Global Warming Deniers: The New 9/11 Truthers

There is a resounding similarity between deniers of anthropogenic global warming and 9/11 Truthers: the refusal to let facts and reason get in the way of a preconceived, unfounded conclusion. The science remains uncertain, the naysayers say, even though their claims have been thoroughly debunked and the consensus is overwhelming among just about every known scientific institution on the planet. Virtually all have urged immediate and decisive action led by governments to help contain the problem.

There are a few brands of global warming deniers. The first is the free-market fanatics. In the minds of these McCarthy-lites, nothing, absolutely nothing, can get in the way of unscathed market freedom, and any reality-based phenomenon that warrants a moderating approach (such as rising inequality, growing poverty and now global warming) is a ploy pushed by Soviet-sympathizing communists who hate freedom. Their fetish for unadulterated capitalism precludes comprehending that a melting planet would indeed be worse than market-based reforms to promote green technologies.

The second brand is the unhinged "skeptics," who think the IPCC, the international scientific community, and every major government other than the Bush administration is perpetrating a conspiracy of earthly proportions. According to them, world leaders and renowned scientists regularly hold secret meetings in a smoke-filled room where they discuss how to perpetuate the scam. Why would they do such a thing? You'll have to grab some popcorn and ask the "skeptics."

The substance that inflames these dissenters is spewed primarily by fossil fuel executives and lobbyists, whose pursuit of wealth and power necessitates peddling fallacies. They've put forth large swaths of money and dedicated careers to marketing the viewpoint that global warming is a dubious theory. They've cleverly manufactured the opinion that this phenomenon is merely a liberal power-grab, which has motivated facts-optional right-wing partisans to reject it on impulse and latch onto the science-fiction that disputes it. It's a pity, because it seems as though the survival of our planet would be a fairly bipartisan issue.

The analytical approach of modern global warming dissenters shares remarkable common ground with that of 9/11 Truthers, who still believe George W. Bush brought down the twin towers. Both groups have a soft spot for conspiracy theories, and are convinced that they possess a special gift that affords them a uniquely superior grasp of reality. Facts and evidence are muffled by their messianic quest to inform society of its delusions and intellectual inadequacies.

It's interesting that these "skeptics" are without any scientific argument, and instead rely on fantasies of alleged uncertainties. But the theory behind this phenomenon is as robust as any: atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are compounded by activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, have a warming impact on the planet as they absorb infrared radiation produced by the earth's atmosphere. This is the undisputed greenhouse effect, the modern extent of which is inextricably linked to human activity. So, on what scientific basis might one argue that human activity isn't exacerbating climate change? From increasingly severe wildfires and hurricanes to rising sea levels and melting ice caps, all of which are accelerating in the industrial age, the evidence is unequivocal.

Christopher Hitchens, a genuine skeptic, accepts that even if the science of human-caused global warming is uncertain, "we should act as if it is" certain, because "we don't have another planet on which to run the experiment." Hitchens argues that if humans turned out not to be contributing to global warming, we would merely have made a "mistake in analysis, which we could correct from," whereas if the doubters were wrong, inaction "would lead to disaster." This illustrates the difference between honest skepticism and zealotry.

Global warming deniers continue to make waves, just as 9/11 Truthers do. The latter have been written off and are irrelevant to the political debate. The former will soon join the club. They'll go down in the history books alongside the many who doubted that the earth was round until well after the science had been made obvious. They'll be mentioned in the same chapter as those who continue to doubt evolution to this day.

Or maybe there won't be a chapter because humanity never made it that far.

Comments

[research]

The current scientific consensus includes the following:

The climate is warming up.

Humans are contributing to this with CO2 and GHGs

Climate can change drastically very quickly in a non-linear way.

Every time we have had this much CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 3 million years,

The climate has "switched" rapidly to another 100K year ice age.

There is not agreement on:

Is the switch to an ice age caused by CO2 or are both the result of some other factor, like sun system or micro comet intensity?

How quickly will the climate switch?

Theories for the causes of the 100k year ice age cycle include:

Asteroids, volcanoes, sun cycles, amount of dust in space interfering with sunlight to Earth, Methane "Burps",

All appear to have triggered massive climate switching.

I would like to disconnect the global warming argument from the Wind and Solar replacing coal and oil argument.

Wind and Solar are worth it so we can have energy without wars for oil. For eliminating mountain top destruction and mercury releases, and a million other good reasons.

Please skip the "my scientist are more better than yours." Or the "None may question Human global warming" bs, try hurling facts.

[Nooooorm]

So global warmining is melting the polar ice caps, causing floods, hurricanes, tornados, malaria, etc..

Global warming my friends.. has even killed the Loch Ness Monster...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/13/veteran-loch-ness-monster-hunter-gives-up-86908-20317853/

"Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming."

[fumes]

co2's claim to fame or rather infamy is it's ability to force water vapor into the atmosphere, by itself it can't do crap. water vapor however does all the work and has it's own tipping point when in it changes it's role from warming our planet to cooling it. say, anyone notice it's snowing outside in the lower latitudes? hmm...

[realpolitic]

However, then when things started to cool, would not the water vapor disappear, as the vapor molecules do not last long anyway and they are generated by the additional heat. Then it would get hot again.

[graphicdav]

As a Global Warming skeptic I've left a few of my ideas/questions here and would like some serious replies to the points I bring up.

As far as 9/11 conspiracies? The most plausible explanation is that a gang Islamic Radicals hijacked planes and ran them into stuff.

There was no need for the towers to fall or the Pentagon to get hit for attack to get it's point across. So the intricate plans to make that happen as an inside job is just too complicated and makes it implausable.

[HeevenSteven]

I don't really think your interested or you wouldn't be here looking for answers. You can't get real answers here in a format like this.

But, just for starters here's some stuff you can read. If you really want to know enough about it to be able to discuss it and understand your own questions, let alone think about what a good answer is, you're going to have to start reading and spend a lot of time doing it. And when you get done, read some more.

As well as the science surrounding this stuff, it's worth while to get into philosophy of science, and cognitive science. It's worth understanding that this science isn't a liberal conspiracy to control society and you should know how ridiculous that notion is.

Real Climate is run by actual climate scientists, not some ideological foundation. Climate Progress is run by Joseph Romm who blogs here. There are many more books, but these are great starters. The web sites are good placed to get answers to specific questions, or refresh stuff you've forgotten, but the books are great narratives to tell you how the theories all developed, where the actual controversy is.

http://www.realclimate.org

http://www.climateprogress.org

With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists fear Tipping Points in Climate Change by Fred Pearce

The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart

Come Hell and High Water by Joseph Romm

Storm Warning by Chris Mooney.

[noneIn2008]

Read our own US Senate Environment and Public Works Minority page. They would welcome debunking any of the points made:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.WelcomeMessage

Look at the specific report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008

[HeevenSteven]

Yeah Inhofe's Posse of "scientists". Some collection. Not a single published climate scientist in the bunch. Get an education.

[Nooooorm]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm

As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming.

Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. "The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse," says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. "It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round."

Russian researchers made this discovery while studying ice cores recovered from the depth of 3.5 kilometres in Antarctica. Analysis of ancient ice and air bubbles trapped inside revealed the composition of the atmosphere and air temperature going back as far as 400,000 years.

"We found that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly over the period but at any given time increases in air temperature preceded higher concentrations of CO2," says academician Kapitsa, who worked in Antarctica for many years. Russian studies showed that throughout history, CO2 levels in the air rose 500 to 600 years after the climate warmed up. Therefore, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases registered today are the result, not the cause, of global warming.

[flahkoh]

Your looking at a Republican Bush led senate for cues on the science of Global Warming? You're as ignorant as a Christian defending the bible with the bible itself.

[ThermoChemist]

UPDATE: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/23/inhofe-650/

Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a report citing "more than 650 international scientists" who back up his claims that manmade global warming is a hoax. This list was a revision of his original compilation of 400 names earlier in the year. That list fell apart, however, when experts pointed out that many of those people 1) had no background in climate science, or 2) "demanded to be taken off, since they didn"t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/21/sen-inhofes-misleading-climate-denial-report/

Inhofe"s NEW report with 650 "experts" doesn"t seem to be much better.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php

Anja Eichler, one of the scientists cited by Inhofe as believing that half of the earth"s warming is caused by the sun, said that her work was "misinterpreted"; in fact, she believes that "Earth"s temperature does not change randomly " it changes when it is driven to do so by an external forcing." TNR"s Bradford Plumer also found others on this list new who appear to support the theory of man made global warming.

[graphicdav]

Both 9/11 truther and global warming subjects rely on science to prove or deny.

The most common 9/11 conspiracies are debunked, with science, by popular mechanics. Search for Populare Mechanics and 9/11 and you will see the extensive article.

[HeevenSteven]

The conspiracy crowd sees Popular Mechanics as in on the cover up. P.M. has an editor named Chertoff who may be a distant cousin to Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security, so alarms go off right away; that makes him in on it. I guess anyone named Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Rice is automatically in on it too. Good thing there's no Smith or Jones in the cabinet.

They're like the people who see Jesus in grilled cheese sandwiches. You can't falsify their theories, because it's like nailing jelly to the wall; they just layer on and layer on comlex post-hoc explanations for why this or that is or isn't so. They cannot accept that complex disasters can happen without being preplanned by the government.....I have to go; there's a black helicopter outside my window...

[Nooooorm]

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

As you read this, policies that you endorse are already causing misery and starvation for the world's poor.
On the 14th of April this year some of us wrote to the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, copied
below and available on the UN CAPSA site (ref E), asking him to present clear and graphic evidence of
the theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) drives global temperature. We pointed out that no such evidence
exists and offered charts and references that refute the man-made global warming theory.
Dr. Pachauri has failed to respond. Perhaps he lacks the knowledge to defend his position. Nevertheless,
the IPCC's 51 "drafting and draft-contributing authors" of the Summary for Policymakers (ref A) - not
thousands as claimed - includes scientists who are surely obliged to provide such evidence if any exists.
For your illumination we refer you to:
(i) The chart in our letter of 14 April (page 3) which shows, using official data, that for the last
decade World Temperatures have been falling whilst CO2 keeps rising, and
(ii) A geological (Greenland ice core) chart of polar climate covering the last 10,000 years (Ref
B) which shows that while CO2 levels have been rising, temperatures have been falling
since the Bronze Age around 4,000 years ago (see page 2).

[Thermodynamics]

Four years ago people laughed when we compared the real estate market to the Dutch tulip bubble.
Please pick another comparison to make your point about who might be a nut.
I do not know what really happened that day but in the last six months we sure have seen a lot of pigs flying.

On 9/12/2001 I saw, on network TV, an architect from the team that built the WTC He was amazed at what had happened. His message was that the towers should not have collapsed. He said that his architectural team spent extra money when the towers were built to ensure that fire could not bring them down. They were not constructed of ordinary steel.

He said they were built of heat-resistant alloy steel.

[HeevenSteven]

Oooohhh, that proves conspiracy!!

How did you arrive at your moniker?

[jmpurser]

Reality Deficit Disorder - People suffering from it make up 90% of the Republican party in this country.

[realpolitic]

You know, I thought Christopher Hitchens was backward with his simpering defense of our invasion of Iraq, but now he is denying global warming science as well? The man is just lost. He is really lost? I wonder what he uses his intellect for other than to deny reality?

[HeevenSteven]

Hitchens isn't denying. Check that paragraph again.

[realpolitic]

What he says is the intellectuals way of denying warming. He says the science is uncertain. It is not. If so, where are the peer-reviewed articles that dispute it? The media coverage of the science gives the impression that the science is uncertain when in reality it is not.

[Geranium]

Between 1970 and 1998, there was a warming of .34 degrees F as verified by the NASA satellite records. Since 1998, there has been no noticeable increase in the global temperature, confirmed even by the UN.

[vagabondstory]

anyone who believes global warming has nothing to do with human activity should be sent to wasilla, alaska on a one-way ticket.
http://www.vagabondstory.com

[furtherleft]

Refusal to let facts get in the way??? Here is a fact: steel buildings do not collapse at free-fall speed, straight down, symmetrically, and into their own footprints, leaving molten steel in the basement for any reason other than controlled demolition. Deal with that in any other way and you are ignoring the facts.

[HeevenSteven]

Oh, boy, who let the dogs out? If you could understand what facts are and how you determine them, you might understand something about failures analysis.

Go to the google and find the report titled "NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf"

I'm sure you can find it; you managed to find this site. You might need an engineering degree first, to understand it, but that shouldn't be any trouble for you.

[furtherleft]

I read the NIST report. Im not an engineer, but I am a scientist at a major American university. I understand research and statistical analysis. That report does NOT explain the collapse, if you think it does, then YOU have not read it. It only reports how the collapse might have been initiated (READ: it spends 10,000 pages attempting to explain the first second and a half, at which point the analysis ends, as it cannot account in any way for the "global collapse"). Further, the model of initiation they mocked up with a computer assumes that impact damage and fire caused the collapse. Starting ones research with the conclusion is always a no-no. Finally, the report ends with a disclaimer, which is also in the stats for anyone who knows how to read them, stating that "of course this has a low probability of being accurate." But don't worry, you can just believe what you're told.

[RichardTreadgold]

One need not be a 'denier', a free-market 'fanatic' or unhinged to be sceptical of dangerous man-made global warming. It is easy to verify that temperatures have gone down recently, and they have not risen for several years.
That fact alone, for me, decides the matter. When people scream at me that the temperature is rising, I glance at the thermometer, examine it with care. When it convinces me the screaming has no foundation, my mind is made up"for cooling. When the thermometer shows a rise, my mind will again be made up, this time for warming.
No argument is required"this is a plain observation. Rather, an explanation is required from those who believe in the non-existent warming, wouldn't you say?
The predictions of global catastrophe are fair enough; they might come true. But they are betrayed by physical events on the earth and because of that you must provide explanations if you want us to continue to believe in that coming catastrophe. That's only fair and reasonable, because we're not all blind and deaf to our physical surroundings and so we notice when your assertions become disconnected from reality.
I could mention recent sea level decrease, polar ice accretion over the last 29 years, reduction in major storm frequency and strength, no change in global precipitation, reduction in antarctic temperatures since the 1950s, and more, but I won't.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group.

[HeevenSteven]

Yeah, it was warm here yesterday, and today it's cold. Case closed.

[RichardTreadgold]

Such flippancy cannot obscure the reality that for several years, not merely—as you try to imply—days, the temperature has not risen and for many months it has been going down. That's not determined by faith, it's an observation from the four main temperature datasets. You cannot refute it without your own global temperature network, no matter how loud your flippancy.
And if temperatures are not going up, as screamed for years by the warming crowd, their theory needs either alteration or explanation. And, naturally, they have not justified changes to my way of life or extractions from my bank account. You should alter the AGW theory or provide an explanation of why the temperature is declining while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.
Cheers.

[jmklein]

The key difference is that Global Warming is an empirical event, not a conspiracy. No serious skeptic alleges a conspiracy, in fact, the Gaia worshipers spread their Great Lie in the open, without the slightest sense of shame.

Needless to say there is something all to convenient about global warming, a global environmental crises that just happens to be caused by industrial civilization, and guess what, the solution just happens to be massive environmental regulation and the end of free market capitalism.

To me that seams like a very convenient truth, only inconvenient to its opponents.

[graphicdav]

I agree that industrial civilization has caused the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I am skeptical that this increase is significant at all in terms of climate change. As a matter of fact you can double, triple, quadruple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and it will still be a tiny portion.

As I mentioned before, CO2 concentrations were high millions of years ago. At a time when life existed we've had 3,000 to 6,000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and yet life continued and flourished. Global temps were never out of control like they are on Venus.

So the "solution" you mention, which puts massive environmental regulation in place and damages free market capitalism isn't going to affect climate change. The climate is going to change despite what people do. It certainly isn't going to stay the same, it never has.

[HeevenSteven]

NYC under water would really be a blow to the market, eh? Now does it get a little warmer, or really really warm, enough to melt the icecaps in 100 years or two. What does that do to capitalism if sea levels rise by feet per decade? Maybe only one foot per decade? It's still devastating, far worse than the solutions. If the ice caps go all together, we're talking 250 feet.

The problem is tipping points. There are really nasty positive feed backs we could potentially trip. You start melting the tundra permafrost and decaying 10,000 years of built up vegetation, releasing methane in massive quantities, and you get really really warm. We don't have another planet to run experiments on to be sure. It's wise not to poke a nasty beast with a stick.

[graphicdav]

The financial crisis caused by the sub prime mortgage situation is not even the same thing.

I have read the science and I have questions. I understand that there is a greenhouse effect to the atmosphere. That's why we don't freeze at night. I also understand that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect and it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 (95% +)

Before there was any life on Earth the CO2 levels were very high. Then plants came along. Sucking up all that CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing the levels of O2. If there was an Al Gore tree back then he would be lamenting the increase in oxygen as the environmental crisis.

Then animals that breath oxygen came along. Oh boy! lucky for those plants.

The fact is that carbon levels on Earth have remained constant. See the Carbon Cycle. People don't create CO2, they just release it burning Coal (former trees) and oil (former dinosaurs).

The levels of CO2 were very high in those early years of life on this planet and it didn't cause runaway temps.

So, I'm open minded. Please explain it to me. But your argument better be pretty good before I give up my car.

[HeevenSteven]

It's not that the planet won't survive. The problem is that we have over 6 billion people on it, and we're headed to 9 billion. We have our agriculture that feeds these people optimized for the climate we have now. We have nut trees, fruit trees, etc etc that take years to grow in climates that suit them. We have huge megalopolis cities along the coasts.

Change the climate rapidly, and get massive die offs of plants and animals that will take thousands of years to rebound and evolution to work it's way for species to adapt. Coastal areas and low lying land will flood from melting ice caps. What will that cost? The cost of prevention is nothing in comparison. Suffer now or REALLY suffer later.

The planet will survive , life will go on in some form; but civilization as WE know it will take a huge shock. We could have a massive human die off as well. There's no way of knowing for certain how bad things will get. There's no way to predict exactly what the climate will be. But that's no comfort.

The more we learn about past climate changes, the scarier and more uncertain things look. You see climate doesn't just get a little warmer or a little colder when you poke it with a stick, it reaches tipping points and flips from one state to another, and it can happen rapidly. Read "With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce.