# How will history see the climate change denialists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259 "2018-10-20T20:02:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/81 "2018-10-23T21:13:49Z")
And after billions of dollars and decades of work we still don’t have a central repository for nuclear waste. Yah Team!! I’m sure all that nuclear waste will be fine in situ for the next few thousand years… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2018, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/82 "2018-10-23T22:08:13Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > But climate change denial is not as harmless as kooks believing the earth is flat or we never landed on the moon. They did real harm to the world. My guess is they back track and try to claim they never really serious about doubting the science and anyway it’s the scientist fault for not convincing them. The kind of person who denies climate change isn’t the kind of person who can look himself in the mirror and tell some hard truths, let alone look his children in the eye and admit that the reason they will have a shitty future is because of people like him. Yeah I know. What I mean is that I hope they proclaim their views on the falsity of climate change to their children and grandchildren **while they are still willing to admit to holding those views** , so they can’t later weasel out of responsibility, in their descendants’ eyes, for their irresponsible science denialism. See also: the [“I Was Not a Nazi” Polka](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3fP15F6szA). ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/83 "2018-10-24T02:06:58Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But in fact, the IPCC is not a “source”. Each series of assessments is just a synthesis of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Rejecting those conclusions because you don’t like them is not saying “I don’t use the IPCC as a source”, it’s saying “I reject science as a source”. (post shortened) The author of the video linked in post #60 said he doesn’t use the IPCC as a source. According to your theory, he must reject science as a source. Just between you and me, I still believe that global warming is occurring. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/84 "2018-10-24T02:15:25Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Just between you and me, I still believe that global warming is occurring. Yes, you have told us repeatedly that [you believe that it’s just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it’s caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18650272&postcount=69). As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that’s what you believe. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/85 "2018-10-24T02:20:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > First, every child needs some “nutty/stupid older relative” anecdotes to share with their friends as they grow into adulthood and learn that their elders aren’t always right. _“My mom thought vaccines caused autism!”_ _“Yeah well, my grandma always said we never went to the moon!”_ _“Uncle **doorhinge** went to his grave still insisting that climate change was a hoax!”_ (or whatever it is that **doorhinge** says about it). (post shortened) "Uncle **doorhinge**? Who would want to be your uncle? If you believe that climate change is a hoax, you can come right out and you can say so. Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position). How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/86 "2018-10-24T02:20:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, you have told us repeatedly that [you believe that it’s just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it’s caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18650272&postcount=69). > > As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that’s what you believe. We can see what he’s going to say already. “It’s all the fault of the scientists for not convincing me, not my fault for not understanding the evidence.” ETA: And how nice of him to prove me right while I was posting. You think biologists are responsible for creationism because they don’t convince the creationists? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/87 "2018-10-24T02:27:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, you have told us repeatedly that [you believe that it’s just part of the natural long-term climate cycle beginning at the end of the last ice age and that it’s caused by naturally occurring CO2, not anthropogenic CO2](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18650272&postcount=69). > > As I said, just please make it very clear to your children and grandchildren, if any, that that’s what you believe. I already have. They find your claims to be un-CONVINCING. Maybe it’s time for you to rethink your public-relations approach. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/88 "2018-10-24T02:35:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We can see what he’s going to say already. > “It’s all the fault of the scientists for not convincing me, not my fault for not understanding the evidence.” (post shortened) You’re the one who’s trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I’m suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you’ve been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can’t compete with the opposition isn’t going to get the job done. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/89 "2018-10-24T02:43:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position). How is my description of your position a “misrepresentation” of what you actually said in the quote that I linked to? > [@doorhinge](#): > > Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. The sun warms the planet’s surface and the molten core warms the rest. Blaming man-made CO2, as opposed to naturally occurring CO2, for global warming should have made it easier to control manufacturing thru carbon taxes, but that scam failed. Are you saying that since posting those remarks you have altered your position and now believe that anthropogenic global warming of recent origin, as described by climate scientists, is real? > [@doorhinge](#): > > How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position? By telling them the truth: namely, that there were a lot of powerful and influential entities such as fossil-fuel companies who had a strong financial interest in spreading disinformation and encouraging confusion about the deleterious effects of fossil-fuel use. And that there were a great many gullible and poorly-informed individuals with inadequate understanding of climate science who thought it made them look sophisticated and smart to disbelieve the findings of climate scientists. These gullible individuals eagerly latched on to various disinformation gambits promoted by the professional science deniers, such as claims that observed global warming is merely part of a long-term natural cycle, or that it was just a ploy in some shady scam. They lazily abdicated their civic and intellectual responsibility to inform themselves of the facts, instead whining that it was somehow the responsibility of better-informed people to CONVINCE them of what they didn’t want to believe, even as they steadfastly refused to listen to scientific explanations and rational arguments on the subject. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/90 "2018-10-24T03:29:26Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > The author of the video linked in post #60 said he doesn’t use the IPCC as a source. According to your theory, he must reject science as a source. Well thank you for telling all that you did not understand that his point was that he looked directly at the published science, his motto (as shown in his other science videos) is to always “check the source”. It just so happens that the IPCC also looks at published science too. Now what was about being convincing? To me it also means that one should not spectacularly miss the point. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2018, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/91 "2018-10-24T03:35:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > "Uncle **doorhinge**? Who would want to be your uncle? If you believe that climate change is a hoax, you can come right out and you can say so. Personally, I believe that climate change is occurring (regardless of your misrepresentation of my position). How will you explain to future generation why you were unable to CONVINCE enough people/voters to support your position? > **[Climate Change in the American Mind: March 2018 - Yale Program on Climate...](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-american-mind-march-2018/)** > > Our latest national survey finds that a large majority of Americans think global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by 5 to 1. Americans are also growing more certain that global warming is happening. Certainty has increased... > [@](#): > > Our latest national survey finds that a large majority of Americans think global warming is happening, outnumbering those who don’t by 5 to 1. Americans are also growing more certain that global warming is happening. Certainty has increased 12 percentage points in the past 3 years, with 49% of the public now “extremely” or “very sure” that global warming is happening. > > The most important reasons Americans give for taking action to reduce global warming is to “provide a better life for our children and grandchildren” (24%), “prevent the destruction of most life on the planet” (16%), or “protect God’s creation (12%). Of course, that does not point to the fact that among the experts there are larger proportions that do agree that global warming is happening and humans are responsible of the recent change. > **[Scientific Consensus - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/)** > > It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins,... > [@](#): > > Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree\*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/92 "2018-10-24T09:32:55Z")
“Gaslighting” really is the right word, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/93 "2018-10-24T12:41:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “Gaslighting” really is the right word, isn’t it? Yup and somehow their ignorance is our fault. We should have done a better job of selling reality to them. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/94 "2018-10-24T12:51:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > You’re the one who’s trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I’m suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you’ve been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can’t compete with the opposition isn’t going to get the job done. What would convince you that anthropogenic climate change is : A) real, B) a bad thing, and C) something we should take steps to mitigate? And just so we’re clear - that’s _you_, not anyone else. You specifically. You’re one of the people who needs convincing, what would it take? ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/95 "2018-10-24T13:54:10Z")
It may be impossible to “convince” people until reality does it for them. It’s an incredibly uneven playing field. **A:** Manmade climate change is real, and will have devastating consequences decades from now. To prevent it, you will have to make radical changes in the way you live and sacrifice a great deal of comfort. **B:** Manmade climate change is a hoax. Don’t worry about it – just go on living how you want to live, and enjoy! Who wouldn’t want to believe B over A? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/96 "2018-10-24T16:59:26Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > You’re the one who’s trying to change the status quo. In order for you to do that, I’m suggesting that change your sales pitch to something that is more convincing than what you’ve been selling so far. Simply throwing your hands up in the air and saying that you can’t compete with the opposition isn’t going to get the job done. Most of the countries of the world are convinced - even the ones who might not be moving fast enough to do anything. I can see three reasons why the right isn’t convinced: 1. They are too stupid to get it. (Like that cotton farmer.) 2. They have financial incentives to not be convinced, like energy company execs and the politicians in their pockets. 3. Al Gore is worried about climate change, so there must be nothing to it. There is no longer any scientific reason to be a denier - do you disagree? To bring up evolution again, do you think we shouldn’t teach evolution in schools because biologists haven’t convinced the creationists? I’m old enough to remember when cigarette smoking was okay. I have a DVD of ads from the early '50s with sports stars and opera singers saying cigarettes were good for their stamina and voice. The shift happened due to laws. Should we not have passed them because a lot of people were unconvinced - partially due to the lies of the tobacco companies? Just want to see if you are consistent. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/97 "2018-10-24T21:18:28Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > It may be impossible to “convince” people until reality does it for them. It’s an incredibly uneven playing field. > > **A:** Manmade climate change is real, and will have devastating consequences decades from now. **To prevent it, you will have to make radical changes in the way you live and sacrifice a great deal of comfort.** > > **B:** Manmade climate change is a hoax. Don’t worry about it – just go on living how you want to live, and enjoy! > > Who wouldn’t want to believe B over A? This is the core of the problem, but as a bit of an aside, the second part of point (A) that I bolded is rather hyperbolic and is part of the exaggerated argument against mitigation advanced by the denialists. The economic impacts are often overrated and are sometimes neutral or even positive, especially when compared with the inevitable economic costs of losses from severe weather and regional climate changes. We have to be careful not to promulgate the hype that “environmentalists want us all to go back to primitive times and dispense with all modern conveniences”. No, we don’t. We just don’t want to trash the only planet we have. Many of the necessary measures and adaptations are inevitable as just general sound environmental policy regardless of climate change. It’s no great sacrifice for me that all the coal plants around here have been demolished and the majority of electric power is nuclear and hydro, with increasing amounts coming from wind and solar, and it makes the air cleaner and literally prevents cardiopulmonary diseases and premature deaths. It’s hardly any sacrifice to me that my new car gets great gas mileage. Recycling paper, plastics and glass is something I have to consciously do but it’s a learned habit with minimal inconvenience and great long-term benefits for everyone. There are some economic costs to emissions mitigation and general environmental stewardship but there’s no awful lifestyle impact if we approach these things intelligently, and the payoffs are vitally important. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/98 "2018-10-24T21:48:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > By telling them the truth: namely, that there were a lot of powerful and influential entities such as fossil-fuel companies who had a strong financial interest in spreading disinformation and encouraging confusion about the deleterious effects of fossil-fuel use. And that there were a great many gullible and poorly-informed individuals with inadequate understanding of climate science who thought it made them look sophisticated and smart to disbelieve the findings of climate scientists. > > These gullible individuals eagerly latched on to various disinformation gambits promoted by the professional science deniers, such as claims that observed global warming is merely part of a long-term natural cycle, or that it was just a ploy in some shady scam. They lazily abdicated their civic and intellectual responsibility to inform themselves of the facts, instead whining that it was somehow the responsibility of better-informed people to CONVINCE them of what they didn’t want to believe, even as they steadfastly refused to listen to scientific explanations and rational arguments on the subject. (post shortened) You’re the one saying that you need those people. Those, as you say, “gullible and poorly-informed individuals”, as well as the lazy people. You need them in order to make your dream come true. You want to change the status quo, but you are unable figure out a way to get your way. If I had hired your team to sell Global Warming Toothpaste, based on the sales numbers, I would fire your team, and hire a new public relations firm. A firm that can get things done. Seriously, you need to rethink your strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/99 "2018-10-24T21:58:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This is the core of the problem, but as a bit of an aside, the second part of point (A) that I bolded is rather hyperbolic and is part of the exaggerated argument against mitigation advanced by the denialists. The economic impacts are often overrated and are sometimes neutral or even positive, especially when compared with the inevitable economic costs of losses from severe weather and regional climate changes. We have to be careful not to promulgate the hype that “environmentalists want us all to go back to primitive times and dispense with all modern conveniences”. No, we don’t. We just don’t want to trash the only planet we have. > > Many of the necessary measures and adaptations are inevitable as just general sound environmental policy regardless of climate change. It’s no great sacrifice for me that all the coal plants around here have been demolished and the majority of electric power is nuclear and hydro, with increasing amounts coming from wind and solar, and it makes the air cleaner and literally prevents cardiopulmonary diseases and premature deaths. It’s hardly any sacrifice to me that my new car gets great gas mileage. Recycling paper, plastics and glass is something I have to consciously do but it’s a learned habit with minimal inconvenience and great long-term benefits for everyone. There are some economic costs to emissions mitigation and general environmental stewardship but there’s no awful lifestyle impact if we approach these things intelligently, and the payoffs are vitally important. Absolutely correct, and thanks for explaining it better than I could have. I should have emphasized that these arguments were simplified and framed the way deniers favor. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259/100 "2018-10-24T22:03:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > To bring up evolution again, do you think we shouldn’t teach evolution in schools because biologists haven’t convinced the creationists? > > Just want to see if you are consistent. (post shortened) Evolution? In a thread titled - _How will history see the climate change denialists_? Are you tired of discussing how history will view the results of the climate change/global warming efforts? Do you believe your side is winning the climate change/global warming battle/discussion? I don’t think this thread wasn’t started because the MMC02IE crowd realized that they were winning. But that’s just my opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-will-history-see-the-climate-change-denialists/823259.md?page=6)