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

[Raymondf]

Stop all space exploration. Get everyone out of space station and nuke it.

[Raymondf]

Don't even try it with me, because I won't listen to lies.

[DavidJames]

The Wikipedia has an excellent section on Global Warming.

www.wikipedia.org

[totalliberal]

["How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic"}


How about don't bother? They are a meaningless fringe group anyway.

[rini]

Um, totalliberal,

These people are still in the White House and have enormous influence on our policies and the american opinion. I know many people who believe them. Do not discount the skeptics, the are frightening and ill-informed and they may kill us all.

[libertron]

Call me a skeptic. I believe that many people are using a natural weather cycle event to propagate their own agendas. The goals include but are not limited to: 1 Raising taxes. 2 Increasing government control at the expense of individual freedom. 3 Subjecting the US to greater international control. 3.b Greatly increasing the scope and power of the UN. 4. Giving Al Gore the cult-leader status he now has. 5 Lining the pockets of Gore's friends on Wall Street with profits from his cap-and-trade schemes, at the expense of energy consumers (all of us). 6. Shower taxpayer funded subsidies on big corps who play along with the game.

It is alarming to me how fast some special interests, the enemies of freedom, have piled on to this hoax. Besides the Greens, the anti-tobacco folks have grabbed onto it and even Gore said that cigs contribute significantly to GG emissions. The animal rights people went right after meat, with their methane nonsense. The car insurance companies and other safety-nazis declared that we could save X-million tons of co2 if we lowered speed limits. One fool (Democrat) pol declared that lowering speed limits was a win-win situation. "We could save lives at the same time as saving GG emissions". Say, Einstein, you missed two "loses" I notice right away. People's time (getting from A-B) is worth something to them, and how much more will all those unnecessary speeding tickets cost people?

[shotdsherrif]

Yes, Thank you. And Libertron ... I'm just going to take a guess here, but I bet you have no problem believing in evolution. ?? You are much more the profile of the typical skeptic, in a LOT of ways probably liberal yourself ... just not quite willing to swallow all of this nonsense without critical thought.

And again, if fossil fuels do actually HAVE to go ... then where does that put Nuclear energy???

Please don't all of you answer at once ...

[wolfgangmo]

It puts it in the place of one of a host of options that will allow us to wean ourselves from oil, but it is not the only solution, the most cost effective, or the best solution [there is that little matter of the byproducts that have a half life of 10,000 years and can kill people].

I believe that nuclear has a place at the table, but that it isn't the table, if you get my drift.

[rini]

So, you would believe that people who have heartfelt opinions are biased, but that those who make billions from oil are not biased???

If you want to look for bias......­LOOK FOR THE MONEY TRAIL. It leads right back to big oil. The cover-ups and silencing of scientists have been overwhelmingly on the side of DENYING climate change.

This is not natural fluctuation. How long do you think we can burn things en masse and not increase the temperature of the earth??? Don't be naive. Don't be tool. True skeptics don't listen to oil propaganda, but find out for themselves.

[libertron]

Sure the oil companies are biased. They want to make big fat profits like everybody else. We just can't stop them because OPEC controls (much of) the supply and emerging markets are making too much demand.

But imagine your electric bill tripling like your gasoline bill did. It will happen soon. We should have done something to stop GWB from invading Iraq to jack up oil prices. But we can still do something to stop this climate change hysteria. Step one would be locking Al Gore in the insane asylum where he belongs.

[DavidJames]

45 mpg, 55 mpg, 65 mpg, 75 mpg ..... Freedom!

[rwe]

DRILL HERE ,DRILL NOW...When the Dems won the 2006 elections and Before the cult of the Goracle became all encompassing environmental terrorism.­.. GAS WAS $2.10

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

I love my Prius and laugh at high gas prices!

[shotdsherrif]

I'm hearing a lot of people compare the skeptics to religious wingnuts and creationists. I really think this is poor and lazy thinking. I'm someone who finds myself on the progressive side of most issues and today, I find myself on the side of the skeptics in this particular debate.

It's not that there isn't any evidence that lead us to certain conclusions about GW, but it IS the question of exactly what should be done about it. The extent to which transforming our society is truly necessary - that's what we're really discussing. From that standpoint, the thought that much of society has gotten sucked up into a whirlwind of negative hysteria is what most skeptics tend to view as the reason for their skepticism. If we sit down and discuss perfectly reasonable solutions including alternative energy sources, etc ... then most skeptics, I think, will lower the eyebrows at the rest of you.

Case in point: Doesn't the eventual removal of fossil fuels from our pool of energy resources make it necessary to shift to NUCLEAR reactors since most other potential sources of energy (wind, solar etc) don't really have the potential to completley replace our current energy usage?????

I'm only suggesting that it is the current tenor and near hysterical urgency with which these issues are being thrown about that causes some people to roll their eyes ... and if you think that makes us illogical or religious extemists of something like that ... then you are

[outnow]

The scientific process is self-correcting. The politic process isn't. There are different standards of proof. Scientific proof is the most demanding. Unfortunately, expert opinion evidence based on models and indirect measurements seem to be what we have. There is uncertainty.

The preponderance of the scientific evidence, as I understand it, is that GW is occurring. There is also a preponderance of scientific evidence that the activities of mankind contribute to the GW in a substantial fashion. The latter concept is less clear, however.

The next issue is whether mitigation efforts would be effective. Assuming that mitigation efforts would be effective, then the issue becomes one of political will.

A global effort would be required. I am unsure that any global effort has ever succeeded at anything. Many view GW as a conspiracy to create global socialism.

[shotdsherrif]

There is also a preponderance of scientific evidence that the activities of mankind contribute to the GW in a substantial fashion. The latter concept is less clear, however.

Many view GW as a conspiracy to create global socialism.

Exactly, I think you see my point. The truth is there ARE scientists out there who view the 'political' outcome of all the attention being paid to climate science with extreme skepticism. And consequently, they're finding themselves shut out of certain aspects of the debate. There is a political aspect to this argument that is taking place in a very UN-scientific fashion and this alone is cause for concern.

The findings of the IPCC are NOT beyond debate ...

Honestly, I see many of those who are so whipped up into a lather right now as not being all that different from certain Christians who spew End of Days, Apocalyptic crap from the Book of Revelations. There is something resonant in the human condition about the feeling that we have driven ourselves to the brink of existence and the feelings of urgent atonement that might tend to follow from that mindset. I feel a lot of the current (pardon the pun) atmosphere that exists around climate change/warming is wrapped up in that.

[Exusian]

It's been fun, folks. But I have a life, and it's time to live it.
Have a good weekend.

[outnow]

First, you have to explain MOC; AMO; EGU; IPCC and Modis; then class is dismissed.

[TheBlackCat]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Very interesting little study that was done in which researchers demonstrated that the lower a person scored on a test (using grammar + law), the MORE they overestimated their abilities and the more they underestimated the abilities of those who actually proved to be knowledgable in a subject. Those who scored highest actually UNDERESTIMATED their personal knowledge. Those who scored in the bottom quartile perceived themselves to be 7X more knowledgable than they actually were (in terms of how they scored on the tests).

Another interesting fact is that when the testers in the lowest quartile were shown the answers of the highest quartile (but without the knowledge of the actual answers), they continued to think that those top test scorers were in fact less competant than themselves.

But conversely, those in the top quartile tended to OVERESTIMATE how well those in the bottom had done, in addition to underestimating what their own scores would be.

So essentially, the MORE incompetent you were, the more you overestimated your own abilities and the more you UNDERESTIMATED the abilities of those who actually WERE competant.

This can really be applied to global warming skeptics who think that climatologists know less about the earth than they do. They overestimate their own ability and knowledge, and even when presented with scientific facts, they still think they know more. When it comes to the truly incompetant, no ammount of information or facts will sway them.

[Javani]

"no ammount of information or facts will sway them."

Sure there is--show me the thermometers! And with no spurious adjustments!

As for scientists, well, the dedrochronologists who claimed their tree rings were thermometers, which the IPCC AR3 regarded as one of the top tiers of AGW proof...wh­ere are they? Debunked, quietly forgotten. So science isn't stable is it? What happened to the debunked hockeystick graphs? Science isn't pure, and even where it is, it can be miscast.

Now, would it be impugning knowledge to note that since the UN profits from its carbon credit registry, things that the UN put out might be supporting AGW should not be understood with some qualms? The UN statiticia­n-magician­s told you hundreds of thousands of babies were dying in Iraq in the 1990's, therefore send billions more to the UN Food for Oil program, which the UN takes a skim. Wasn't true. Twice shy...?

[rini]

Yeah, the UN is evil, and the oil corporations only have our best interests at heart.

Please. The UN is much less likely to be biased.

You uninformed climate change "skeptics" are really depressing me. The evidence is overwhelming, yet you don't want to act.

Listen, don't you have kids??? Don't you want to be on the safe side???? Do you really think that we can burn fossil fuels on a global scale and not affect the temperature of the earth? We are burning things at a record level. Mankind has never done this before. Are you really ok with this experiment? Those who support the continuing rise of co2 levels, without regulation, are really the radical ones.

[ruscle]

That's a fascinating study. Thanks for sharing it. It demonstrates what I've seen over and over as I interact with people from all walks of life and all levels of intelligence.

[lfotweaker]

By not addressing the science on the fringes (ie. solar cycles), or only addressing science which seemingly fits into the AGW argument, aren't those supposedly more intelligent, believers in AGW, overestima­ting....th­emselves?

I dumb American.

[lfotweaker]

"The debate is over"

Over, or under?

[InstantDogma]

I use the basically the same argument, demonstrating human based global warming, that I use for those idiots who don't accept the conclusive theory of evolution.
There are over 915 peer reviewed scientific papers that point to human behavior as the primary source for global warming. There are 0 scientifically per reviewed scientific papers to support any other hypothosis, much in the same way that there is no peer reviewed evidence to support creationism or "intelligent design." Then I suggest they go look up "Peer review" and that once they have done that they will be capable of continuing the conversation.
Pax, Steve

[fumes]

''There are over 915 peer reviewed scientific papers that point to human behavior as the primary source for global warming. There are 0 scientifically per reviewed scientific papers to support any other hypothosis, ...'' i stand corrected! thought the sun came first.

[realpolitic]

Are you sure the sun came first? I suppose such an assumption disproves all the scientists say about man-made warming and what we see going on in the world to right wing loonies?

[Photofarm]

If I could read of one model for global warming that actually predicted the temperature correctly even just 5 years in advance, I might actually believe it. The problem is not one model has been accurate.

There is plenty of scientists that study climate and weather that disagree man causing global warming. I've read of 1/3 to 1/2 of the scientists in the climate study field don't believe man is the main cause of global warming.

Knowing just a little bit about complex computer modeling and rounding error's, it doesn't take long to realize just an insignificant error at the beginning compounds itself exponentially over time. Which is why most of the computer models predicting disaster already have been wrong.

[blueshield]

There were many models which attempted to explain fire. Does that mean fire isn't real?

Likewise, if your ship is sinking, and everyone agrees there's a hole, but not all can agree what caused the hole, does that mean we shouldn't do everything we can to stop the water coming in?

The real "controversy" about climate change, global warming and man's role in it isn't whether these are measurable and factual, but whether we understand what's going on and can accurately explain it.

[Exusian]

"If I could read of one model for global warming that actually predicted the temperature correctly even just 5 years in advance, I might actually believe it."

That would not be a climate model because five years is not a long enough time period to isolate any climate trend from natural weather variability.

By definition climate is the average of weather over time. That time span must be longer than that of natural weather variability.

[jgsuperpants]

For some reason we doubt climate science more than we doubt any other science. Like health for example. If your doctor said, "If you keep eating the way you do, and don't exercise, you will die of heart disease." Would your response be, "Well, unless you can tell me the exact day and time of the heart attack, then I'm just gonna keep on doing what I'm doing."?

I don't think so. We need to stop just referring to global warming and focus on the overall climate change - the floods, the droughts, the increase in storm intensity, the icecap melting - all of it. There is clear evidence of the massive increase in storm power causing catastrophies around the globe. And the most intense ones have almost all happened in the last decade. This doesn't take a study, this just takes paying attention to what has already happened, and what continues to happen.

[ProWarDem]

I have a semantic question. This page discusses how to talk to a Global Warming denier. Well, last I heard, Global Warming has been officially changed to Climate Change. There's even several mentions of Climate Change within the same article.

So which one is the wrong one? Or are they both right? Do we have both simultaneously; we are both warming and changing?

If the latter is the case, then we should indeed include the current 10-year cooling trend as part of the same phenomenon, no? There should be nothing wrong with that, because it falls under Climate Change.

Since we are experiencing Climate Change now, then all weather behaviour should be assumed to fall under that umbrella. If it gets cold, I should be concerned. If it gets warm, I should be concerned.

Does this make sense?

[Javani]

"Climate change" is a convenience for scientists who seek grant money but don't belive in AGW, or significant AGW. Within their community they can save face now, and certainly save face when this financial fad finally flops, by saying they didn't say there was AGW and that such was misreported, or selctively communicated via the media, to a public primed to think climate change=AGW.

But, truth is, many AGW scientist-believers are pariahs to the AGW financial complex. Those are the ones that say yes, CO2 causes AGW, but it is insignificant. Worse, they may say CO2 increases isn't a forcer but other gases released by man such as methane. Horrors!

No crisis, no money.

[Exusian]

Slander an libel are the last refuge of climate change denial.

[blueshield]

Climate change is the meta-phenomenon observed and agreed upon by the leading scientific organizations and associations of the United States and the world. Climate change occurs as a result of human activities all the time - for instance, deforestation and desertification leads to reduced rainfalls and so on.

Global warming is a specific type of climate changing event resulting from a significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Because global warming can change climate patterns, its not only possible but likely that some local regions will become colder, dryer, while others become hotter, wetter. That's part of the confusion.

The US National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), NOAA, and other international bodies of senior scientists have reviewed the existing research and data, and all have issued reports on the observation of global warming and climate change, and the evidence for human modification of climate.

Others may disagree, but none of these authorities have altered their position - in fact, they've become more direct. Even the White House is now in agreement.

[ProWarDem]

"Climate change is the meta-phenomenon"

- Well I give up. Since it's a meta-phenomenon, it's must be real.

"Because global warming can change climate patterns, its not only possible but likely that some local regions will become colder, dryer, while others become hotter, wetter. That's part of the confusion. "

- Part of the confusion, eh?

[Exusian]

They are not the same thing.

Climate Change means exactly what the words suggest: change in climate.

Global Warming means a warmer global mean temperature.

Global warming will produce climate change.

Oh, and that 10-year cooling trend?

Show us how you calculate it, if you dare, and I will show everyone how it is an example of lying with statistics.

Hint: The strong El Nino outlier year of 1998 may have been the peak annual temperature, but it was NOT the peak of the temperature trend.

[ohiomark]

Talking to us "deniers" doesn't go on at all. Instead the global warming alarmists just go out of their way to discredit the "denier" and call them names.

The debate is over folks, Global Warming is a religion and the discipiles of Al Gore love the kool-aid.

[Photofarm]

Exactly right, the global warming caused by man crowd can't win the debate on fact, so they resort to name calling.

[jgsuperpants]

Again - show us a single PEER REVIEWED study that supports your position.

You can't. It doesn't exist.

This isn't about name calling, this is about fact. Our behaviors are affecting the planet in a grossly negative way, and we need to change for our survival. Sustainability isn't just about limiting out CO2 output, it's about meeting our needs today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As the rest of the world develops toward first world standards, they need more resources. We need to change the way we use and create energy in order to meet those needs. For the rest of the world to live to American standards, we need 4 Earths to provide the resources.

The debate is over. We need cleaner, renewable and sustainable energy sources to meet our needs, and to make sure future generations can do the same.

[ProWarDem]

There is a 100 year-plus history of climate panics in the media, from all major newspapers, magazines and science journals. Not just a 20-year history from the oncoming Ice Age predicted by the NYT and Time mag... it's a 100-year record of articles from Science to Smithsonian to National Geographic and many more.

Freezing and warming cycles are predicted about every 15 years as memory of the last predictions wears off. They are all backed by all the science that is required. And all the deniers are unwashed apostates, as I am.

[GeoLee]

The headline says it all: Talk to. There is not talking with going on so I see no need to talk to any of them. Wasted breath.

[DavidWojick]

I do research on the logic of the climate change debate and Beck's compilation has three shortcomings. First, some of the important arguments are not included, like the fact that it has only warmed during one 20 year period in the last 70 years, even though CO2 levels have risen steadily. Second, many of the skeptical arguments are weakly stated, not surprising since the author does not believe them. But most important is that there are well known counter arguments to the warmist arguments that Beck presents. He is presenting his arguments against skepticism as though they were decisive, but they are not. The debate has many layers of argument. That is why it remains so unresolved after 20 years: there is no decisive argument, because there is no decisive science.
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[ADR]

When CO2 is classified as a pollutant and ultimately taxed, how much will it cost to breathe since I will be polluting and contributing to global-warming? If it costs too much to breathe, will I have to hold my breath? Or can I buy carbon credits from somebody so I can keep on breathing? Will the government track my breathing somehow and will I be arrested if I breathe too much? Please let me know...

[blueshield]

Yes, please start holding your breath now.

[ADR]

But it hurts me when I do that.

[Exusian]

Nice demonstration that you don't know the difference between respiration and the combustion of fossil carbon.

You might want to read up on the carbon cycle instead of making stuff up.

Then again, some people actually revel in their ignorance.

[ADR]

I didn't realize there were different types of CO2. Huh.