Resource: How To Talk To A Global Warming Skeptic

As CNN's Fareed Zakaria demonstrated this week, you can be in possession of a doctorate from Harvard University and still allow yourself to become terminally beguiled by a glib and charismatic crackpot. Zakaria's struggles with the pleasing sounding illogic of climate change denialist Bjorn Lomborg - who's not worried about polar bear extinction because those creatures are sure to take up the unprecedented process of rapid de-evolution to avoid dying out as their natural habitat declines - while uniquely depressing to watch, raise an important question for those of us who'd rather not get fooled, again: where can one go for one-stop, scientifically-supported, rapid response to climate change nutballs?

The answer? The good folks at Grist have compiled all of Coby Beck's "How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic" series, "containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming" onto one handy and indexed webpage. The listing is neatly divided into four sections: Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, and Levels of Sophistication. The last is my favorite because it is subdivided into four sections titled Silly, Naive, Specious, and the charitable Scientific. Throughout, you will find the most common arguments against climate change in the index, and, at the click of the link, all of the necessary research for reasserting the reality-based facts.

The listing is not entirely complete - under the heading "Types of Arguments" it sadly lacks current entries for "Underdog Theories" and "Crackpottery." But give them time! In the meantime, set your bookmarks accordingly, and within no time, you will find your base of knowledge growing far beyond the expanse of the mainstream media. They'll still give equal time to morons no matter how much you learn, but then, nobody said life was fair.

Comments

[wayoutleft]

all argumentative threads on this are completely wrong. here's how it's done
moron says : global warming is bunk.
you ask: do you have a doctorate in the physical sciences? have you published six or more major papers (not reviews) in a peer reviewed journal of the earth sciences? have you addressed such peers at any international (not american- international) conferences assembled to share knowledge related to climate change more than once? have you devised, administered, or conducted more than one major publicly funded (gov't or ngo- not corporations) research projects that derived data published and peer-reviewed with approval? are you at present involved in raw data collection related to global ecology that is publicly funded (e.g, major university or gov't agency)? where online can i consult your bibliography of publications?
my point is that amateur type discussions redound to the benefit of the deniers, because you are trying to make a complex case for drastic change and sacrifice and all he has to do is shoot a hole in it. the good guys can't win. so good guys must attack lack of qualifications, not extrapolations of partial information.
and you good guys might as well accept the fact that moron will attack anything liberal and choose facts to fit. moron is a stimulus-response rat. all his behavior is conditioned reflex. moron will never actually reason from an unbiased origin point. all he sees is "gore" or "liberal" and he goes into reflex mode. so forget it.

[StinkyPete]

Dang - I'll try this again

SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING

http://tinyurl.com/2my4fs

[GnitenGoodLk]

From your link:

"This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word "global" in "global warming" may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be "Northern Hemisphere" warming"

So, if it doesn't happen all at once, none of it's true huh? I also see an admission that warming occurred. Getting closer there. Almost there.

And of course, prominent Republicans are heavily featured all over the site.

Question everything, of course, but don't debunk all of it and go about business as usual. Irrespective of partisan politics and the powerful interests attacking scientists (literally, and metaphorically) a climate catastrophe is in the works if we do not adapt our energy policies and embrace environmentally sustainable practices.

[GnitenGoodLk]

"I have debated with people who are electrical engineers who assert that the climate is not changing but I have not met any serious atmospheric scientists in Australia who have been working on the issue and who do not think there is a serious problem"

Page 57. Nov, 2000.

http://www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/joint/commttee/j4315.pdf

Back when the skepticism was directed at the existence of climate change. The Kyoto protocol was considered a conspiracy to demolish countries, mostly the U.S. (Probably is, which is why we should be the ones constructing alternative energy policies. No one wants economies to collapse, but we can't argue against building our economy on alternative energy as rapidly as possible) but I digress.

The conversation used to be "the climate is not changing. A little rain and those green people are all panicking like chicken littles. It's La Nina, El Nino, El Taco Bell Systemo. Those scientists are hacks who say otherwise"

These same scientists are under attack again. Completely predicted. They won the 1st round. They will be vindicated during the next round as well. Give it a little more time.

[watchingthings]

First you whack them over the head with a shovel to get their attention................ then........

[johnnyjust]

I have one word for all Global Warmists: Greenland.

Why was a land covered in ice given that name? Was the ice really green back then? Was it because the name Iceland was taken? How about Frostland? Snowland? Coldland? ChillyWillyWorld?

Probably...and I'm no scientist...but it's probably because....come on, say it with me....it's because over 1,000 years ago it was......

You know, you're not even trying.

[Exusian]

Because Eirik the Red was a shrewd real estate promoter.

If you really think Greenland was ice-free in 900 AD you are a far bigger fool than you make out to be.

[realpolitic]

I would move to a country named ChillyWillyWorld. It is a cool name. But almost every suburb I have seen is named 'Park something or other' even if it is overlooking a garbage dump and abutting a nuclear power plant. And Iceland is right next door to Greenland so what is in a name?

[LiberalBuzz]

Flat Earthers are the same as deniers.

What happened to my post? IT was here a minute ago.

[LiberalBuzz]

Personally I've found a baseball bat works best with Flat Earthers (Denialists) BUT since that is illegal I just don't bother because these people start frothing at the mouth and start quoting Rush, Hannity and other paid hacks from Exxonmobile.

Facts mean nothing to them, they just hate anything the rightwingers tell them to and one of the biggies is Global Climate Change. It's impossible to wrap a pointy head around the truth.

So there is no real way to speak to them because they aren't going to listen to you. They haven't and they never will.

IF all the ice did indeed melt and the oceans rose to their waists they would still be screaming that it was wrong because they had been told the water would be over their heads....SO THERE!

There is NO talking to them. Just ignore them and keep working to change things so this planet has a future that humans can live in.

[ofbbg]

O.K. I'll ask these questions again: 1. What is the average temperature of the earth? With all the fluctuations over the centuries, when was that average established? 2. Who decided what the average temp should be? 3. What happens when we cool things down to that average? Do we start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? 3. Isn't it possible that a warmer climate would encourage more planting of crops in regions heretofore too cold for large scale agriculture? Maybe rainfall would increase due to the extra evaporation, and deserts would bloom once more. 4. Isn't it possible that reducing CO2 might have an adverse effect on plant growth just when Malthusian population growth (and idiotic energy policies) are making adequate food production more and more critical? 5. With grotesque profits to be made in the "green" industries (by Al "Do as I say, not as I do" Gore, et. al., isn't it just possible that there's a greedy agenda involved here? I eagerly await enlightenment.

[jvarga]

Are you under the misguided impression that plant life suffered prior to human generation of industrial amounts of carbon dioxide?

Seriously what the hell is wrong with you people?

[eredux]

Check out this Interactive US Energy Footprint Chart, an interactive United States Energy Consumption Footprint chart, illustrating Greenest States and more. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices - drill down to your local city.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[ibsteve2u]

Very, very nice link...it seemed to be a bit of an understatement to put it in my "Weather" favorites folder, but creating a new one titled "Why Our Children Will Curse Our Memories" was a little too depressing.

[thedirtman]

How to talk to a GW skeptic. I would suggest that there are four point of views to global warming - not two. There are:

Global warming scientists: The role of a scientist is to describe the science and how greenhouse gases relate to global warming. e.g. Jim Hansen

Global warming environmentalists: activists that work to generate responses favorable to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. e. g. Al Gore

Global warming skeptics: scientists that question the "depth" of the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Depth is a key word here. No good skeptic disputes total relationship at this point. e.g. Bjorn Lomborg

Global warming deniers: people that hate Al Gore and hate science because they failed it. They also hate scientists because science does not support their point of view.

[kingcityguru]

I think the first thing you do is tell them to ignore the fact that the earth's temperature has actually cooled over the last 10 years and to forget up one of the coldest winters in the last 75 in the northern hemisphere this past year. Once they ignore those things, tell them to ignore the likelihood that the SUN is responsible for warming or cooling of the earth. If you get them to forget all that, then tell them that the gas that plants use to grow -- CO2 -- is actually a bad thing.

Oh, I almost forgot, Venus's atmosphere is 94 per cent CO2, but its temperature averages BELOW 100 degrees celcius. -- better get them to forget that too.

[Exusian]

"earth's temperature has actually cooled over the last 10 years"
"Venus's atmosphere is 94 per cent CO2, but its temperature averages BELOW 100 degrees celcius."

Both flat out false, but then we all know how deniers simply make stuff up.

[jvarga]

I think this guy is a denier given the totally made up "fact" of venus' surface temperature. No reference of course.

Anyhow, average surface temperature of venus is between 400-500C http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.shtml

[BlackbirdHighway]

The Earth has not cooled in the last ten years. Stop listening to Rush!

1998 was the hottest year in the last ten IN THE UNITED STATES. Globally, 2005 and 2007 were both hotter that 1998.

Unlike you, I actually have proof:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

So, your claim of cooling is completely false.

LIAR!

[mamacat]

Among scientists, there are almost no global warming deniers. They exist, but their numbers are so small, they are comparable to the number of scientists who do not believe in evolution.
If a lay person wants to educate themselves, it behooves them to read and to make an effort to do research. The fruits of education are undeniable.
If someone genuinely wants to discuss a subject, well and good. If someone has made up their mind after listening to talk-show hosts famous for advocating the illiterate point of view, it is best to avoid them, not to try to force them to face facts. Life is too short to waste it on those who glory in ignorance.

[Photofarm]

You are a prime example of someone that overstates their hand. Those that believe in Man causing Global Warming have pushed this to a religion, not a science. Much of the " consensous " and agreement you think is there comes from throwing out data that doesn't agree with the preconceived outcome. Those that have done similar computer modeling in other fields with more information available point out flaws, but those are derided because they are not " climatologists " . So in effect, the ignorant people are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid of man causing global warming, who charge others with ignorance.

[mijumom]

So we should we just argue about whether or not it is a good idea to spew toxic pollutants into our environment? So, you don't believe in global warming, makes no difference. We are poisoning ourselves with all of this crap. Evolution would dictate that for the sake of self preservation, we would find cleaner technology regardless of global warming.

[thedirtman]

Yes. We do have to differentiate GW deniers from GW skeptics. The skeptics serve to make scientists work out the details in what is put forward. Skeptics are an asset to the science community. GW deniers are propaganda "sound scientists" that work to convince ordinary people that scientists are liars who would say or do anything to become rich. Often sound scientists are corporate attorneys. In reality, that do not exist within the science community at all.

[lvogt]

The function of the deniers is to spread doubt to slow the public from holding the polluters accountable. The polluters are making enormous amounts of money and they don't care who it hurts.
They have no intention of letting anyone stand between them and money. Damn the rest of us.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Oh sweet Jeebus on a cracker.

First: Why do you believe is it necessary that one believe in AGW to be an environmentalist? Talk about false premises.

How to talk to a AGW skeptic? How about just skip it and move on to the zillions of environmentalist causes you BOTH believe in and can actually do something about? If AGW is real, then our environmentalist efforts will make a difference. If it's not real, we still made a difference. It's a win-win.

Cripes. And you guys are supposed to be the sophisticated ones? JEEZ uz.

[thedirtman]

Why do you believe is it necessary that one believe in AGW to be an environmentalist?

LOL. Good perspective. As a scientist I have to convince that just because I believe in AGW I am not an environmentalist.

[only1Demvoter]

One more time for all of you self proclaimed experts on how GW is a hoax :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

So just sit back and do nothing other than incessantly refuting the possibility of GW... 'Cause that's the smart move, right ??


More to follow. -ralph

[ProWarDem]

only1Demvoter, we denyers are claiming that we are NOT the experts. It was you guys who went on this limb, not us.

Do you have to be an expert to disagree? At the same time, every seventeen year-old is a hardcore GW supporter.

[only1Demvoter]

ProWar : Thus spake Zarathustra.

Deflection impugns credibility once again.

Got nothin' on the video though, huh ? Or just got nothin'...

So how does a seventeen Y.O. " support " GW ?? Race a Hummer ?? ( ... Or reverse that ? )

Sit back, do nothing... This is all just a mass delusion Flat Earther.


More to follow. -ralph

[Portnoy]

And every pot smoking College "Career student" is an obama supporter.

[Coyote2]

Thank you, only1Demvoter. Good find. Good post. Good argument.

There is one other option that I believe freaks the deniers out the worst. That is that we do take action, that we make personal and economic sacrifices to fight the Climate Change Wendigo, but it is not enough: civilization is destroyed anyway.

What freaks out the deniers is that they could have enjoyed their last days eating drinking and being merry, instead of sacrificing for a lost cause. A last chance to grab something for themselves.

Kind of a loser and defeatist argument, but it was all I could come up with to assail the solid logic used in this video. I believe that personal greed and human selfishness is at the core of climate change deniers. That ME ME ME attitude scorning the Common Good born from the now obsolete American Dream.

The problem is that we face a dual-headed monster: Energy Scarcity AND Climate Change. These Wendigos already have us on our knees and they are only approaching. The best case scenario is a decade of economic depression whither we act now or not.

[johnnyjust]

First, don't use the word "denier" in describing those who don't fall head over heels for an unproven hypothesis. That's akin to saying, "I'm in a mindless cult."

[johnnyjust]

Second, start every conversation about Global Warming by saying, "I'm no expert and I don't have all the facts and I don't every know what I'm talking about, but I heard on PuffPost that...."

[johnnyjust]

Third, take a step back and say to yourself, 'Why am I so adamant about something I didn't even think about five years ago? Is it because it has become the latest politically-correct cause celebre? Am I simply bandwaggoning in order to score with some brainless Gore groupies?' (By the way, that may be the only reason to be a "truther," 911 or otherwise.)

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

I'm sure many of us were concerned with AGW long before Gore's newest 'invention' - you did hear that he created the internet right!?

He's not our spokesman and he's not our leader or idol - get a clue or at least a better straw-man.

[johnnyjust]

Fourth, take about twenty years and put your energy into something else. Let others waste their lives worrying about the JFK conspiracy and Bigfoot and Ancient Astronauts and UFO's and Global Warming. See how much more fulfilling life is as you ignore the latest "scares" and direct your creativity into something worthwhile.

[johnnyjust]

Well said, Johnny.

Well said.

[johnnyjust]

Eighth.....wait a minute!

Why doesn't PuffPost put the posts in the right order?

Security!