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

[dlarocca]

Best evidence of global warming being man made for my moron Alamo from Texas is the fact that CO2 emissions have increased steadily since the onset of the industrial revolution­... for anyone to claim that global warming is not man made they would have to believe that it is simply a coincidence that the increase in these emissions just happened to coincide with the onset of the industrial revolution and continue to this day... this country has a serious stupidity problem that needs to be addressed

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi dlarocca,

Ice cream has also been around since the industrial revolution, but I don't jump to the conclusion it is "destroying the world".

But I do get it . . . you don't like industry and people building things.

If you could just slow people down to your speed . . . then the world would be better!

And how do you get around the weight of that lonely carbon atom?

Yours,

Texas Proud

[KillTheMessenger]

You do realize how unbelievably stupid you look with post like this, don't you? Just wondering.­..

[fumes]

coincidence. count me as having a serious stupidity problem. and alamo is no moron, he's unpaving parking lots and putting back paradise. whether global warming is man made or natural, reforestation is the no brainer way to go. ask any glider pilot, up is a parking lot, down is a stand of trees!

[lfotweaker]

Google denialism and HuffPo and realize why censorship is really helping the AGW proponents.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi All!

Am not a skeptic . . . am absolutely sure Global Warming is not man-made!

As to that evidence stuff . . . it doesn't hold up to even the lightest math . . . mostly these claims come from "intellectuals" . . . but we didn't give these geeks much attention in High School . . . and don't see a reason why we should start providing them a platform now!

What I do find amazing . . . when we (in forestry) meet to discuss improving timber growth, restoring forests, improving soil water retention and reducing run-off . . . there is not a single "Global Warming" advocate in the bunch. This includes two liberal NE states.

For fun . . . we have been challenging our eco-neighbors to forest growing contests . . . we measure growth, CO2 assorption and O2 release . . . not a fair contest . . . the environmental theorys are destructive and reduce the favorable bio effects of forests . . . It is fun . . . they talk alot . . . just don't know how to roll up their sleeves and really be effective. . . .

Texas Proud!

[RoloTomassi]

FLAGGED: DENIALIST NUTJOB

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi RoloTomassi,

Appreciate the attention!

. . . But am conflicted . . . should I stop doing what I am doing? Seem to be converting a lot of CO2 into clean air . . . have been receiving lots of recognition . . . one environmental group (closely affiliated with the Sierra Club) declared our efforts and results . . . "sensational, one of the best examples of urban forestry they have ever seen" . . . the downside . . . our success contrasts sharply with results experienced by our "save the tree" philosophy neighbors . . . The neighbors are experiencing diseased trees, low growth, nutrient deprived, invasive encouraged forest stands . . . The nature clubs bypass these monuments to environmentalism and request tours in our "managed" forests . . . we have restored habitats for deer, squirrels, rabbits, turtles, foxes . . .

What I see is an environment being mismanaged by the application of out-of-touch "environmental theories" . . . being employed by the same "Global Warming Advocates" who spend their time talking . . . rather than getting up off their butt and doing something useful for others (or the environment).

While you are discussing "Global Warming" at your intellectual events . . . us conservatives are out-tacking you on the field of play . . . "the earth" . . . Wake up!

[RoloTomassi]

Oh, and one more thing: if you're so sharp, why don't you try picking up an english grammar book and see if you can get a grip on the concept of punctuation.

[brizzle]

So...are you having much success planting forests in Texas? Last time I drove through, it was empty desert.

For someone who doesn't know how to craft complete sentences using the grammar we've all learned, your post is unconvincing. No complete sentences, no evidence, just "texas proud".

Well, I've been to texas...th­ere's nothing to be proud of.

[MichaIe32086]

Excuse me, only our two Greatest living Presidents G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush. Texas proud indeed.

Michale.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi Brizzle,

Appreciate the reply!

All of East Texas is deep forest . . . have planted thousands of trees to restore/improve the forests . . . It has been a lot of fun! . . . Mostly in the Davey Crockett reserve

Texas is prairie . . . not desert.

Lately, have been restoring forests in NJ and VA.

Thank you for reading past my grammar! Sought not to convince . . . simply express!

And remain,

Texas Proud!

[BlackbirdHighway]

Hey Alamo, ever heard of this thing called the Internet? Well, if it wasn't for those "intellectuals" there wouldn't be any Internet.

But, since you don't believe in the "intellectuals", then you damn sure shouldn't be using their Internet, should you? You also shouldn't use the TV, the cell phone, the microwave, electricity, any medicines, or any of the other modern conveniences that are all the product of scientists!

So, go away, and don't come back, until you're ready to how some respect for science!

Have fun living in your shack in the woods.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi BlackBirdHighway!

Do have some degrees. Even have an engineering degree . . . have received some awards . . . have been told I have made significant contributions to forest engineering, petroleum engineering and science.

As to intellectualism . . . Lots of people "talk smart" . . . Lot's of people seek esteem and recognition based upon degrees and certifications.

I identify with (and respect) "doers" . . . not talkers and intellectuals.

I would much rather have a beer with a timberman than an environmentalist any day.

When you look them in the eyes . . . the "doer" looks back . . . the environmentalist "looks away".

[Exusian]

"As to that evidence stuff . . . it doesn't hold up to even the lightest math . . . mostly these claims come from "intellectuals" . . . but we didn't give these geeks much attention in High School . . . and don't see a reason why we should start providing them a platform now!"

Nice summation of the anti-science, anti-intellectual, heck, anti-intelligence base of the denialsphere.

And you wonder why industry and technological development is moving to China and India?

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi Exusian,

Appreciate the reply!

Doesn't it just frustrate you? . . . That there are people who look past a person's wealth, schooling, race and associations?

That just look at what a person "can do", "has done" or is "willing to do".

You may have spent a little too much time in school. Get out, enjoy the fresh CO2. Might even provide fresh insight.

[TexasDem0]

How do you have a rational, logical discussion with someone who discounts the facts as presented by the entire scientific community because some GOP political hack claims to have a superior knowledge of science? These are not deep thinkers. These are the people who consistently vote against their own best interests for the party that gave us a disastrous oil grab war, artificially inflated fuel prices, and an openly criminal administration that defies anyone to challenge them.

[blueshield]

Excellent point, TexasDemo, but I think the objective is to repeatedly make the argument, present the case, and rebut the hacks, so that any audience who may be listening can make an informed decision, and so that those pushing positions with no credibility will stop being treated as equal viewpoints in the media.

The "creationist vs evolutionist" debate over textbooks and school boards is a similar example, where there is frankly no arguing a matter taken as faith, pronounced by a deity.

Eventually, the MSM gets around to distinguishing between what is well supported and widely accepted, and what is fringe with a hidden agenda. But this would never happen if people - on both sides - are not called to account.

[totalliberal]

["These are not deep thinkers. These are the people who consistently vote against their own best interests for the party that gave us a disastrous oil grab war, artificially inflated fuel prices, and an openly criminal administration that defies anyone to challenge them."]



To put it in more simple terms. They are stupid. Very, very stupid.

[fumes]

here's your big chance deep thinker: just what is it about the co2 molecule and it's ability to capture through resonance the woefully lame, low frequency, long wavelength infrared radiation that has your knickers in such a tight knot? gonna threaten me again? gonna look away again? gonna pass on this? and don't go providing links to the koolaid, i'm asking you deep thinker, you.

[realityczech4u]

Pssst------Hey, Tex, where are they hiding the oil that they 'grabbed'?

[TommyBobama]

The first technique in an argument is to be fair.

If we make a big deal that Zakaria holds a doctorate from Harvard, then we should not dismiss the fact that Lomborg holds a doctorate from the University of Copenhagen.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Lomborg holds a doctorate in political science, not actual science, let alone climate science. He is a professor at a business school. Is it any wonder that his views reflect the interests of business, not environmentalism?

[poomplet]

Zakariah's doctorate is in Government Studies too, numnuts!! He doesn't have a scientific credential to his name, either.

I'm just sayin....d­o a little checking on BOTH sides of an argument before chiming in (which is kind of the reason for this thread, isn't it?).

[RTIII]

No, they don't "give equal time to morons," they give just about ALL the time to morons.

As a percentage of media coverage, while there are occasional articles in which nobody in particular is quoted, most all live quotes seem to be the idiots.

Yes, this is an anecdotal observation - I haven't done the study. But this _is_ my area of expertise, so I do pay attention!

Odd thing is, most all people, except the scientists themselves, are woefully under-informed. And, among the scientific community, we have some who prefer the longest timelines reasonable (for things like the flow rate and loss of the Ross Ice Shelf) and others who point out that nobody knows and to take a "it simply _must_ take a long time" attitude is just plain dangerous.

Frankly, most people think we have decades. We don't. We have ONE decade, at most two, before the scale of change will outpace us. Let me put that another way. Changes we make now are worth twenty times the same change 15 years from now, or even more so. This is, in part, why the Junior administration has been such a tragedy for the whole world. These lost 8 years we can never get back...

[RoloTomassi]

And even more troubling is the fact that we don't know and can't tell when we will hit major critical mass/tipping points; in the last couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that feedback loops can ramp up warming processes and accelerate to levels of advancement that we hadn't anticipated.

The truth is we don't know how far along the curve we are, and increasingly indicators suggest that we're much farther along in this process than we might think or want to believe.

[NL207]

"we don't know and can't tell when we will hit major critical mass/tipping points"

Please produce a peer-reviewed scientific reference defining what a climate "tipping point" is. Once you have achieved that minor objective, please produce one or more peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that the climate is near such a pint AND that humans are the sole cause of such.

If these minor tasks become to tiring, you might want to rethink this idea you just expressed.

[vipersdad]

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. I think we do ourselves and the topic a disservice to be calling people Morons.

I watch my two teenagers in school and ask them questions about what they know about the scientific method. They are A/P students and have a pretty good understanding of it now. But a huge part of their education is my wife and I talking with them interactively about what they are hearing on the News and what the context of it may be.
My problem is that many of my kids' friends have had a very different education, from the same schools. A simple conversation about what a theory is and how the scientific method works elicits some shockingly uninformed responses.

We cannot call these people morons because we seem to be failing to educate them on the most successful system created in the history of humankind - the scientific method.

The other thing I find is that with Climate Change and Creationism, skeptics appear to be willing to suspend scientific methodology but with MOST other areas of science and technology, they will embrace those areas/theories, etc.... So if you can show someone that they can't have it both ways - reject the scientific method for two areas but accept it for everything else, then you open up a fissure in the thought process. Try it - it works....

[KillTheMessenger]

Just because people buy the products of science and technology does not mean they are embracing either. They are just ignorant about how much of the same knowledge that covers the topics they are averse to went into the things they like, like iPods and big screen tvs.

Teaching science is very challenging. Even in Germany where every high school teacher has at least a Masters degree in his topic (and can't teach anything else), finding a really good teacher who can properly explain such fundamentals as Newton's laws, chemical thermodynamics or evolution is hard. Very few science teachers have the background in their own fields necessary to actually teach students proper science. They know they formulas but they often don't understand the structures behind them. One simply can't get that below university level.

[NL207]

"Changes we make now are worth twenty times the same change 15 years from now, or even more so. "


Do you have some scientific basis for this remark or is this just an idea that feels right to you?

Please produce one peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports this claim.

[johnnyjust]

I wonder if Al Gore used the scientific method in making An Inconvenient Truth.

I lied. I don't really wonder.

Please post again in THREE decades to see if you were right.