Matt had some good points. For people who don't make heavy use of logic in the formation of opinions, the repetition of lies can be effective. Remember how Bush/Cheney sold the Saddam/AlQaeda/Mushroom cloud connection by repeating all three in close temporal proximity over and over. By the time of the invasion he had 65% of the country believing it.

   Attacking them for their motives (profit/ libertarianism/ general antiscience) may well be more effective. For the most part this crowd is largely the same one involved in Idesign, and pro-tobacco. The anti-evolution stuff is more than just anti-evolution, that it as wedge, the real goal is to destroy science, which is seen as an enemy of (fundamentalist) religion.

   But, I do you think you are correct, at least for those who are persuadable by good fact and logic based arguments, the anti-GW myths do need refutation. The trick is to do it in a way that doesn't reinforce the idea that the science is still in doubt. I fear that most members of the public aren't up to judging the validity of the scientific arguments, and will come off with the impression that there are two valid positions. For that reason we need to be careful to make our arguments intellectually accessable even to those without a strong science/math background. Referring them to realclimate.org won't cut it for the sciencephobes.

At least, not against the true deniers/delayers. The ones whose interest is not having to change one jot of their lifestyle.

Engaging their arguments in a scientific discussion means showing the public that you consider their arguments worth engaging.

Refusing to engage their arguments in a scientific discussion gets you labelled as a close-minded AGW-fascist (Or Communist. Or terrorist. Or whatever it is this week) who wants to force an environmentally-friendly, healthy, and morally virtuous lifestyle down the throats of good honest polluting citizens.

Pointing out links where they can get the answers to their arguments shows you don't know what you're talking about and can't think of any answers of your own.

And whatever you call them, you're lowering yourself to their level.

So, obviously, we can't win against that type of person. 'jabailo' had a good point about 'questioners', people who don't just automatically believe what the media tells them and want reasonable arguments. Those people have my respect, and I'm always willing to answer their queries and the new arguments they come up with. You can usually tell who they are--they're polite for a start, and when you suggest sites they could look up, they don't criticise you. So you had a good point, jabailo; pity you wouldn't actually qualify for that status.

As for the 'sciencephobes' mentioned by 'bigTom'--that cross-section of population never ceases to amaze me. People who confess they know little about science, refuse to read sites--even ones like RealClimate--and then pretend actually to know what they're talking about. If they're afraid of knowing anything about science, why not just take the word of people who know a thing or two?

I just wish it wasn't all a case of 'showing the public'. If only I could believe that there was no such thing as 'the public'--just, individuals who one by one will realise what they are doing and appreciate what needs to be done. But I suppose that's being stupidly idealistic.

What I cling to is that, while we can't win these arguments, hopefully we don't actually need to win them.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

In my personal life, I put the refuting of deniers/delayers into the category of avoiding wrestling with muddy pigs.

Halfway through you realize that you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it.

Sunsetbeachguy

There is a difference in being open minded and empty headed.  I don't want to spend time explaining that, but most can figure it out.

3 subjects of scientific (and other) study.

First)    
Hypothesis 1) Everything revolves around the earth (geocentric.)

Hypothesis 2) Everything in solar system revolves around the sun (heliocentric)

Second)  
Hypothesis 1) The 9/11/ 2001 attacks were aided by explosive charges put into the world trade center, into world trade center building 7 and a different smaller plane hit the pentagon, and explosive charges aided the pentagon damage instead of one of the hijacked airliners.   Include all the other hypotheses from the `9/11 Search for Truthers.'

Hypothesis 2) 4 airliners hijacked by people from the middle east, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew the airliners into buildings and the ground and damage unaided by explosives set by the U.S. government.

Third)
Hypothesis 1) Global warming (AGW) caused by accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies by major scientific organizations about AGW.   People who haven't studied it much and come from political views on the subject know more than people who have spent their lives in science.

Most can see where this is going.

How many people have actually seen the science of First study, Hypothesis 1) and 2.)   Very few.   I see the sun rise in the morning, it goes across the sky and the sun sets.   The sun goes around the earth.   The stars go around the earth.  The moon goes around the earth, just takes more time.    The planets go around the earth, just wander a little and back up once in a while, but they eventually find their way and continue on their way around the earth.

Copernicus had a hypothesis about heliocentric.    Galileo had observations about Jupiter and the moons going around it, but didn't prove heliocentric.   It was left to the mathematician Kepler to prove heliocentric.   But how many have studied Kepler and the math on heliocentric.   I haven't.  But the scientists have.  

Now the `9/11 Search for Truthers' are just weird.   I'll leave that for later.

Now I haven't gone thru all the AGW data, charts and information about it.  But other scientists have.   Heliocentric and AGW are both true using the scientific method.   Each I don't have direct data study, but other scientists in the peer review process have.

So having an open mind and not an empty head, I have concluded that First Study, Hypothesis 2) Heliocentric is true is closer to Third Study, Hypothesis 1) AGW is true.  

Then I will say that First Study, Hypothesis 1) Geocentric, just taking things by how they look and insufficient study is like Third Study 2) Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in science on the global warming problem.

My other conclusion is that those who continue to claim that all skeptical thought has to be open minded thought and never empty headed thought I give to a third category.    

That being the Second Study, Hypothesis 1) conspiracy of government in the 9/11 tragedy to be related to the Third Study, Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in sciences of global warming.

So the `9/11 Search for Truthers' I put into the same category as the skeptical AGW or I just call the skeptical AGWer's as `Climate Search for Truthers.'   Or even shorter, `Climate Truthers.'

Summary,
Heliocentric solar system like AGW.

Geocentric solar system like AGW huge mistake.

`9/11 Search for Truthers' like `Climate Search for Truther.'  Climate Truthers.

It's Saturday night and I was out drinking.  I hope it's not all screwed up, but that's my take on things.

a Mistake on previous post.

Moon goes around earth somewhat like speed of sun.  I wrote that moon was slower.  I got the moon month thing mixed up with how it moved accross sky.

jabailo,

I don't acknowledge you other than a man.

I just think that you are a mistaken man when it comes to AGW.

I felt inspired today.   I saw Richard Dawkins speak in person today.  That was fun.

I felt inspired, not that that always works out for me, it could all be crap.  But I felt inspired, that you can't take away.

"It's Saturday night and I was out drinking."

Call Mothers Against Drunk Typing (MADT), we need an intervention here.  Hehey.

"...it is the mainstream media."  

Exactly right Joseph.  The wing nuts don't matter much, it's the main stream mass delusional media that has the power.

Just like repeating the mushroom cloud/Saddam 911/WMD nonsense over and over convinced 80% of america that the Iraq invasion was necessary.  The power of mass delusion, repitition, is the enemy.

They are now out to convince 80% that ethanol, clean coal, and nuclear power will be enough to dull the effects (if any) of GHG global climate change.  It takes a lot of paychecks to a lot of psuedo-environmental writers to do that.

Cap and trade!  They parrot.  These are the dangerous deluders, not the wing nuts.

Why is this essentially Barack's energy policy?  Because 60% really have accepted this mass delusion.  He did bow to the rest of us, he mentioned plugin hybrids once, I think?  

The hardcore wing nut deniers are the same group that still have a favorable opinion of Cheney.  Politically, statistically  insignifigant.  They will most likely sit out this election, as they hate McCain as much as they hate Barack.

But environmentalists who understand what must be done, like the small group that knew the Iraq invasion was a titanic mistake, are also a very small percentage of voters.

Unless we rally to get people like Lester Brown to coach president in waiting Obama, our point of view will be ignored, just as the wing nut position is.  

In fact we have less exposure in mass media than they do.  They have their own teevee and radio networks.  Foxnews and dimbulb limboob radio.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The people who will ultimately be responsible for the U.S. failing to respond adequately to AGW are the so-called environmentalists. I am referring to those believe that by driving a Prius, using carpet pads made of recycled materials and pushing cap and trade schemes for some industrial emissions we will somehow not be responsible for ending history. Considering that we have maybe fifteen years to reduce our emissions by 80-90% (including the emissions in China and the third world that are generated for us), these baby steps are just a distraction.

You can tell who really understands the science and the risk-benefit issues involved here. They are the people who don't get around the county in fossil-fool powered wheelchairs, don't fly anywhere (even to "environmental" conferences), heat only to 50 F and don't electrically cool at all. They tend to do without newly manufactured items, and don't need meat or foreign-grown food to eat well.

The funny thing is, by doing right by Mother Earth, we are also able to live better for less money. Would every adult in your household really need to work for some corporation if you ditched the steel wheelchair costs, stopped buying toys and grew a bit of food? Try it, you might even find out that being physically fit and being comfortable walking about at temperatures that range from 5F to 105F feels good. Rain and snow take quite a while to do any harm (With reasonable clothing choices), sweating is not the end of the world, and it is kind of nice to know the phase of the moon without looking it up.

But really, isn't it so much easier to just buy a few compact fluorescents and a Prius and blame the whole problem on greedy corporatists and stupid people?