Difference between revisions of "Global warming denial"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎to file: scientific consensus denialism)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{nav.global-warming}}
 
==Overview==
 
==Overview==
−
[[Global warming denial]], i.e. denial that [[global warming]] (GW) is a problem (or, in some cases, denial that anything should be done about it), seems to be an issue solely outside of the [[scientific establishment]] within the [[United States]].
+
[[Global warming denial]] is denial that [[global warming]] (GW) is a problem (or, in some cases, denial that anything should be done about it) using arguments which have [[global warming denial refutation|already been refuted]].
  
−
There are many legitimate [[arguments against global warming]]. Although these have generally been refuted, the process is ongoing.
+
It seems to be a problem mostly in non-[[scientific establishment]] circles within the [[United States]].
 +
 
 +
There are a few legitimate-appearing [[arguments against global warming]] which have not yet been addressed; some of these are already-refuted arguments in modified form dredged up for public consumption by very well-funded [[oil industry|anti-GW interests]], but some may be genuine.
 
===Techniques===
 
===Techniques===
 
====ignoring refutation====
 
====ignoring refutation====
−
GW deniers often reiterate legitimate [[arguments against global warming]] which have already been refuted, dishonestly repeating them as if those arguments had not yet been addressed.
+
GW deniers often reiterate otherwise-legitimate arguments which have [[global warming denial refutation|already been refuted]], dishonestly repeating them as if those arguments had not yet been addressed.
 
====false dilemma====
 
====false dilemma====
 
One of the techniques used by GW deniers is to reduce the problem to an all-or-nothing [[false dilemma]] – either:
 
One of the techniques used by GW deniers is to reduce the problem to an all-or-nothing [[false dilemma]] – either:
Line 11: Line 14:
 
* GW doesn't exist; if it does, it's not our fault; if it's our fault, there's either nothing we can do about it; if there's something we could do about it, the effects won't be that bad if we don't so it's really not worth the fuss.
 
* GW doesn't exist; if it does, it's not our fault; if it's our fault, there's either nothing we can do about it; if there's something we could do about it, the effects won't be that bad if we don't so it's really not worth the fuss.
  
−
Any flaws found in the pro-GW fork become, to them, arguments against the whole thing – making this effectively a [[straw man]] misrepresentation of global warming advocacy.
+
Any flaws found in the pro-GW fork become, to them, arguments against the whole thing – making this effectively a [[straw man]] misrepresentation of [[global warming advocacy]].
 
====winner-take-all thinking====
 
====winner-take-all thinking====
 
GW deniers tend to take a [[carrot-and-stick negotiation|combative approach]] to the discussion, trying to undermine GW's credibility without actually addressing the matters of fact it raises; this is in turn fed upon and encouraged by those who like to keep debates stirred up rather than seeking to resolve them.
 
GW deniers tend to take a [[carrot-and-stick negotiation|combative approach]] to the discussion, trying to undermine GW's credibility without actually addressing the matters of fact it raises; this is in turn fed upon and encouraged by those who like to keep debates stirred up rather than seeking to resolve them.
Line 19: Line 22:
 
Although the core GW deniers might carefully overlook these proposals and [[shifting the topic|shift the debate]] back to their preferred grounds, it could help clarify the situation for people who are honestly confused about the issue.
 
Although the core GW deniers might carefully overlook these proposals and [[shifting the topic|shift the debate]] back to their preferred grounds, it could help clarify the situation for people who are honestly confused about the issue.
 
====irrelevant accusations====
 
====irrelevant accusations====
−
GW deniers often accuse GW advocates of being "alarmists" or [[fearmonger]]s. This is a bogus accusation on the following levels:
+
GW deniers often accuse GW advocates of being "[[global warming hysteria|alarmists]]" or [[fearmonger]]s. This is a bogus accusation on the following levels:
−
* It again deflects attention away from a discussion of the facts (which could be resolved) into a claim of nefarious motives, which is not relevant when the accused have presented extensive facts to back up their assertions.
+
* It again deflects attention away from a discussion of the facts (which could be resolved) into a claim of nefarious motives, which is not relevant when the accused have presented extensive facts to back up their assertions
 +
* It is a form of [[ad hominem]] attack, i.e. calling the arguer's credibility into question rather than [[addressing the content]].
 
* Fearmongery is only a valid accusation when fear is being used to get people to obey or support a particular group or individual (a technique used shamelessly by the anti-GW [[Bush II administration]]). ''This accusation is more difficult to deflect, though it seems clearly wrong to me. -{{woozle.init}}.''
 
* Fearmongery is only a valid accusation when fear is being used to get people to obey or support a particular group or individual (a technique used shamelessly by the anti-GW [[Bush II administration]]). ''This accusation is more difficult to deflect, though it seems clearly wrong to me. -{{woozle.init}}.''
−
==Related Pages==
+
==People==
−
* [[James Hansen]], "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the [[Bush II administration]] has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming (hardly surprising, as they are [[Bush II administration anti-science|anti-science]] in general).
+
===Whistleblowers===
−
* Prominent advocates against global warming activism include:
+
* [[James Hansen]], "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the [[Bush-Cheney administration]] has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming (hardly surprising, as they are [[Bush II administration anti-science|anti-science]] in general).
−
** [[Bjorn Lomborg]]
+
===Denialists===
−
** [[Space and Science Research Center]]
+
* [[Roy Spencer]]
 +
===Denialist Organizations / Projects===
 +
* [http://windfarms.wordpress.com/ Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms]
 +
* [http://www.climatecheck.org/ ClimateCheck.org] (UK)
 +
* [http://globalwarming.org/ Cooler Heads blog]
 +
* [[Cornwall Alliance]]
 +
* [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/ Global Warming Hoax]: "Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming" .. "Arguments based on science, news, and common sense. This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new [[global warming is a religion|faith based religion of global warming]]."
 +
* [http://www.globalwarminginsanity.com/ GlobalWarmingInsanity.com]
 +
* [[Heartland Institute]]
 +
* [[Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine]]
 +
* [https://reddit.com/r/climatechange r/climatechange]: tends to be denialist
 +
* [[Science and Environmental Policy Project]]
 +
* [[Science and Public Policy Institute]]
 +
* [[Space and Science Research Center]]
 +
* [[surfacestations.org]]
 +
===Denialist-friendly Media===
 +
* [[Fox News]] (of course)
 +
* [[telegraph.co.uk]] aka ''The Daily Telegraph''
  
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
Line 35: Line 56:
 
* <s>{{dkosopedia}}</s> (no article as of 2008-02-10)
 
* <s>{{dkosopedia}}</s> (no article as of 2008-02-10)
 
* <s>{{sourcewatch}}</s> (no article as of 2008-02-10)
 
* <s>{{sourcewatch}}</s> (no article as of 2008-02-10)
 +
===Humor===
 +
* ''Tom the Dancing Bug'' by Ruben Bolling:
 +
** '''2014/05/28''' [http://boingboing.net/2014/05/28/tom-the-dancing-bug-what-will-2.html What Will Climate Change Deniers Say...?]
 +
** '''2006''' [http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2014/02/global-warming-deniers.html GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS] ([http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2012/11/08#.U6ByEnJY93D alt]): an example of [[moving the goalposts]]
 +
***
 +
 
===filed links===
 
===filed links===
−
{{links.tagged}}
+
{{links/news}}
−
===Anti-GW Projects===
+
===Anti-GW Sentiments===
−
* [http://windfarms.wordpress.com/ Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms]
 
−
* [[Space and Science Research Center]]
 
 
* [http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/airquality.html Air Quality and Climate Change] policy statement by the [[John Locke Foundation]], a [[North Carolina]] [[US conservative|conservative]] think-tank
 
* [http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/airquality.html Air Quality and Climate Change] policy statement by the [[John Locke Foundation]], a [[North Carolina]] [[US conservative|conservative]] think-tank
 
** '''2008-03-20''' [http://triangle.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1868 It gets better and better] includes the typical GW denialist sneering, but [[User:Woozle|Woozle]] does some detailed critique of JLF's position
 
** '''2008-03-20''' [http://triangle.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1868 It gets better and better] includes the typical GW denialist sneering, but [[User:Woozle|Woozle]] does some detailed critique of JLF's position
  
−
===News & Views===
+
===to file===
 +
* '''2015-10-22''' [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123135/meet-97-percent-climate-truthers Meet the 97 Percent Climate Truthers]: denying the scientific consensus
 +
* '''2014-07-10''' [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227800261183349957/posts/LLzMK47bniS Bernie Sanders on why we need a carbon tax]: comments on this post are an excellent source of denialist arguments
 +
* '''2012-02-24''' [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/ Bickmore on the WSJ response] "The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' posted [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj yet another op-ed] by 16 scientists and engineers, which even include a few climate scientists(!!!)."
 
* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online); see [[global warming is junk science]] for details
 
* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online); see [[global warming is junk science]] for details
 
* '''2007-01-11''' [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html Federal Way schools restrict Gore film]: 'Inconvenient Truth' called too [http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070114 controversial]
 
* '''2007-01-11''' [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html Federal Way schools restrict Gore film]: 'Inconvenient Truth' called too [http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070114 controversial]
Line 52: Line 80:
 
* '''2006-07-20''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008676 The Heat Is On] by [[Peggy Noonan]] seems to be blaming scientists for not having a firm [[scientific consensus|consensus]] on the issue. Is this the signaling shot for a [[conservative]] attempt to shift the blame as the reality becomes inescapable?
 
* '''2006-07-20''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008676 The Heat Is On] by [[Peggy Noonan]] seems to be blaming scientists for not having a firm [[scientific consensus|consensus]] on the issue. Is this the signaling shot for a [[conservative]] attempt to shift the blame as the reality becomes inescapable?
 
* '''2006-07-02''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 Don't Believe the Hype]: "[[Al Gore]] is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on [[global warming]]." ''Umm... yes, there is? (need article about [[scientific consensus on global warming]], I guess...)''
 
* '''2006-07-02''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 Don't Believe the Hype]: "[[Al Gore]] is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on [[global warming]]." ''Umm... yes, there is? (need article about [[scientific consensus on global warming]], I guess...)''
−
* '''2006-04-12''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Climate of Fear] by Richard Lindzen: "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" ''Yeah, right. It's those darn fascistic GW people trying to intimidate poor helpless oil and chemical companies into not polluting the atmosphere, for their own selfish purposes...''
+
* '''2006-04-12''' [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Climate of Fear] by [[Richard Lindzen]]: "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" ''Yeah, right. It's those darn fascistic GW people trying to intimidate poor helpless oil and chemical companies into not polluting the atmosphere, for their own selfish purposes...''
 
** '''2006-07-28''' A response from Stefan Jones on [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/then-there-is-t-word.html Contrary Brin]:
 
** '''2006-07-28''' A response from Stefan Jones on [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/07/then-there-is-t-word.html Contrary Brin]:
 
{{quoteon}}For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?{{quoteoff}}
 
{{quoteon}}For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?{{quoteoff}}

Latest revision as of 01:03, 27 October 2015

Global Warming portal

Overview

Global warming denial is denial that global warming (GW) is a problem (or, in some cases, denial that anything should be done about it) using arguments which have already been refuted.

It seems to be a problem mostly in non-scientific establishment circles within the United States.

There are a few legitimate-appearing arguments against global warming which have not yet been addressed; some of these are already-refuted arguments in modified form dredged up for public consumption by very well-funded anti-GW interests, but some may be genuine.

Techniques

ignoring refutation

GW deniers often reiterate otherwise-legitimate arguments which have already been refuted, dishonestly repeating them as if those arguments had not yet been addressed.

false dilemma

One of the techniques used by GW deniers is to reduce the problem to an all-or-nothing false dilemma – either:

  • GW exists and we are causing it and we should take draconian measures to stop it, or else
  • GW doesn't exist; if it does, it's not our fault; if it's our fault, there's either nothing we can do about it; if there's something we could do about it, the effects won't be that bad if we don't so it's really not worth the fuss.

Any flaws found in the pro-GW fork become, to them, arguments against the whole thing – making this effectively a straw man misrepresentation of global warming advocacy.

winner-take-all thinking

GW deniers tend to take a combative approach to the discussion, trying to undermine GW's credibility without actually addressing the matters of fact it raises; this is in turn fed upon and encouraged by those who like to keep debates stirred up rather than seeking to resolve them.

To counter this, GW proponents might make a set of specific proposals regarding what should be done under various conditions, where the conditions are stated in terms which can be measured. For example, "If a forecast is made which everyone agrees was done using sound methodology, and that forecast shows global temperatures averaging more than 5 degrees above normal over the next 25 years, then we as should be willing to spend at least X dollars of global resources, divided proportionally among the signatory countries by GNP, towards either reversing the temperature change itself or at least ameliorating the effects of said change on the most vulnerable members of our global habitat (to be divided amongst humans and non-humans according to a formula set out in Appendix C etc. etc.)"

Although the core GW deniers might carefully overlook these proposals and shift the debate back to their preferred grounds, it could help clarify the situation for people who are honestly confused about the issue.

irrelevant accusations

GW deniers often accuse GW advocates of being "alarmists" or fearmongers. This is a bogus accusation on the following levels:

  • It again deflects attention away from a discussion of the facts (which could be resolved) into a claim of nefarious motives, which is not relevant when the accused have presented extensive facts to back up their assertions
  • It is a form of ad hominem attack, i.e. calling the arguer's credibility into question rather than addressing the content.
  • Fearmongery is only a valid accusation when fear is being used to get people to obey or support a particular group or individual (a technique used shamelessly by the anti-GW Bush II administration). This accusation is more difficult to deflect, though it seems clearly wrong to me. -W..

People

Whistleblowers

Denialists

Denialist Organizations / Projects

Denialist-friendly Media

Links

Reference

  • Wikipedia (Climate change denial)
  • ConservapediaConservapedia is an unreliable source. (GW denial): very brief page claiming that GW is a political tool of "a powerful liberal special interest group: the environmental lobby." (Who funds the environmental lobby? Who makes money from environmentalism?)
    • Global Warming frames the debate as largely political, with the data not supporting the idea that there's anything to worry about (as of 2007-08-04; verified 2008-02-10)
  • dKosopedia (no article as of 2008-02-10)
  • SourceWatch (no article as of 2008-02-10)

Humor

filed links

Related


Anti-GW Sentiments

to file

For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?
Also, the claim that there is no scientific consensus on global warming is a myth; see The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Debunking Myths

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming_denial&oldid=39149"