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

[realpolitic]

It is interesting that any article on global warming on this website brings out more of the global warming denying loonies than almost any other subject. Much anger is invoked among the far right extreme also with an article that criticizes Fox news, as if Fox news even ranks as a 'news' outlet. I guess in an age where many of the top Republican candidates for president say they belive n the biblical account of creation, anything goes among the far right. Science, to the far right, is just another belief system to be rejected or accepted if one chooses. It is an uniquely American approach to science and learning.

[CluelessOne]

So what exactly drives the Global Warming Alarmists? Don't those people have a lives (work, family, kids)? What is it they are so urgently trying to accomplish?
In my earlier life I was a particle physicist and performed atmospheric research. There are so many variables in that disciple it is virtually impossible to model anything. To believe this stuff, you simply can't ever rely on the scientific case being iron clad.
This is nuts.

[Exusian]

What exactly drives the Global Warming Alarmists?

How about a keen sense of self-preservation.

Species without it tend to go extinct.

[CluelessOne]

Keen sense of self-preservation? Last time I checked, life expectancy has been increasing for decades.

I would love it you could point out what exactly is driving the species to extinction.

All I do is point out my experience tends to indicate models can't possibly be accurately pinpoint the source of global warming. The responses I receive are not well thought out. Obviously, the people posting on this site are a little too invested in their belief in a threat so overwhelming, we have to do something NOW.

[realpolitic]

Stating the existence of a problem and discussing its implications makes one an alarmist only to those who want to deny the problem. Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence and what we see happening all around the world is not easy, but the deniers seem to manage it.

[CluelessOne]

My point is the modeling is so deficient that you can't maintain the scientific evidence is hardly 'overwhelming'.

[mijumom]

Does it matter if global warming is real? The same culprits in question are currently polluting our waters, causing cancer and asthma and basically poisoning us.

Fine if you think global warming is a theory. But, emissions being toxic is not a theory, lakes being polluted and fish dying, not a theory...the list goes on. The multiple ways by which we over consume and pollute are countless.

People like you wont care until your kid sucks on some lead-tainted Chinese toy or gets asthma because you live too close to a freeway.

Stop being a neanderthal. Even as a physicist you should be wise enough to purport that not every reasonable theory has to be proven "iron clad". That is moronic. That we should wait until we are so far gone as to have proven that polluting and desecrating our air, water and land are too toxic for us to survive as a species. Brilliant idea. Wise up, you can do better than that.

[CluelessOne]

Moronic? Well that is engaging in some well thought out considered debate.
I have lived in a number of cities wherein the rivers are substantially cleaner than they were a decade ago. Clearly, as a society we have embraced clean air and clean water as fundamental values.
To maintain we are making the environment 'too toxic to survive as a species' is just silly.

[realpolitic]

Yes, I agree. if you were ever a 'particle physicist' you would now scientific theories are rarely iron clad, which does not reduce their validity. Also, this one has observable evidence being seen around the world constantly.

[jvarga]

"Don't those people have a lives (work, family, kids)? What is it they are so urgently trying to accomplish? "

Did you ever stop to think for just a second that the family and kids are why some people don't want to see the world destroyed?

[research]

"Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them."

Uh, that's really weak.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

Good start, but needs work.

[lfotweaker]

When 1 inch = 100,000 years, sure it looks like a tight correlation... kind of like blowing up a half of a degree, right?

[RumiSouth]

While I was gratified to see the site contains a debunking of the "other planets are getting warmer too!" argument, it doesn't contain the most direct argument: if the sun WAS responsible for a tiny temperature rise on Pluto, the Earth ought to be incinerated by now.

[noneIn2008]

Interesting that you don't understand the points of those that object. For starters you state: "climate change denialist Bjorn Lomborg ". Lomborg is not a denialist. Lomborg believes in global warming, but he states there are much more important issues like clean drinking water for kids. The UN has rated the global issues and agrees with him, placing warming 9th on issues of impact to humanity. I would list FOOD.

Second key point is that most who claim global warming do not have a science education and can not really discuss the topic. 90% of the stuff in the media is garbage.

Third, there are several alternative theories of key interest that should be explored. For example the sun spots leading to cooling would have much worse impact on the people of earth. Are we preparing for this contingency?

[TimmySlagle]

This is funny. Talking points for Climate Alarmists. For those of you who truly believe the Gospel according to Al Gore; but just don't have the mental capacity to compose a cogent argument, without a cheat sheet.

Meanwhile, here's everything I need to know about this one, from the website: "The U.S. puts out more CO2 than any other nation on earth, including China and India, by a large margin"

That's just not true. China surpassed the US in 2007, and is now beating us soundly by about 17%.

[realpolitic]

Actually, the far right is more likely to get their scientific facts from one or two far right websites and pass it on as knowledge. TimmySlagle quoted a study by the 'Heartland Institute' that said they had compiled a list of 400 scientists who disagreed with man made global warming theory. Most of the scientists did not even know they were included on the list and said they disagreed completely and asked that their names be removed. Heartland would not comply. The list included dead people, fictitious people, and a fortune teller as supposed 'scientists' who disagreed with warming theory.

TimmySlagle has argued on these pages that polar bear populations are increasing, low lying countries face no threat of flooding from warming, reefs were not in danger by the increasing acidity of the sea water, there is no concensus on warming theory among scientists, mountain snow tops were not disappearing due to warming-- all fictitious arguments. All wrong! It is the right wing websites that are in the business of misinforming people. Those who go there are playing an intellectual game of three card monty.

[MGhamma]

I went to the petition project website recently, and they had a "peer reviewed" article disputing MMGW. In the article, they showed a graph that compared solar activity with global temps. As expected, they matched up until the present. But what I found curious at the time was, up until the 70s, the graph showed the normal lag time you'd expect between an increase in solar activity and the resulting warming here. But, from the 70s onward, after the "mid century cooling," Copyright, skeptic talking point # 666, the solar activity perfectly matched the warming activity. Odd. So I did a google search, and found www.skepticalscience.com., where I found a similar graph comparing the same two phenomena, one that gave the sources of the data on the graphs,( which the PP graph was conspiciously lacking), and wouldn't you know it, according to the real data, solar activity has remained virtually unchanged since the 70s. This supposed peer reviewed article was intentionally falsified to support their opinions. And whoever falsified the graph didn't have enough of a clue to do it right. So, if I have to choose which side I'm going to give credibility to on this subject, I'm definitely not going to give it the side who have to lie, and lie so BADLY that even an uneducated hack like me can figure it out.

[realpolitic]

Anyone referring to climate science as the 'gospel according to Al Gore' when 90% of scientists are in agreement that man-made greenhouse gases cause climate change is simply not to be taken seriously!

[MGhamma]

That's why they focus on Al Gore. They can't argue the science, so they argue the politics.

[dadw5boys]

Why bother talking to them period a waste of time.

We are preparing our family for the furture. We own land with underground clean water and setup to grow our own food. Windmills and solar for power even some well lite undground living areas where Air conditioning is not even needed and heating that area is inexpensive with wind power in the winter.

Since most Republicans have no real family but live witnin a culture of cut throats, they will not be prepared and never will. My family is prepared now for everything short of a destructive earthquake from which we can rebuild. My grandchildren should even be safe with the plans and redundant systems we now have.

[TimmySlagle]

"Since most Republicans have no real family but live witnin a culture of cut throats, they will not be prepared and never will."

What the heck are you talking about? Republicans have more children than Democrats. And I would suggest that the majority of Survivalists vote Republican.

[Exusian]

Yes, but with how many wives?

[realpolitic]

Where does one go to get information that Republicans have more children than Democrats? Is that another way of saying Republicans earn less than Democrats. Statistical information is usually gathered on income and number of children and not political predisposition and number of children. What if one's wife is a Democrat and the husband a Republican, do you split the number of kids down the middle?

The majority of survivalist vote Republican? Yes, someone who lives off the land must really welcome drilling for oil in our most pristine wildernesses, as Republicans would like to do. Slagle's arguments get loonier week by week.

Republicans live in a me, myself, and I culture. The mantra is 'looking out for no. 1.' They hate the idea of warming theory because it reminds us that we are all tied together in many ways and the ecosysytem is fragile. One can not just consume, consume with no implications for the environment.

[1099]

I'm glad you're prepared for the end of the world. Nut job

[francoise]

When I go to America, I'm submitted to a written questionary. Depending on my answers, I'm accepted, or kicked out.

I think that the same type of questionary should be sent to all Americans :
Do you believe that climate change due to the increase of the green house effect is happening ?
Do you think it's a danger for life, present and future ?
Do you think that Darwin's evolution theory is right ?
Do you think that the creationists' explanations are right ?
Did you think that there were WMDs in Iraq ?
Do you think that the earth is flat and 6000 years old ?
Do you think that The Secret is a great movie full of good reliable advices ?

Then all the people having answered like ignorant retarded morons would be kicked out from the voting booths.

I'm fed up with our democracies in which finally, the most numerous group of the morons is imposing its law upon the smallest group.

Let's say stop to the dictatorship of ignorance !

[blueshield]

francoise, I see you're new to our country, welcome. Unlike Europe, we have a two party political system. If we eliminated voters based on your questionnaire, we would only have a one party political system, and that would upset the balance of nature. I'm sorry for the inconvenience it may cause, but we've come to tolerate our little morons, sometimes even let them play at running the country. Oh, but what a mess they leave to clean up!

[KillTheMessenger]

The problem is not the two party system. The problem is that one party is almost entirely made up of egoists who are willing to go to any lengths, including crime, to get their way. And they are also the ones who attract the masses of the dumb and the dumber. So that leaves the thinking minority in an awful pickle to keep these organized criminals at bay with one hand while trying to save the country with another. Not a very good setup.

[mamacat]

Very interesting comment! Merci!
No answers, but definitely something to think about.

[1099]

That would be a great idea if it wasn't the most undemocratic idea I've today on this site.

I can't tell if you are mentally challenged but I think "ignorant moron" is a pretty accurate description.

[realityczech4u]

I'll get back to ya. I'm busy reading about the eight inches of hail that just fell in Nebraska.

[KillTheMessenger]

Sounds like a good whiff of chaotic weather to me. Chaos is what you get in open, self-organizing systems when you turn up the heat. If you want nice, cyclic behavior, you need to lower the energy flow a notch.

[CrzyRussell]

What's going on is very similar to the mini ice age there was no petroleum back then.

[rwe]

I ask those who have been duped by the cult of Al and the global phobiacs ...When will Al have a debate with a legitimate person of science such as John Coleman(founder of the weather channel) or anyone of the growing legion of deniers? Al has had more meetings with Leo DiCaprio on award shows than actual discussion.

[KillTheMessenger]

Do you know that RWE is a German electricity provider with a large number of coal fired power plants? I think that tells us all about you, too.

:-)

[blueshield]

I'd settle for Coleman debating the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all of whom have issued reports on the evidence for human modification of climate.

I mean, if you're going to be duped, why not be duped by the membership and research of the leading major scientific organizations in the country? Then we can move on to debating the top science bodies of the rest of the world.

Coleman who?

[CluelessOne]

So what exactly drives the Global Warming Alarmists? Don't those people have a lives (work, family, kids)? What is it they are so urgently trying to accomplish?
In my earlier life I was a particle physicist and performed atmospheric research. There are so many variables in that disciple it is virtually impossible to model anything. To believe this stuff, you simply can't ever rely on the scientific case being iron clad.
This is nuts.

[Susanfrom29]

I can't help but wonder if the reason so many don't believe in climate change is that the MSM, in a misguided attempt to present both sides of a single sided issue, have presented the mistaken impression that there is disagreement amongst the scientific community in regards to the existence of climate change. There is no disagreement.

I noted the ad running beneath this comment box as I fill it out that asks the question "Is global warming real? Vote in our online poll" As if what people think or imagine about global warming has the ability to alter it.

The only thing that will change anything is action. And whether or not you believe in climate change, there is no reason to trash the planet we all live on.

[Sumocat]

Best way to talk to a global warming skeptic is to not talk to them, same as you shouldn't talk to an intelligent design fanatic about evolution. Evidence means nothing to the blindly faithful, regardless of whether the evidence comes from scientists in every life-related field, from biologists to archaeologists to climatologists, or regular people, such as landscapers who are forced to use more heat-resistant flora and insurance adjusters who factor in warming as part of their assessments. Doesn't matter what the skeptics believe as long as the guys managing their landscape and insuring their homes keep it in mind.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Well written!

Don't buy it . . . but Well written!

[mulegino]

I will be the first to admit that I'm no scientist, but I do understand that climate change, even abrupt climate change, has been a recurring phenomenon throughout recorded history. That having been said, I am trying to follow the controversy as an objective observer, having no real bias.
I do know that the disaster/catastrophe scenario, whether it involves global climate change, terrorism, flu pandemics, can be very dangerous in the hands of authoritarian governments, NGO's, and power hungry politicians, since fear is a tyrant's best friend.
Simply put: if global warming is due to anthropogenic causes, or if it is a natural phenomenon, the consequences must still be addressed in a way that will not lead to loss of fundamental liberty, or cause the global standard of living to decline. It must not be used as an instrument to punish or hinder the lesser developed countries in their quest for peaceful economic development. It must not be used as a tool of coercion.

[KillTheMessenger]

Are you actually aware that you put about a dozen different problems that have absolutely nothing to do with each other into a single context with no logical cohesion, whatsoever? It is pretty obvious to me that with this kind of intellectual confusion no sufficient intellectual resolution can be achieved. What is not clear to me is whether you don't want to find a solution or you just can't. And, in fact, it does not matter. We can not bring everyone who is this confused up to speed. We just have to leave you behind and let it work out for yourself.

[Sumocat]

True, but who benefits if everyone accepts man-made global warming as truth? Al Gore, the main target of critics and skeptics, gains nothing. Acceptance of global warming would mean no more presentations, no more meeting with world leaders, no more prominence. Resistance has earned him a Nobel prize. Acceptance would have led to nothing.

The same is true for those studying global warming. The skeptics claim they're promoting the idea to get funding. Well, if their claims are accepted, there's no longer a need to determine whether it's true, same as how we don't study whether the Earth rotates. Such funding would get shifted to solutions instead, which would benefit everyone except those who make their money on fossil fuels. There's no reason why we should not try to get our energy from the sun and wind, instead of burning coal and oil. Last I checked, you can't raise the price on a barrel of sunlight.

[uhappytoo]

Drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[Exusian]

This: post is based on an obvious error made by Hadely Center when they projected an annual mean temperature anomaly for 2008 based on only the January 2008 data, prompting them to correct the error and post the following warning at the top of their webpages:

"We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading."

See: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of regurgitating an ignorant talking point.

[uhappytoo]

Hadley was just one of the four recognized measures. Why would you simply ignore the others? The most obvious point you might have made instead is that temperatures are highly variable from year to year. But the decline in that 12-month period did occur.

For a layman's understanding of why the greenhouse gas hypothesis cannot explain any noticeable surface heating read here:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[realpolitic]

Unhappytoo, the NASA and GISS data totally disagree with you. As with many warming skeptics, you must be creating your own facts.

"Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Spring of 2008 was marked by weather extremes around the world.

The world endured the seventh warmest spring season on record, nearly one degree warmer than the 20th century average, according to the National Climatic Data Center's monthly synopsis of world climate.

Europe and Asia had less snow in spring 2008 than has ever before been recorded, and much of China was locked in a severe drought.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/weather-extremes-47061601

[donaldw6]

Looks like a great resource to me! Favorited and browsing through it now. Thanks!

[MichaIe32086]

If anyone is really interested in stopping global (wink wink, nudge nudge) warming, buy some duct tape find a liberal and tape their mouth so all that hot air they spew can't pollute our atmosphere.

Michale.....

[vipersdad]

wow - you've gotten nasty since 2006. What happened Michale?

[RememberTheAlamo]

Nice!

[KillTheMessenger]

Please come to my house with the duct tape. I will introduce you to my friend Joe TuByfor.

[realpolitic]

I thought the Dept. of Homeland Security was telling us we needed the duct tape to keep the terrorists away. Now you tell us we need it to prevent global warming. The far right really likes duct tape.