AGW Denial - The New Creationism/Holocaust Denial Anti-Intellecual Meme?

[skeptical]

Would anyone here like to disagree with that? It's intriguing that it's such a rock-solid case. Possible, but still quite amazing that we figured it out SO well!

We need to be perfectly clear what we are talking about here. From the perspective of the overwhelming consensus there are 3 very basic ideas that are nearly indisputable based on all available evidence:

1) For many decades the global avg temperature of the Earth has been increasing at a rate previously unseen for at least thousands of years and probably millions of years

2) The cause of this warming is very probably an increase in atmospheric Carbon (this is a prediction of the physics of black body radiation and all other known possible causes have been looked at and have been found insufficient to account for the rate of increase)

3) The cause of this increased atmospheric Carbon is very probably human produced by the burning of fossil fuels that releases Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years

There is a lot more to the story beyond this dealing with models for rates of change, policies, how much time before things get really bad, what is the best course of action, etc. etc.

However, on those 3 points just listed there is virtual scientific unanimity for a very simple reason: there is overwhelming evidence for all 3 points and virtually no evidence to the contrary. On those 3 points it really is in the same league with the degree to which Evolution is accepted by Biologists and Relativity by Physicists.

I realize that watching the news and reading blogs you would not get this idea, but if you do the research with reputable sources, this is the conclusion I think you will come to. Don't take my word for it, be skeptical and do your own research. Just be careful of your sources, this topic is way beyond political and there is a ton of misinformation you will be bombarded with.

 

[Trakar]

Yeah but we need to hold this up against the impressive list of organizations that oppose consensus:

• American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Actually, even they have a revised statement up that largely acknowledges the mainstream scientific perspective, if they do take a bit more conditional approach than most of the other Scientific organizations:

Statement:
• AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate
specifically including the geological, solar and astronomic aspects of climate change.
Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential
effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future.
• AAPG supports research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic
CO2 on global climate.
• AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However,
emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential
environmental gain).
• AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality to be able to invest
in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive..
• AAPG supports thepursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon
dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our
environment and enhance energy recovery.
• AAPG supports measures to conserve energy, which has the affect of both reducing
emissions and preserving energy supplies for the future.

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf

Lukewarm but definitely something I expect to see affirmed and invigorated with the findings of the the next IPCC report.

 

[Upchurch]

Would anyone here like to disagree with that? It's intriguing that it's such a rock-solid case. Possible, but still quite amazing that we figured it out SO well!

Evidence against a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy?

 

[Trakar]

Evidence against a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy?

But,...isn't that just what they want us to believe?!

 

[lomiller]

Yeah but we need to hold this up against the impressive list of organizations that oppose consensus:

• American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Haven’t they modified their position to one that is essentially noncommittal?

nm TShaitanaku covered it

 

[mythstifieD]

1) For many decades the global avg temperature of the Earth has been increasing at a rate previously unseen for at least thousands of years and probably millions of years

Millions of years is nothing in the grand scheme of things, maybe it's just time to get hot!

2) The cause of this warming is very probably an increase in atmospheric Carbon (this is a prediction of the physics of black body radiation and all other known possible causes have been looked at and have been found insufficient to account for the rate of increase)

Could be an unknown cause, say, NIBIRU APPROACHING?!?!?!?!?!


..lol

Ahem, but seriously, we don't even REALLY know what the center of the Earth is made out of. How can we be certain it's not some exotic geophysical problem that may, unfortunately, be apathetic to humanity and our toys?

3) The cause of this increased atmospheric Carbon is very probably human produced by the burning of fossil fuels that releases Carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years

A likely suspect. Yup. Same eyes. Same ears. That's the man, right there, third from the left.

Why do I hear some scientists saying that CO2 is nothing to worry about?

 

[Matilda]

Why do I hear some scientists saying that CO2 is nothing to worry about?

Who, specifically? Give a link.

I can think of some scientists who do dissent from the consensus who also argued CFCs weren't a problem in the atmosphere, like Sallie Baliunas. Some of the scientists who have argued against global warming also argued against a link between tobacco and cancer, like Frederick Seitz. You get individual scientists who make statements that aren't supported by evidence in all kinds of fields, like Behe and intelligent design, and Steven J. Jones and 9/11. But science isn't simply pronouncements by individual scientists.

 

[skeptical]

Millions of years is nothing in the grand scheme of things, maybe it's just time to get hot!

Could be an unknown cause, say, NIBIRU APPROACHING?!?!?!?!?!
..lol

Ahem, but seriously, we don't even REALLY know what the center of the Earth is made out of. How can we be certain it's not some exotic geophysical problem that may, unfortunately, be apathetic to humanity and our toys?

Simple: We don't, Just like we don't know its not Satan deciding to heat things up for all us poor sinners. We don't know its not some inter-dimensional portal opening up and bringing in new forms of energy. One can never say what something is _not_, one can only say what the preponderance of the evidence points to. (this is true of all things, not just GW). In this case, the substantial weight of the evidence points to the points I have already stated. So, in the meantime, barring future evidence to the contrary, we must make our decisions based on the information we have.

We should not reach for exotic explanations when straight forward explanations are staring us in the face that seem to explain all the facts sufficiently well. Or to put it more philosophically: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

=
Why do I hear some scientists saying that CO2 is nothing to worry about?

What "some scientists" say is actually fairly irrelevant to the layperson if the vast weight of the evidence from their profession is against them. This is why it is important to understand what the body of knowledge of a discipline says and not just "some scientists". In this case, the weight of evidence from climatologists is what I have stated. One can always find a dissenting opinion in any field from a contrarian or in some cases someone with legitimate points, but as a layperson, you don't jump for the fringe opinion because it is far more often wrong than right.

For every Alfred Wegener, there are a thousand bozo the clowns.

I can find you several "scientists" that claim Relativity and Evolution are bunk, despite the vast weight of evidence in their favor and the conclusions of thousands of experts that know those disciplines far better than I ever will. They, just like the "some scientists" you reference _could_ be right, but the vast weight of evidence and their peers say otherwise. Given this, why would a layperson choose to side against the evidence and an entire field of study on the off one-in-a-million chance that the dissenters might be right?

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

ETA: I realize that watching the US news (if you are in the US) you would not get the impression that the balance of evidence is so one-sided. What typically occurs is a newsperson gets a climatologist and "some scientist" who dissents from the prevailing opinion on a show and they bicker back and forth for 5 minutes, which is not nearly enough time to present all the information that would be necessary to an apathetic public uneducated about the scientific method, and then the newsperson says "you decide viewer". This is called "balanced reporting". What they never show and never say is that standing behind the climatologist is a list of papers in peer reviewed journals 30 feet high and 90% of people who study climate systems for a living while the contrarian is either just some guy who likes attention or who works for a petroleum funded institute. In all seriousness, I am not aware of any significant scientific body that disagrees on the basic points I listed earlier that is not affiliated in some way with a petroleum or Libertarian institution. Someone previously listed all the institutions that agree on the basic points of AGW, surely that must count for something?

 

[mythstifieD]

Evidence against a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy?

I asked the question because I honestly don't know. I'm rather new to the climate question, but have been watching the odd thing about it for years now. Most of it has been skeptical, I suppose, but I rarely come across a pro-AGW movie. I was terrified after watching Gore's slideshow, and a little relieved to hear that a lot of what he says is B.S. Like, how he got the correlation of CO2 FOLLOWING Temperature Rise backwards (if that's even true?)...

I mean, seriously? Are we all going to self destruct in the next decade or so via the greenhouse effect?

 

[a_unique_person]

I asked the question because I honestly don't know. I'm rather new to the climate question, but have been watching the odd thing about it for years now. Most of it has been skeptical, I suppose, but I rarely come across a pro-AGW movie. I was terrified after watching Gore's slideshow, and a little relieved to hear that a lot of what he says is B.S. Like, how he got the correlation of CO2 FOLLOWING Temperature Rise backwards (if that's even true?)...

I mean, seriously? Are we all going to self destruct in the next decade or so via the greenhouse effect?

The correlation is a complex matter to explain, perhaps Gore didn't think the details would be understandable to most people, or he didn't have the time to explain it in depth. CO2 is a GHG. Usually it is a feedback, but it can be a forcing too. It just depends on the circumstances. The current circumstances dictate that it is a forcing. Whoever told you about Gore getting it wrong got it wrong themselves.

 

[BenBurch]

The correlation is a complex matter to explain, perhaps Gore didn't think the details would be understandable to most people, or he didn't have the time to explain it in depth. CO2 is a GHG. Usually it is a feedback, but it can be a forcing too. It just depends on the circumstances. The current circumstances dictate that it is a forcing. Whoever told you about Gore getting it wrong got it wrong themselves.

What is most distressing is the uncritical way these people believe whatever seems to fit their politics. Their focus on Al Gore, who is insignificant in the field of AGW research, shows that theirs is entirely a political motivation.

 

[lomiller]

Like, how he got the correlation of CO2 FOLLOWING Temperature Rise backwards (if that's even true?)...

It’s true but misrepresented. Warming the planet releases CO2, which warms the planet further. This means for the case of natural warming you will get a small amount of warming first, followed by CO2 release which followed by rapid warming until the planet reaches equilibrium.

The only case where you would expect to see CO2 rise before the first temperature change is when something else causes a massive release of sequestered carbon ala humans burning fossil fuels.


IOW it's more complicated then he presented but he specifically said so when he presented it in the movie. The baisic facts however are correct.

 

[a_unique_person]

What is most distressing is the uncritical way these people believe whatever seems to fit their politics. Their focus on Al Gore, who is insignificant in the field of AGW research, shows that theirs is entirely a political motivation.

The problem is the science is so complex, imho. The IPCC Reports are extremely complex and difficult to read. Gore, with his years as a professional communicator, has gone and made a more easily understood, but neccessarily lacking, film that is much more accessible, and reached far more people than an IPCC report ever could. What do you do?

 

[skeptical]

I asked the question because I honestly don't know. I'm rather new to the climate question, but have been watching the odd thing about it for years now. Most of it has been skeptical, I suppose, but I rarely come across a pro-AGW movie. I was terrified after watching Gore's slideshow, and a little relieved to hear that a lot of what he says is B.S. Like, how he got the correlation of CO2 FOLLOWING Temperature Rise backwards (if that's even true?)...

You should not get your science from movies. Not trying to be trite, but the primary focus of movies is entertainment, even for documentaries. Gore is not a scientist, but he did a decent job of summarizing the main points, even if it was an oversimplification. If you want to watch something to get the science about AGW, I highly recommend the climate change course from the teaching company: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1219

It's a bit pricey when not on sale, but they have sales frequently where you can get it for 40-70% off list.

BTW, if someone tells you they are skeptical of AGW because of Al Gore, that is prima facie evidence that the person has no interest in studying the issue in a serious way and you can pretty much ignore anything else they have to say. Whatever Gore is or is not, when it comes to the scientific research he's not even a bit player. What matters is the body of knowledge of the discipline, not Al Gore or any other spokesperson.

I mean, seriously? Are we all going to self destruct in the next decade or so via the greenhouse effect?

The truth is, we don't know for sure how bad its going to be because we don't know how aggressively governments and societies are going to act to reduce carbon emissions. We have probably already released enough to cause a rise of up to 2 degrees, which is serious but not catastrophic. If we don't act decisively however, that rise could go to 4 degrees or higher. As a benchmark, only about 6 degrees separates the current avg global temp from the ice ages when mile thick ice sheets covered much of North America, so a change of 4 degrees or more is very significant. Get up to 6 degrees and higher and your probably talking catastrophe.

This is why we need to focus on acting and developing solutions now and not 10-20 years down the road.

 

[OMGturt1es]

It’s true but misrepresented. Warming the planet releases CO2, which warms the planet further. This means for the case of natural warming you will get a small amount of warming first, followed by CO2 release which followed by rapid warming until the planet reaches equilibrium.

Exactly. As we exit Milankovitch Cycle-driven glacial ages, for example, ocean temperatures slowly rise. This rise in temperature reduces the solubility of CO2. Oceans absorb a huge proportion of CO2 from the atmosphere, so small reductions in CO2 solubility actually have real impacts on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Over time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise as ocean solubility decreases, and this increase in CO2 leads to further warming. This is why such small changes in the average distance between the Earth and the sun can result in such major shifts in the Earth's climate.

And there are other factors. Microbes. A number of studies indicate that as temperatures rise, microbial activity increases. Thus far, data seem to indicate that this increase in microbial activity releases CO2 from soil. And quite a bit, too-- more than vegetation takes in.

The only case where you would expect to see CO2 rise before the first temperature change is when something else causes a massive release of sequestered carbon ala humans burning fossil fuels.

Or flood basalt vulcanism! Yeah!

IOW it's more complicated then he presented but he specifically said so when he presented it in the movie. The baisic facts however are correct.

I haven't watched the movie. I don't plan to. But I'm familiar with how these data were presented, and I understand why these data were presented in such a simplistic manner. I think, however, that it was a very bad idea. This only gives free ammunition to those who best attract the very demographic that need to improve their understanding of this topic. It's very much like Penn and Teller's ********, which, aside from politically motivated episodes, I generally enjoy. But they're not really going to do much other than entertain those who already agree. And that's a problem. I wouldn't support them at all if I weren't somewhat greedy and bored. So far as educational media go, Shermer's approach is far, far more useful. And, frankly, less likely to result in confirmation bias or emotional attachment to conclusions.

 

[Trakar]

It’s true but misrepresented. Warming the planet releases CO2, which warms the planet further. This means for the case of natural warming you will get a small amount of warming first, followed by CO2 release which followed by rapid warming until the planet reaches equilibrium.

The only case where you would expect to see CO2 rise before the first temperature change is when something else causes a massive release of sequestered carbon ala humans burning fossil fuels....

...or sustained, continent-wide basaltic eruptions such as occassionally happen.

 

[GreNME]

When you say "global warming denier" you are engaging in propaganda. How can you deny something that is not an established Truth? There is NO ROOM for the politically charged word denier in any science. It is, these days, linked with the holocaust.

No, it's most often tied to either climate change or the evolution "debate" (placed in quotes because only Creationists consider there to be a debate).

I won't even touch the part about accusations of Nazism, because the facts don't bode very well to the social (and political) groups connected to GW denial (in other words, they tend to throw such accusations regularly). I will agree that such a tactic further poisons discussion-- which is why I went out of my way to not do any such thing.

In my view, these two things are VERY VERY different. We KNOW the holocaust happened, we have mountains of evidence. Unfortunately, climatology is a very new science that is growing in sophistication and, I think, still has a lot of room for error and paradigm revolutions. I just came across an interesting paper that makes the case that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but the point is that the debate is FAR from over. People who want the debate to be over are moreso the Nazi Creationists than the skeptics.

You're making a very ridiculously flawed argument. Climatology is older than this country, though some of the subsections of climatology are relatively new, due mainly to the technology to partake in the studies in question scientifically. Please take your red herrings elsewhere-- there is as much "debate" over whether GW is taking place or not is about the same as there is with whether evolution happened or not. The "debate" in question is in the details and level of specificity in particulars regarding climate change, much like the "debate" in evolutionary science is on the details and particulars regarding the evolutionary process.

What the heck is wrong with being skeptical about Global Warming? It's an unfalsifiable prophecy. If it happens, then wow they were right. If it doesn't, then they take all the credit for "solving it". Yet, if it doesn't, and we didn't do anything, then they look really bad. If I spent the last 10 years of my life working on this, I certainly wouldn't want to look really bad

More well-poisoning. There's more at stake than "wow they were right" in this case, and that's precisely the point of importance about climate change.

Shame on you for perpetrating these two very unscientific and anti-skeptic viewpoints on a skeptic board. If you are anti-AGW, and use good reasoning based on evidence, then you have EVERY RIGHT to deny it.

And bravo to you for showing just how poorly-perpetrated the well-poisoning in this anti-intellectualism actually is, and how similar it relates to Creationist tactics-- claiming the "debate" isn't over, claiming it's all about ego.

And, frankly, I don't care if you or someone else who full-out disbelieves the planet is warming dislikes the term "denier" being tied to your stance. This isn't a debate about how you feel about what factions in this argument should be called, it's about the type of well-poisoning tactics that are continually perpetrated in this blatantly anti-intellectualist fight.

PINK ELEPHANT.

DENIER.

Ok, when I said the d-word up there, did you first think of the holocaust or global warming?

Maybe even both at once?

Make up whatever excuse or rationale you need to justify it's use, the point is that the word evokes very sorrowful and hateful memories in the world-mind.

The average Joe and Mary doesn't have your more philosophical definition of denier, "People not interesting in science, just their political or ideological positions".

They hear denier and knee-jerk "OH! I don't want to be one of those!"

Now you're not even hiding your populist anti-intellecualism.

Ugh. The debate is never over in science.

No, it's not. However, lying about what the "debate" is seems par for the course for GW Denial. The debate in climate change science, among climatologists and geologists, is practically at the same level of debate that is currently occurring within biological and evolutionary science. This is demonstrated over and over and over, and yet the mantra "the debate isn't over" comes up when the conclusion that the planet is indeed warming is presented, while simultaneously playing the "let's take some time to be more 100% sure" tune as a stalling tactic for allowing the conversation to move on. It's patently dishonest, and it's a logical dishonesty that is rife throughout denier arguments. You make them yourself in this very post, by exclaiming that "debate is never over in science" while going on to say that climate change "has not been proven, only conjectured" and claiming that what will solve this debate is "time to rationally think this through" in a stalling tactic that both implies that global warming is a new idea (it's not, it's half a century old at least) and that the consideration that's taken place in the scientific community is so much histrionics and not rationalization already (again untrue, due in part to decades of research as well as loads of scientific due process).

You're so quick to scream logical fallacy and word games, when you basically perform exactly as I've posited in the original post, using old tactics that are blatantly obvious while at the same time still tending toward being just effective enough to slow progress from scientific study to be disseminated clearly to the general public so that the conversation about what to do can take place with intellectual honesty and candor.

I'm actually more of a fence-sitter on this issue.

No you're not, and just saying so belies your dishonesty considering your other statements. It also shows your dishonesty by the very comment you follow it up with (sarcastically) accusing climatologists of having "a complete 100% consensus," as if there is anything in science that has required that in the history of societies throughout time to accept a theory and react based on it.

I'm fascinated by this comment, though. Are you seriously telling me that there is not ONE piece of evidence against AGW? That any "scientist" who claims to have evidence against AGW is committing pseudo-science? I'm blown away that there is any area of science that has a complete 100% consensus, no more questions left, time to build big machines.

It's a damned good thing that the US government didn't wait for a "complete 100% consensus" on the atomic bomb, human space flight, going to the moon, acid rain, or even the ozone layer depletion during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Of course, those things sort of dismantle this outcry for your fantasy "100% consensus" regarding the science from a social level, being demonstrable examples of social acceptance of and progression from science that has proven beneficial to at least the well-being of the US, if not the planet in general (directly or by association). It's no coincidence that the GW denial crowd are demanding "100% consensus" on the matter, not unlike the creationists who demand "100% consensus" on how every single tiny step of evolution happened, or how the LHC alarmists demand that the group conducting the experiments state precisely what is going to happen (despite them having proposed several possibilities, none causing the end of the world), or even Holocaust deniers demanding that 100% proof be provided on every single possible question about what the Nazi groups were doing (which would be impossible since it would in part require post-hoc mind-reading, and some documentation was destroyed by the Nazis). You're demanding 100% assurance in an otherwise unsure world. That is why I disbelieve that you're a fence-sitter on the issue, and why I'm making the comparisons between tactics that I've been doing instead of attempting to link the ideologies-- something which would be incredibly easy to do as far as connecting Creationism to GW denial, since many of the organizations putting out material for one also put out material for the other.

 

[GreNME]

GreNME,

I think the similarties you point out are valid. But there are some differences. Where those differences lie, better comparisons can be made to the relatively short-lived defense of tobacco movement and the defense of Reagan's "star wars" project. The Marshall Institute (not with actual research, but with a media campaign) supported star wars, defended tobacco and started what I think was one of the first big anti-AGW campaigns. Singer and Seik both defend tobacco and attacked AGW. The common theme here is a political/pro-industry motivation. Many libertarians and republicans hop on board with deniers either because they are against regulation or because they trust conservative politicians more than liberal ones and view AGW as a political issue. The CATO institute is another example of politically motivated opposition. As far as tactics go maybe there isn't that much difference... But there are big differences in power, money, politicization and motivation (and consequently, in success).

I think you bring up some very good counterpoints (thank you, honestly), with some very good examples of scientific claims being used to support political or social organizations. My only criticism here is that the current level of climate change science doesn't seem to be supported by either a government party (or agency) or a private company or group of companies on any logical level. Sure, some weak connections can be made to Al Gore, who attempted to become a "champion" for the science but got mired in bureaucracy and politics, and certainly there can't be any question that much like the oil boom there will be some company or group of companies who will move in to cash in on the outcome of the issue, but on the whole the issue of climate change seems to be counter-intuitive to both business and the status quo of politics, so I'm not seeing the similarities you are as far as a possible ulterior motive being at play here. Who stands to gain by the parallels you draw? It's fairly clear who the beneficiaries of the incidents you mention were, though it would be difficult to establish the clear connections outside of hindsight to some people (though I'd say there were plenty who saw it then as well).

But, yes, the tactics you're talking about are an example of what happens to the discussions of the issues when they become highly politicized and charged with partisan politicking. That's precisely what is happening regarding climate change, to be sure.

 

[Meed]

I think you bring up some very good counterpoints (thank you, honestly), with some very good examples of scientific claims being used to support political or social organizations. My only criticism here is that the current level of climate change science doesn't seem to be supported by either a government party (or agency) or a private company or group of companies on any logical level. Sure, some weak connections can be made to Al Gore, who attempted to become a "champion" for the science but got mired in bureaucracy and politics, and certainly there can't be any question that much like the oil boom there will be some company or group of companies who will move in to cash in on the outcome of the issue, but on the whole the issue of climate change seems to be counter-intuitive to both business and the status quo of politics, so I'm not seeing the similarities you are as far as a possible ulterior motive being at play here. Who stands to gain by the parallels you draw? It's fairly clear who the beneficiaries of the incidents you mention were, though it would be difficult to establish the clear connections outside of hindsight to some people (though I'd say there were plenty who saw it then as well).

But, yes, the tactics you're talking about are an example of what happens to the discussions of the issues when they become highly politicized and charged with partisan politicking. That's precisely what is happening regarding climate change, to be sure.

Well I think all of these anti-intellectual memes have some some ulterior biases and/or motivations underlying them. I'm speaking generally, not about every individual who shares the position or falls prey to the hype. There are always exceptions. But it's easy to see why a Christian might not want to accept evolution, or why a Nazi sympathizer might not want to accept the Holocaust and so on. With AGW deniers there seems to be a mix of motivations at play. The most banal being along the lines of "I trust conservatives more than liberals. Al Gore is a liberal. I like Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin and they say AGW is BS". Then we have the Alex Jonser "everything is a conspiracy and the government is out to get me" types who will latch on to anything. The third and final motivation I can see is from free market proponents who are against government regulation and recognize that AGW would be a good candidate for such a thing.

To be honest, I didn't understand all of your reply. In terms of what motivated the initial campaign and the way they went about it I think tobacco/cancer well-poisoning is the best comparison and to some extent they were both carried out by the same people in the same way. This isn't a counter point really, just a comparison that might be more fitting. As to your question "who stands to gain", I would say free market proponents and specific industries (oil and tobacco).

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

...or sustained, continent-wide basaltic eruptions such as occassionally happen.

One hopes that even the deniers can look around and notice that they're not dying in screaming agony in a sea of lava. One would HOPE but at this point not expect that they would thus look at human causes for increased CO2

A