Global Warming - How To Deal With Climate Change Deniers

by Robert Wilkinson

While I usually counsel friends and clients to put a lot of distance between themselves and disputatious people, I also believe that when appropriate we should stand up for what we know is good, true, and beautiful. Humanity is confronting a serious issue unlike any it's ever known before - a climate that's changing globally at a pace that will affect all the Earth's creature for thousands of years. There are those who argue this is not happening. What do we say in the face of such willful ignorance?

This is not a doom and gloom article about the major geological changes already happening on Earth. We can and will adapt to our changing climate, and do what we must to ensure the continuation of life on Earth, just as we've done in other times when our Earth did its changes. However, as we move toward a changing world, here and there we encounter those who will not admit that any climate change is happening due to human technology and behavior.

Once upon a time I was a political blogger. In those ancient days those of us concerned about global warming and how it could play out for Earth and its creatures gave ourselves a name: "the reality-based community." We understood that climate change is real and something we should all be concerned about, since that view is in fact based in "hard science." And yet we heard over and over that climate change is not real, that it's all an opinion of a few scientists who are lying/making money/have an agenda, and were offered many "arguments" supposedly refuting the science around climate change.

Now I'm not one to put all my faith in everything the scientists say, since in some areas they do tend toward self-serving goals. Think pharmaceuticals, alternative therapy deniers, as well as any area modern medicine has chosen not to honestly investigate. And of course, there are scientists whose testimony can be bought.

Climate change science, as it measures countless variables in how the Earth and its waters and atmosphere are changing, is one area of science where I'm inclined to accept the data. Not many scientists go into climate science for personal gain. Plus it's harder to get away with speculation not backed by some form of observed and measured data.

One argument against scientific conclusions about climate change is that climate scientists occasionally "cherry-pick" data. This is not a refutation, since everyone with something to prove does this, whether scientific, philosophical, or even mere gamblers. And it's harder to get away with cherry picking data in this field than in many other areas.

That's because there are so many overlapping fields within the greater field of study, and so there are many vectors of approaching various elements involved in climate change that have been studied. If someone comes up with a set of data that refutes other data, or shows an anomaly requiring a change of a scientific assumption, it's likely to get a hearing at some point. Then the theories are revised or not, depending on the strength of the proof. And sometimes the data overwhelmingly points to certain probable conclusions.

So today I'll give you an interesting site I found called Skeptical Science where the subheader reads "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism." It has a lot of hard data refuting almost any argument a climate change denier could offer up, and even breaks some of the arguments down into basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of science.

Among the areas addressed are the Sun's effect in causing global warming, whether this climate change is a normal part of a long cycle, is the Earth really cooling, why super storms are really getting stronger, whether the Arctic and/or Antarctic ice shelves are melting or not, the CO2 factor, Al Gore, whether there's consensus or not among scientists and whether a few actually tried to "hide something," cosmic rays, volcanoes, humidity, the Amazon rain forests, rising sea levels, what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, and the Greenhouse effect, as well as other arguments.

It'll be worth a look, if only to familiarize yourselves with what has actually been measured, and what the official scientific line is on the vast subject of climate change, global warming and all the related areas within these. And of course, in the immortal words of an American Bard, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...."

Copyright © 2011 Robert Wilkinson

Comments

[Micheline]

i can totally relate to this....lately i have been trying to suss out what is the right science and what is not.... for instance i have friends who truly believe that H.A.A.R.P is behind the great Tohoku Earthquake but that does not explain all the other aftershocks now does it?
anyway just to let you know the radio show i was going to be doing this weekend got postponed to next weekend cause i was asked to play at a charity event and that will be live stream if anyone wants to see it....i should start a blog really but i need to spend money on making my music right now and life in general
but if you would like to me to post the event up so that people can see the event, there will be some great poetry happening as well ectera and a ton of great musicians here in Tokyo

it is life from a different perspective
peace to you Robert for being very supportive and to all the readers here at aquarius papers
we are going to get through these times because we are united in our love
this planet is so beautiful to me
and i am dedicated to becoming a better human being because I believe in the love
and i believe in us

[daz hastings]

I really do heartily endorse Tim Morton's blog: http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/he has a very new and pertinent way of addressing and thinking about global warming-- that isn't based on fact but is based in philosophy and literature. Robert, you will love it, trust me. And I'm sure all your readers will grock Morton's thesis that global warming is a "hyperobject".

[Sandi]

Thanks for this. Just yesterday a friend sent me a long article -"THE SCIENCE OF WHY WE DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE: How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link

By: Chris Mooney-"
that explains pretty well how our brains are wired to reject almost automatically, things that run counter to our established beliefs, and what it takes to override that bias. It's a long piece, but worth googling and reading.

[Elah]

I absolutely appreciate your blog, Robert. Not only do you present relevant astological subjects in a concise and thoughtful way, but your readers contribute meaningful thoughts and links to further our knowledge and understanding of these rapidly changing times in which we all live.

Much Love and Light to You and all who contribute.
We are One.

[Charles]

I recently asked this question at a seminar on global warming, "when NGOs are actively trying to undermine the science behind global warming, how will we ever come to a political consensus?" I had just translated a paper from the Japanese energy NGO that they attempted to use as an excuse to pull out of the Copenhagen talks. That paper was never intended to be seen outside Japan, and its exposure in the Western world embarrassed the Japanese government sufficiently to force them to attend Copenhagen.
His answer was simple: appeal to social justice. It is unjust for the developed nations to hog all the carbon generating resources like oil and coal, while even the underdeveloped nations do not get a fair share. This totally avoids the global warming issue and substitutes something we can all agree on. But we could easily invoke it, the developed nations get all the benefits while everyone else pays the ecological price equally.

[Gayle Powell]

If Scientists were always right we wouldn't have nuclear sites build on fault line. What intelligent group said that would be ok? Really?

Global warming is another such mess. We must do our own due diligence. Thanks Robert!

[Micheline]

Charles thanks for doing that. They need a bit of a shove over here.

[Preston]

Thank you for this!