How to Spot a Climate Change Denialist

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing




It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers to deny the reality of global climate change.

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.


At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.
But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

• The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

• Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming.
But don't look too close! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

• The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.
This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.
It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

• Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies. You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.
It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

• Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog.

[ak1971]

insert gaffo.troofers and 9/11.... and walla

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Climate change --> 9/11...

Now there's an equation only a wingnut could make.

[ak1971]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Climate change --> 9/11...

Now there's an equation only a wingnut could make.

Come on man...even you can see the similarities.

[barryr]

Funny, those same tactics have been done by the global warmists themselves

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by barryr

Funny, those same tactics have been done by the global warmists themselves

By whom, specifically?

Examples?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ak1971

Come on man...even you can see the similarities.

So you're saying there are similarities between folks who believe in some kind of 9/11 conspiracy and global warming denialists?

Does that mean you're throwing your fellow GW denialists under the bus here?

[Taco John]

What's the ETA on any meaningful legislation being passed on this issue? I mean, are the Democrats going to run on Global Warming in 2012, and send Barack Obama into the Whitehouse with a mandate to do whatever it takes to harness global warming, regardless of economic impact?

At this point, it's like talking about health care reform after Hillary dropped the ball in the 90's. Copenhagen was the fast break, and the effort was incompetent. No score, and reverse momentum at this point.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing




It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers to deny the reality of global climate change.

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.


At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.
But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

• The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

• Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming.
But don't look too close! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

• The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.
This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.
It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

• Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies. You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.
It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

• Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog.

Wow, even PhD nowadays are writing meaningless silly fluff pieces. And you wonder why people have trouble buying into your "science" with such high standards of technical journalism.

[Garcia Bronco]

The climate changes everyday. The OP doesn't even know the words to use to express his point.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The climate changes everyday. The OP doesn't even know the words to use to express his point.

The climate, by definition, *doesn't* change "everyday".

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

The climate changes everyday. The OP doesn't even know the words to use to express his point.

Thank you for, once again, simultaneously proving your abundant ignorance and giving me a good laugh.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Wow, even PhD nowadays are writing meaningless silly fluff pieces. And you wonder why people have trouble buying into your "science" with such high standards of technical journalism.

You have no answer to anything that was said in the article - just the usual ad hominem and "attack the messenger."

That's usually a pretty good indicator that the message was on target.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You have no answer to anything that was said in the article - just the usual ad hominem and "attack the messenger."

That's usually a pretty good indicator that the message was on target.

It so completely and wholey lacked any factual basis for any of its claims there is really nothing to attack. It is the ultimate.... here it comes....your favorite word....strawman article.

Our higher education system appears to be irreparably broken.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The climate, by definition, *doesn't* change "everyday".

So climate is static? It isn't, moron. And tell that to the Dune kid as well.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Thank you for, once again, simultaneously proving your abundant ignorance and giving me a good laugh.

Climates encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time.

Temperature
humidity
atmospheric pressure
wind
rain fall
ARE ALL DYNAMIC METRICS. They are are different everyday. Ergo...over time Climate ehanges or there would be no reason to measure it.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

So climate is static? It isn't, moron. And tell that to the Dune kid as well.

Climate doesn't change "everyday".

Weather does. Usually.

[orinjkrush]

Nimby:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by JJJ

It so completely and wholey lacked any factual basis for any of its claims there is really nothing to attack. It is the ultimate.... here it comes....your favorite word....strawman article.

Our higher education system appears to be irreparably broken.

As expected: Nothing but more ad hominem and "attack the messenger" from you.

That's a good indicator that the article was right on target.

[rugbythug]

1. Has Climate Appreciably Changed over the Last 40 years.- Yes
2.Has Climate ever not changed during a 40 Year Period-No
3.Has Climate Been Hotter-Yes
4.Has Climate been colder-Yes
5.Does CO2 emissions have any measurable effect-Unknown
6.Even if CO2 did have a Measurable effect can CO2 emissions be changed enough to offset-Likely no

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by rugbythug

1. Has Climate Appreciably Changed over the Last 40 years.- Yes
2.Has Climate ever not changed during a 40 Year Period-No
3.Has Climate Been Hotter-Yes
4.Has Climate been colder-Yes

Doesn't mean we're not changing the climate.

Originally Posted by rugbythug

5.Does CO2 emissions have any measurable effect-Unknown

False. Look up the science regarding concentrations of carbon isotopes.

Originally Posted by rugbythug

6.Even if CO2 did have a Measurable effect can CO2 emissions be changed enough to offset-Likely no

Why the fatalism?

[rugbythug]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Doesn't mean we're not changing the climate.



False. Look up the science regarding concentrations of carbon isotopes.



Why the fatalism?

True Doesn't Mean we are not. Also does not mean we are.

If I cared deeply enough I would but I don't. I did however take Climatology in College, I saw the raw data, I saw the huge problems in collecting and keeping good data- Urban Sprawl and Third world measurement issues etc.. I know enough to know we don't know enough

Fatalism? I am not willing to turn off the air conditioner in my car to save actual money. How do you think I feel about maybe this might Happen?

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by rugbythug

1. Has Climate Appreciably Changed over the Last 40 years.- Yes
2.Has Climate ever not changed during a 40 Year Period-No
3.Has Climate Been Hotter-Yes
4.Has Climate been colder-Yes
5.Does CO2 emissions have any measurable effect-Unknown
6.Even if CO2 did have a Measurable effect can CO2 emissions be changed enough to offset-Likely no

Great set of questions. Answers too.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Great set of questions. Answers too.

Old questions without current knowledge. Snore.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Great set of questions. Answers too.

As expected from someone with reduced brain activity.