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 They can cite a combination of research that was well-done but is out of date, research that was well-done but has been misinterpreted, research that was badly done, and weird conspiracy theories, all with the support of key conservative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
That's what you get with a scientifically illiterate population. People are unable to judge the credibility of the experts, let alone the strength of the evidence.
When people can see the ice caps melting rapidly and still deny that global warming is happening and our future as well as our children's future is at stake is makes me much more sad than angry anymore. The naysayers encontered on HuffPo is the example I give people about how even those who profess to be liberal, educated rational humans can also choose denial in the dealing with our world changing in a bad way. Give up the gas hogs? Only when gas hits maybe $5-7 dollars a gallon here in the US. It's there in other countries now. Worried about the polar bears? Yeah sure the population is down but the ice melting thing? Also we just might need the oil under where they live so go figure, humans first right? We have to educate ourselves about the global changes if we are to help our children and their children safe in this world.
Bob, unfortunately there are idiots no matter where you go, including on both sides of the issue. It only gets worse as more details are included (or excluded) and parsed even further. The bottom line for me is: CO2 is a human waste product, same as urine or feces. I am for less urine in my drinking water and less feces in my food. Thus, I am also for less CO2 in my air. Very consistent. Yes, there will always be a certain amount present, same as for waste in food and water, but I don't know why anyone is arguing that we should just keep adding more waste to the air we breathe. That's like arguing we should add more urine to our drinking water.
Furthermore, we produce CO2 at the expense of O2, which we need to breathe. Why would anyone argue in favor of wasting breathable air? If you're trapped in a closed garage with the car running, which would you rather the car be: a fossil fuel-burning vehicle or an electric car? The answer is pretty simple. Now, imagine that garage is bigger and there are a lot more cars. If you wouldn't want to be trapped in a garage with a car that's burning oxygen, why would you want to be trapped on a planet with millions of vehicles and power plants burning tons of oxygen? And while we're clear cutting trees and tearing up kelp forests that convert CO2 back into O2?
Algae produces 90% of the worlds oxygen. Destroying wetlands is far worse than clear cutting trees. Wow, I'm a right wing environmentalist. Who knew?
pubear, you are only partially correct. Yes, when algae grows during the day it uses CO2 and produces oxygen, but when night hits it burns oxygen though not as much as it produces. Other factors that decrease the oxygen net are algae blooms caused by fertilizer runoff which choke vast parts of the Gulf of Mexico and The Chesapeake Bay and create deadzones. Plus, all numbers say that rainforests produce 20% of the worlds oxygen so your numbers are off from that angle as well.
A combination of green algae and cyanobacteria produce upwards of 70% of atmospheric oxygen. Both are found in a variety of ecosystems, many of which we continue to destroy, which was my basic point until I reached the comment word limit.
It's very hard to challenge a columnist's assertions when you are dealing with a 250 word limit.
There is a broad difference between Global Warming deniers and HIV deniers. There is no industry set up to make money from promoting HIV. The author is correct in one thing. You get HIV, you stop taking the meds and you die early. If you don't believe in HIV then stand your ground, get off of the meds and they can bury you in a year or two.
On the other hand there is alot of money to be made off of GW. If you can link any of your research to Global Warming you instantly increase your odds of getting funding. This is a subject with so many variables it can be argued on every level. Is it real, is it manmade, is it a natural cycle, is it caused by Solar Cycles, if it's real then why is so much wrong info put out on the Global Warming believer side?
Why is every storm or hurricane now caused by GW? Why must we use the coldest decade of the 20th century as our baseline for normal temps? Why do researchers leave out inconvenient years when making the case for GW? This can go on and on.
Those that deny GW or at least deny it's manmade face ridicule. Why risk your reputation when there are large amounts of money to be made by simply going along with the crowd?
On the contrary, lots of people who hate the pharmaceutical industry (hint, a lot of them post here) will tell you that it is set up to make money from promoting diseases, including AIDS. This can be turned into a conspiracy theory for the AIDS/HIV deniers. The fact that the medication works somehow doesn't matter.
And yeah, the 250 word limit isn't enjoyable, but do you remember what it was like before then? :P
Good example of a fact challenged troll, mindlessly repeating talking points.
Baseline temp. areistypically the 1960-1990 average: not a single decade, and hardly the coldest 30 year period of the 20th century. Further, to answer your other questions, to a high level of probability:
Yes it's real.
Yes, the largest tug on climate is now anthropogenic (by a factor of between 10 and 30)
No, it doesn't have anything to do with solar cycles.
These questions have been answered by a mountaing of broad, deep, independent studies. But is it possible it's not principally man-made. Yes, but highly unlikely. From a policy standpoint, from a risk-management standpoint, the answer is in. The solutions are no-regret solutions -- moving away from fossil fuels toward truly renewable energy economies. Why no-regret? Because...
Wouldn't it be nice if our energy were produced at home, and only got cheaper with time? Renwables are as expensive right now, today, as they will ever be. Now THAT'S cost security.
Yes, there's money to be made in this transition. Of course. Why wouldn't there be. Just like any other technological revolution. But of course it's the rest of the world that's making it, because a substantial segment of our population is underedcuated, overstimulated, captive to mysticism and with no ethic of commons.
The motives of the scientific community are held in suspicion, while those of fossil fuel companies and corporate lobbyists are beyond reproach. Sorry, you're "scientists are in it for the money" argument falls flat with me...
It is so hilarious when people try to assert that folks who worry about global warming somehow stand to make a profit off their alarm. That assertion in itself should be enough to discredit you.
You don't think there is money to be made from Global Warming hysteria? When Carbon Offsets are traded across the nation and finally across the world you might think differently. Your GW cult leaders are on the ground floor of this new money making enterprise.
The one thing I have observed about deniers is that they are a lot like conspiracy advocates. They are able to believe that all the scientists in the world got together and agreed to defraud the world by concocting phony science. And like conspiracy advocates they can find evidence of the plot in any fact or rumor while ignoring how incredibly unlikely it is that a complicated conspiracy could be started and sustained for years. I don't think the internet is the cause, these people believed that we have aliens in area 52, and that Kennedy was assasinated by more than one man before the internet existed. They never stop believing whatever it is they believe. I guess that would be called faith?
Mr. Ostertag, the most surprising thing about your post is that you seem to be convinced that because this is the "Huffington Post" your post is only being read by well informed liberals. Believe me when I tell you there are right wing nuts who also post comments here and not just a few of them. There is enough Kool-Aid here for everyone.
Until now global warming has been a gradual process that is easy to deny because it takes close attention to see it. Not even the best informed here are likely to have read any of the science concerning the issue and certainly would have not read anything like Michael Benton’s “When Life Nearly Died” on the end of the Permian Age when that global warming event nearly wiped life from the face of this Earth informing themselves what global warming could mean for us.
The denial that HIV causes aids is easy to understand. People don’t want to admit that their own behavior could have caused their illness.
"...The denial that HIV causes aids is easy to understand. People don"t want to admit that their own behavior could have caused their illness...
Behavior does not *CAUSE* HIV or AIDS, behavior is, however, a factor in transmission. Do you use the same logic to explain a diagnosis of influenza?
Aids unlike influenza is a sexually transmitted disease and that has carried a stigma throughout history. As for behavior, the bath houses in San Francisco maintained their patrons even though the disease and it's likely causes were widely known and publicized daily as it spread through San Francisco's gay population. There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of catching aids, celibacy, remaining true to a special partner, or prophylactics; not doing or using these things is behavior. An awful lot of these people would be alive now if they'd just managed to change their behavior. This behavior is also occasioned by denial.
The point I did not make is that denial can be downright deadly. Thank you Liberal2 for the chance to point that out.
Leftcoastindy, about that land temperature data... Have you ever seen the "adjustments" they made to the data?
http://www
Strangely, before 1970 all the instruments were making errors that said it was to warm, and after 1970 the instruments made an about face and started making all their errors to the cold side.
AIDS researchers never did anything remotely this sketch.
You're doing fine, Leftcoast.
But as for you, jm, I'm not kidding man - you are behind in your homework. The NASA temp corrections are not a big deal. Here's an analysis, putting them in perspective, with linked published articles from the literature.
http://www
Dated
And by dated I mean it is talking about the 1934 scandal, that article does not at all address the issues of the deeper adjustments that took down the data from the end of the 19th century.
Both "sides" of the issue can consult sources such as Realclimat
The internet is a breeding ground for this sort of thing. You can see it on any scientifically geared post. People consider evidence to be "I heard" or "I read". If you post actual evidence, with links and what not, you're usually ignored or told you're wrong with no evidence being given to prove it. Sometimes you're told to "google it", which generally signifies that someone is just repeating what they've heard else where (right wing reactionary radio, I'm looking at you).
Here's a fun example. The other day on a post about oil reserves someone said, I'm paraphrasing, that the US exports most of its Alaskan oil to Japan and if we drilled in ANWAR and stopped exporting to Japan we'd never have to import any. He gave no source for such statements, and when I responded with data from the DOE (which I linked to) noting that we export 29,000 out of 5,000,000 barrels of oil per day and none of it to Japan, I was ignored.
The key difference is that the HIV/AIDS connection was eventually proven with empirical testing. That is, scientists observed the physical object AIDS and using empirical observation in the real world tested its effects on the human body. Through empirical research under the scientific method they did indeed prove the existence of the link.
Global Warming is a prediction not and empirical observation . The models simply predict what the modelers expect to happen without any actual testing against real world data.
This would be like the AIDS proponents making a computer model of a virus that could cause AIDS, calling it HIV, and then calling anyone who was skeptical a denier (fortunately for science they found a virus in the physical world and analyzed it the old fashioned scientific method way).
In fact, you will notice that completely unlike AIDS researchers, Global Warming proponents assert that it is unethical to mix Global Warming and the scientific method. They assert that there theory is so true it is not necessary to compare the predictions of the theory with forcasting tests. They even go so far as to call anyone who wants to apply the scientific method to global warming holocaust deniers for even suggesting that empirical analysis is applicable.
Well, you are wrong on a number of counts here:
First, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not just a prediction. Global warming over the past fifty years or so has been observed empirically. Further, it cannot be accounted for with natural triggers.
Further warming is a prediction, though it is based on far more than "untested" models.
Climate models are tested in many ways. Rather than try to summarize in a couple of hundred words here, I'll send you to this site for detailed discussion of the many ways in which models are verified:
http://www
Scroll down to the section on Climate Modelling, and have yourself a read.
As for your last paragraph, I simply have no idea what you're talking about. Our understanding of the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming is based solely on science. An enormous preponderance of evidence. I'm afraid you're coming across as hysterical. Take a deep breath and give the website I linked a good long read. Then swallow your pride, turn off Rush and turn on the science. Another nice, well-documented site to help you clear up your misunderstandings is here:
http://www
Happy learning!
Actually there is enough empirical observation of the global warming phenomena for over 1 million sites listed for an advance search of global climate change university programs that had to include the words global climate change. It is a phenomenon that is not simply being predicted but observed in real time. What is more there have been thousands of articles done on the research printed in scientific journals that require juried examination before publication. No such researched juried article has been published denying either the phenomenon nor the connection with human behavior. JM you need to pull your head out of the sand on the QT.
Actually the global health agencies are now saying that an AIDS pandemic among non-homosexual non-drug users is extremely unlikely. There is much speculation that AIDS researchers over-emphaisized the threat to non-homosexuals to get people to take action. Is it possible this is happening with global warming as well?
PS: AIDS is a terrible disease and I'm glad it's gotten as much research as it has.
What are you talking about? Either you are joking, playing devil's advocate, have not bothered to read even a minimal amount of the large and rapidly expanding body of research on climate change, or are scientifically illiterate. Here's a link to the 4th IPCC Report section entitled "The Physical Science Basis", to help get you started if you are actually interested in the evidence: http://www
Thanks for the laugh.
"In fact, you will notice that completely unlike AIDS researchers, Global Warming proponents assert that it is unethical to mix Global Warming and the scientific method."
Your credibility just took a fatal hit. Time for a new handle. You could return with more corporate insight...
It seems to much to ask for the deniers to just look at the temperature record:
http://dat
The current and mercifully low sun spot activity is due to start reversing itself this next year or two. When this typically 11 year cycle springs back to normalcy, warming will be dramatically more obvious.
Before the denialist start wasting our time, please go here:
http://dat
and then explain why you think this information is wrong. Is it because Rush or hannity says so?
Read something other than CNN and the Huffpost.
Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
Aug 14, 2007
http://www
From that story:
"More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy." "
Followed by: "Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data.""
So yes, as a number of us said, right wing reactionary radio has a lot to do with this.
The disinformation campaign remains well-organized and well-funded.
"Thinktanks" like the Heartland Institute, the Marshall Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and others, regularly monitor websites such as HuffPo for posts about climate change, and then deluge the response threads with disinformation. Check the usernames of those who made such posts; I suspect you'll find they are not regular posters to other articles. These are thinktank operatives.
The time to shape the message to the dead-enders is past. We're moving in the right direction now, and picking up steam. Look them in the eye, smile and nod, and say "That's nice... Here's where we're going..."
Keep up the good work.
Gas prices should be $10 or $20 per gallon to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Does everyone agree?
Talk radio has been responsible for disseminating misinformation on Global Warming incessantly.
Hannity and Rush scoff in spits of rage at the very idea and scoff some more endlessly repeating their 'talking points' assigned them by the big moneyed oil barons.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
