How to Respond to Global Warming Deniers

Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

How to Respond to Global Warming Deniers

Post by Dardedar »

How to respond to global warming deniers

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalizing its 2007 report, the BBC helpfully examines "10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC."

For each argument, the so-called "sceptic" presents his/her case, which is then rebutted with a "counter." I would hasten to add that many of these arguments aren't really arguments at all, at least not in the scientific community, given that widely established facts are known, consensus achieved. The case made by global warming deniers are driven by what I will henceforth call the three "ayes": ignorance, ideology, and industry.

This case is given credence (and a platform) in the media, if not in the scientific community, largely because its backers are powerful and because cowardice and unprofessionalism run amok in newsrooms everywhere. These backers, many of them from the energy industry, buy up advertising space, generating revenue for the conglomerate-sized parent companies of major media outlets. To say that they or their mouthpieces, from lobbyists to pundits, are merely sceptics is to make them seem reasonable. They're out there spinning lies, pushing a partisan and pro-industry agenda, not contributing to some admirably healthy debate with genuinely skeptical objections to the consensus on global warming and the climate crisis.

Still, they're out there, a lot of them, well-funded and influential, and for that reason we who do not deny global warming but see it for what it is, namely, the most pressing crisis of our time, potentially a world-catastrophic phenomenon, need to be prepared to challenge their claims and assertions, to respond with the truth to their lies and distortions.

It is not an argument, and they are not skeptics, but the BBC has nonetheless provided a useful tool. Make sure to read it and to keep it handy.

***
Image

Climate scepticism: The top 10

Unravelling the sceptics


What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

Read it here
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Bjorn Lomberg is a sneaky shill for the GW deniers. His act is about as believable as Bill O'Reilly's claim to be a independent but lots of people fall for that one too (no, really). He represents the latest wave of GW contrarians and will probably be getting a lot of attention with his new book "Cool It." This person sums up his tactic well:

***
Lomborg represents a new generation of deniers. The first generation denied that global warming was happening at all. When too much evidence came in, 2nd generation deniers appeared. They argued that global warming was happening, but that human activities had nothing to do with. The evidence has overwhelmed this position. Now we have Lomborg pioneering a 3rd generation denial argument. He says global warming is happening, human activities are at least in part responsible, but that the threat of global warming is over-rated, and might even be good for us.
***

LINK

He's a bullshit artist of the worst kind because he is able to muddle the science and play the part of a supposed "centrist" so well.

Here are some more links on Lomborg:

http://www.postcarbon.org/media_sheep_h ... ny_editors

http://www.postcarbon.org/article_type/lomborg_faq

http://www.postcarbon.org/putting_the_heat_on_lomborg

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... -evidence/
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

The other sort of "denier" isn't really a denier at all, he or she is a defeatist - "GW is real, we caused it, but it's too late to do anything about it". I have a tinge of that myself - I do think it's too late to stop it - but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try anyway.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

Post by Dardedar »

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

LINK
Post Reply