The prospect of a massive world-wide shift away from economies driven by fossil fuels to
ones based on conservation and renewables constitutes a major challenge — in both ideological and economic
terms — to major beneficiaries of business-as-usual. While some have accepted the need for a dramatic world-wide
response, and even embraced the challenges ahead as opportunities, others have tried to forestall political action by
denying the growing body of evidence that climate change is real and the need to address it urgent.
It is the critical examination of empirical evidence that distinguishes scientific consensus from
mere widespread belief - and genuine skepticism from mere denial. This section examines the nature of scientific
consensus, addresses some of the most common misconceptions and/or misrepresentations of the evidence for climate
change, and takes a brief look at some of the most prominent deniers.
Click
here for
an annotated list of Peter Sinclair’s “Crock of the Week” videos.
To receive future installments, subscribe to his YouTube channel
here.
First-Aid!
For those with an immediate need to answer a contrarian talking point (once your
brother-in-law has calmed down enough), the best overall “arguments” web-site I know of —
Skeptical Science, run by Aussie ex-physicist
John Cook. (Two other excellent sites are listed below under Myths and Misconceptions.) Familiarize yourself with the arguments, then phone
in and challenge the next radio talk-show host who suggests human-caused climate change is a hoax!
How Science Works
“In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misperceptions and mistakes.
Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will depend on your attitude to the project at
hand. You might say that some see a jigsaw where others see a house of cards. [Climate scientists] have in mind an
overall picture and are open to bits being taken out, moved around or abandoned should they not fit. Those who
see houses of cards [dissenters] think that if any piece is removed, the whole lot falls down.”
(the Economist, March 18, 2010 - copy
here)
How are scientific jig-saw puzzles assembled, and what constitutes scientific “proof”? How can the
intelligent layman distinguish between valid scientific skepticism and house-of-cards denial? How important is peer-review, and
how does it compare with public debate (between scientists and skeptics) as a tool for advancing knowledge?
An inexpensive and easy-to-read book, by science teacher Greg Craven, on “how to avoid your
own biases and decide for yourself, with confidence, what our best bet is on the issue of climate change”; includes
a great section on the power and pitfalls of science.
Science historian Naomi Oreskes explains how “science does not require proof — neither in
the sense of a direct detection or measurement, nor in the sense of certainty or unanimity — to advance.”
Three articles from the folks at RealClimate,
the first on the difference between the genuine skeptics and “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” contrarians, the
others on the critical importance - and limitations (with several current examples of the latter) - of peer
review.
Step by step, this paper picks apart the debate surrounding the issue of hurricanes and
climate change, illustrating both the scienfic process and its politicization as researchers attempt to
educate the public and inform policy.
A lengthy and sometimes technical look at the problems scientists face in communicating
climate complexity and uncertainties to the public.
The Scientific Consensus
What level of scientific consensus on human-induced global warming and its implications would
justify creating a new world-wide energy infrastructure in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate
change? Does that consensus currently exist?
A discussion of just what scientific consensus is, followed by several resources
illustrating the depth of peer-reviewed scientific consensus that current climate change is real and
human-induced.
How Denial Works
Many countries have laws against libelling and slandering individuals, no such prohibition against
the simple spreading of misinformation on issues of public import. We like to think that we live in a society
dedicated to the progressive dissemination of knowledge. But what of deliberate campaigns, based on political ideology
or short-sighted commercial greed, to spread ignorance?
A link illustrating how curiosity unravelled an almost comical misrepresentation of the
reality of world-wide glacier declines, followed by three more examining the wider campaign to undercut climate
science by some of the biggest actors in the denial game, including the Bush whitehouse and the world’s most
profitable company . . .
Myths and Misconceptions
The following resources examine some of the more common misconceptions — and
misrepresentations — of the evidence for human-induced global warming.
Four of the best web-sites devoted to cutting through contrarian clutter: a list of denier
talking-points - by topic, stage of denial, type of argument and level of sophistication; Real Climate’s growing
supplement (including list of contrarian authors); and Peter Sinclair’s
excellent collection of YouTube rebuttals; and a growing list of beautifully-done expositions from the folks at
Skeptical Science.
This early controversy over the temperature record is still a litmus test for identifying
resistance to the stubborn inconvenience of scientific evidence.
Still the epitome of global warming denial: a March 8, 2007 British documentary entitled The Great
Global Warming Swindle (web-site here).
The movie link is followed by three detailed critiques, plus a Wikipedia review of the film’s
history and influence. Watch the film and be convinced that climate change is a hoax - then pick a few issues,
dig a bit deeper, and judge for yourself the difference between skepticism and denial . . .
Rogues Gallery
Is the fact that parts of the denial campaign are highly organized and well-funded relevant?
In one sense no, since the validity of any position should depend on its supporting evidence and logical
consistency, not on who's presenting it. On the other hand, if the process of enquiry itself is being
undermined by distortion or outright censorship, is it not important to know who's responsible? Below: a
miscellany of resources illustrating the breadth and depth of the campaign . . .
As this one page from Wikipedia illustrates, you soon reach a point where you have to decide
if your time is better spent examining every last contrarian, or getting on with a consideration of
how to address the REAL challenge! My suggestion: use Wikipedia and Google to get a quick sense of whether a
given argument or source is worth investigating further.
