How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

[cloudy]

Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial

• Inadequate evidence
• Contradictory evidence
• No consensus

We don't know why it's happening

• Models don't work
• Prediction is impossible
• We can't be sure

Climate change is natural

• It happened before
• It's part of a natural change
• It's not caused by CO2

How to debunk the arguments that our friend ami is so fond of trotting out, and I mean, completely answer all the questions. This article covers every type of argument (uninformed, misinformed, cherry-picking, urban myths, and my favorite: crackpottery ), and every level of sophistication (silly, naive, specious, and scientific).

I've bookmarked it.

Complete article here.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm looking for the answer to Roxy's argument; "You just want to spend my money!"

 

[cloudy]

I'm looking for the answer to Roxy's argument; "You just want to spend my money!"

maybe 'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'?

Objection: The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people.

Answer: Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong? You can not come to a rational decision about the reality of a danger by considering how hard it might be to avoid. First things first: understand that the problem is real and present.

But even if mitigating global warming would be harmful, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we try to reduce fossil fuel use.

Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative fuels, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation are forgetting something rather important. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, whether now or a bit later. Many bright minds inside the industry think we are already at peak oil. So even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later.

Seems like a win-win situation to me.

 

[shereads]

Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial

• Inadequate evidence
• Contradictory evidence
• No consensus

We don't know why it's happening

• Models don't work
• Prediction is impossible
• We can't be sure

Climate change is natural

• It happened before
• It's part of a natural change
• It's not caused by CO2

How to debunk the arguments that our friend ami is so fond of trotting out, and I mean, completely answer all the questions. This article covers every type of argument (uninformed, misinformed, cherry-picking, urban myths, and my favorite: crackpottery ), and every level of sophistication (silly, naive, specious, and scientific).

I've bookmarked it.

Complete article here.

Good try, Cloudy, but haven't you learned yet that these people are fact-proof? They'd refute the Theory of Gravity if floating entitled them to a tax break.

 

[cloudy]

Good try, Cloudy, but haven't you learned yet that these people are fact-proof? They'd refute the Theory of Gravity if floating entitled them to a tax break.

There is no gravity. The earth just sucks.

 

[shereads]

There is no gravity. The earth just sucks.

Intelligent Falling Theory

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

[shereads]

"
Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, whether now or a bit later. Many bright minds inside the industry think we are already at peak oil. So even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later."

The cherry they'll pick from this answer is the reference to "a global society." They'll use it as proof that the article - and therefore, global warming theory - is the work of socialists seeking to weaken America economically.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Intelligent Falling Theory

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I'm totally sold.

 

[Carnevil9]

At a cursory glance (which is all the time I am going to invest in this nonsense), none of the arguments on that page hold much water unless you are already a true believer. Global Warming is as much a religion as any other under the sun: accepted without proof and without any consideration allowed for alternate views......Carney

 

[cloudy]

At a cursory glance (which is all the time I am going to invest in this nonsense), none of the arguments on that page hold much water unless you are already a true believer. Global Warming is as much a religion as any other under the sun: accepted without proof and without any consideration allowed for alternate views......Carney

Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• National Academy of Sciences
• Environmental Protection Agency
• The Royal Society of the UK
• American Geophysical Union
• American Meteorological Society
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

* Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's awesome.

 

[rgraham666]

Cloudy? Don't you realize that every one of the organizations you listed is populated entirely by well educated people?

You know what that means? They're all liberals!

So they're lying, perpetuating a great fraud on America's God fearing people. A liberal cannot tell the truth.

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Knew I wouldn't be able to type that and keep a straight face.

 

[trysail]

When, and if, humanity can consistently and accurately predict the weather next week...

Until then, it ain't settled science— in fact, it's not even close.

Who is it that's actually "in denial?"

 

[keeblercrumb]

When, and if, humanity can consistently and accurately predict the weather next week...

Until then, it ain't settled science— in fact, it's not even close.

Who is it that's actually "in denial?"

Good point! And one of benefits of burying your head in the sand is that you know exactly what your weather will be next week.



-KC

 

[rgraham666]

When the acid rain fries their ass their head will still be aware of what the weather is.

 

[neonlyte]

Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial

• Inadequate evidence
• Contradictory evidence
• No consensus

We don't know why it's happening

• Models don't work
• Prediction is impossible
• We can't be sure

Climate change is natural

• It happened before
• It's part of a natural change
• It's not caused by CO2

How to debunk the arguments that our friend ami is so fond of trotting out, and I mean, completely answer all the questions. This article covers every type of argument (uninformed, misinformed, cherry-picking, urban myths, and my favorite: crackpottery ), and every level of sophistication (silly, naive, specious, and scientific).

I've bookmarked it.

Complete article here.

Just burn 'em... it saves fuel. And breath!

 

[Recidiva]

I'd be happy if we just renamed the whole thing "pollution" and went back to dealing with the causes.

I'm less interested in the entire big thing of global warming (as climate fluctuation is unfortunately a constant and lots of science is incomplete and fudged)

Just stop being selfish greedy assholes, that'll take care of most of it.

I get just as irritated by watching drowning polar bears and car funerals.

Oh for Goodness sake, go plant a tree and stop whining. Lord.

 

[trysail]

I wouldn't haved believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. The BBC (which along with NPR, PBS, the New York Times and every other media outlet has bought into theory of anthropogenic global warming hook, line and sinker) reports that global temperatures have not risen for ten (10) straight years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Look no further than your own backyard.

The Gulf water level is the same as its always been. Temps here are cooler than normal. Rainfall is what it normally is. Hurricane activity was suppressed last year. Last winter was colder than usual.

Things are pretty much the same as always.

The GLOBAL WARMING hysteria is work relief for lawyers and bureaucrats.

 

[john-the-author]

I actually didn't think there was a lot you could do to get the people who don't think global warming is real/human-caused/really, really serious/more than a liberal or socialist plot other than wait 30 years, then slap the shit out of them, and say "Okay, now do you fucking believe me?"

The idea that humans have the power to dramatically alter the face of the earth and its climate shouldn't be a surprise. For example, look at Ireland: up until 2500 years ago, it was a completely different country. There were trees and topsoil. But after humans had logged off enough of the trees, there wasn't enough left to support the topsoil and the ecosystem, and you now have huge chunks of Ireland that are nothing more than bleached limestone fields. Limestone doesn't break down into anything fertile, so it's really hard to do anything with it. In another 10,000-20,000 years, the slow accretion of dirts, bird droppings, dust, and what-not that work to create soil may ultimately provide a new layer of soils, but this is a "not in your lifetime and not even in the span of any civilization" kinda deal. As part of this, an entire group of birds and animals were wiped out. As one in thousands, there used to be Irish species of squirrels. Nope, gone: no trees. You can surmise the kinds of animals that aren't there anymore.

Similarly, the Sahara desert is largely man-made (though ~not~ exclusively, I want to add). The despoiling of oases through overuse and overgrazing has extended the Sahara hundreds of miles in every direction in recorded history.

However, epiphanies do seem to happen. I know a VP of Faux News who is (not surprisingly) a staunch conservative. He's not a very clear thinker, but he's a good man in many ways. (I'm waiting for his pictures and stories from his month in Baghdad in March, as a matter of fact.)

His parents live in Des Moines, IA. It seems that he's woken up to the idea that Things Are Changing as a result of this recent round of floods. I've a sister and b-in-law in Des Moines, myself, and it's really clear to the locals how much worse the floods are here. He's been making the sounds of a new convert about how awful this is and we've got to do something and so on. We're sympathetic to him, but there's a certain sense of "Welcome to the party, pal!!" along with some of this when we talk to him about it.

I think there are a number of people who will go so far as to give lip service--though they don't really believe it, I think--to the idea that this is 'normal' climate change and we're just seeing variations in the climate that (emphasis mine) human beings aren't responsible for. Okay, let's suppose that this is totally natural and that the incredible consumption of oil, deforestation of whole countries (Ecuador is a fine example, but there are many others), overfishing of most food fish, and just the pounding impact of too many people on the face of the planet doesn't mean anything at all. It's a big leap, but bear with me on this one; we're supposing: "Humans had nothing to do with this 'natural climate change' that seems to be occurring."

Okay, then, good to know.

But we're still gonna get fucked.

As the oceans rise (documentable) from the ice caps melting (documentable) and the Midwest dries out (documentable) and water supplies dry up (documentable) and all the other documentable problems that are on the list, I am sure that as we're dying in a dustbowl or watching Florida and parts of Texas submerge for the rest of human civilization under the sea (who said global warming was all bad?) and dehydrating to death that it wasn't our fucking fault.

I saw a bumper sticker recently that said "Imagine if global warming were real." That part's not really hard. I'll let yuh skate on the idea of what's causing it for right now, but just imagine it as real. Now imagine what it's going to mean to you. We don't know what a lot of that is going to be, because it's catastrophe mathematics and we just don't know enough about this to predict yet, but we're going to see it unfold.

We're running out of oil (documentable). Whether you believe in peak oil having past or peak oil now or peak oil soon, it's incontrovertible that we've got a finite amount of oil and we keep using it. We're going to die of thirst in the dark, but I'm sure we're all going to be saying "And thank you, Jesus, it wasn't our fault!" Yes, that will be a comfort, I'm sure.

I think global warming is real. I don't think we know much yet about how it's going to affect humans and the world we live in, but that it will is not in question. If you don't believe that it's real, I encourage you to go buy a house on the beach in Florida. Or the Texas gulf coast line. Sink all your money into it and make it look really, really nice. Of course I'm fulla shit and couldn't possibly know anything about this because it's alllll junk science. So go prove me wrong. I fucking dare you.

Me? I'm living in an area that's not expected to warm up above the living point and I'm planting a lot of fruit trees that prosper in warmer weather.

 

[keeblercrumb]

I wouldn't haved believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. The BBC (which along with NPR, PBS, the New York Times and every other media outlet has bought into theory of anthropogenic global warming hook, line and sinker) reports that global temperatures have not risen for ten (10) straight years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

Not for the first time, Trysail, you shoot yourself squarely in the foot even as you place it in your mouth. Your citation, as do most of your scientific citations, comes down squarely on the side of global warming as a result of greenhouse gases.. but maybe you did not read that far.

Because of all the "hysteria", as you call it, governments, international scientific bodies, and private corporations (as so comprehensively noted by Cloudy above) have increased research enormously over the last 10 years. The body of knowledge, the accuracy of computer modeling, insight into the chaotic systems at work are all increasing at an ever accelerating pace.

Regretfully for us all, the results continue to reinforce the earlier forecasts made on sparse data, but whatever their conclusions, KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD AND INCREASES THE LIKELYHOOD OF OUR SUCCESSFULLY DEALING WITH ANY PROBLEMS WHICH MAY ARISE! (maybe that would look more forceful in green... and ironic).

Despite your desire for it to be so, nobody is denying that there are naturally occurring and minor variations due to normal cyclical patterns. As this article points out rather strongly (but for your benefit should have been printed in a larger font and brighter color), this recent study has concluded we are entering what would have been a natural cooling phase lasting approximately 10 years.

Odd you have no trouble accepting THAT forecast. Of course, the study went on to conclude that instead of cooling, the global temperature is likely to remain essentially the same, but then accelerating rapidly in the subsequent 10 years as this current cycle runs its course.

Will it?? Well I sure as hell don't know and nor do you, obviously. And this is just one team’s predictions. But we should also obviously keep throwing resources into the research on both the forecasts and the likely impact they portend.

I would have thought it was intuitively clear that we shouldn't fuck with mother nature, just because of our ignorance. Having established that man's actions ARE impacting in any way a system as massive and chaotic as the entire planet's climate, we should probably pull back a little on the triggering mechanism (greenhouse gases) as best as we can.


But thanks for the article. It really was illuminating. Next time, read it.

-KC

 

[Stella_Omega]

His parents live in Des Moines, IA. It seems that he's woken up to the idea that Things Are Changing as a result of this recent round of floods. ...

I love that. Nothing like personal discomfort to make people think Global.
During that big blackout in New York, people were waiting for the Rapture in Central Park. A power failure was proof of the end times.

"Rainy night in Georgia, seems like it's raining all over the world..."

 

[amicus]

I am off in a few hours to spend a few days with kids and grandkids over on the Oregon Coast, but thought to leave a parting gesture....be that as it may...

It seems the "Peace, Love and Dope" generation remains in a state of total denial, I guess I can force myself to have sympathy for a lifestyle gone all wrong, but it will be a stretch.

The Global Warming mantra fits in so well with the old Hippy lifestyle, but then, I don't expect the true believers to acknowledge that.

But...there is a new generation afoot and they are not about to adopt the doom and gloom of the scourge of modern man and modern life that the 'love generation' created from clouds.

Anthropogenic climate change goes hand in glove with the rain forest and save the whales generation, with the preservation of pristine wilderness, for the sake of nature and an entire litany of rebellion against modern life.

But, to repeat, I would be more than naive to expect the 'believers' in Rock n Roll, to ever see, it, much like diehard Deists, who still pray for salvation.

The latest thing on the news today, is a left wing proposition to begin a 'Manhattan Project', to solve the energy crisis.

Christ....does anyone recall the mechanics of that project? Use a military draft, Nationalize the energy industry, forced labor, fenced camps, strict security, typical Gulag proposal of the left, total abrogation of individual rights and freedom.

But, something that does not surprise me from the left.

It is almost pathetic to read Cloudy's last ditch defense of a faded belief system, a pity she never learned to read and study climate change.

Strange, in a way, the left maintains that humankind is miniscule and insignificant in the over all scheme of things, a mere infestation of mother earth, and yet we can alter the climate of a planet?

Small contradiction there, methinks...

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

ah, the crackpottery advocate speaks....

 

[trysail]

Greenland's Climate Changed Abruptly During Ice Age, Study Says
By Alex Morales

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- Greenland's temperatures rose abruptly twice during the last ice age, said University of Copenhagen-led researchers who studied the phenomenon to learn how the world's climate can change violently.

Samples drilled from the island's ice sheet previously showed it warmed by more than 10 degrees Celsius (18 Fahrenheit) 14,700 years ago, and again 11,700 years ago, with a cooler period in between. The scientists examined the cores further and found the warming periods were accompanied by changing precipitation and wind patterns across the world, according to their findings, published yesterday in the journal Science.

``Such rapid climate change would challenge even the most modern societies to successfully adapt,'' said Jim White, a co- author of the paper and a scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, in a statement. ``Knowing how these massive events start and evolve is one of the most pressing climate questions we need to answer.''

Climate records can indicate how conditions on the Earth may change in the future, both through natural variations, and man-made global warming, which the United Nations warned last year will cause increased flooding and droughts, and rising sea levels. The last ice age ended about 11,500 years ago.

The study shows for the first time the global mechanisms behind abrupt climate change and should be used to help refine computer models to better predict how atmospheric conditions may alter in the future, the researchers said.

``The climatic shifts are happening suddenly, as if somebody had pushed a button,'' Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, professor at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute, said in a statement with the study.

Examining ice cores can help determine elements of past climate because the ice is formed by successive annual layers of snow that accumulate. By analyzing the chemical composition of each layer of ice and the air bubbles trapped within it, researchers are able to determine temperature, the source of the precipitation, and amounts of different gases in the atmosphere.

The Danish-led scientists studied dust and isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen stored in the ice. More dust indicates a colder climate, and a higher amount of the O-18 isotope of oxygen is a sign of warmer temperatures where precipitation falls, the university said. When the compacted ice contains more deuterium, a hydrogen isotope, it's a sign that temperatures are warmer at the place where the vapor originated from, it said.

The warming period 11,700 years ago occurred over 60 years, while an excess of deuterium in the ice from 14,700 years ago showed the transition then took place over one to three years, the scientists said.

``We interpret the rapid shifts in excess as more likely a consequence of changed source regions of the water vapor reaching Greenland,'' the scientists said. ``This points to a reorganization of atmospheric circulation from one year to the next.''

Analysis of the components of the ice core led the researchers to conclude that both warming periods followed a sequence of events. As the tropical oceans and parts of the southern hemisphere warmed, they forced northwards the Inter- Tropical Convergence Zone, an area of low pressure that affects rainfall patterns, they wrote.

At a certain threshold, the shifting convergence zone intensified the Pacific monsoon, bringing wetter conditions to parts of Asia, decreasing both atmospheric dust and uplift of air currents. These air current changes then led to alterations in wind patterns further north, the scientists said.

``We are beginning to tease apart the sequence of abrupt climate change,'' co-author White said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=abQ8EuR8Milo&refer=latin_america#