Sunday, December 21, 2008

Climate change Denialists: what to do about them?

Debate on the Green Party climate list about what to to with climate change deniers. I have spent time on OpenDemocracy.net clashing with these guys. They are very troll-like, utterly dogged, and work by seizing on some fact or factoid, and presenting it as the clinching piece that will overthrow the thousands of papers by serious climate scientists who have arrived at consensus that climate change is caused my our emmissions, climate change is very serious indeed, more serious than terrorism, and that we should have a technological revolution in the way we source our energy.

This view is a threat to the oil industry, and also to the particular form of capitalism advocated by free market fundamentalists. George Soros uses this term, and it identifies that it is close in many ways to a religion, based on the philosophy of individualism. I find that the strictest adherents are the libertarians.

One characteristic of this movement it its use of insult instead of argument.

It is tempting to ignore their rantings, because talking to them is like trying to discuss literature with someone who cannot read. But if we leave them alone, they will influence many good people with their idiosyncratic theories.

The evidence that climate change is not a theory, but a fact, is here.

More later.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow you do spend a lot of time on these bloody lists. You look like you do anyway. Just don't go and speak to people face to face outside of your house. Also stop rabbiting on about that monetary reform bullshit; it's the preserve of fascists for a reason.

DocRichard said...

Hello again Anonymous. You're a fine one to talk, you must spend all your waking hours putting comments up everywhere.

Let's look at the emotionally charged words.
"rabbit, bullshit, fascist" : These are typical of the Right wing net debater.

Well, not rabbit (n.) hopping, hole - digging, droppings-leaving endearing quadruped with big eyes and ears, obviously, but rabbit (v.) as in communications lacking in depth.

Another tactic of the Right is to try to divert off-topic, and this is a good example.

Anonymous said...

Good grief,

Many of your so-called "facts" are out right falsehoods. For example, there is ZERO evidence of increasing storms and scientists don't not agree that they should increase. Increased monetary damages are a result of inflation and population increases - not nature.

More importantly none of your so called facts demonstrate that:

1) Any observed warming is actually caused by CO2.

2) That trying to limit CO2 emissions will actually accomplish something.

3) A warmer planet is actually a bad thing.

DocRichard said...

Hello again Anonymous

You ask about evidence of increasing storms. Please take a look here
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/AGWEvidence.htm
scroll down to the IPCC graph of Weather Related costs. Do you really think that the IPCC would not consider the non-weather related aspects of the costs.

I would ask you also to read carefully the links at the bottom of the original piece. The Orestes paper has more evidence.

I would therefore ask you politely to withdraw your allegation of "out right falsehoods".

I certainly am not attempting to demonstrate that CO2 is causing the warming that we are seeing. It is unreasonable to expect us to teach all the facts to each and every AGW denialist individually on a one to one basis. You can read, you have the links, and if you are sincerely and rationally interested in understanding this topic, you can read the evidence for yourself.

I think you will find that the Oreskes link covers your questions. It is really easy to read.

I will take you up on your last two points later, because they are not on my list, but I have to go to dinner now.

I know that the thought that mankind may be ruining our habitat is upsetting at first.

Thanks for commenting.

DocRichard said...

My answer to Anon's comment about whether AGW can be reversed is above, in the blog a couple of screens up.

DonaQixota said...

"These are typical of the Right wing net debater"

In contrast to the left wing one who abuses you as "mad"? LOL ...

They've actually got so much in common ... they're like hero and heroine in a Mills & Boon book!

DocRichard said...

I find it helps to identify abusive left wing commenters as "right wing" because it really really annoys them.

Mills & Boon, Punch and Judy, thesis and antithesis, whatever...

HNY Dona