Global Warming Denialism on The Huffington Post and Beyond

Two days ago, I wrote about a recent survey that showed that Americans' concern over global climate change had decreased over the last 12 months, and urged the Obama campaign to make it a much bigger priority than it has. Though I did not anticipate this would be a controversial argument, as of now the post has over 300 comments. Even more surprising is the number of commenters who assert that global warming is either a myth or a conspiracy. To cite just a few:

• "If you're lucky to live long enough, you'll see a lot of these "scares" come and go throughout your lifetime. This is just the latest. When the next one comes the chanting crowd will move over and attach itself to it."
• "In a few more years Global Warming will be shown to be the scam and money making scheme that many already know it to be. I'm not going to argue degrees and post link after link showing the falsehoods."
• "Green house gases are a myth. A volcano puts out more green house gases with one eruption than the US puts out in 3 years. Get a new cause - check your facts."
• "All this hysteria about global warming is a ruse to allow governments to tax us more."
• "Americans are finally coming out of the ether. Slowly we are realizing "man made" global warming is one of the greatest lies told to the world. More and more scientist are coming forward with the truth about the flawed science behind it. I'm, as I have been ALL my life, am proud of this country!! We are the best at thinking for ourselves."

There are many more. And these are from readers of The Huffington Post, a group I would have thought would be among the best informed. 

However, Huffington Post readers are likely among those Americans who get most of their news from the Internet, and these responses highlight the complex impact of the Internet on public opinion. These commenter are for the most part not uninformed but rather misinformed. They can cite a combination of research that was well-done but is out of date, research that was well-done but has been misinterpreted, research that was badly done, and weird conspiracy theories, all with the support of key conservative institutions and pundits. It is an important reminder that when we discuss how to mobilize our country on the issue of climate change, we must reckon not only with educating the uneducated and mobilizing the inactive, we must also reckon with a surprisingly large group of the active, vocal and miseducated.

The whole stance of climate change denialists has uncanny parallels to that of AIDS denialists, who deny that HIV causes AIDS. 

The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established and is the subject of scientific consensus. Denialist arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data, with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments. With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS denialist material is currently spread largely through the Internet. (Wikipedia)

This is a group with whom I have had extensive experience, as they have had a very public activist presence here in my home town of San Francisco. As with climate change denialists, AIDS denialists piece together their arguments from misinterpretations of valid scientific papers, from the comments of respected scientists venturing out of their specialty and writing in non-peer reviewed journals, and the political support of conservative institutions. And again, as with climate change denialism, the whole package gets its momentum and false air of rigor from being endlessly circulated on the Internet.

What is most remarkable about AIDS denialism is how it has persevered through 25 years of the epidemic. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, many of the arguments were not so far-fetched. But in 1996-1997, the course of the epidemic changed with the introduction of highly effective medications. People who started taking the medications stopped dying. One would have thought that would have ended the debate. Incredibly, it did not. In fact, many denialists clung to their misunderstandings right through their own deaths – deaths that in many cases could have been avoided had the deceased taken HIV medications that were readily available to them. Ken Anderlini was a co-moderator of the "AIDS Myth Exposed" message board on MSN. Anderlini died in April of 2007. A fellow denialist wrote a death announcement saying: "Over the past couple of years his health had declined rapidly with a strange neurological disease for which nobody could pinpoint the cause (except doctors who claimed it was HIV related, of course)." Another denialist activist, Michael Bellafontaine died on May 10, 2007. His obituary reported that "According to Andrea Lindsay, a friend and fellow activist, Mr. Bellefountaine died of a sudden systemic infection, though the exact cause has not been determined." (AIDSTruth.org has a web page that tracks the deaths of AIDS denialists.)

The spectacle of AIDS denialists clinging to their views right through their own illnesses and up to their very deaths does not bode well for the future of debate on global climate change. Many of us have been asking ourselves at what point the effects of climate change will be so obvious that debate over the basic facts of the matter will finally cease. The course of AIDS denialism suggests that the answer to the question might be never.

Comments

[Sportbos88]

Huffington, you need to combine the gas prices and the global warming blogs together. They go hand in hand. After the gas prices start hitting four dollars people turned and asked "What is causing this extreme increase in prices?" They listened to their politicians and heard from the democrats "Big Oil" like before. the last time they heard this and the government started to tax big oil companies more the prices went up. Now when the people turned to the republicans they heard "It is the environmental regulations causing your gas to go up because oil companies are still trying to make a profit(like every other guy)." This is causing the scare of global warming to be put on the back burner, people don't want to pay for that polar bear in the north pole when they are struggling to pay for their child.

[mollyjackson]

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream
media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to
pick up a tu*d by the clean end."

[cognate]

Fact: Past temperature excursions were greater than current values.

Fact: Ice-core isotope studies, going back hundreds of thousands of years, show that temperature changes (up or down) generally precede changes in atmospheric CO2, sometimes by hundreds of years. So they are not caused by it.

Fact: Water vapor contributes 20 times more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, of which only a tiny fraction is anthropogenic.

The bottom line: yes, man-made CO2 concentrations have been going up since the Industrial Revolution, but causative effects on climate remain unproven.

[MadOzbo]

I find it quite odd that there is no discussion here at HuffPo regarding Roy Spencer (who has a PhD in Meteorology) and his excellent book "Climate Confusion - How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor."

I also find it hilarious that the vast majority of GW apostates so readily dismiss the opinions of literally thousands of scientifically educated people who say that the Global Warming Alarmists are off the mark.

Here is a link to numerous Peer-Reviewed studies that contradict Global Warming Alarmism:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23406
Are ALL these individuals "Flat-Earth Deniers?" I seriously doubt it...

Also, CO2 is NOT a greenhouse GAS. No. And sitting in your garage with your car engine is NOT CO2. That is Carbon MONOXIDE...different animal entirely. Forget the scare tactics. Forget the insults. Read the facts as documented and discussed by the scientists who study our world for a living, not the bloggers who wail and flail about the sky falling.

TOO many intelligent people decry it. TOO many policiticans and businessmen seem to blindly embrace it, and the COSTLY solutions we all need to pay for, NONE of which are more than theories.
Global Warming is SUCH a sham, that the alarmists NOW call it "Climate Change." It's STILL a crock.

[DavidWojick]

The large number of skeptical commentors is part of the blog revolution. Previously there was no way to respond to editorials except slow, selective letters to the editor. So people just did not read stuff they disagreed with. Today, fighting back is the new wave, so papers like HuffPo cannot simply ply their editorial line. This is good. In the case of climate change, the medium is the message. Not only are many people not concerned about climate change, a lot are very concerned about the proposals to restructure our economy in its name. It is no accident that there are so many negative comments. Personal attacks like this silly HIV analogy do not help the situation. This debate is serious.
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[MGhamma]

Are people less concerned about global warming, or just more concerned with other things,like keeping their houses, and their jobs, and feeding their kids.

[TheBlackCat]

What is it that has made science come under attack in America, and ONLY America, as far as the developed world goes? I'm a world traveler, and live part of the year in Europe. Many people in Europe don't even know that evolution is still debated here in America. Europe and Asia are quickly advancing beyond us because they embrace science whereas here scientists are widely condemned here as politically driven charlatans. I know right wingers in Europe, But THEY don't doubt global warming or other scientific principles. In the West, global warming is only debated in America.

Ever since the age of reason, the Western world has progressively moved forward, giving more and more respect to its scientific researchers, embracing scientific enlightenment as the road to the future.

The only variable I can think of to account for this is resurgance of fundamental Christianity in America, as this is exactly what happened in the Middle East. The Middle East used to be the center of the modern world. They were secular Muslims who kept their faith and their politics/science in distinctly separate spheres. They did not allow their religion to stunt their progress. They looked down their noses at the barbaric Europeans, and were a thriving center of scientific knowledge and advancement. Then fundamental Islam took over and they slowly, over the centuries, the Middle East devolved from the pinacle of human civilization to primitive, oppressive, tribal societies.
Thoughts?

[TheBlackCat]

Just want to ammend this by saying okay it's not like there are NO Europeans who don't believe in scientific principles like global warming, but there is no mainstream society debates. When you see or read debates over there, they are about how best to combat global warming, not the existance of it. There is still a bit of debate on the subject in some of the former soviet bloc countries, but not in the more adnvanced, Western European nations. The skeptics over there are the equivilant to people in America who don't believe in the moon landing. Only their crackpots are skeptics, whereas here many perfectly reasonable, non crazy Americas do not believe in basic scientific principles.

When abroad, when I tell them that there are people who don't believe in evolution, they think I mean the absolute psycho religious people who like stand in subways with a poster of Hell screaming "THE END IS NEAR!" It is extremely difficult for me to convey to my European friends that no, there are plenty of sane, otherwise normal people who do not believe in stuff like evolution and global warming.

[fumes]

it's true what you say, bc. debate is healthy here and freedom of speech here assures freedom of thought. you can spit out the koolaid here if you don't like the taste of it. how 'bout that! europe will catch up, you just wait and see. in the meantime, have you given any thought to the low frequency, long wavelength version of infrared radiation? it seems to have a lot of people's knickers in knots!

[noneIn2008]

I work in science and engineering in Europe, Asia (India, SE Asia, China, Japan) and the Middle East. Warming is greatly debated among scientists and engineers as well as business. Many in the developing countries see this as a means for the developed countries to stop the emerging countries.

[TheBlackCat]

See this makes sense to me from a developing country's standpoint. I can see how to them it WOULD look suspicious. I mean developed nations have been using these practices for years and years with no one saying that their methods of industry were detrimental. Then just as India and China are emerging as real gobal players, all of a sudden industrialization via hydrocarbons is detrimental to the environment. I can understand how they would be suspicious.


But in America we've very much reached a climate in which many on the right are actually attacking SCIENCE itself. More and more I hear people calling scientists nothing but communist conspirators bent on destroying the world economy. Evolution proponants are tools of the devil, you hear that a LOT down South.

This is more what I am talking about. Not people having different opinions, as Fume points out, diversity of thought is one of America's greatest features.

But scientists are more and more being attacked for practicing science. If you read over on conservative blogs, many refer to climatologists as "evil" "nazis" "communists" and worse. They refer to science itself as a religion!! Again, on conservative blogs, you will see a HUGE ammount of people saying evolutionary theory a religion, and a satanic athiest religion at that!!! When I went to college at the University of Florida, there were actually Christian protesters at times outside of the biology and anthropology buildings, actually protesting the existance of these subjects! Bilogy and Anthropology!!

[TheBlackCat]

Although there are INDIVIDUALS in these countries, the governments and experts are in consesus in Japan, India, China, and Europe over global warming. I respectfully disagree and think you are incorrect in believing that there is a debate among scientists in these nations, which all signed the Kyoto protocol. Maybe engineers disagree, but they are not experts. Climatologists and related scientific fields have broad national consensus over global warming.

A BBC report excerpt I found relevent:


"China was one of the first nations to recognize the potential threat posed by greenhouse gases and global warming. In1993, before many countries even considered global warming much of a problem, organizations such as the Bureau of Hydrological and Water Resources Survey, and the Xizang Geographic Society were meeting in China to discuss among other issues global warming.

China as a nation certainly believes global warming is the result of human action; a report published in China Daily by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change said that global warming is "very likely" caused by man and no matter how people try to control pollution, temperatures will continue to rise. A China View story details a climate report that says human-caused global warming is present and visible not just in China but worldwide.

China has reduced its consumption of standard coal for energy by 800 million tons between 1991 and 2005; this resulted in a 1.8-billion-ton decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. China also established a target for local energy consumption."

[dgscol]

the denial is not recognizing the utter implausibility of man induced global warming.
another denial : uncontrolled human population is a problem
another denial : scientists are unwise and corrupt
another : globalism is stoppable
another : sovereignty and security are important

[TheBlackCat]

Unbias VIew,
Are you really a conservative, or are you just a liberal troll who is trying to make conservatives look bad? I see you post ALL the time on HuffPo and yet every post you have EVER left is the most factually inacurate statement possible that can easily be disproven. My husband and is moderate leaning towards conservative, I am a moderate leaning towards liberal, and we have conservative, liberal and moderate friends. We often enjoy lively debates over dinner and my conservative friends are very adept at expressing their views in sensible, understandable, viable arguments. I know for a fact conservatives are not all uninformed neanderthals. You try and make points that they could easily back up, but your supporting information is ALWAYS lies or falsehoods.
I think you are a liberal troll posing as a conservative. You should be ashamed!

[leduck]

write a piece on Peak Oil denial on the huffpo

[TheBlackCat]

Read a great letter to the editor in my Boston Metro paper today, in response to a previous letter to the editor in which he called global warming proponants "loony"

"I suggest, if you don't believe the scientific community, try your own little experiment. Close your garage door and turn your car on. Sit in there as the exhaust fills up the garage. Then you can see for yourself what happens when carbon emissions are released in an enclosed atmosphere."

[fumes]

so co2 is used to fill that space in our double pane insulating windows? i thought is was argon or krypton. i have a black cat at home and you would not believe the garbage that that cat is willing to eat.

[TheBlackCat]

You really would have thought global warming scientists would have been better prepared for the skeptics. EVERY major scientific discovery has taken decades if not centuries to be accepted by mainstream society. Atomic theory, germ theory, round earth theory, heliocentric theory, techtonic plates, Earth's magma core, evolution, etc etc etc. Nearly EVERY major scientific theory / principle that we now take for granted was originally rejected by much of mainstream society.
Scientific theory is complex. It takes lots of reading and studying of multiple REPUTABLE sources (i.e. a scientific journal as opposed to a website) by a layperson. Most people lack the time and resources to access this information, and even those who can usually have little desire to do so. Skeptics, on the other hand, present simple arguments you don't have to think about. "Global warming is a communist conspiracy" "The sun revolves around the Earth because the Bible says so." etc. Humans naturally lean towards what doesn't make them have to think. Humans are also resistant to change by nature, so they resist ideas that make them see the world differently.
But in the end, once a scientific theory has reached the level of peer acceptance that global warming has, it will prevail, and usually in a generation or two people don't even know that it was ever a controversy. How many of you knew that plate techtonics was once a hugely polarizing subject, with its proponants being heavily ridiculued?

[fumes]

and what floats those plates bc?

[TheBlackCat]

Fumes, I am reading your responses to posts and I don't understand them. I just literally do not understand what you're trying to say. I don't understand you talking about window panes and cats in relation to carbon emissions, and the sentence "what floats those plates bc" does not mean anything or make any sense by any stretch of the imagination. It is an unintelligible sentence. It's like saying "fingers silver giant horseshoes."
If you will kindly be more clear I will answer whatever it is you are trying to ask. But you have to actually type sentences that people can understand if you wish people to enter a dialogue with you.

[johnavery237]

Great article, Bob. I just wanted to offer a reference to those who believe that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human fossil fuel consumption.

Quotation from the USGS's Hawaiian Volcano Observatory:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

Hope that helps out, because I've heard the volcano argument more than once from folks with whom I've had face-to-face discussions. Cheers!

[fumes]

i think the volcano argument centers more around their main product, heat. co2 is a signature byproduct of volcanoes and has been found in ice cores to coincide with warming moments, and the tree rings concur. arrhenius et al, laboriously concocted calculations to conclude that co2 could warm the planet. his lab provided evidence that the co2 molecule could trap a wavelength of infrared radiation through resonance. and the rest is global warming history, or histrionics. i'm going with histrionics. the infrared wavelength captured is the long, low frequency one, lame enough to be captured by a gas molecule. who cares? we don't even bother to fill our double pane insulating windows with the stuff, we use argon or krypton.

[vipersdad]

If we could only get rid of those pesky volcanoes!

So - if we believe this and think it's part of the problem, then it's all the MORE reason to reduce our own contributions to the CO2 problem we have.

[drgrph]

Do you mean like skipping an exhalation or two each minute?

Seriously, I have absolutely no problem with an individual accepting the proposition of Global Warming. What I do have a problem with are those individuals, groups, etc. who seek to impose this orthodoxy on us all.

A belief in global warming requires an extreme amount of faith. You're expecting us to believe the written words of scientist on what they have observed. If I don't, I'm considered a fool or imbecile by the global warming believers.

Kinda like Christianity, eh? You have to accept as true the written words of men on what some have observed. And If I don't, you're considered a fool or imbecile by the Christian believers.

Humans appear to have difficulty with believing concepts that they cannot see, taste, touch, etc. And that's where faith comes in, whether regarding science or religion. Belief in readily observable ideas are easy. For example, gravity and an apple from a tree is easy. Evolution and old bones, etc., not so much.

So it likely will be with global warming.

[ojorae]

well, it's kinda like this: with an earth having a population three to four times it's carrying capacity, based on the average american lifesyle, carbon dioxide and methane and nitrous oxide and etc. are going to warm the planet. biodiversity is shot. the next 200 years are going to be not so pleasant. but we have to start somewhere, so...... the electon ecomony is upon us. we need to get smart and minimize the damage.

[Photofarm]

Bob,

Great article, with one huge problem. Those promoting man causing Global Warming are the ones that have a huge hole in their scientific facts. The biggest problem is that the earth's climate has always changed, and it will always change, but we don't know how the earth changes from tropical, to ice age, to todays climate.

I don't see anything close to HIV causing aids controversy. The biggest thing there is that some believe God brought out this virus to stop deviant sexual behavior.

[fumes]

god didn't? and global warming may be more about pressure really, the pressure to publish, until the moment these guys with the truth are seen bicycling to work from a little house. that is the moment the world will take notice! ya think?

[CrzyRussell]

You mean actually practice what you preach? What a novel idea.

[KillTheMessenger]

You are confirming pretty much everything the man said about denialists. Thanks for giving us an example. We needed it.

[Photofarm]

I've read the science both pro and con. I also understand how computer models work. How intelligent people can fall for the con artist's claiming man causes global warming is beyond me. The language used is that of con artists, not scientists.

[lfotweaker]

Consensus? They even asked some of the scientists from the IPCC

http://www.demanddebate.com/ipcc_survey.pdf

To summarize,

"The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about
the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the
most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of
them by the IPCC," Milloy noted. "But when you ask questions that are off
the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,"
concluded Milloy.

We're still talking about the miseducated, right?

[TheBlackCat]

Yes, climate change happens, over the course of thousands or MILLIONS of years. Not one hundred. The rate of warming and species die off that we see today has been predecessed only 5 times before in Earth's history.

Biologists established YEARS ago that we are heavily in danger of entering the Earth's 6th mass extinction. In a mass extinction, more than 65% of species on earth are wiped out in a "geological instant" or in less than a thousand years. In the permian extinction, 96% of marine life and 75% of terrestrial life died. This extinction was especially devastating because so many insect species died.

Right now, 30,000 species are wiped off the face of the earth EVERY YEAR. This rate of die off has only EVER happened during the 5 previous extinctions on earth. In the past these extinctions were caused by forces like asteroid impacts or massive geological change (i.e. worldwide massive volcanic activity as our continents were forming). The ONLY variable that is different now as opposed to say a thousand years ago that can account for this level of die off as well as rapid increase in climate change is human activity, especially cutting down the rainforests. Rainforests are only 6% of the Earth, but over 60% of ALL species exist ONLY in and around the rainforest.

Of course we can't destory the Earth. The Earth itself is so amazingly resilient it will ALWAYS bounce back. We however, may not.