgrade computers before 2000 doomsday)
The POINT is to keep ones eyes open, and not just be swept up in another historical political movement which might be exploited for nefarious purposes. To view things with a critical eye.
There are scientists with objections. The frequently cited IPCC report is not free from political bias (rather than its characterization as a purely scientific document.)
Rather than continuing to decide what we WANT to believe, and then seeking evidence to prove it, and denying evidence that contradicts our predetermined belief, we should pay attention to the actual facts.
(since when did being a contrarian become a bad thing on Boing Boing?)
This is a tough one to Navigate, so IMHO the rational path, as I've suggested before, is to embrace enivronmental reform, while watching out for the inevitable political exploitation of the issue, especially in the form of increased governmental control over everyone's life.
Ive always been disturbed by the use of denialist to describe global warming skeptics. It's always seemed like a subtle way of equating their position to holocaust denial.
Heh, you got there first john.
@10: you said what I'd say, only far more elegantly and succinctly.
Prodigous, "denialist" is a common term for people who deny some theory that has gained wide acceptance by the experts. See AIDS denialism for example, and I have also seen some use the phrase relativity denialist for another common brand of crackpot. All these people tend to be similar in that they have an axe to grind against theories that they obviously haven't studied in any depth and don't have much understanding of, and yet they are confident that they can poke holes in the theories with their qualitative amateur arguments, something that seems to me to be an example of the unskilled and unaware of it phenomenon identified by psychologists.
Interesting, bold move by worldchanging apropos: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html
The bottom line is: we've had enough of your nonsense, thank you very much. You can regurgitate your hallucinary circular arguments on your own blog. This is our place, and grievous denial of reality is not acceptable behaviour here.
Amen to that. Will they block evolution deniers next?
While I don't deny that computer simulations show that given some reasonable assumptions, releasing CO2 has the potential to cause global warming, I think that our exhausting of fossil fuels promises to be the most pressing problem.
Today we rely on the fact that fossil fuels are available to burn cheaply in order to put ship food around the world and put it on the table.
Once that assumption stops being valid, our economies are going to fall apart and some of us are going to die of starvation and lack of clean water much faster than we'll die of the direct consequences of global warming.
But damn it, we'll still be able to watch DVDs and digital books, unencumbered with that pesky DRM that we dedicated so much time to trying to liberate ourselves from in the first quarter of the century.
Jesse yes that is the definition of denialist. I am not saying its not used for other things as well. The word itself has taken on extremely negative connotations. I just cant help thinking it reflects poorly on the author when used in this context.
Its like calling someone a dirty name after deconstructing his argument. Its a cheap shot.
The really disturbing thing is that the "debate" on global warming has become a religious one. When a debate descends to cries and counter-cries of heresy, it stops being a debate.
Prodigous: So you accept that the term is perfectly accurate, but object because of the negative associations? You should understand that the reason 'denialist' has negative connotations is because of the actions and tactics of the denialists themselves! You cannot object to this term any more than creationists can complain that because 'creationist' has become a pejorative term, we're obligated to call them 'evolution skeptics'.
We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science.
James Lovelock
^^ Global warming or "Climate change" is a religion and whoever denies it is a heretic according to the faithful.
Why do they call it "Climate change" now instead of Global Warming? This is so that no matter what weather changes happen, the global warming crowd can claim they were right.
C.Y.A
suppose tomorrow, a team of scientists come up with an irrefutable proof that climate change is entirely due to the Sun all along, and it's going to go ahead irrespective of whatever we do with CO2?
should we celebrate?
No. we're still heading for disaster once our ability to pump oil dips below our demand for oil!
Now if someone on the other side of the debate would put together something like this for comparison, that would be useful.
The author loses me on the consensus vs. proof issue. I just don't believe it. Yes, there can be proof of things in science and it's silly to suggest otherwise. I do not accept consensus arguments. I think to put that forward as the backbone of your case is disingenuous.
They have been wrong many times before, even about environmental and climate issues.
The problem is, you could make up a similar list of things said by people who deny the existence of ghosts, the truth of creationism, or the safety provided by the TSA. If a theory is wrong, it's idiotic to defend it by pointing out that people always refute it by pointing to the same facts.
This is a great resource, but will it make a difference?
Look at the comments on the articles at Grist, and some of the comments here... no matter how well your arguments and no matter how many facts you throw at climate change skeptics they won't be budged. They've made up their minds and nothing will change their mind.
"They have been wrong many times before"
Who? Humanity as a whole?
Give five examples (does that count as "many"?), they won't compare to this. Denial of man-made changes to our climate is faith-based, mostly misguided oil-worshippers...150 years ago we did not use oil... now we do and the planet's dying...what's to argue about? Your "right" to drive-spew burgers does not mean that if that activity is shown to be deadly to others that it can continue, just because you've always done it that way and gee you think God will take care of it...
While this is nice to have for the more extreme and ignorant denialists, I think an equally valuable resource would be a debunking of the "Global warming caused hurricane Katrina" and "sea levels will rise 20ft in a century" apocolyptic hyperbole. Just because someone's on your side doesn't mean you should forgive their stupidity. In a debate you should be even more concerned as it reflects on you. Ignorance and extremism on one side begets it on the other.
"150 years ago we did not use oil... now we do and the planet's dying...what's to argue about?"
150 years ago men wore long beards; now they don't and the planet's dying.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I try to be a consistent agnostic on global warming. Maybe it is, maybe not. Maybe it's our fault, maybe it's natural, maybe a bit of both. Maybe it will be bad for us, maybe not. Maybe we can fix it and cover up the symptoms, maybe we need to reduce emissions. Maybe emissions can be reduced at the production level without affecting consumption. Maybe it can be handled at the market level, maybe we need watchgroups.
Or maybe we need an immediate, broad-reaching, all-world governmental mandate to radically curtail economic activity and force privation on the populus in perpetuity in order to maintain our chances of survival.
My worry is that there are people who want to curtail economic activity and force privation via government for their own reasons, and who would be willing to use any excuse to achieve that end. So we should be sure of our evidence before we act.
And let's not forget that humans pretend to be lemmings from time to time. Science requires more that fancy theory, it requires observation and lots of facts. I do recall being a teen when the next Ice Age was about to happen. Well, the science was "good" back then too. And back then we didn't even know about dark matter. How did we survive?
The lack of beards doesn't increase carbon dioxide emissions, although I admit, the co-relation would be difficult to prove.
Science is not nor has it ever been about "consensus."
Many of the greatest scientists from history: Galileo, Pasture, Einstein, etc were all "denialists" of the consensus view in their field.
What's so absurd about all of this, and readily apparent to any scientist is the idea that a group of people can just declare a system as complicated as our climate suddenly to be understood to the extent that no further discussion is necessary. We don't even study a single electron this way!
And why the rush to judgement? Because it's the "greatest existential crisis to face humanity". With all due respect, that's bullshit. Even if every prediction comes true, which by the way none of them have so far... WHERE ARE THE HURRICANES, forecast by the consensus view? If they can be so wrong with climate predictions 1-2yrs old why believe in 100 year projections!?
But lets assume that everything the IPCC says is true: A rise in C02 and global temperatures will do nothing but help biodiversity. Why the hell do you think they call them greenhouse gases? Because they kill plants? Ever been in a greenhouse? Ever been in a Jungle? It's not like we can create more carbon then was there in the first place. Where the hell did "fossil fuels" come from? And why didn't they destroy the planet when they were above ground the first time?
But I'm the one raising FUD "for the oil companies", when there is a multi-trillion dollar intergovernmental tax scheme hinging upon the success of the this Global Warming PR campaign?
Invariably, every 'denialist' argument I've ever seen eventually comes down to the slippery slope argument of a world government.
sheesh.
And really. Take these science arguments to RealClimate or Grist. You'll find something there. Or have you refused to have sense beaten into there?
As every freethinker knows, it is impossible to argue with the orthodoxy on matters of faith.
@21
http://www.accountancyagejobs.com/business-green/comment/2200107/climate-change-beat-global
Using the term "global warming" is far more provocative, and thus likely to draw a reaction from a consistently apathetic majority. I can't stand the term climate change.
recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn
Cry Dctrw, stp sng rhtrc lk "dnlst" t blly ppl wh dn't hv th xct sm vws s y. Ths st s sppsd t b drctry f wndrfl thngs, nt pltfrm fr y t ttmpt t mk ppl fl bd bt thmslvs. f kp sng ths knds f psts frm y mght strt lkng fr mdfd RSS BngBng fd tht ds nt ncld yr psts.
@31
I can appreciate the appearance of paranoia, but magnifying crises is how governments take away freedom. If you can't see this potential on the GW issue, consider another track:
"Terrorism is such a danger that we have to take away civil liberties to keep you safe."
I think virtually all BB readers would recognize that governments can use the fear of Terrorism to consolidate power and eliminate liberty. Why is it so hard to believe that they would do the same thing with Climate Change?
Do you really want to carry a Carbon Ration card as was proposed in the UK?
All right, skeptics. You're proud, above all, of your superior ability to think rationally, right? So, what's the rational way of behaving in the following situation:
You attend a party where people end up drinking a bit too much. At a certain level of alcohol ingestion, your host begins to think it a brilliantly funny idea to play Russian roulette. When the gun is handed to you, do you
a) pull the trigger, because after all, you don't know with *absolute certainty* that there will be a bullet in the chamber, and the probability is 5:1 there won't be, or
b) refuse to pull the trigger, because you don't know with absolute certainty that there *won't* be a bullet in the chamber?
(For those who choose option b), this might be an interesting link: http://www.350.org)
Addendum:
@36: If global warming is a government ploy to take away our freedom, then why are governments around the world so damn reluctant to institute even the smallest measures against it? They should be *jumping* on it, shouldn't they?
Or is it not a government ploy, but rather one by those well known enemies of liberty, Evil Scientists(tm), who want to get governments under their thumb to enact some nefarious plan? - Where's James Bond when you need him...
(And that's me out of this discussion, I think. I don't have the necessary patience today.)
Tht's t.
'v hd ngh f Cry's pdntc n-fscsm.
Nw, 'm s cncrnd bt th nvrnmnt s th vrg bng-bng rdr, bt th ttr ntlrnc f ny cntrry pstn tht Cry nd hs lk dsply r gttng bt scry. Wht nxt? Jl tm fr th 'dnlsts' n th bss f scl hrm? Bng-bng sd t b n ntrstng st fll f cl nd wndrfl ds, bt ltly, t sms t b trnng nt jst nthr prpgnd st, whr thr cn b n dsgrmnt.
It's amazing how the choice of words, and the implied meaning behind them, can be used to stifle rational discussion.
And unfortunately Cory is inadvertently guilty of using two such words/phrases. I expect better of someone who believes in getting the facts straight, the objective use of language, general rational discourse, and applying the principles of skepticism to all sides of an issue.
I'm with Cory 100% on issues regarding copyright, DRM, etc., and he has been great at getting the message out using rational arguments. Over time he has even persuaded me on a few sub-topics in the realm of IP. So his "global warming denialists" article took me aback. This certainly cannot be Cory!
It is unfortunate that the phrases "climate change", "global warming", and the like have rapidly been given extended meaning (including political and even a religious-like meaning) in our culture, not unlike the meaning now people ascribe to "UFO". (UFO is an acronym for "unidentified flying object", yet today most people assume the definition to be "alien spacecraft", which clearly is not "unidientified"!)
So today most people equate the phrase "global warming" with "man is causing our world to heat up and this will lead to utter disaster..."
But in a rational scientific discourse, "global warming" should only mean that we interpret the data to suggest that the average global temperature has been on a rising slope the last few decades. We cannot, and should not, ascribe cause(s) of our interpretation to this phrase since all it does is to obfuscate rational discourse. It is like what "UFO" has become -- and silly at that.
Second, using a variant on the label "deniers" to describe those who either disagree that average global temperatures have risen the last few decades, or that they have risen but are due partly, mostly or entirely to natural cycles (e.g., the sun's output has slightly increased), is also simply inflammatory and non-objective. It is a label pure and simple.
Again, I am disappointed since I expect better of Cory. Religious fervor is something he has always written against.
I won't explain my views on this topic here, since it is useless to have a discussion when emotionally-laden words/phrases are thrown out (making Cory no different than Michele Malkin, for example) and it becomes a discussion which is indistinguishable from a religious debate. I don't get into debating religious belief.
Now, I am not calling into question his views on the matter of the existence and cause of a "average global temperature rise" -- it is alright to take a position and rationally debate it. That's part of the scientific process. I am calling into question his slide into the very thing he is against: religious fervor.
@ #5: It's been my understanding that as the air temp gets warmer, more moisture is pumped into the air resulting in more precipitation hitting the ground in the PNW. Over the next couple of decades we'll get heavier and heavier snow packs (and more epic ski seasons) until the air temp at the passes hit a 32 degree average over the winter and it all falls apart.
Enjoy it while you can! (unless you live on a river, in which case you should start sandbagging)
Btw, I should have closed my previous comment with the following:
"A person who holds to the principles of skepticism must always remain skeptical of what they believe to be true."
@Haldor:
Global climate isn't the same as local weather. The world climate is warming; at the same time, the ice melt from Greenland and the artic will tend to desalinate the Gulf Stream, altering the course to miss western Europe. It may get a bit chilly in Great Britain and other points west, as their persent balmy weather is caused by the warm waters of the tropics coming north. But the planet will boil like an egg. Local is not global.
Every time someone says "you are in denial" I it somehow translates in my head to "you haven't got a right to your opinion".
I think climate change is real, but I also know that when you call someone a denialist, it means you are unwilling to listen to them.
Denial is the original Freudian bullshit.
It's interesting how Cory's views or more specifically, his passion about some themes, seem to alienate some readers who now ascribe religious leanings to his particular wording.
He's just a man, I'm just sayin'.
About the climate: it's getting hotter and we are not doing anything but making it worse. Cycle or not, deterministic scientific opinions that imply just to sit back and enjoy the grim spectacle are as irresponsible as dogma.
Haldor - The answer to your question is here...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31
presterjohn - Please see....
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
There's way too much scientific certainty. Continuing to claim otherwise isn't being contrarian. It's willful ignorance.
It's true that the planet is probably warming up, though there _is_ still debate here. It's true that this probable warming is correlated with our use of oil and coal.
However, there's a lot of doubt left, specifically about how anthropogenic this probable warming trend really is. That's how science is. There's always doubt, and it's healthy to question even the most established theories.
What really rankles me are eople who see some weird weather event a sign of global warming. Whatever trends we're seeing right now are _dwarfed_ by normal climate fluctuations. At the local level, there's way more noise than signal. We've always had crazy storms, and people have always though to themselves "gosh, these storms are happening more frequently than I remember! God's wrath!"
Not that there isn't a strong case to be made for making changes to our fossil fuel consumption BEFORE we have an airtight case for anthropogenic global warming. By the time the theory can claim a 99% level of confidence, it might well be too late to do anything. Getting off the dinosaur juice NOW is good insurance, even if global warming is BS.
That's more nuanced than "OMFG END OF THE WORLD ON TUESDAY!" but fear mongering and political rhetoric hurt the cause. If 20 years from now we're still here, and things haven't gotten worse, the next generation of skeptics are going to have a frickin' field day remixing Al Gore's speeches with the speeches of the next generation of climatologists.
Hell, 30 years ago people were talking about a coming ice age, and my parents STILL use that as 'proof' that climatologists are idiots.
Thread money quote:
"Global warming will have many unpredictable results."
No matter what, it's global warming.
THAT is genius.
#30:
As the FAQ linked says...
Or here's a better example: We're now in June, here in the North East the temperature has been growing steadily hotter. The trends are perfectly clear that it will continue to grow warmer probably until sometime late August. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Yesterday they predicted today would be 85 degrees, and it's a cool 75!!! If they can't even predict the weather one day to the next, how can they say that it will get warmer between now and August!!!
...because data-to-day, month-to-month predictions are very, very hard, while over-all trends are much easier to predict. ESPECIALLY if you have a well studied theory connecting one variable that will continue to increase, carbon, with another, global warming.
Why all this sudden attention to "global warming denialists", when even just a few months ago we were being assured that there was "100% consensus" on the issue?
Okay, I'm going to coin a new meme closer to BoinBoing readers' hearts:
Global Warming is Environmentalism Theatre.
GW obsesses over atmospheric CO2 (much in the same way the TSA obsesses over fluid ounces of hair product) in order to give the appearance of doing something useful.
In fact, GW is doing harm to human sustainability (just as the TSA is harming travellers' security) by diverting attention, resources, effort and money away from useful measures such as reducing, reusing and recycling.
Debates are not about changing the opinion of the person opposite you in the debate. Very rarely the person opposite will change their mind; This is a wonderful thing, but pouring so much energy into so little return would be foolhardy.
Debate is about educating and convincing the /audience/. For every person posting in the comments, there are two or three reading the comments; For every person reading the comments, there are two or three who just read the article.
Understand where you stand as a commenter debating an article author, then:
You are almost certain to not change the author's mind, and certainly not by being a single voice. You are invariably persuading the audience, and the other commenters.
The way the author treats you - and the audience - will tell you and the audience a great deal about the author's confidence in their statements, about the author's goals and aims.
Global Warming is a reality - this, in common with Evolution and the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the indefinite detainment and torture of prisoners, and guaranteeing citizens a right to privacy in their homes and communications - as realities.
Global Warming - as a reality - is denied by certain people; Often, these are the same people who make their living off of a certain political or industrial /status quo/ which is threatened by the steps needed to remediate Global Warming.
Often, these are the same people who make their living off of certain other political or industrial /status quo/ which are - or they feel are - threatened by the reality of Evolution, by citizens having a right to privacy in their homes and communications, by the State having to abide by the law.
Those who acknowledge these realities often have no vested interest beyond simply being allowed to partake in civilisation, in justice, in seeing a planet where their children can live and prosper.
These people who deny these realities know that they will not convince the other side in a debate. They know that the point of debate is to convince the audience.
The audience is the young people, those with open minds, those who are trying - not to decide what to think, but rather - trying to decide /how/ to decide what is right and what is hooey.
Their tactic: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, explain away inconsistencies, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, scapegoat the opposition.
One side in the (terribly oversimplified) Global Warming debate is correct, and the other is not. Both sides cite science. One side has far more science than the other, but which side has far more science - is invisible to the audience, more or less.
The tatics described above: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, and scapegoating the opposition: Those are available to and used by lay proponents on both sides of the debate - so one cannot really tell which side to believe based on the rhetoric they use.
One /can/ applaud and pursue those proponents who appeal to the science, who have the most science, who will propose that science to anyone regardless of their identity or loyalty, who encourage critical thinking, and who rationally criticise /but/ do not /scapegoat/ the opposition.
Cory's post leaves as a foregone conclusion - according to his previous work - the notion that Global Warming has the good science and the mountains of scientific evidence.
His post is encouraging critical thinking, and encouraging the audience to rationally criticise the rhetoric of the opposition - but does not scapegoat them, does not strawman their positions or methods.
They really do actively deny the mountains of scientific evidence for Global Warming. That's established.
This is a critique of their rhetoric.
For that, it is Wonderful.
Yes i agree with most having a blog calling people "denialist" isn't going to help your cause any.
how bout you have a theory, and write all your debate topic items and let the public and individuals make their own decesions.
I am always skepitcal of "eco-nazis" not trying to debate or have a logical discussions, only pushing their beleifs of the global warming religion and anyone who disagrees is a sinner and should burn in hell.
Also I am a bit concerned about the heavy handed tactics from so-called "grass roots" Org's that are using under-handed tactics only recently seen by the MPAA/RIAA by sueing, publicly going after said skeptics, and even falsifying Wiki entries to help suit their global warming cause even when evidence states otherwise.
The simple fact that most "west-coastians" seem to fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if there really is global warming or not.. the american dollar is at an all time low, our economy is in the toilet, and you'd have to be an idiot to invest in any said company... who cares nothing is going to get done about it, we should be doing what the scientists did during WWII when the oceans rose 3ft. and said "screw it" not our problem let them worry about it in the future...
There isn't any CO2 driven global warming (let alone a 'man-made'one). Not only do we have the facts to prove it but we challenge anyone - in public - to a £5,000 (S10,000) wager to disprove our figures. For full details of the wager and for our facts and figures go to: www.mammasmammon.com or email: inf@mammasmammon.com
And #53 is a telling example of what I just described.
Bardfinn @ #51:
"Their tactic: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, explain away inconsistencies, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, scapegoat the opposition."
Were not the Global Warming proponents "there first"? Didn't the issue begin with them?
Are Global Warming proponents not "the loudest"? It seems to me that the media stories favouring Global Warming advocacy far outnumber those questioning it. And what about the speaking tours by Al Gore, Richard Branson and the like?
Are Global Warming proponents not "telling a consistent story"? It seems that every talking point (except for the obviously lunatic ones) echoes back to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change in 2007.
Do Global Warming proponents not "reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically"? Any thing you do for GW is something done for a Good Cause, right? Care to buy some carbon credits to assuage your guilt?
Do Global Warming proponents not "scapegoat the opposition"? By calling them "global warming denialists", perhaps?
so if we listen to the "everything is just fine" party and all end up dead, what then?
Oh, boo hoo. The argumements boils down to "World Government!" and "Gee, that hurts my feelings."
Greenhouse warming is real! So, we need to live greener lives to help out. The production of paper is such a huge source of CO2 that it's nearly criminal. After looking at some preliminary suggestions for a carbon tax on industry, I have concluded that if paper manufactures were to be taxed accordingly, the price of a hardcover book would be about 65 US dollars (at today's value). You want to promote a greener world? Start suggesting that people use less paper, less gas, less less less…Calling people denialists is just name calling for the sake of provocation. Every time you use a disposable paper cup at a coffee shop you contribute to greenhouse warming. Dear God, every time you take a breath you're killing the planet! Don't deny it, just stop breathing!
If China refuses to curtail GHG emissions and proves to be the calculable tipping factor in taking the planet over the precipice; is that grounds for war?
so if we listen to the "everything is just fine" party and all end up dead, what then?
Well, actually that's going to happen anyway. Climate change won't significantly affect our generation. Climate solutions won't help our generation either.
Takuan, if we listen to the "we must remove all CO2 from the atmosphere at all costs" party instead of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" part, we will end up compromising our sustainability. Which is to say, "dead".
Have you noticed that whenever you mention intellectual property rights online a bunch of people show up with identical objections -- almost as though there was a list of talking points somewhere on a blog that astroturfers and denialists used to derail discussions of the most grave existential crisis facing music and film today?
The Unusual Suspect:
You may have missed the part where I said:
"The tatics described above: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, and scapegoating the opposition: Those are available to and used by lay proponents on both sides of the debate - so one cannot really tell which side to believe based on the rhetoric they use.
One /can/ applaud and pursue those proponents who appeal to the science, who have the most science, who will propose that science to anyone regardless of their identity or loyalty, who encourage critical thinking, and who rationally criticise /but/ do not /scapegoat/ the opposition."
1: In the way you mean it, Science was there first. In the way I mean it, the global warming denialists got to the audience first - The audience, by and large, doesn't have access to scientific research and doesn't care to interpret it.
2: Given the amount of money spent by large businesses on PR campaigns and on the Global Warming equivalent of "teach the controversy" - not to mention the end-run around fuel efficiency and emissions regulations, performed by the Automobile industry with the massive exploitation of the Sport/Utility Vehicle exemptions: No. During the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties, the main message heard was theirs; The scientists simply said "But we have the science." and expected that to be enough. They eventually realised that having the facts and being right is not enough, that persuading people was required. That means rhetoric.
The speaking tours you mention are a recent phenomenon.
3: Yes, we are telling a consistent story. Thankfully ours is far more self-consistent and far more consistent with the science and the facts. I never said that doing so is /wrong/: I said that is what people in a debate who rely on rhetoric /do/. All the "talking points" you are mentioning go back to the 2007 report because it is the latest and the best. The talking points used before 2007 referenced the latest science done before 2007, the ones from 2004 reference the latest science done before 2004, iterate /ad nauseam/. Each of those referenced science.
The global warming deniers relied merely on rhetoric and pseudo-science.
4: We prefer to reward the audience for thinking critically and coming to their own conclusions, to consider the consequences of their actions and to demonstrate compassion for others.
There are companies that take advantage of carbon - offset legislation; Quite often these are the companies and/or countries who rely on the /status quo/ I mentioned above. It has little to do with guilt and much to do with the law requiring them to clean up their act.
If individuals wish to participate in what is the equivalent of cleaning up one's room rather than leave it a trashed mess - more power to them. They're considering the consequences of their actions, and maybe - just maybe - they're exhibiting compassion for others.
And 5:
It's not scapegoating when it's the truth. It's Global Warming. It's a reality. They deny it. They /admit/ they deny it.
Scapegoating would be calling them "Magically thinking PR flack marketroids willfully duped by their billionaire fatcat overlords who puppeteer them from the pulpit."
I think that for some, this is not far from the truth. For many others, they're just the victims in a culture war, fed a particular worldview which makes them feel good emotionally and insulates them from pondering the consequences of their actions.
#62: I laughed.
back to the basic question: What do we want? Hopefully it'll overlap enough with what we need to continue.
I'll settle for a small room of my own, one real meal a day, a diverse biome,a future for my children and unlimited web access.
#51, in your comment, what do you define the phrase "Global Warming" to mean? Is it:
1) Interpretation of data which suggests the average global temperature in the last few decades has risen in a mostly continuous fashion, or
2) man's activities are causing our world to heat up and this will lead to utter disaster, or
3) something else?
As my comment previously noted, the phrase "Global Warming" has regrettably come to have the loaded and emotional definition given in item #2 (I won't dwell on why it has come to mean this since that requires discussing human motivations based on religious-like belief systems, and that is part of the reason we can't have rational discourse on this topic. Rhetoric based on using "loaded" words and phrases can be quite powerful and is one of the main techniques used by those espousing a particular belief system.)
Thus, the phrase "Global Warming" should not be used when rationally discussing the likelihood that the average global temperature has increased the last few decades, and, if this is the case, will this warming trend continue, what are the possible cause(s), and what are the possible ramifications to our species, both positive and negative?
Again, the whole debate about "Global Warming" has become no different than a religious debate, and this has no place in rational, scientific discourse. #51 was going well as he wrote his comment, but towards the end he slipped back into definition #2 mode which includes the view that definition #2 is a scientific FACT beyond any debate and therefore cannot be challenged.
There's nothing worse than scientists who have abandoned the scientific method and cannot remain skeptical of even their own beliefs. I have beliefs and views on many matters within the purview of science, but I continually force myself to always be skeptical of my own beliefs and to hold that all is theory, not fact.
I may even come to accept the general view that man's activities indeed are a major contributor to the average global temperature to substantially rise. And I might even accept that this is bad for our own species (that is a separate issue -- some have argued it will have a net benefit for man, or it might even forestall another Ice Age.) But even were I to decide to accept this view, I will continue to be skeptical of it.
Most of those commenting in this forum supporting the view that "man is causing the global temperature rise" are pushing this view with such a religious fervor and lack of self-skepticism that it is, frankly, scary, bordering on an Inquisition.
well, the Apocalypse does tend to excite people. Especially when it's real.
For those who think "denialism" is just a provocative insult, it's an increasingly accepted term for those who are are opposed to widely accepted scientific consensus. Skepticism is not an accurate term as they are aren't just employing critical thinking to analyze the data, but to be actively cynical of what an overwhelming number of scientific experts agree. Climate change denialists are grouped with other forms of denialism because of what they do and how they argue. Global warming/climate change denialists are more similar to evolution denialists than Holocaust denialists.
Denialism uses 5 specific arguments
1) Selectively choosing their data/talking points instead of looking at the total sum of the data collected. They focus on the few contrary studies instead of what a vast majority of the data from thousands of sources suggest.
2) Impossible expectations from scientific research. They expect science to be 100% complete and accurate to be acceptable. Any shortcoming, no matter how small, is used to dismiss the whole field. Meanwhile, any minority opinion they dig up, even if it's old, faulty, or retracted by the original researcher, is pushed to be accepted.
3) False experts in the guise of paid researchers and/or those from unrelated fields. Often, the data/opinion the provide is flawed or is grossly lacking when compared to serious experts. They are often from a few closely related sources especially compared to the scientific community.
4) Logical fallacies in spades. Most often used is the straw man and analogy fallacies.
5) Conspiracy-theories are used to explain why their arguments aren't accepted by the scientific establishment. The "they're religious about science" argument falls into this category because they attempt to suggest an active cover-up.
There are several sites out there detailing denialism in greater detail. So before you dismiss Cory's use of the word as just an insult, remember that in this context it has a very specific meaning that accurately describes these individuals and scientific cynicism.
[smile] I think we need to differentiate between the following two examples:
1) "Well, the Apocalypse does tend to excite people. Especially when it's real."
and
2) "Well, the Apocalypse does tend to excite people. Especially when *they believe* it's real."
Putting it another way, there is a difference in saying "this is fact" and "I hold the view/belief this is reality." These are not equivalent statements when it comes to rational, scientific discourse.
Torquemadans generally hold the first, and those who believe in the scientific method and rational discourse hold on to the second.
@SEATTLEPETE & CATBELLER,
Thank you.
Jnoring:
Global Warming - like Evolution - is a reality, and a scientific fact. There is no debate amongst scientists anymore as to whether it is occurring. The science is there, and anyone who is honest may follow it to the overwhelmingly obvious conclusions.
Like Evolution, there is a lot of debate as to what the mechanisms involved are - but the phenomenon is real and the cause is clearly evident from the science: Industrialisation. The hand of Man.
The consequences are real, too, and /any/ significant change from the /status quo/ of our climate will damage human activity, whether that's agriculture or sports, settlements or industries, our ecosystem or our own health.
There were two decades of deniers, spending a lot of resources to persuade people that it wasn't occurring. Now that it is clear to most people that it IS occurring, these EXACT SAME DENIERS are claiming it's not the influence of Man - when the SAME SCIENCE that they are implictly accepting inextricably points to Man.
You are comparing our confidence and public stand for the reality of Global Warming - based on overwhelming science - with a religious fervor, with a witch-hunt undertaken by ignorant superstitious clerics who tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of people for heresy.
That's the very definition of scapegoating.
Whether or not we are causing global warming is irrelevant. All that matters is to what extent we can and should attempt to change it. Right now all of our measures are wastes of money. The entire green campaign is largely just corporate marketing. I'm tired of the holier-than-thou attitude from people driving Priuses, who I actually blame for the real crime that is being committed. Conservation without innovation is essentially procrastination. Replace every American's car with a Prius and all we've done is push back the problem less than 10 years and waste massive amounts of money that could have been spent on real solutions. While we in the West operate more inefficiently (a.k.a. green), China, India, et al. don't, and all we do is economically handicap ourselves.
#73: Using more fuel-efficient vehicles /is/ a real solution. Allowing society to collapse isn't, nor is a massive major enforced overhaul of the way our cities are structured.
You speak of "real solutions" - what are these real solutions?
Are you willing to fund those solutions with money taken from the people, or from the corporate crooks who weaselled away from cleaning themselves up for two decades? Or from someone else?
#72: Finger Zen.
#88: 4) Logical fallacies in spades. Most often used is the straw man and analogy fallacies.
Uhm...your whole post is basically a straw man. :D
Or:
I'M IN UR ARGUMENT KILLIN UR STRAWMEN!
(sorry, I couldn't resist)
#68, you are making the assumption that there's overwhelming consensus in the full breadth of the set of beliefs that make up the "Global Warming is real and caused by man" argument. (There are several component parts which tend to get glossed over -- it tends to be a "you must accept them all" kind of proposition which hides their true complexity. We see this "accept them all or else" view in both religion and politics. Of course, the scientific consensus on a number of theories 100 years ago is quite different than that of today -- I could cite dozens of examples. Thus the scientific "consensus" mantra is simply another way to try to win the rational argument. It is a form of an ad hominem attack, to be blunt, since it is used to socially and psychologically isolate individuals who hold different views. I'm not going to play that game, especially when it is accompanied by "all who call into question any of the tenets of the 'Global Warming Canon' are, by definition, deniers and not skeptics." Not exactly a way to win friends and influence people.)
Anyway, saying there is scientific consensus as a matter of "fact" is something which I have not yet accepted. From my vantage point, a number of well-regarded scientists that I have worked with over the years do not accept the full panoply of the "Global Warming Canon". Many are afraid to speak out in my private conversations with them exactly for the reasons I've been citing in my comments (who wants to get viciously attacked for their scientific views?), this I know for a personal fact.
But of course I can't prove it to you so I present it as an "I believe" just as you should have said "I believe there is scientific consensus on the Global Warming Canon." But I am in a good position to know my side of the coin -- I've resisted getting into the specifics of my background in this area in this particular forum since this forum is not a good one to discuss such specifics, or to debate the scientific evidence for a particular theory.
Rather, my focus has been to concentrate on the inability of many here, starting with Cory, in maintaining rationality about this and embracing skepticism of even one's own beliefs as a necessary component of proper science -- and to accept others who hold different views. When one is skeptical of their own beliefs, they are more likely to listen to alternative views and focus on the evidence and rational arguments, and not to resort to argument methods which focus on the person.
We need to shift to a rational dialogue between different points of view on the existence, causes, and ramifications of a "warming cycle" without resorting to "scientific consensus" arguments or using the phrase "deniers", etc.
Theres a truck driver that delivers to our office, who listens to right-wing-AM-radio all day, so of course he spouts it all back out when he gets here, pent-up anger at "those damn liberals!"
So during winter cold-snaps he always says "See?! Global warming is bunk. . . it's FREEZING out!"
Of course he doesn't say anything during summer heat waves.
Dstntmbrk #35, I'm amused by the way you've given yourself a pre-disemvowelled user name for coming in and trying to tell Cory what he's allowed to write about.
Nerdler #39, if you think Cory's post constitutes "neo-fascism", you need to read about the actual Fascists.
Jnoring, your #40 is skating on thin ice. Particularly the paragraphs where you accuse Cory of "religious fervor" and being "no different than Michele Malkin".
For those out there who itch to accuse me of censoring anyone who disagrees with some official liberal BoingBoing orthodoxy, note that there are a number of comments in this thread that do express skepticism about global warming, yet have been left intact. (By me, at least.) Even The Unusual Suspect's #50, with its blatant intellectual dishonesty in the first paragraph.
nd, ys, by hw Cry wrdd hs rtcl ttl nd cmmnt, s mplyng tht nyn wh ds nt flly mbrc th "Glbl Wrmng Cnn" s, by dfntn, "dnr." Th wrd "dnr" s clrly n mtnlly-ldn wrd ntndd t dsprg ndvdls nd thr blfs. t s clrly nt n ccrt nd bjctv trm.
Nw, f tht ws nt Cry's ntnt (sch s h ws nly tlkng bt spcfc prsn nd h lt hs mtns gt th bttr f hm), hp tht h wll pst sm srt f clrfctn. f h dsn't, wll nfrtntly hv t hld t my rgnl bsrvtn.
Jnoring, I call shenanigans! You say:
I am almost positive that what you really meant to say was:
Because you're all about science and logical consistency, unlike Cory and Malkin and all those Torquemadans. Right? Why do you still have vowels, again?
If you took it, it's yours.
Quoting Avram @ #75:
"For those out there who