great site on "how to talk to climate change deniers"

Inspired by some wacky comments I hear at work, and even here sometimes, I found this great little nugget with tons of info. Enjoy!

Neat site!

Just the title labeling skeptics “deniers” already suggests the bias of the site, and it seems to contain the usual alarmist rhetoric:

*"Objection: The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people…

Answer: But even if mitigating global warming would be harmful, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we try to reduce fossil fuel use."*

So the standard for AGW alarmists is that something “may well” happen" and “is on the table” (i.e. might happen in a worst-case scenario) and the standard for the denier is to “conclusively demonstrate” their worst-case scenarios.

I’m curious if there’s a site where the same set of questions are addressed on each side by both an educated* alarmist and an educated denier.

I’d find that a bit more useful. Otherwise this is mostly a helpful site to present the AGW side and reassure alarmists they are on the right track.

*i.e. someone educated in the best arguments supporting their position.

I believe in Anthropogenic Global Irony Overload.

It is the usual crank literature…interspersed with vague warnings of global catastrophe.
I would challenge it by asking a simple question: what was so bad about the “Medieval warming period” (ca. 1000 AD-1300 AD)?
Greenland was habitable, wine grapes were grown in England, and the Alpine glaciers retreat opened up Switzerland to dairy farming. Scandinavia had good apple crops, and the population of Europe increased.
Of course, the global warming lunatics don’t like that, so go figure…:smiley:


Very cool link, thank you for posting.


It was those “warming lunatics” of the IPCC that came with the idea of the medieval warm period in one of the first IPCC reports** in the first place.
The deniers then made the point, without checking much, that that discredited AGW because the medieval warming appeared as warmer than the last part of the 20th century.

That was the first silly thing from the climate truther sources. Scientists are not depending on temperature proxy recreations to declare that the current warming is not natural.

The second most incredible silly thing was that item called “science marches on”
It was noticed that the early reconstructions depended mostly on tree rings and information from northern Europe, clearly to get a global perspective of what the probable climate of the past required more samples and better proxies.

So scientists got more proxy temperature samples like bore holes, coral, etc. Then the IPCC reported the most up to date results. Medieval warming was found to be a mostly localized phenomenon as globally that period was not as dramatically higher than today.

So, you would think then that skeptics would accept the new results that superseded the early graphs that in the past showed that pronounced medieval period but now they do not. Well, skeptics mostly did, it was deniers that screamed foul to this day and by denying the most up to day evidence gathered by the IPCC, deniers are actually doing so by **continuing to use the early IPCC gathered evidence **and declaring it the best we have. :rolleyes:

Because they do not even seem to realize how foolish that position is, I do not respect any denier that ignores how illogical that point is.

Are we really at the point where we think mindlessly repeating unsourced talking points to intimidate the monkeys on the other side of the river?

No, even skeptics realize AGW will have a serious impact. It is deniers who still attempt to ignore what science is telling us.

I take it then, that anyone who does not agree a serious impact is a certainty is a “denier” and one should only use the term “skeptic” if the “skeptic” agrees that a serious impact from anthropogenic warming is a certainty…

What, then, are “skeptics” skeptical of, exactly?

Based on one of the few remaining skeptical scientists that was featured in the latest efforts of the Heritage Foundation, they are skeptical of the levels and intensity of the problem, but acknowledge that Humans are a part of it, and that global warming is happening, they can not ignore thermometers. :slight_smile: And among other things, they recommend that one should drop silliness like “it has not warmed since 1995 (1998)”.

That is the good part, the bad is that skeptical researchers are continuing to twist like a pretzel to sound good to be used by denialist think tanks, IMHO even them are beginning to have trouble looking themselves on the mirror, so besides continuing to defend uncertainty and doubt, they can not help but explain to deniers how out of base they are.

A better site for rebuttals to skeptics arguments is here:

I’m a lukewarmer myself, so I don’t really buy the strong warming arguments, but this web site has some very good fact based discussions.

Because, really, before those nefarious alarmist chicken little treehuggers’ website in the OP, the climate change debate never had any talking points parroted from dubious unnamed sources!

The “Medieval” warming period has been known for at least 75 years. Historians recorded it even earlier-the 18th century astronomer Edmund Halley mentioned it.
Face it-climate is cyclical.

Dude! it was warm! All those silly English Kaniggits in their metal armor, in warm or hot weather? And no air conditioning? Poor bastids probably were roasting :smiley:

I seriously doubt you can use logic to argue a person out of a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. My solution to “how to talk to climate change deniers” is just to not.

Read it again, nowhere did I say that it did not take place. The fact was that it was shown later to be a localized phenomenon, and the point is that we already know that there was was a warm period, but not as dramatic as what we see today.

And the fact was that when it was pointed out that there was a Medieval warming period deniers, even on the SDMB, came posting the first IPCC graphs to show us how “ignorant we were”

Well just using a little logic showed me how full of it they were to misrepresent what by then was the current state of affairs, others had also come with independent reconstructions to show that the medieval warm period was not what the deniers wanted it to be.

So, do you have evidence that the current warming is naturally based? Or you just will continue to repeat misleading information?

I didn’t see anything that would cover two objections I’ve raised in climate debates:

  1. Drastic carbon reduction is politically impossible. It would be the most spectacular self-abnegation in history for governments and societies to deliberately limit their economies. Any renegade nation that cheated on carbon conservation would be rewarded with wealth and power for doing so, and would gain the ability to snub world censure.

  2. Carbon emissions should be reduced by developing new technologies that are inherently cleaner- not by limiting consumption.

And what technologies do you have in mind, that can substitute for burning fossil fuels without disruption to industries or economies?