We've all encountered them, shuffling across the cultural landscape like desiccated zombies: arguments about climate change that have been bludgeoned with a thousand rebuttals, but keep lurching to life, attacking again and again. Each time they appear, the search begins again for the same rebuttals, the same citations and resources. In the face of this kind of undead onslaught, even Buffy might lose her perk.
Coby Beck wants to help. Over the course of 2006, he's written a series of posts called "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic." He wanted to ...
... provide a layman's guide to defending against the assorted specious attacks that are out there, both by pointing out the basic logical fallacies they are based on and providing some appropriate reference material to avoid the typical "is too, is not" exchanges these things frequently devolve into.
Mission accomplished, as they say, almost 60 carefully argued posts and hundreds of citations later.
I'm very happy to report that Coby has agreed to join us here at Gristmill, and happier yet to report that he'll be bringing his series with him. Each entry will be updated, improved, or polished as necessary and then published on Gristmill, one per day.
Your one-stop shop for the series is this cross-referenced index of all the posts. Right now, most of the links point back to Coby's blog. As time goes on, the links will shift over to Gristmill.
This is a fantastic resource, and we're going to make it even better and more useful in the coming year. We've got some big plans around the series, but we'll save those announcements for when the time is right.
And while I'm discussing good news, I'd also like to welcome climate scientist Andrew Dessler to Gristmill. Nobody tackles issues around climate and climate politics with more clarity and insight than Andrew. You'll find him a breath of fresh air amidst the hype and rhetoric that so often cloud discussions of global warming.
Welcome, Coby and Andrew!
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative
Comments
View as Flat
TokyoTom Posted 4:02 pm
26 Oct 2006
However, it seems to me that you are missing a lack of focus on a very key issue. While Coby has a very impressive list of responses to arguments made by skeptics, these responses are all narrowly focussed and ignore the big picture that most skeptics already have their minds made up, and that others prefer to lean in the direction of skpeticism. These people will really not be convinced on an argument by argument basis, especially arguments that are limited to the science.
In this connection, Coby's arguments are NOT directed towards any of:
(1) the policy analysis of whether on a cost-benefit basis it is actually WORTHWILE to incur the costs of having our government compel us to do something about AGW,
(2) helping people understand WHY AGW occurs in the absence of any governmental regulation, viz., his responses do not explain the economic underpinnings of AGW (externalities, tragedy of the commons) or explaining how various groups are spending money to protect their financial interests,
(3) any of the rather inflamed and absurd political arguments, accusations and assumptions that are made (like enviros are trying to destroy the US/world economy, socialists/UN are trying to take over the world, Dems are just trying to win elections, enviros are scaremongering idiots who are always wrong),
(4) explaining that a big part of the problem is unconscious psychological denial - but that many well-respected business and political figures and skeptics have changed their minds, including Republicans (most skeptics and voters really do not understand the extent to which competent leaders on the right support measures to deal with AGW, or
(5) in connection with the above, in pointing out the near-universal opinion that we need to ADAPT to climate change, that this adapatation will be costly, and that it also makes sense to change our behavior to avoid future costs that have not yet been committed (viz., an ounce of medicine).
I hope that you will keep focussed on these items, which are just as important in getting people to really open their eyes and to change their minds.
Regards,
TT
Permalink
katesisco Posted 1:56 am
27 Oct 2006
Both the magnetic reversals and the extensive warm period we're in are long extended and long over do for a change---why we don't have this change no one knows. There is a long term lack of rain from reduced cloud cover due to jet contrails, but could it be all this carbon dioxide that is responsible for the delay? Again, no one knows.
Permafrost a mile deep under lies 1/4 of the Earth; permafrost froms in very cold conditions without snow cover. The book, "Ice" has some fantastic up to date info; it's a good read.
Permalink
DavidWojick Posted 9:52 pm
27 Oct 2006
Looking through Coby's answers, one thing stands out, which is probably the central fallacy in the AGW position--> false confidence. Scientific speculation offered as established fact.
Speculation is the state of the science, but speculation is not refutation. The fact that there is a scientific counter argument to every skeptical argument does not refute the skeptics, because there is a scientific counter argument to every one of these AGW counter arguments, and so on.
The science is divided on this issue, between AGW and natural variability. That is why the people are divided. David Wojick
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 11:53 pm
27 Oct 2006
The "sheer number of arguments" doesn't support anything. Look at how many of them are simply wrong. Look how many are based on incomplete information. Some are outright distortions.
Lawyers like to offer "sheer numbers" of arguments in a court of law, but that doesn't mean they have a case.
The "sheer number" likely shows how many misinformed people insist on speaking, and happen to have the outlets to speak. It also likely shows how determined some people are to deny things that they see as inconvenient.
Scientific speculation offered as established fact.
This is not "speculation":
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/...
Now in a certain sense, all science is speculation. Conceivably, according to science, some contrarian science could arise for the law of gravity. But as Naomi Orestes put it in the Los Angeles Times:
Some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we don't yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But "perhaps" is not evidence.
The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in "Principia Mathematica" in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by "general induction from phenomena," then those conclusions had to be held as "accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined...."
Now we do have very strong, multiple lines of empirical evidence for man-made climate change (as you see in the link above). And evidence of other factors causing the warming is weak at best (as Orestes alludes to above above). This is why the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.
Permalink
DavidWojick Posted 4:01 am
28 Oct 2006
But the underlying reason why they can do this rationally is that the science is similarly divided. There is no killer argument on either side. Rather we have a complex set of arguments (the Grist list only scratches the surface) based on a complex body of often conflicting science. The latter is in turn due to the complexity of the climate system, which after many billions in research we are only beginning to understand.
Unfortunately many people on both sides find this unresolved tension intolerable, so accuse one another of dishonesty, insanity, or worse. The truth is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions, including scientists. This is what makes the climate change debate so interesting. It is one of the greatest scientific debates in history. David Wojick
Permalink
DavidWojick Posted 4:15 am
28 Oct 2006
The study you cite had, as I recall, 11 members, most of whom were well known warmers. Their conclusion is no surprise, nor does it have any particular scientific merit. No more than any other pickup group of 11 scientists, who might come to opposite conclusions. David Wojick
Climatechangedebate.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:57 am
28 Oct 2006
What David fails to admit is that there are interested parties who finance the "debate" and profit from delay. George Monbiot points out the obvious in The denial industry : For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco.
The examples are too many to begin to list. The censorship of scientists by the Bush government. The phoney front groups. The industry memos that outline propaganda campaigns.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:02 am
28 Oct 2006
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:21 am
28 Oct 2006
Democrats and Republicans Say Stop Funding Global Warming Doubters
ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.
In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."
The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth."
...An upcoming study from the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report said, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 5:38 am
28 Oct 2006
The study you cite had, as I recall, 11 members, most of whom were well known warmers.
Well, at this point it's hard to find any denialists with credentials. The panel did include Richard Lindzen.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:12 am
28 Oct 2006
Olympia Snowe is very possibly my favorite Republican. Her fellow Maine-iac, Susan Collins, is good too. I hope that the up-coming elections will so shake up their party, that they will emerge as leaders, and drive the GOP in a new direction.
I had once thought John McCain would be that sort of leader. I think that no more.
Jay Rockefeller's position is an interesting one, in view of what David Roberts sent us recently regarding Don Blankenship. The impression I get is that West Virginia has a growing, committed environmentalist movement -- not that they want to refer to it that way! -- , focused especially on the hideously destructive coal-mining techniques used in that state. One would like to think that Rockefeller, and his (actually pretty conservative, but always shrewd) colleague Robert Byrd, are actively cultivating that movement.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 8:38 pm
29 Oct 2006
But by the way, I'm not sure if you noticed, but it's not only envirofascists that hate America - Republicans do too, starting from the very top!!! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/....
""The evidence, in my view, is more compelling than ever," McCain said in an interview, professing a "respectful disagreement" with his GOP colleague on the issue. "The scientists have become more and more definitive. ... Sooner or later we will recognize that climate change is taking place and it's serious and it's generated by human activity causing greenhouse gas emissions," McCain said.
"Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., who has joined McCain in sponsoring legislation to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, said he was aghast at Inhofe's latest comments.
"How do you say, ridiculous? How do you say, failing future generations?" Gilchrest said.
"I don't mean to defame anybody, but the state of the science on global warming is top-notch, and it says we are nearing a critical tipping point in devastation, in creating a world that will be hard to live in," he said. "This is not Chicken Little, this is not 'The sky is falling.' The fundamental physics of the atmosphere as it has been degraded by human activity and the burning of fossil fuels is clear.""
Are you aware of what Bush really thinks about climate change? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-...
Do you also realize that a majority of US senators and the House Appropriations Committee approve of a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234960
&Month=5&Year=2006&Party=0
And that the Senate Energy Committee has, with the help of industry leaders, been planning appropriate regulations in the US? http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&a
mp;a mp;a mp;Year=2006
And that Bush just appointed as his Secretary of the Treasury a true believer in climate change, Hank Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs and of the Nature Conservancy (despite opposition from anti-warmers)? http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/06/01/treasury/
It seems that the Republican party as a whole has actually caught the global warming fever ¨ If you really want to have an impact on this, then you probably should stop wasting your time here (you're unlikely to win converts from the envirofascist greenies who want to destroy America), and immediately turn your attention to your favorite Congresscritters and industry leaders. Quick, before it's too late!!!
Oh, and please don't investigate what Exxon thinks about climate change - it might make you lose your mind!
Permalink
mroman1 Posted 4:58 am
31 Oct 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:18 am
31 Oct 2006
Speaking of weak arguments Mr. Wojick,
"But the underlying reason why they can do this rationally is that the science is similarly divided."
Analogously, the theory of evolution is also debated by scientists. Does this suggest that creation "science" should be given equal weight?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:31 am
31 Oct 2006
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:42 am
31 Oct 2006
I don't think you should go into politics, biodiversist! This is how the game is played, whether we like it or not. (Tom Tomorrow sums it up.).
Let me point out, however, that it is very relevant whether a debater is taking money from an interested party. Furthermore the information is available on Mr. Wojick's website.
Let me also point out that the idea of a "debate" is ludicrous. There is a documented disinformation campaign, financed by companies that depend on fossil fuels. There are paid consultants and ideologically driven scientists. There is also a vanishingly small number of serious scientists with reasonable doubts.
The real scientific debate is about mechanisms and probabilities. Look in the peer-reviewed literature, as Andrew Dressler suggests.
Outside scientific circles, there is real debate about what should be done. There are issues of equity and economics (Jason's cost-benefit analysis, for example) that deserve our attention.
As for Mr. Wojick, I think he is more savvy than most of us. I'll bet he knows the climate-skeptic game is over and that future opportunities lie in helping companies come to terms with global warming. A good consultant is always re-tooling.
When he and the other climate skeptics make that change, let us welcome them.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:21 am
31 Oct 2006
This is a blog, not a newpaper. We all have the internet at our fingertips and unlimited, unedited print space. I have little doubt he would find he has bitten off more than he can chew. Let him take the bait.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
roger Posted 11:11 am
31 Oct 2006
Thanks
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 11:50 am
31 Oct 2006
Also, if you visit Mr. Wojick's website, he doesn't exactly seem interested in full disclosure. Would someone who worked for Exxon really be doing the Internet equivalent of wearing sack cloth (with his tip jar, etc.)? Probably not. Not exactly the height of intellectual honesty, I would say.
When someone comes on to a site and starts being argumentative about settled science, sure, you address the points that he or she brings up. But the question of cui bono is also relevant. Who benefits from a cleverly manuevered, prologed debate? Energy companies. And if our "skeptic" works for energy companies, that's relevant information.
It's like the tag line on Pat Michael's consulting business, "advocacy science." That's like calling yourself an "advocacy truth seeker." You're either seeking the truth or you're a dedicated advocate. You can't be both. If you do claim to be both, it's just a pose. Because if you do anything but advocate (which means basically playing the host of rhetorical tricks necessary to leave your audience with some predetermined impression) you'll be fired. So I think something like this is relevant information in an online forum like Grist.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 12:07 pm
31 Oct 2006
Permalink
Jones Posted 9:47 pm
31 Oct 2006
Ever heard that before? Do you agree?
Well then why the heck are you still debating?
To put it another way: How many tonnes of CO2 were released while you went back online and researched and rehashed old arguments that have been made a thousand times before? How much CO2 were YOU responsible for, while you engaged in a petty squabble with someone (Mr Wojick) whose views you've written off anyway?
I think Tokyo Tom's on the right track, it would be more interesting to consider the true motives of the few remaining skeptics. It's not really about the science, and not usually about taking money. Mostly it's about challenging worldviews and accepting what, for different reasons for different people, is indeed an inconvenient truth. Personally I think a review of the mentalities, not the science, of Global Warming would be both more interesting and more fruitful--and more difficult. Much more important, however, is to discuss solutions.
Seriously, I think we should all take a look at what we're doing. Are we not falling prey to the latest distract-and-delay tactic of the deniers? By continuing to argue when the debate is over, by getting worked up at the slightest provocation by the first troll (Mr Wojick) that comes along, are we not just as guilty of inaction as, say, the Australian govt or the Bush administration? Isn't there something more useful we could do?
The climate change blogs are full of "good news" stories regarding public and political opinion, as Tokyo Tom has pointed out. Why ignore those? Why listen to Inhofe, and ignore Glichrist? The politicians have shifted, the public has shifted. Yes, there's more work to be done...much more work... but that work has nothing to do with the science.
And finally...please...PLEASE...recognize that while I stand behind the message, the tone of this post is decidedly tongue-in-cheek. In the spirit of good debate. I'm also well aware of my own hypocrisy; I'm getting sucked in every bit as much as you. Such is the nature of the blogoshpere, the opiate of the pseudo-intellectual masses.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:50 am
02 Nov 2006
"It's not really about the science, and not usually about taking money. Mostly it's about challenging worldviews and accepting what, for different reasons for different people, is indeed an inconvenient truth."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
closetpuritan Posted 1:54 pm
06 Jan 2008
Actually, (as jjwfmme said) it tends to support the truth of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It tends to suggest that rather than starting on the fence and being convinced by a particular argument, climate change skeptics have used a series of arguments that often contradict each other, hoping that one will stick. It tends to support the idea that they use so many arguments because few of them have even a bit of merit, and none of them disprove AGW.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:12 am
29 Jun 2008
The fact is that NGW is an ugly way of looking at the world. It's not a simplistic linear model like AGW where one can do (A) and get (B) in a hopelessly unrealistic situation. Therefore, AGW is something can can be attacked on many many levels and with many facts.
"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/thomas_henry_huxley/
Permalink