# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/281 "2014-01-14T05:51:04Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > And my complaint is that it’s too generic for most people to get on board with. No, going to Google is the generic solution, incidentally items like the Marcott research are discussed with new articles outside the myths in the main page: > **[Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined](https://skepticalscience.com/)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... Indeed, there is many times a fast response to many recent misrepresentations of science contrarians apply to research like the one from Marcott. > **[Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'](https://skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html)** > > A new global temperature reconstruction over the past 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013) has been described as 'the new hockey stick,' and adopted into 'the wheelchair' by Jos Hagelaars by including temperatures further in the past and projected... > [@Farin](#): > > Please elaborate on this. This is coming from experience with several contrarians in the past in the SDMB itself, and many contrarian sources also have a dislike of Skeptical Science. Before getting into this my forte was dealing with moon hoaxers and creationists, just as they hated NASA and [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) I have encountered the same flawed arguments from climate change contrarians against using a resource like Skeptical Science. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/282 "2014-01-14T06:31:56Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The nice thing about waste-free reactors is that they’re waste free, which is a good thing. I just read up on thorium reactors, looks very promising. I’ve changed my position on nuclear power in general, I think we just rushed into too fast and got in over our heads. The clean-up won’t be as bad as some in the past speculated, but there’s a few hot-spots that are … well … really bad. I don’t know very much about the Physics, but it seems to me something can be done with the waste, like burn it again … it is radioactive after all. With today’s technology, I feel we can exploit nuclear power as much as we can. > > But in the wedginess world, we should look to this as one of the “after we implement the first set” group. I think we all agree this is NOT something to be rushed into … again. I’ve also changed my position on nuclear over the years - right now I believe that we have to go massively nuclear, and can only hope that personal transport keeps up by developing viable all electric vehicles (or some form of hydrogen fuel). I also believe that at some point there is going to be a reversal of the current trends of more / better / faster / bigger in relation to consumerism and things are going to get simpler… ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/283 "2014-01-14T06:33:00Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > And my complaint is that it’s too generic for most people to get on board with. > > As I said, let’s go with the 11,000 years study that Marcott did. If you heard from a friend that it proved we are at the same temperature as 5,000 years ago - you can go look at a graph. Hey, there was a plateau for a good chunk of time about 5,000 years ago that was at the same temperature we have, today. Oh, and hey, everyone’s arguing about the plateau of the last 15 years. CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE! > > If you go to Skeptical Science and look at their “Arguments” page and look for historical context. You have a reference for the MWP at # 27. “It’s a 1500 year cycle” for # 32. “We’re coming out of the little ice age” at # 46. “It’s a natural cycle” at #56. “Solar Cycles cause Global Warming” at # 112. “It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940” at #144. That’s all of the “historical” entries on their 174 argument list. > > Which one of those as someone looking to confirm or deny their newly found information? That’s right, they’ll go to Google, where they will get the first hit that “speaks” to them and be on their way. > > If you want to reach the masses and convince them otherwise, you need to give them the right information in 5 minutes or less without sounding “out of bounds.” That means you can’t talk down to them, make them feel stupid, or act like deniers or activists are the right side. Marketing, hopefully without having to show scantily clad women at a beach. If I understand your intentions, I certainly applaud them, but I must disagree that such an exercise would have the desired outcome. For one thing, such sites exist, Skeptical Science being a pretty good example. Your arguments seem a bit contradictory, too, in that you simultaneously seem to be calling for a site that gives a person “the right information in 5 minutes or less” yet condemning Skeptical Science for being “too generic”. I think it actually takes a pretty good approach in formulating much of the information in the form of issues that are frequently raised, and then providing different levels of response based on the individual’s technical background. There are also other sites – RealClimate is a good one, with contributions by notable scientists like Gavin Schmidt and a more involved level of scientific discussion. There are reports from independent bodies like the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciencies, and of course the IPCC itself; although its full reports are indeed dauntingly large, they also provide summaries – WG1 has both a short Summary for Policymakers and a longer Technical Summary to supplement the main body of the report. And beyond that, much of the scientific literature is available online, despite some of the journals themselves being paywalled. The information is available at every level, categorized and sorted nine ways to Sunday. So why isn’t any of this converting the denialists? You’ve already hinted at the reason. Because for every such legitimate source of real information, Google reveals hundreds of shrieking denialist sites shouting them down, generally filled with the most egregious garbage that varies from misleading truisms to outright lies. And the reason for this ultimately has its roots in what I talked about in my first post #62 here: that the campaign to undermine climate science is the most relentless and well-funded disinformation campaign that has ever been waged by private enterprise, one far more powerful and widespread than was ever dreamed of by the tobacco industry, with hundreds of millions in untraceable funds through “donor-directed charities” and other means going to support countless front groups all over the world. And the ordinary person seems to be totally bereft of any ability to tell the difference between real science and junk, between a site dedicated to providing information and one run by industry shills dedicated to peddling an agenda. A lazy and sensationalist press contributes to the notion of equivalency by casting the science vs. lunacy arguments in terms of legitimate debate. And the problem is further promulgated by a great many individuals who for personal or business reasons need no encouragement at all to condemn the science; they’re happy to do it entirely on their own initiative. As Upton Sinclair famously said, it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it. And this is exactly what we’re seeing. In January 2011 John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, invited climate scientists to give presentations and answer questions before a skeptical Congress, uninformed about and largely leery of climate science. The opportunity to hear from the experts and get their questions answered seemed to only inflame their skepticism and increased their resolve to oppose emissions regulations. Republicans used to be the party of science. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863; William McKinley won two presidential elections, in 1896 and 1900, over the anti-evolution Democrat William Jennings Bryan, and he supported the creation of the forerunner to today’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. Not any more. Every single Republican candidate for president in the last election had to be a denialist to have any hope of securing the nomination. Ninety-six of 100 newly elected Republican members of Congress either deny climate change is real or have signed pledges vowing to oppose its mitigation. And for that you can thank the great denialist spin machine and a vast public misperception. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/284 "2014-01-14T09:56:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I would think that my statement that the graph was cherry-picked from Chapter 9 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 would make it fairly obvious that it does. I’ve dealt with the rest of your questions together in the second part of my response. No you haven’t. Why are you evading my extremely simple yes or no questions? 1. And do you agree that the blue band represents the IPCC’s models of global surface temperature WITHOUT anthropogenic effects? (Extremely simple yes or no question). 2. And do you agree that the red band represents the IPCC’s model’s of global surface temperature WITH anthropogenic effects? (Extremely simple yes or no question). 3. And do you agree that before 1950, the red and blue bands essentially track each other? (Extremely simple yes or no question). Also, do you dispute the following claim about the graph? > [@](#): > > As the blue band indicates, without human influences, temperature over the past century would actually have first warmed and then cooled slightly over recent decades Please answer this question so that I can understand your position. > [@](#): > > No, that **is** the point that is being illustrated, as per the explicit statements made by the researchers actually running the models, Let’s assume that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that the models of pre-1950 temperatures both with and without anthropogenic affects essentially co-incide. Do you agree that a graph which illustrates Point A might contain additional implications? > [@](#): > > which seems to rather run counter to your wishful and incorrect interpretation that it didn’t. Please show me where I interpreted or asserted that it didn’t. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I said no such thing and apologize. > [@](#): > > One is to create a straw man that implicitly says that the effects of increasing CO2 must be visible as a perfect straight-line consistency from year to year, and then to demolish that straw man when this is turns out not to be the case and demanding that AGW theory must be discarded! Please show me where I created such a strawman. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit I did no such thing and apologize. > [@](#): > > The reality – as clearly concluded in that very IPCC chapter in which your pet diagram appears – is that the dominant influence of anthropogenic warming in the 20th century is scientifically well established. I’m not sure what your point is here. I was talking about pre-1950 surface temperatures – not the 20th century as a whole. Do you understand that? And do you dispute that before 1950, the models which include anthropogenic effects and those which omit them essentially coincide? Please answer this simple question so that I can understand your position. > [@](#): > > The other denialist tactic practiced for fun and profit is to inflate any kind of scientific uncertainty over a specific detail into a grossly exaggerated false claim about lack of certainty in a more general case. Please show me where I have done this. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I have done no such thing and apologize. Your choice. > [@](#): > > It’s truly astonishing that anyone could think that the IPCC statement I quoted about lack of enough detailed observations in the first half of the 20th century for anthropogenic attribution to be conclusive is somehow proof of the opposite – that anthropogenic causes were NOT a factor, nope, no way, case closed! 😃 Please show me where I have made such a claim. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I have done no such thing and apologize. Your choice. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/285 "2014-01-14T12:15:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, going to Google is the generic solution, incidentally items like the Marcott research are discussed with new articles outside the myths in the main page: > > [http://www.skepticalscience.com/](http://www.skepticalscience.com/) > > Indeed, there is many times a fast response to many recent misrepresentations of science contrarians apply to research like the one from Marcott. > > [Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'](http://skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html) I missed that main page one because it was 3/4ths the way down the mainpage, a long, long scroll. And finding your second link using the search is not obvious. Additionally, that article tells “contrarians” what they _should_ like. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is coming from experience with several contrarians in the past in the SDMB itself, and many contrarian sources also have a dislike of Skeptical Science. Before getting into this my forte was dealing with moon hoaxers and creationists, just as they hated NASA and [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) I have encountered the same flawed arguments from climate change contrarians against using a resource like Skeptical Science. And this is where I’ll always have a deep divide with you, Mr Buster. You always seem to look for any reason to claim that you are facing a true disbeliever. I would warn you that evangelism isn’t working out too hot for Christianity and it won’t work out for climate science. 😉 [quote=“wolfpup, post:283, topic:677984”] If I understand your intentions, I certainly applaud them, but I must disagree that such an exercise would have the desired outcome. For one thing, such sites exist, Skeptical Science being a pretty good example. Your arguments seem a bit contradictory, too, in that you simultaneously seem to be calling for a site that gives a person “the right information in 5 minutes or less” yet condemning Skeptical Science for being “too generic”. I think it actually takes a pretty good approach in formulating much of the information in the form of issues that are frequently raised, and then providing different levels of response based on the individual’s technical background. There are also other sites – RealClimate is a good one, with contributions by notable scientists like Gavin Schmidt and a more involved level of scientific discussion. There are reports from independent bodies like the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciencies, and of course the IPCC itself; although its full reports are indeed dauntingly large, they also provide summaries – WG1 has both a short Summary for Policymakers and a longer Technical Summary to supplement the main body of the report. And beyond that, much of the scientific literature is available online, despite some of the journals themselves being paywalled. The information is available at every level, categorized and sorted nine ways to Sunday. [/quote[ I have referred people to both. When all I get back is “that’s just believer kool aide” I start to assess the value of sites like these for actually informing people. If you take a view at how they are informing versus what their content is, you can start to see how it can be laid out better. > [@wolfpup](#): > > So why isn’t any of this converting the denialists? You’ve already hinted at the reason. Because for every such legitimate source of real information, Google reveals hundreds of shrieking denialist sites shouting them down, generally filled with the most egregious garbage that varies from misleading truisms to outright lies. And the reason for this ultimately has its roots in what I talked about in my first post #62 here: that the campaign to undermine climate science is the most relentless and well-funded disinformation campaign that has ever been waged by private enterprise, one far more powerful and widespread than was ever dreamed of by the tobacco industry, with hundreds of millions in untraceable funds through “donor-directed charities” and other means going to support countless front groups all over the world. And the ordinary person seems to be totally bereft of any ability to tell the difference between real science and junk, between a site dedicated to providing information and one run by industry shills dedicated to peddling an agenda. A lazy and sensationalist press contributes to the notion of equivalency by casting the science vs. lunacy arguments in terms of legitimate debate. So we should just sit out, then? All other efforts have failed. Let’s just buy some waterfront property in Arizona? No. You have to make your message accessible and creating sites that quickly devolve into a cult on either side that adds to the cacophony is just detrimental to crossing those lines. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And the problem is further promulgated by a great many individuals who for personal or business reasons need no encouragement at all to condemn the science; they’re happy to do it entirely on their own initiative. As Upton Sinclair famously said, it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it. Which is why we need to avoid those individuals and go for the average person. > [@wolfpup](#): > > And this is exactly what we’re seeing. In January 2011 John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, invited climate scientists to give presentations and answer questions before a skeptical Congress, uninformed about and largely leery of climate science. The opportunity to hear from the experts and get their questions answered seemed to only inflame their skepticism and increased their resolve to oppose emissions regulations. Republicans used to be the party of science. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863; William McKinley won two presidential elections, in 1896 and 1900, over the anti-evolution Democrat William Jennings Bryan, and he supported the creation of the forerunner to today’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. Not any more. Every single Republican candidate for president in the last election had to be a denialist to have any hope of securing the nomination. Ninety-six of 100 newly elected Republican members of Congress either deny climate change is real or have signed pledges vowing to oppose its mitigation. And for that you can thank the great denialist spin machine and a vast public misperception. The politicians will change if the public that elects them change. If you go from “Anti Green” to “Green” you don’t have a political job anymore. We should target the strength of their numbers and ignore that their followers (politicians) don’t listen. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/286 "2014-01-14T12:29:35Z")
If you don’t know what causes natural global warming, why should we believe you know what causes man-made global warming? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/287 "2014-01-14T13:24:44Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > If you don’t know what causes natural global warming, why should we believe you know what causes man-made global warming? That’s a fallacious argument. While it is true that there are large components of the climate system that we do not understand, it is also true that the temperature has been going up. Now, maybe (just maybe) we will find ourselves in a similar situation that was 5,000 years ago: We will plateau and the temperatures will drop back into Little Ice Age 2: Ice Age Harder. But that plateau’s rise was over almost 200 years and not 50. The subsequent cooling will take almost 2,000 years, following that curve. That gives rise to four scenarios: A) We all gon’ die from heat stroke B) We all sweat our balls off, but stay alive. C) Our little ice age 2 becomes “Standard Age: We Killed the Ice” D) We freeze our balls off, but there’s nothing we can do to stop it. There’s a 3/4ths chance life sucks ass and 1/4 chance everything is hunky dory. 1/2 of the chance we can manipulate by reducing output and actively sequestering carbon. Even in the worst case scenario of acting on this, we cleaned up a potential pollutant. As long as we don’t try to modulate behavior via centralized bureaucracy it won’t kill us to clean up after ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/288 "2014-01-14T13:53:12Z")
reading ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/289 "2014-01-14T14:19:36Z")
Holy fuck there are a lot of words up there. Is any of it still about the OP questions? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/290 "2014-01-14T14:27:45Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > That’s a fallacious argument. While it is true that there are large components of the climate system that we do not understand, it is also true that the temperature has been going up. Your answer to my question is that the question is flawed? I didn’t ask what causes natural global warming, I asked why I should believe you. > [@Farin](#): > > A) We all gon’ die from heat stroke > B) We all sweat our balls off, but stay alive. > C) Our little ice age 2 becomes “Standard Age: We Killed the Ice” > D) We freeze our balls off, but there’s nothing we can do to stop it. I have not made nor have I endorsed any of these claims. What makes me a denier is that I claim global warming is a good thing. > [@Farin](#): > > I’m against neighborhood-level deployment, but not against larger reactors near larger populated areas. I believe my exact words when I brought this up, before, was “coo coo for cocoa puffs”. > > 1. It’s dangerous, yes, because some idiot would slide their newfangaled electricimal SUV into the reactor and cause a leak. There could be mitigations to this, such as super-thick shielding or underground installation. But those offer their own advantages/disavantages (e.g. way expensive transport/manufacture or possible undetected ground water contamination - mainly the water mains) > 2. Thorium reactors can’t be made into bombs, fortunately. Even if they were based on something like the Thorium MOX (which is for use in existing reactor cores and not the lower-power generators that would be deployed at a neighborhood-level), there isn’t enough plutonium together inside the rod to create fissionable material without melting the rod down, which is, thankfully, a hefty process to go after. > 3. Waste products would have to be effectively handled, and I can’t trust places like Texas who can’t handle manure storage without letting the facility go critical. I’d be fairly unhappy about some delivery truck knocking over a reactor during the refueling and melding some unlucky (or lucky?) Texan’s hands to their shotguns. I lied, I’m **for** it. 1] If every neighborhood had their own energy source, then the entire energy sector of the economy becomes decentralized. Local control would remove the burden of margins and administrative costs. [Raises eyebrows] It would break the back of Big Oil, which alone would cure 75% of the world’s pollution problems. 2] Keeping a nuclear bomb in every neighbor is a proper and just extension of our 2nd Amendment rights. Why shouldn’t the People be more heavily armed than the Government? We’re certainly more responsible with our weapons than they are. 3] Un-metered electricity, remember that promise? My rebuttal: 1. I’m thinking of slamming a semi truck into the containment structure. Sure, we’d have to hope the reactor vessel doesn’t meltdown before we could fix the 3’ wall of concrete. But the odds are same as slamming a semi into some poor bloke’s home. Yes, there would have to be fail-safes built in. If the neighborhood decides to neglect maintenance, they and they alone will suffer. 2. Conceded, just can’t say anything with a straight face … 3. I wouldn’t bury it in Texas … not if Nevada is asking for it. Dump it in the ocean, it’ll clean itself. Serious, drop the waste into a subduction fault and it’ll be sucked down inside the Earth long before it stops being radioactive. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/291 "2014-01-14T14:35:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Holy fuck there are a lot of words up there. Is any of it still about the OP questions? Hopefully, we’ve moved into a discussion on mitigation. The scientific minutiae is still available I suppose. Did you really read all that … wow … I’m impressed. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/292 "2014-01-14T14:59:35Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I missed that main page one because it was 3/4ths the way down the mainpage, a long, long scroll. And finding your second link using the search is not obvious. > > Additionally, that article tells “contrarians” what they _should_ like. > > And this is where I’ll always have a deep divide with you, Mr Buster. You always seem to look for any reason to claim that you are facing a true disbeliever. I would warn you that evangelism isn’t working out too hot for Christianity and it won’t work out for climate science. 😉 No, I do not think you are a disbeliever, only that do you remember about your advise of not listening to envirowakos? There is \*\*also \*\*a problem and it feeds deniers when there is a lot of information missing when looking at the other side, and it has to be blamed on the mainstraim media and the denier one. Just like in discussions of creationism, one side has driven the discussion to make the ones more grounded in reality to sound like extremists when in reality they are not. Thing is, based on congressional testimony and many debates names like Barry Bickmore, Richard alley and others should be familiar already, also resources like Skeptical Science that are recommended by them (I became aware of Skeptical thanks to Realclimate and Barry Bickmore) and others like Scientific American and [Realclimate.org](http://Realclimate.org) The point here is that contrarians do not want you to be aware of those and they have very good reasons for “spreading the word” to the common folk to not look at places that show the real levels of support the contrarians have in the scientific community, academia and scientific publications. [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/) > [@](#): > > I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers. > > It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/293 "2014-01-14T15:01:28Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Your answer to my question is that the question is flawed? I didn’t ask what causes natural global warming, I asked why I should believe you. You asked why and I gave reasons why the argument isn’t a valid one. Saying ‘We don’t understand this part of climate science’ is reasonable. There are, as I said, large swaths of climate science that we need more research on. Drawing the further conclusion from that statement, e.g. ‘thus why should I believe in man-made climate change’ is a fallacious extension. It would be akin to “We don’t understand gravity, so the sun doesn’t actually work.” Well, it’s true. We don’t understand gravity. But we know that the math and observable effects are close enough to reality to allow us to operate on it at a 90% level. And we doubt that we will make a discovery that somehow contradicts the effects of gravity as we observe it. The remaining discoveries will simply clarify the view of gravity that we have. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I have not made nor have I endorsed any of these claims. What makes me a denier is that I claim global warming is a good thing. I never attributed any of this to you. I said these were the scenarios that come forth from historical comparison versus our modern interpretation of the climate science. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I lied, I’m **for** it. Good…for…you? > [@watchwolf49](#): > > 1] If every neighborhood had their own energy source, then the entire energy sector of the economy becomes decentralized. Local control would remove the burden of margins and administrative costs. [Raises eyebrows] It would break the back of Big Oil, which alone would cure 75% of the world’s pollution problems. And it would introduce dangers of exposure, as I elaborated earlier. Additionally, having a few 250mW reactors outside of large population centers would allow for an accident to not damage and/or irradiate 200 people and their belongings. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > 2] Keeping a nuclear bomb in every neighbor is a proper and just extension of our 2nd Amendment rights. Why shouldn’t the People be more heavily armed than the Government? We’re certainly more responsible with our weapons than they are. Except Thorium reactors aren’t nuclear bombs. They can’t “explode.” At worse, you will irradiate persons, animals, and objects by removing the shielding. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > 3] Un-metered electricity, remember that promise? No. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > My rebuttal: > > 1. I’m thinking of slamming a semi truck into the containment structure. Sure, we’d have to hope the reactor vessel doesn’t meltdown before we could fix the 3’ wall of concrete. But the odds are same as slamming a semi into some poor bloke’s home. Yes, there would have to be fail-safes built in. If the neighborhood decides to neglect maintenance, they and they alone will suffer. > > 2. Conceded, just can’t say anything with a straight face … > > 3. I wouldn’t bury it in Texas … not if Nevada is asking for it. Dump it in the ocean, it’ll clean itself. Serious, drop the waste into a subduction fault and it’ll be sucked down inside the Earth long before it stops being radioactive. Are you Sybil? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/294 "2014-01-14T15:03:12Z")
OK things just got weird ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/295 "2014-01-14T15:08:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > If you don’t know what causes natural global warming, why should we believe you know what causes man-made global warming? Again, remind me never to take your advise when you do not know how bacteria that you did not learn about in school does specifically work to cause a peculiar intestinal disease that you also were not aware before. In the end one has to consult experts in the matter, and disregard the contrarians that claim that homeopathy will work wonders. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/296 "2014-01-14T15:21:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, I do not think you are a disbeliever, only that do you remember about your advise of not listening to envirowakos? There is \*\*also \*\*a problem and it feeds deniers when there is a lot of information missing when looking at the other side, and it has to be blamed on the mainstraim media and the denier one. Just like in discussions of creationism, one side has driven the discussion to make the ones more grounded in reality to sound like extremists when in reality they are not. Yes, but the problem is on both sides: Envirowackos give a bad name to the environmentalist movement. This has been going on for years, too. People know that PETA isn’t a humane animal organization, they are closer to the extremist fringe. The deniers can quote their own studies in the media and can seem rational. When you have 48 seconds to make a case on CNN or Fox News, the deniers are absolutely the people prepared for that. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Thing is, based on congressional testimony and many debates names like Barry Bickmore, Richard alley and others should be recognized, also resources like Skeptical Science that are recommended by them and others like Scientific American and [Realclimate.org](http://Realclimate.org) Yes, but if you are not prepared to accept the message, you won’t. Like I said: _Marketing_. Simply having the correct information doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for almost 40 years, now. Why? Because most people are intelligent enough to hear “But there’s this problem with that study” and then go “Oh, guess it’s still not settled” and shut off. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point here is that contrarians do not want you to be aware of those and they have very good reasons for “spreading the word” to the common folk to not look at places that show the real levels of support the contrarians have in the scientific community, academia and scientific publications. The problem is assuming that people will be 100% logical 100% of the time. Research as shown time and again that overcoming existing state-of-mind conceptions is HARD and that anything that will send them running will do so forthwith. That’s why I gave you that rubric, earlier. 5 minutes without language that would deride their existing beliefs, make them feel stupid, and so forth. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/) I’ve been reviewing that the last few days. I have some issues with some of the articles they selected. I’ve found some that don’t even mention climate science, which is distressing. Deniers will be all over these short-comings and we’ll lose any useful message in a sea of fluff. Which is another issue: Some of the stuff climate advocates put out are data dredges that can be run through the ringer, also. Having a neutrally-worded critique of the papers making the news would also be something to help the education process along. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/297 "2014-01-14T15:44:17Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You asked why and I gave reasons why the argument isn’t a valid one. Saying ‘We don’t understand this part of climate science’ is reasonable. There are, as I said, large swaths of climate science that we need more research on. Drawing the further conclusion from that statement, e.g. ‘thus why should I believe in man-made climate change’ is a fallacious extension. > > It would be akin to “We don’t understand gravity, so the sun doesn’t actually work.” Well, it’s true. We don’t understand gravity. But we know that the math and observable effects are close enough to reality to allow us to operate on it at a 90% level. And we doubt that we will make a discovery that somehow contradicts the effects of gravity as we observe it. The remaining discoveries will simply clarify the view of gravity that we have. You’ve misquoted me, I said “why should we believe [climatologists] know what causes man-made global warming”. Ummm … we do understand gravity, there’s a law about it. That law is invariant in the classical universe. Look it up in your dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnick. > [@Farin](#): > > And it would introduce dangers of exposure, as I elaborated earlier. Additionally, having a few 250mW reactors outside of large population centers would allow for an accident to not damage and/or irradiate 200 people and their belongings. > > Except Thorium reactors aren’t nuclear bombs. They can’t “explode.” At worse, you will irradiate persons, animals, and objects by removing the shielding. > > No. 1. [Whine whine] What about my imaginary fail-safe systems ??? – Conceded 2. Previously conceded (let’s not beat dead horses, much) 3. Ah, yes, the catch-phrase used to sell the bonds for building nuclear reactors in the 1950s. Turned out, what was built under the bleacher section at Solder Field, Chicago, wasn’t exact safe. So modification after modification after modification … well it made nuclear power MORE expensive than fossil fuels. It was in this environment that Three Mile Island reactor had a melt-down … bonds defaulted … and no “un-metered electricity”. > [@Farin](#): > > Are you Sybil? Are you attacking me, or my ideas? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/298 "2014-01-14T16:19:22Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Yes, but the problem is on both sides: Envirowackos give a bad name to the environmentalist movement. This has been going on for years, too. People know that PETA isn’t a humane animal organization, they are closer to the extremist fringe. That is nice, but the issue is to also take into account the efforts that those groups are doing to drive the narrative. Also you need to adjust your skeptical levels, even I do not see PETA as normal. > [@Farin](#): > > The deniers can quote their own studies in the media and can seem rational. When you have 48 seconds to make a case on CNN or Fox News, the deniers are absolutely the people prepared for that. That is clear too, but then I also have a lot of experience from media bias discussions, the examples of the mainstream media getting science wrong are legion, and that is another problem, also related to the corporate weight of the fossil fuel industry. > [@Farin](#): > > Yes, but if you are not prepared to accept the message, you won’t. Like I said: _Marketing_. Simply having the correct information doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for almost 40 years, now. Why? Because most people are intelligent enough to hear “But there’s this problem with that study” and then go “Oh, guess it’s still not settled” and shut off. As pointed out it is not only the correct information that is the issue, you are ignoring that the marketing is being artificially tipped to get a simulated controversy. > [@Farin](#): > > The problem is assuming that people will be 100% logical 100% of the time. Research as shown time and again that overcoming existing state-of-mind conceptions is HARD and that anything that will send them running will do so forthwith. That’s why I gave you that rubric, earlier. 5 minutes without language that would deride their existing beliefs, make them feel stupid, and so forth. Well, that is missing a lot of context, while what you say is true, that also assumes that we need to convince most of the population, this was already done. [http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/08/climate-change-deniers-are-almost-extinct/](http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/08/climate-change-deniers-are-almost-extinct/) > [@](#): > > Most North Americans know that human-caused global warming is real, even if political leaders don’t always reflect or act on that knowledge. According to a recent poll, only two per cent of Canadians reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming at alarming rates — a figure that may seem surprising given the volume of nonsense deniers (many of them funded by the fossil fuel industry) spread through letters to the editor, blogs, radio call-ins, and website comments. > > Polling indicates more deniers live in the U.S., but they still make up just 15 per cent of that population. Make no mistake about it, most of the condescension is directed towards the ones that are still misleading and propping out politicians (and the politicians) that are doing efforts that are clearly going against the opinion of most of the people they represent. > [@Farin](#): > > I’ve been reviewing that the last few days. I have some issues with some of the articles they selected. I’ve found some that don’t even mention climate science, which is distressing. Deniers will be all over these short-comings and we’ll lose any useful message in a sea of fluff. Remember, I said that there is a lot of “mainstream” points that in reality are percolated denier points, this one is also, climate science depends of a lot of lines of evidence, not all published science will talk about the main issue just as biology papers that support evolution. But if a paper does not mention evolution specifically it does not lead one to look at the paper with distress. (Well, only the creationists get distressed, sounds familiar?) > [@Farin](#): > > Which is another issue: Some of the stuff climate advocates put out are data dredges that can be run through the ringer, also. Having a neutrally-worded critique of the papers making the news would also be something to help the education process along. As pointed before the education of the people is even better than what is happening with creationism, the point here is that this level of education and progress the posts are made by me not much to convince the minority that only has one political party as their repository, but to inform the ones that are in the shrinking fence and to educate and to mention that the discussion at the political level is there thanks to artificial means. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/299 "2014-01-14T16:38:58Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > You’ve misquoted me, I said “why should we believe [climatologists] know what causes man-made global warming”. Ummm … we do understand gravity, there’s a law about it. That law is invariant in the classical universe. Look it up in your dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnick. The laws of physics can not be dismissed. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OJ6Z04VJDco/hqdefault.jpg "27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) > [@](#): > > “Skeptics” have all kinds of positions on climate science, depending on their personal beliefs and feelings. This video addresses those critics who claim there is no evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature. Whether you want to call such changes “catastrophic” or benign, or terrible, or bad, or good is your feeling, and therefore outside the scope of the science. > > “Correlation does not mean causation.” > > Answer: It is still coinsistent with the theory. And where a mechanism has been shown that should produce a correlation, then the correlation is yet more confirmation that a theory is correct. > > “Here’s a piece of evidence – there’s no hot spot” > > Apart from the fact that this ‘no hot spot’ idea is another piece of Internet mythology, the idea of the ‘hot spot’ is based on a computer model. If you think computer models are all wrong, then the lack of a hot spot must be wrong. > > And critics – please try to address the evidence shown in this video, rather than repeat myths that have been dealt with in my previous videos. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/300 "2014-01-14T16:51:24Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > You’ve misquoted me, I said “why should we believe [climatologists] know what causes man-made global warming”. Ummm … we do understand gravity, there’s a law about it. That law is invariant in the classical universe. Look it up in your dog-eared copy of Halliday/Resnick. The problem with gravity is as it applies to quantum mechanics. As I said, we have math that can replicate what we see, but it breaks down once you go too small or too fast. And you’re right. I did misconstrue what you meant. My apologies. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > 1. [Whine whine] What about my imaginary fail-safe systems ??? – Conceded > > 2. Previously conceded (let’s not beat dead horses, much) > > 3. Ah, yes, the catch-phrase used to sell the bonds for building nuclear reactors in the 1950s. Turned out, what was built under the bleacher section at Solder Field, Chicago, wasn’t exact safe. So modification after modification after modification … well it made nuclear power MORE expensive than fossil fuels. It was in this environment that Three Mile Island reactor had a melt-down … bonds defaulted … and no “un-metered electricity”. > > Are you attacking me, or my ideas? You gave two points and it wasn’t clear what was actually your “Argument”. I was opening up the possibility that more than one “you” was weighing in. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=16)