As David said, I am going to be reposting, article by article, my How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide here at Grist. Before beginning, I would like to make a correction, present a plan, offer an explanation, and make a request.
David said that after 60 or so articles the guide is a "mission accomplished." Unfortunately, there really is a lot left to cover! That's the correction.
The plan is to present these articles roughly following the Stages of Denial sorting, so it will read like a "journey of discovery."
The explanation is prompted by a few comments I got from some of the more sophisticated contrarians I tangled with at the original site. They complained that the arguments I was debunking were often shallow or silly -- that they were red herrings. I would like to state clearly for the record: there is not a single argument I addressed that I have not seen being made repeatedly on blogs, usenet, or less scientifically literate venues like the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. I can not defend against the charge that the denialist's material is sometimes shallow, silly, or even downright ludicrous, but if it is good enough for the Senate floor or the congressional record, it is good enough for me to address.
Finally, I would really like to hear what readers think is missing. There are quite a few I already intend to write, but I want to know what else is missing, and suggestions will help me decide where to focus next.
Now, off to the races ...!
Comments
View as Flat
jjwfmme Posted 3:21 am
26 Oct 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:32 am
26 Oct 2006
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:39 am
26 Oct 2006
Permalink
wacki Posted 4:42 am
26 Oct 2006
I can defend Coby on this. I've actually been cataloging who said what. The dumbest argument I've ever seen is that climate scientists and the greens just want to make everyone "poor peasants". They want to deny people food and clean water. I don't think it gets any dumber than that. Yet this argument has been made on the Senate Floor, by a Readers Digest staff writer, and there has even been a documentary about this single argument.
Logical Science- "The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants."
I really don't think it gets any worse or more desperate than that. Keep up the great work Coby, it's comforting to know that your readership has just greatly expanded.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:50 am
26 Oct 2006
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:53 am
26 Oct 2006
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
bhurley Posted 5:44 am
26 Oct 2006
I think your resource would be more appropriately titled "How to Respond to Claims Made by Climate Skeptics," because the people you really want to talk to are those who are on the fence or who don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion.
Trying to convert a skeptic to a believer is usually an exercise in frustration (although I do know several climatologists who were eventually swayed by the evidence) -- the people to aim for are the agnostics.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 5:27 pm
29 Oct 2006
"I think it's great that you're adding both Coby and Andrew Dessler; they will both provide heft and continued focus on this important topic.
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