climate change skepticism

A new series

We've all encountered them, shuffling across the cultural landscape like desiccated zombies: arguments about climate change that have been bludgeoned with a thousand rebuttals, but keep lurching to life, attacking again and again. Each time they appear, the search begins again for the same rebuttals, the same citations and resources. In the face of this kind of undead onslaught, even Buffy might lose her perk.

Coby Beck wants to help. Over the course of 2006, he's written a series of posts called "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic." He wanted to ...

... provide a layman's guide to defending against the assorted specious attacks that are out there, both by pointing out the basic logical fallacies they are based on and providing some appropriate reference material to avoid the typical "is too, is not" exchanges these things frequently devolve into.

Mission accomplished, as they say, almost 60 carefully argued posts and hundreds of citations later.

I'm very happy to report that Coby has agreed to join us here at Gristmill, and happier yet to report that he'll be bringing his series with him. Each entry will be updated, improved, or polished as necessary and then published on Gristmill, one per day.

I have arrived

I think I've finally arrived.

I have now joined the august ranks of journalists -- including such luminaries as Tom Brokaw, New York Times environment reporter Andy Revkin, and AP science reporter Seth Borenstein -- publicly attacked by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. They hate me! They really hate me!

Some background: EPW is chaired by everyone's favorite flat-earther, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Mongo). A while back, Inhofe hired Marc Morano of CNS news -- famous (if that's the word) for writing this piece questioning whether war veteran Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) faked the wounds that got him two purple hearts -- to head up his communications operation. Morano wasted no time firing off press release blasts attacking various reporters and public figures for "bias." (Remember, in the right-wing dictionary, "bias" means a stubborn insistence on distinguishing truth from falsehood.)

Today, I have the dubious honor of being the target of one of these attacks.

Breaking: There are skeptics

A fine piece of reporting from Gannett News Service, tipping off its readers to the fact that there's a small group of skeptics who don't believe global warming is a threat.

In case readers missed that info in every single other piece of vapid he-said she-said transcription that passes for journalism on this subject.

The CEI ads

OMFG, so, I finally went and watched the TV ads to be aired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute a week before An Inconvenient Truth is released.

I'm not sure what I expected, but these things are genuinely funny. They look like nothing so much as a parody produced by Saturday Night Live. The tag line -- the last line of the ad, read dramatically as a little girl blows a dandelion -- is: "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."

It's a pro-CO2 ad. Seriously. It turns out, we breathe CO2 out. And plants absorb it. It comes from animals! And oceans! Who could hate it?

As though there were a huge cabal of people out there who viewed this particular molecule as intrinsically evil.

Obviously, I'm not in the target audience. But I can't imagine anyone being persuaded by something so self-evidently absurd. I guess we'll see, though.

(One thing to note: It's "some politicians" and "global warming alarmists" making these claims about global warming. Not, say, scientists.)

Update [2006-5-17 15:48:57 by David Roberts]: Oh, I also meant to draw attention to a classic interview with CEI founder Fred Smith, from which this amazing passage is drawn:

Why skeptics are skeptics

A few months ago, on the Scientific American blog, George Musser lamented the malcommunication between global warming skeptics and proponents. He asked readers who were skeptical about the GW consensus to tell him why in comments. They did, to the tune of 170 comments.

In a follow-up post, Musser tried to summarize and taxonomize the objections (then, in response to tons of feedback, tried again).

I doubt we have many skeptics here, but if you're curious about what trips laypeople up -- rather a wider array of things than I would have thought -- it's worth checking out. And now I can finally close that tab on my browser.

The ghost of Ayn Rand reminds us that environmentalists want to KILL US ALL [cue music from Psycho]

We received this op-ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute, for reasons I don't fully understand. Perhaps they didn't read the site too closely?

I dabbled with Rand when I was a bitter adolescent ... which is the appropriate time to dabble with Rand. When you don't grow out of that phase, well, you go to work for the Institute.

Anyway, I present, for your amusement and edification:

-----

To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life.
By Michael S. Berliner

Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.

Umbra on global warming

Dear Umbra, The many articles on global warming conclude with something about the inherent complexity and uncertainty of the issue. So exactly what is the evidence for (and against) arguing that the current warming trend is inside the scope of normal fluctuations? What is the evidence for (and against) arguing that the trend is caused […]

TIME cover story on global warming

The cover story of this week's TIME magazine is on global warming. The title: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." I agree with Chris that this is a huge deal, and further evidence that the issue of global warming is nearing a tipping point in public consciousness. The Battle of the Skeptics is over. They lost. Now talk will turn in earnest to what we can do about it.

Unfortunately, I can't read the whole story because I'm not a TIME subscriber. (Any intrepid Gristmill reader out there want to send me a copy?) It's also at the top of CNN.com right now, though, and they've got a short summary.

There's also a TIME/ABC poll on attitudes toward global warming, which reveals the same old grab bag of muddled opinions. Take this:

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is "extremely important" or "very important" to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world’s temperatures, 31% feel it is caused by the things people do, 19% feel it is due mostly to natural causes, and 49% feel it is a combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll; however, 64% think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.

As I said here, what these kinds of polls reveal more than anything is that public opinion on this subject is amorphous and fluid. It is open to persuasion, ready to be shaped by strong leadership. More than anything, that's what this country is crying out for right now: strong national leadership.

Big front-page report says scientists agree: earth warming

Kudos to The Seattle Times and reporter Sandi Doughton for an extensive report on climate change that cuts through the bullshit. Dominating the front page of the Sunday paper, this headline and subhead:

The truth about global warming
Scientists overwhelmingly agree: The Earth is getting warmer at an alarming pace, and humans are the cause -- no matter what the skeptics say.