So a guy writes in to our local paper saying climate change is a big scam, nobody ever shows the actual data, blah blah blah.
I usually ignore these things like I ignore the moon landing deniers and the flat earthers, but this time I had a second in the morning and so I sent him a few things I keep on my desk like a soldier keeps weapons nearby: Naomi Oreskes Science article from 2004 (2004!) that shows that there are NO peer reviewed scientific papers that say anything other than that the climate is warming and it’s human caused; the latest NASA global temperature data going back to the 1800s; and a publication on the disproportionate warming in the United States by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. And I mail it to the dude. Took me five minutes. Advancing the cause of information vs. myth.
Then guy calls me back, leaves a message. First, he’s alarmed that I found his address, as if I were going to come over and lecture him on climate science (If you’re paranoid, maybe not a great idea to write to the local paper ... too much exposure). Then, in his message, he says, very nicely: “Thanks for the information. You’re not going to change my mind though. There are tons of studies that show this isn’t happening.”
But brother: I sent you information from the most respected scientific journal saying that there isn’t such information out there!
What is wrong with people? I know this discussion is pointless—it’s like trying to convince someone to change their religion. But I like to engage in the fight every once in a while as a sort of bloodsport, a fight club. It gets the blood flowing, like a good workout at the gym or a big cup of coffee.
—
Arm yourself with Grist’s “How to talk to a climate skeptic.”
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 11:19 am
29 Jul 2009
Permalink
adfasfdasfd Posted 2:43 pm
29 Jul 2009
Permalink
sindark Posted 2:46 pm
29 Jul 2009
Permalink
mageo892 Posted 8:30 am
30 Jul 2009
Permalink
mageo892 Posted 8:45 am
30 Jul 2009
Permalink
anotherID Posted 10:35 am
30 Jul 2009
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:18 pm
30 Jul 2009
Permalink
Markfromoz Posted 5:23 pm
02 Aug 2009
The FOX "News" generation have been raised to want scandal. If you want them on your side you have to give it to them by exposing the sordid, misleading and often ridiculous backgrounds of the anti global warming propaganda machines in a loud and public way while also trying to honestly educate the open minds at the other end.Environmentalists are constantly referred to as pu5sys. Surely there's some loud mouth trench fighters with half a brain out there willing to get in the face of the Bill O'Rielly's and special interest groups and expose the flawed logic and embedded and rampant corruption propping up the anti climate change mob.
I wish Richard Dawkins had the time to take up this fight.
Permalink
mageo892 Posted 8:56 am
03 Aug 2009
Permalink
JoBlow Posted 4:52 am
15 Aug 2009
I for one, am a Social Ecologist, and have studied humanities effect on planet earth, ecologies, and our relationship with the environment for over 20 years. I was exposed to much of the early work on global warming back in the early 1990's. I have been trained to have critical thinking around issues. To look to identifying what the bias/agendas behind whatever 'the story'. And I find myself being uncomfortably in the position that I have found no compelling evidence yet that Anthropomorphic global warming is the main driver (or even a significant driver) in any global warming that is taking place.
I do agree that global warming does appear to be occurring, and historically speaking, quite quickly. There also appears to be some good evidence that with the current solar sunspot cycle we may experience some 13 years or so of global cooling (which may all balance out to 'no change' for a while). Hell, who knows, I am the first to admit I'm no climate scientist.
However, the main questions that arise for me at present are:
Since I believe that the challenge of peak oil is actually more significant and urgent than mitigating our possible anthropomorphic effects on the climate, will an ETS scheme or other incentives to reduce 'greenhouse' gases, directly address this major challenge? ie. peak oil.
Hopefully in the wonderful money-making possibilities of trading carbon credits there will be a major shift of our dependence on fossil fuels, but with the major focus being on carbon 'naughtiness', carbon sequestation etc, the major challenge of a rapid transition to electric/hydrogen/solar/fuel cell technologies for cars/buses/trains may be lost in the translation. What do you think?
Second question:
With the environment movement hellbent on selling Anthropomorphic climate change with huge changes asked and sacrifices imminent, let alone Second/Third world development possibly stalled (if they come on board), what will the outcome be for all of us, if the predictions fail to come to pass, or even worse the mitigating actions fail to effect global warming. My major concern is the credibility of the environment movement and the vast number of environmental issues that need to be urgently addressed. Sustainability, biodiversity, our failed attempts to 'control' nature rather than truly work with and be in harmony with nature, de-forrestation, population limits, - i could go on.
An ETS scheme will possibly put good incentives towards renewables (the Oz one doesn't yet), but i haven't seen a system yet that truly rewards individual households for the work to lessen their 'global footprint' - and we need this incentive if any grassroots campaign is to be successful.
Living lightly, and sustainably on this earth is important. We, as a massive consumer society are living unsustainably and i have no doubts that we will have to make significant changes to the way we live. The global warming debate is important and does need to continue and be rigorous, because if the science has got it wrong, or oversimplified, or politically hijacked, then every other environmental issue (and yes, many of them do dovetail in with global warming) will be at risk of being the victim of a great global backlash against the environmental movement. We need to get it right.
We also need to deal with peak oil, and we need to do it overtly, not covertly through Global Warming mitigation.
That's me two cents.
Permalink
anotherID Posted 8:21 am
17 Aug 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:37 am
24 Oct 2009
Take a look at the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton and his traveling band of "climate change debunkers." They are working in conjunction with documentary film makers to cast doubt on "Big Environment" and the past lethal "mistakes" of the environmental community - referred to as "fads." Their message: current global warming is just another environmental fad.
Their slick, skilled, well funded, organized and have a message which is easy to understand: the environmentalists did it to you in the past and "climate change" is just another big mistake like all the others. They also argue that treaties will cause loss of US power in the world.
Research "Apocolypse No," "Not Evil, Just Wrong," and "Climate Chains." These film elements, taken together, are part of the big tent circus to debunk Al Gore, defeat legislation, and avoid Copenhagen.
For those who think this is a fight over breakfast coffee, think again. If you think its a bloodsport, you're closer to the truth. However, just letting it go unanswered is not the way to drive back the hordes. The fact is that you have to be accurate, concise, forceful and trusted. Now is not the time for polemics and exaggeration. The public won't reward those who mislead them- they've had enough of that kind of behavior from our former political leaders and Wallstreet.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:03 pm
24 Oct 2009
A yarn generated by a denier/liar flashes through the denier blog sites within hours. They are all linked by email and their followers then begin posting on legitimate web sites. Or professional trolls using multiple ids, who knows?
Lately the biggest pitch is that the world is cooling (NOT TRUE, see NOAA or NASA web pages). This is the more plausible because the east and midwest of the U.S. is cold this year, although the rest of the world is hotter than normal. If someone brings that up to you, just say, "that's local weather, not climate, and not happening in the rest of the world."
A book just came out on the denier industry "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" by James Hoggan. If you really want a lot of details on the sordid cottage industry that works to confuse the public about the danger to our planet, get a hold of this book.
I hear too many friends and relatives quoting denier nonsense. Many of them don't know where they got it from.
Permalink
mageo892 Posted 3:56 am
25 Oct 2009
This is exactly where I find one of the commonest areas of misunderstanding, or deliberate obfuscation. Folk are quick enough to cite some YouTube video of Monckton performing somewhere in North America but fail to differentiate between climate change and weather.
Another canard is the belief that the term 'Climate Change' is being used as a substitute for 'Global Warming' now that it seems (to the blinkered) that the earth is cooling. This often in the context of the late starting of the next solar maximum and a reported slight increase in polar sea ice where the fact that any such increase has yet to match many previous years in the last decade in not only extent but thickness . So we 'climate science' propagandists are now using Climate Change as a substitute. I have had cool weather in Japan thrown in my face over the last twelve months by somebody who should know better.
That a system such as earth's climate can oscillate between extremes of temperature and yet still have an overall upward trend escapes them. My suggestions to check out climate sensitivity and variability, with references, falls on filtered eyes as they would rather keep pointing at videos of Monckton etc.
Permalink