United States Senator James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe has long been a vocal denier of climate change. He has compared concern about climate change to the Third Reich's Big Lie, and the EPA to the Gestapo. He has called global warming, "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He has misrepresented facts about climate change. And, as What on Earth has previously discussed, he is, ironically, a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Also ironically, Oklahoma has been at the front lines of climate-induced weather extremes.
But Inhofe's recent interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has put the Senator's climate change denial in a whole new light. Of global warming, he told Maddow, "I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost."
Too expensive to be true! Exactly what I said about that parking ticket last week just before they towed my car away.
The scientific method asks that ideas be challenged and tested. But the challenges should meet a minimum level of common sense. As Bebbo expresses in today's cartoon, price tags are irrelevant to the authenticity of global warming.
Let's look at some other popular rationales for climate change denial and see how they hold up when applied to scenarios we can all relate to more easily...
"There is no scientific consensus on climate change."
If 98 out of 100 orthodontists said you needed braces, would you ignore them because your allergist felt braces weren't needed? Study after study shows that a near unanimity of climate scientists (who are actively studying climate change) believe in anthropogenic global warming.
"We had a cold, snowy winter. That means the climate isn't warming."
I visited Florida one time and experienced chilly rain all week. Does that mean Florida is not a warm, sunny state?
"God would not give mankind the power to change the environment."
Evangelical environmentalists would disagree, saying God wants us to be proper stewards of His creation. Plus He gave us free will, right?
"I just don't believe it."
You may not believe in Santa, but that doesn't mean... OK, forget that one.
"Scientists don't know what they're talking about -- they were the ones that used to say an ice age is coming."
My third grade teacher didn't assign homework, so I knew I was justified in protesting my college professors' expectations I work outside of the classroom. "What is this?!! Aren't you teachers the ones who don't believe in homework?! MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!!"
Forty years ago, the small percentage of scientists discussing an ice age was still far outweighed by talk of global warming.
"Climate change is natural."
So are head injuries. That doesn't mean we can't make a reasonable effort to protect ourselves; It's in our survival's best interest.
And like head trauma, climate change is not cyclical -- something happens to trigger it.
Let's face it: The choice to believe global warming is too costly to be real is the costliest choice of all.
Like "What on Earth?" on Facebook.
Become a Fan here at The Huffington Post.
It would be more productive to define the terms you're throwing around.
Denier: one who denies the fundamental aspects of the science -- a very small group statistically who essentially haven't taken the time to read and understand the science.
Affirmer: one who blindly agrees with the IPCC and UNFCCC conclusions -- a very small group statistically who essentially haven't taken the time to read and understand the science.
Skeptic: everyone else who to one degree or another seeks the truth about the science.
The essential issue in this debate relates to the IPCC feedback multiplier and the aspects of the science which are educated guesses with moderate to low confidence. Skeptics do not dispute the warming that's occurring nor the contribution GHGs add.
We'd simply like to see the science more mature before committing to the proposed solutions which aren't currently definitive or insightful. We seek reasoned approach to the science, due-diligence at the UN, and a halt to the rush to judgement and disinformation.
... for your enjoyment and comment:
===
Nullius in Verba
source: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/10/nullius-in-verba/
by Dr. Judith Curry
The motto of the Royal Society is:
Nullius in verba: Â on the word of no one
"I encountered Lord May at the Royal Society Uncertainty Workshop, and I liked his presentation Science as Organized Skepticism"
Science as Organized Skepticism
http://downloads.royalsociety.org/audio/DM/DM2010_03/May.mp3
=======
I highly recommend, even though I don't completely agree with Lord May, Science as Organized Skepticism to all readers of this HuffPost.
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
In practice (and in "everyday" terms), I see climate change skeptics as those who are undecided, who think AGW is a possibility, but tend to doubt it. I see deniers as those who consciously refuse to believe it's possible. These are the people who - when push comes to shove - will just admit outright that they don't believe it and nothing will ever convince them. Sounds like they are the flip side of those you describe as "Affirmers."
Do you have a term for people who are very knowledgeable and have become convinced AGW is a reality?
Interesting question, typically PHDs who support the IPCC consensus are referred to as Dr. plus last name. Others who are very knowledgeable are referred to by name. Climate Realist and Warmer come to mind but the terms are as contrived as Lukewarmer.
The name calling (labeling) is typically used by the media, Affirmers, and Deniers; people who are not scientists and tend to be poorly informed.
As Lord May points out in the presentation, Climate Science is at the frontier of understanding so it isn't a blank and white situation that's easily explained to the public.
This entire debate would wind down quickly if the UNFCCC and IPCC solution workgroups were put on hold. The rush to judgement and lack of insightful solutions is the real problem. They are acting on their own conclusions without due diligence and without insightful solutions.
Well, he probably can't admit that such people exist, even though they constitute nearly the entire climate science community.
But we're forcing very, very rapid change on the climate right now. That's different.
Oh, and solar flares are energetically insignificant compared to the sun's photospheric luminosity.
Didn't you know that a good percentage of 1% are climate scientists. And look what it did to Al Gore-a real rags to riches story!!! If it hadn't been for the Global Warming Conspiracy all these intelligent people would be unemployed. They should serve as a shining example for all highly educated students who graduate and can't find a job. Simply make up your own conspiracy and get 98% of the other experts in your field to back you up in creating fake science and lies to support your manufactured claims.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/2011/11/climate-conspiracy-3-scientists-only-in-it-for-the-money/
I would leave the money out however it belongs in your article as another frequent claim deniers use to discredit GW by saying climate scientists are opportunists creating science for profit.
Of course the irony, as you and I well know, is that the reverse is true. That it is so absurd always leads me to sarcasm. With 98% of scientists attesting to the existence of GW and incidents like the Heartland memo leak, those who are still in denial will not be swayed by scientific evidence no matter how well presented and abundant. They must be met with derision and a model for the absurdity of their claims.
"Scientists" funded by the fossil fuel industry have sold their souls. To pursue science with a predetermined goal or bias is disingenuous. For them, to acknowledge GW is to admit they compromised their ethics for profit.
For the religious who deny science, dogma trumps facts and logic.
There is merit to using real science to answer GW deniers who are uneducated, on the fence, misinformed or interested in engaging in intelligent debate but for those more interested in regurgitating rhetoric or attacking the character of the GW supporter (be it Al Gore or the climate scientists) it can be a waste of time as they are not open to learning. Have you encountered Vakh? Prime example.
You really don't know how he scientific community works, do you?
I was making a point (albeit not so well) as to the ludicrous nature of deniers now that the bulk of scientists acknowledge GW. I thought the first sentence about climate scientists being in the 1% it gave away.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
All of the others are simply ways attempts to disguise that fact.
earth temps last 65 million years...............
You cant be that obtuse.
Here is a record of temperatures of earth for the last 500 million years to the present........ perspective is needed.
I think you missed one of the biggest rationales used by science deniers, whether they're denying evolution or climate change. They deny science because they think it's a left-wing plot. Creationists think evolution is a left-wing plot to impose social Darwinism on the country, even though the creationist party (the GOP) is the only group in America actively promoting social Darwinism. Climate change deniers think that AGW is a left-wing plot to impoverish America, even though the denier party (the GOP) is the only group in America willing to sacrifice the nation's well-being.
You can see how my conservative compadres express this stupidity by looking at their opinions on alternate energy sources. Mention renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar, and the denier reflex is to launch a barrage of ridicule, because they think solar and wind are *politically* incorrect.
The 1994 TASSC memo, exposing PR firm APCO Worldwide's plan to sell its Big Tobacco science denial strategy to other industries, like Big Oil:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2078848225-8226.html
The 1998 API memo, showing the same strategy in the hands of Big Oil's trade association just four years later:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_(1998)
The 2002 Luntz memo exposing the GOP spinmeister coaching Republican Party on talking points...in support of the same science denial strategy:
http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment
And George Monbiot's exposure of PR astroturf trolls spreading corporate disinformation online:
http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
Then see if you can come up with a reason why anyone should take the rantings of online deniers seriously.
The thing is, disinformation can not flourish where there is exposure. Daylight is such a great disinfectant!
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
It's linked from the wiki document above. In it, Joe Walker lays out the whole disinformation campaign --- although, to be fair, he seems to think that the "uncertainties" he trumpets are real. There is a conspicuous lack of discussion of actual science in the memo -- but there is extremely clever and expert discussion of how to manipulate public opinon.
The fact that these clowns have been unable to come up with a coherent argument for the last 12 years suggests that the uncertainties are not, in fact, as real as they thought.
I think the striking similarities between the 1994 TASSC memo and the 1998 API memo demonstrate the strategy at play, and also expose the inherent dishonesty in the strategy.
BTW, notice how many deniers have addressed any of this clear evidence that they are merely supporting a PR campaign?
That's right, none.
That's simply untrue. There is vastly better data available in the form of downward-looking satellite spectroscopy. "Energy and Environment", by the way, is known for its extraordinarily low -- some would say nonexistent -- standards, especially when it comes to papers that deny global warming. It's publshed some real eye-rollers.
Meanwhile, have a look at this, from one of the greatest experts on planetary atmospheres:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
As an astronomer, I have some training in radiative transfer theory; Pierrehumbert is the real deal, renowned for his deep physical insight and broad-ranging expertise. I'll believe him over some anonymous Hungarian with an old data set publishing in, of all places, E&E.
Lol... even uber professional science denier Fred Singer -- in an effort to make himself seem reality-based in comparison -- concedes that denying the Greenhouse Effect is science denial:
"[L]et me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist... One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html
And before anyone calls me a hypocrite: Yes, I do ride a bicycle for transportation. I have all my life. I've displaced over 150,000 car miles so far, and I'm still pedaling strong.
I can wait another 10 years; the sunspot cycle will peak in another 5 years, and be back down to it's minimum about then. I wonder how many people will still deny climate change in another decade?
If it's all about the money, as Inhofe admits, there will be a massive change in attitudes about global warming when rich people's oceanfront property becomes threatened. Unfortunately, by then, it will be way, way, WAY too late to stop the positive feedback loop.
The correlation is there; even if our models can't precisely pinpoint causation and accurately predict short-term effects, I don't see what point there is in flat-out denying the link. Why? Whether it's 98% or 82% of actual climate scientists that agree, that number is still so far above 50% that it's clear the deniers are way off on the wrong side of the fence.
Peak oil is what will limit AGW. The curve of carbon releases didn't really take off until about 1945, but in the nearly 70 years since, it has increased by more than 12 times. But, releases have leveled off now, and there's simply no way we will ever be able to regain the pace of increase from the previous 7 decades. 2011 hit a new production peak (previous was 2006), but... only by about 1%, while the amount of money that energy will fetch has gone up more than 5-fold. We'll be lucky to maintain our current pace at all, let alone increase it again.
I find it darkly humorous that normally highly self-centered people will suddenly throw concern for the human species out the window, to extoll their love and trust in the earth and mother nature to make everything right. We'll see how that goes for us, eh?
The author probably dismissed your distortions of those sources — not the sources — as being ideologically based. I think he's actually incorrect too. I don't think your motives have anything to do with ideology.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Climate_cover_up.html?id=tQYjQzOkYK0C