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 They can cite a combination of research that was well-done but is out of date, research that was well-done but has been misinterpreted, research that was badly done, and weird conspiracy theories, all with the support of key conservative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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well Bob, as you can see the Flat Earthers are out in force whenever Global Climate Change is brought up, but if you really want to see the Flat Earthers go really berserk have the article start with, "Al Gore presents further evidence of GW" and watch them lose their minds.
They will froth at the mouth, bring up every debunked bought off scientist and go into some serious name calling. I stick with Flat Earthers because that is the best description of them.
But try it and see.
Maybe that is because Al Gore is a friggin joke and even the most liberal person out there can see the hypocrisy.
Taking advice from Al Gore on being "green" is same thing as taking excercise advice from a 400lbs. man.
Unbias, why don't you stick to what you know? You would appear to be much smarter than when you trump things that you clearly don't understand. And what does Al Gore have to do with anything, anyway? Just because you hate the man does not make whatever he says false.
Al Gore didn't come up with the idea of global warming you know. Nor did he come up with the idea, nor is he a scientist who has researched it himself. And you're right, anyone who believes in global warming because Al Gore said it's true IS an idiot. But I base my opinions on actual scientific writings and not AL GORE. Just because a politician you dislike has embraced an idea, the idea itself then becomes false?
I very much dislike George Bush. However, George Bush has done a fantastic job of raising awareness and money for AIDS in Africa. Despite his "abstinence only" mantra, he still has done more than any other president in trying to bring about the end of this epidemic. An untold number of Africans now have access to AIDS medication due to the work of the Gates foundation and the Bush administration. He also has dedicated lot of time and money into research for an AIDS vaccine. By your logic, because I dislike George Bush and he is for solving the AIDs crisis, I should also be against curing AIDS.
Unbiased, you make conservatives look bad. I work in a Cancer Research facility and know MANY conservative scientists, who are intelligent enough to know climate change isn't a partisan issue just because a politician has taken up the cause. Actual INFORMED CONSERVATIVES bemoan the fact that people like you and Rush Limbaugh make people think ALL conservatives are uninformed blowhards.
You see, it's things like THIS that make a person go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
How much is Russia contributing to global warming by pulling crap like this?
http://www
oh man, the irony...
http://www
An example of our corporatist overlords purposely and deceptively misleading the public can be found in the Club of Rome"s The Limits to Growth, which sold nine million copies in 29 languages. This treatise rocked the world with its dire forecasts. I swear: We were all gonna die from cannibalism or some suchwhat. Four years later the Club said that the conclusions of the first report were false and that they purposely lied to the public in order to "awaken" public concern.
Personally, I find the scaremongering approach insulting. We the People can well handle, and frankly prefer, the straight-dope. The vast majority of people (of all political stripes) think of themselves as "good" and are willing to do the right things (green, fair trade, etc) so long as we can afford it. It's the job of the business folk to make US happy, not shove their greenwashed moneymaking schemes (like cap and trade, and carbon taxes) down our throats.
"We the People can well handle, and frankly prefer, the straight-dope. "
I don't think you are making a very good example of someone who can handle the straight dope. You certainly don't act like it in this post.
When over 50% of americans dont believe in evolution is it really that shocking .Most americans dont have even the most rudimentary scientific knowlege thanks to our crappy educational system.Wha
Actually I don't blame it as much on the educational system as I do parents.
Especially religious whackjob parents who tell schools they don't want their kids "larnin' no man from monkeys Shiite cuz'n God hates that" type of mentality. Same with believing there is no such thing as Global Climate Change, They believe, like one of our posters here, that all you got to do is stick your head out the window and that's proof positive there "ain't no sech ting as warmin of the Earth"
I blame the lack of real education on one thing and one thing primarily.
Religion.
Think about it, they have a freaking museum showing a DINOSAUR WITH A SADDLE ON IT!! These same people consider The Flinstones a documentary.
So the primary blame for poor education is religion. Just look at what it has done in the Mid East. Another good reason to build that separation of church and state wall even higher and stronger.
So true, and AGW is just the newest religon . . .
Its not just parents its the pay scale for teachers.W
That's a notable image, except Earth, being mounted by the IPCC, on its AGW saddle.
Even questioning the basic tenets of evolution is an outrage to many. But can't an unproven scientific theory stand to be questioned?
Or has the Inquisition come full circle?
Wow you dont even know the definition of a scietific theory!Made my point1THANKS!
Depends on the questions johnny. I find it curious that in all the comments I've seen from the denier crowd, not one has been from an actual skeptical climate scientist. Actually, I don't find it curious at all, it would be extremely difficult to fake being a scientist, even on an anonomous message board like this.
Can you even name "the basic tenets" of evolution?
Scientific theories are not unproven. Scientific hypothesis are. When we find proof for hypothesis, we move them up to the rank of theory. It usually takes half a century or longer to do that. The theory is the collection of hypothesis AND the proof that they are correct. Please, at least TRY to understand science before you criticize it.
Nothing in science is certain. Only bad scientists and laypeople assign 100% certainty to scientific conclusions. The closest thing the scientific community has to true consensus are the scientific laws, and even those can be overturned or altered based on new evidence.
If you study the history of science you'll see that oftentimes some of the greatest discoveries were made by people outside of mainstream thinking who were viciously ridiculed by their peers. These people were labelled "deniers" as well, and often much worse. Science has always been more about what we don't know than what we do know. Good scientists are comfortable with this.
All scientific conclusions are up for debate. That's how science works. What people should be saying is that the evidence that man made CO2 emissions are negatively altering our climate is strong enough to take drastic action now to alter the way our society functions on all levels. There is not now, nor will there ever be, certainty about this subject, especially when it comes to predicting the future behavior of a complex macrosystem that we know comparatively little about like planetary climate.
Stating that the conclusions are certain and are not up for debate only shows your ignorance of how science really works and completely devalues your argument.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
One doesn't have to have 100% statistical "Certainty" to predict that something is extremely probable. Only people who are in denial will hold out for the statistically impossible.
Something that is a fact is that the Earth's temperature and climate will not remain the the same with or without humans.
Not to say we aren't helping but I don't think we have as big of an impact as we may think.
My point is that by demonizing anyone who questions the conclusions and stifling debate, you're not only shooting yourself in the foot, you're actually being unscientific.
The argument should be that the predicted outcomes are "extremely probable" enough that we need to take drastic action. That is the only scientifically valid way to frame it.
Truly spoken like someone who does not understand science but wants to appear as if they do. Next opinion, please.
Rupert... If nothing in Science is 'certain', then how is it that you are able to type this post on your computer?
How is it that the 'science' behind what permits you to perform this task is now somehow 'uncertain' or 'debatable'? Seemed to work fine; your post is in fact, here... carried over a wire, or through the air via radio waves in a way that science predicted and proved it could be.
How can, as you inanely stated, all scientific conclusions be up for debate?
Can the scientific conclusion that a carbon atom has 6 electrons be up for debate?
Can the scientific conclusion that electrons can be made to flow within copper be considered up for debate? (the scientific discovery of which has indirectly led to your ability to post your inane comment, Rupert)
Can the fact that the DNA molecule is shaped like a double helix and bound together with Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine be considered as 'up for debate', too?
Can the science behind the functioning of the air conditioner that is keeping you cool, be considered up for debate?
The number of scientific discoveries that you rely on in your daily life (and somehow think are up for debate) are so numerous I could not begin to list them all...
Your ability to understand how science really works?
That, is most definitely up for debate.
You really just don't get it do you? I'm not debating the validity of any of the examples you mentioned. Not all scientific theories are created equal. Those with consistent predictive ability are the most ironclad, especially those based on established scientific laws.
The fact remains, however, that if new evidence were to be discovered that refutes the theory, then the validity of the theory could be debated. It's happened many times before and will most likely happen again. No theory is exempt from this possibility. As I mentioned earlier, even the laws could be altered based on new evidence, however unlikely that may be.
Science is all about debate. It always has been and always will be. What do you think "peer-reviewed" really means anyway?
If a certain theory has strong enough evidence to support it, then it should be easily defensible. Why are you so uncomfortable with there being a debate?
Another key issue with the global warming religion is that it is diverting resources from immediate needs like clean drinking water. 50 million children can be saved EVERY year simply by providing clean drinking water. A simple action.
However, the warming group diverts funding.
At the same time many in the warming crowd want the death of these 50 million, as it lowers the population of non Europeans and helps achieve their goals.
How will those same 50 million fair when the next big wars are over water resourse?you are being very short term thinking>
If your opinion prevails, these 50 M per year won't have to worry, since they will already have died of contaminated water.
Please provide PROOF that clean water is being kept from children by the Global Climate Change people.
Seems like that is a typical neo clown lie trying to subvert the truth. The truth is the Flat Earthers enable pollution by claiming that all that pollution has no effect upon our environment.
So PROOF PLEASE?
Dear children, you have clean water. Now you can be well hydrated as you slowly die from lack of food caused by climate change.
Also, way to back up your statement with sources. I heard that 50 million children will die tomorrow if you continue to deny global warming. Good job.
Nonein2008, unless you can provide a link to back up that assertion, it's just speculative crap and has no place in this discussion.
T his is the most assenine argument EVER. Why is it that you pick on global warming funds as what diverts money from those in need of drinking water? And why did you single out drinking water? Why not, oh, I don't know, EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD. ANY funds for almost ANYTHING could be used for something better. Every Art museum in the world, every public park, every public fountain or statue. Every bit of government architectural flourish. There are innumerable things any government spends money on that could go to something else. We could nix all after school programs and give the money to orphanages in Africa. We could close down every community theater project and save some south america tribesmen from malaria. Do I really need to continue?
What you are advocating is a global communist system.
Just wondering, what is the perfect climate? The one we have now, the one of 2000 years ago, the one of 1400 years ago. It is the height of arrogance to think that humans can "stop the climate movie". Be careful with the envronment by all means, but not at the price many zealots beleive it will take.
How about the one we had 80 years ago? Do you see the difference in time scale in your example? Thousands of years vs tens of years.
Global warming is going to produce a climate similar to the one we had 300 million years ago. Trust me, few people like living in a mixture of low deserts and Guyana swamps. The French loved to send their criminals to those places... to teach them a lesson... and to let them die a slow, painful death.
Your article is typical of those of a religion, attacking those with actual information showing the fallacy of the religion.
On of the best summaries of the global warming scam is to listen to Hon Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. Specifically,
"I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery “road to serfdom.”
He touches one core point, many of the neogreens are actually Malthusians, focused on stopping developing nations and reducing the population of non-European people. Their specific goal is to get the earth down to below 2 billion people, "mostly of European decent".
"Your article is typical of those of a religion, attacking those with actual information showing the fallacy of the religion."
You are not serious about claiming to be the one with "actual information", are you?
I smell hubris... thick, rotting layers of hubris.
When I was in Europe there was a debate on the BBC between Hon Václav Klaus, the man you cite above, and an Indian member from the UN panel on climate change. Vaclav Klaus was DESTROYED. The audience was actually LAUGHING at him the entire time. He was extremely flustered and could not counter a single point the actual scientist made.
It was awesome.
Mr. Ostertag, you are too kind to the global-warming deniers. The great majority of them are, in fact, believers. More importantly, they are also greedy conservatives. Their obsession with taxes and "socialism" is the giveaway.
The world isn't going to end because of global warming -- but it will cost the global economy trillions of dollars to compensate. (You can't put a price tag on the expected loss of biological diversity.
These so-called deniers know that there are people whose lives, livelihoods, and pocketbooks will be hurt by global warming. They plan to exempt themselves from all future harm. In claiming that global warming science is flawed, they are trying to construct a narrative which sounds credible, and which allows THEM to avoid sharing in the costs.
If less-informed people end up believing something which isn't true, oh well! The so-called deniers will have ideological allies. That suits them fine.
How can you and others here claim to know the MOTIVATIONS of the AGW skeptics? Our reasons vary. A glance at my profile reveals a greeny progressive type who's been commenting on Huffpo for a long, long time, who's been tracking the Malthusians at the Club of Rome, Bilderberger and the CFR for YEARS. I see their "Master Plan" for what it IS: Fear-based, irrational, fascist, classist and racist.
My IDEAOLOGY is SOCIAL JUSTICE. This includes (yes) the environment, food and water rights, national and personal sovereignty, etc. I react in a hostile manner to ANYONE who threatens these ideals and political persuasion is irrelevant. There are fascists lurking in both wings of the Vulture that's trying it's darndest to feed off our flesh and we're not even DEAD YET.
I'm all for bottom-up solutions and will scream bloody murder at the top-down ones. Anyone who's tracked Globablists since the 1970's who ISN'T infuriated and hostile about AGW is either a member of the Cabal or has a screw loose, or both. Cynical use of the environmental movement has been planned for DECADES and they're miffed we're not falling for it hook-line-sinker. They really thought that by now we'd be BEGGING for corporatist global governance. Really they did.
Next, I swear, is the staged alien invasion. That's how DEMENTED these people are at the top.
"How can you and others here claim to know the MOTIVATIONS of the AGW skeptics? Our reasons vary. A glance at my profile reveals a greeny progressive type..."
A glance at your profile reveals a fairly single-minded focus on globalism. Globalism is important, but you can't refract the whole world through that lens. Your blog suggests you lean Libertarian -- and have a fondness for some extreme conspiracy theories.
"Cynical use of the environmental movement has been planned for DECADES and they're miffed we're not falling for it hook-line-
I can tell you're not a scientist. The greatest reputations in science are earned by proving something NEW, by goring someone's ox. If global warming were so obviously untrue, there would be no shortage of scientists lining up to be the first to disprove it. Yes, they would get funding. Yes, they would also get published.
Meanwhile: suppose you think that global warming is BS. Fine. Do you like clean air? Do you like energy independence? Don't you worry that we'll run out of oil?
I have always chosen small automobiles, and I've chosen to live close to work -- even in 1989, when gasoline was cheap and no one had heard of global warming. I went solar three years ago. We have many reasons to end our addiction to oil, global warming is just one more. Let's get it done already!
And yes, there are solutions which don't require genuflecting before the Black Helicopters.
In other words, you don't mind that a significant number of the people in the developing world will drown and starve to death as long as they have the right to consume one tenth of the energy we use? Which incidentally means we can continue using whatever we want... fair is fair?
Give me a break. This is one of the intellectually most dishonest arguments I have ever heard. Makes me want to puke.
Number 1.threat to america.te
We all know how much our conservative politicians give about Pentagon informatio
Change in weather patttern would be more appropriate. All this Global Warming Scare will accomplish taxing the majority of the people nothing else. How does more tax do away with
the global warming issue is my question. Granted, this should start at the top and go from
there, have our rivers clean again. The little people don't make them murky. Air is poisoned
from the industries. Cars were cleaned up when the catalyctic converter was added and the
trees again had leaves on them.
The "little people" driving oversized SUVs, living in homes with single pane windows and eating more meat than veggies are the cause of the problem. I know that is hard to swallow. But then, so are many facts in life. One day you will swallow this one and live. And maybe you will even make your piece with it.
I'm a classic liberal and have built energy and environmental models for 30 years. I've pored through the IPCC web site and remain unconvinced. There are too many loose ends, and, there are "deniers" who are credible, for example Dr. William Gray.
I recall a US EPA effort to model the effects of toxic chemicals on human health, which is less complex than climate change. That effort collapsed because of limits on data and the compounding of "range of error".
I first witnessed Al Gore give his carbon dioxide/warming presentation in the US Senate 25 years ago. Our science wasn't as complete back then but Gore was just as adamant then as he is now. Gore recently spoke at Carnegie-Mellon's commencement and said the climate of Venus was caused by excessive carbon dioxide and Earth could soon resemble Venus - I nearly fell off my seat.
Other environmental issues are being pushed aside by global warming. Many NGO's have abandoned efforts on ecosystem destruction, toxic chemicals, etc., because funding has shifted to global warming. An IPCC Nobel Prize awardee told me all of these issues come under climate change. How does the release of PCB's get solved by reducing carbon dioxide output?
Let's focus on ecosystem destruction, pollution prevention, anti-trust in global energy supply/dis
Um actually NO, Dr Gray has been derided and his works have not passed peer review. AND he doesn't seem to quite get the over all big picture. The real wording of course should be Global Climate Change on a fast track as opposed to the longer possibly natural cycles that occur. His field is hurricanes and he refuses to see the correlation between climate change and hurricanes, He uses the lame explanation that in other periods of time there were more hurricanes but conveniently leaves out the ferocity of the current bunch in relation to the seasons he quotes from decades ago.
With the rapid change in Global Climate, there will be some cooling in some areas and warming in others, but the problem is the speed with which it occurs which devastates the ecology and thus life as we know it changes.
I have yet to see one credible peer reviewed scientist who has shown the science of Global Climate Change is wrong.
Starting your comments with "I'm a classic liberal and have built energy and environmental models for 30 years." is very impressive. I guess we are all supposed to conclude you know what you are talking about.
Hint - it's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority.
If you were to cite actual data or studies in your rebuttal, I would find your response convincing.
Just setting yourself up as an expert isn't enough. Which NGO's have abandoned efforts on ecosystem destruction or toxic chemicals? Make me a list....
You do make one important point, however - ecosystem destruction and pollution prevention are still critical issues - but ones tied to - you guessed it - global climate change.
If you see CO2 as a pollutant and the loss of ecosystem (especially foliage) as the irreparable loss of a CO2 mitigation capability, you can see how they are all linked. And...
By the way - most climate change science sees all these things as linked. And forested areas and biodiversity (especially aquafirs) are GREAT ways to clean up the mess we've made with toxic chemicals as well. So the more we cut and pave, the worse off we'll be.
Without facts, you are not making an actual argument.
"The whole stance of climate change denialists has uncanny parallels to that of AIDS denialists, who deny that HIV causes AIDS."
All the experts always said there would be a massive outbreak among straight Americans which never happened.
See Bob Ostertag's Profile
Don't know what planet you are living on, but apparently it does not include Asia and Africa, where the vast majority of AIDS cases, spread heterosexually, are located.
Have you ever been to Africa? On of my friends is in the peace corps in africa and one of her initiatives is to tell middle aged men that they are spreading AIDS by having sex with younger boys which is very commonplace in Africa...m
Really see african americans?or africa and india and russia etc..Where do you people get your facts??
It didn't happen in America is a classic GW denier statement, so biasview, you provided a very neat corrollary between GW deniers and AIDS deniers. Thanx!
How many dead people do you need before you call it a "massive outbreak"? 100 million?
The science and data have not been clearly explained to the public, while the deniers, masquerading as scientists, have been paid (formerly by ExxonMobil, which reversed course recently, and currently apparently by coal and power plant companies) to sow doubt in the public mind with specious criticisms.
The job of climate scientists is to measure the changes -- such as the melting of the ice globally -- and to explain this to each other. They don't get paid, in the main, to talk to the general public.
Happily, this is about to change. A foundation has been established to put the info out in a manner accessible to the general public. Next week, go to climatecen
We must stop this Mad Tea Party: we are all Alice and are stuck with the messy seat. I don't have another planet to move to.
amen.
One of the sorriest global climate change deniers, James Inhofe, needs to get booted from the Senate. Contribute to his opponent Andrew Rice if you can.
http://and
Did just that. I agree. The crazies need to get ousted.
When an unproven issue is fueled by rhetoric using Holocaust allusions such as "deniers" to categorize those with questions, it is completely proper to take a step back and judge that issue more objectively.
And when emotion, not logic, fuels that issue into a frenzy, it is best to take a further step back and see what motivates the "chanting crowd" and what benefit they derive from such hysteria.
And when hatred of those who question an unproven "scientific" theory becomes paramount not only to defending that theory but also becomes part of the theory itself (the old "Because I said so, jerk" explanation), it is time to observe that mob-like mentality further and determine if there is any logic to their actions or if their beliefs have become more cult-like than reasoned.
To use the plural of deny is illogical??LOL! you people would be funny if it werent so serious!And the use of the word hatred sounds pretty emotional to me ,nobody hates ignorant people we just pity and fear them!And by definition a scientific theory HAS TO BE REPEATABLE which mean that if I try an experiment in africa or england you will come up with the same result.Whi
johnny, your the only one who keeps bringing up the holocaust. And puuuleese lay off of the victim rap.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
