Climate Denial Crock of the Week

[greenman3610]

"Climate Denial Argument of the Month", by popular demand, is
now "Climate Denial Crock of the Week".
I'll be putting out a series of these based on my climate
talks - actually more than once a week to get started.
Send me your suggestions for Climate Denial Crocks you
want Crushed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0xqn_dG8ok

[tabatha]

1. Thanks.

[Barrett808]

2. Very nicely done. Favorited! Next up: "No warming since 1998"

Easily debunked, but still a popular idea in the denialosphere.

[greenman3610]

3. good idea.

I have that one all ready to go.

[Barrett808]

4. Heh. Here's the Tamino post, just in case you haven't seen it:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever

[greenman3610]

5. right.

will be using some stuff from Tamino in that
piece.
I'll try to jazz it up a little

[guardian]

6. Yeah I'm burning up here

stuck in O'hare airport due to snow and cold. Cook up a little more global warming for me. Maybe my flight will get out on time.

[kristopher]

7. Are you really that stupid?

That you can't understand the difference between a global phenomena and a local manifestation of that broader problem?

Are you really that stupid?

[Nederland]

8. About as stupid as a lot of people on DU

...that are all too eager to jump on the latest hurricane or large iceburg breaking off as proof of global warming.

I.e., the stupidity goes both ways, but one way is a lot more tolerated around here.

[greenman3610]

9. Keep checking on my weekly crock crushing.

Obviously, you don't know the difference between weather and
climate, so I'll try to explain in upcoming programs.
In the meantime, you could visit
http://www.skepticalscience.com
or
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
or
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

to educate yourself on the Real science behind this.

best wishes

[kristopher]

10. Three problems with that comparison

First, I don't see very many claims like that being made, most people here understand the difference between weather and climate.

Second, when errors they are made, they are not "tolerated" they are corrected.

Third, certain events such as thinning ice, breaking of the ice sheets, increased storm intensity, shifting weather patterns, ocean acidification, and species extinction are, in fact, predicted by global warming theory. Although each individual event could not be considered "proof" of climate change, taken together they do indeed provide PROOFS of global climate change.

[Nederland]

11. Let me get this straight

It's OK when people point out that the some particular glacier is smaller than usual, but not OK when people point out that Chicago is colder than usual?

How does that fit?

[greenman3610]

12. by all means discuss, but be open to learning

Chicago record cold
California record warmth

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/10/1m10weather02238-record-warmth-likely-follow-high-/?metro
First the fan, then the heater.
Strong Santa Ana winds are expected to continue scouring the county today. After they start to slacken tomorrow, potentially record-high temperatures could settle in through Monday.

http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=8979
Temperatures soared well into the 80s on Monday. Many record highs were broken, including San Francisco at 74 degrees, San Jose at 77 degrees and Oakland at 76 degrees.

The very warm temperatures and windy weather are also making the air very dry, with humidity dropping into the single digits. This is leading to prime fire conditions, so use caution if you are burning anything. Los Angeles has not seen rain since Christmas Day, so trees and the ground are already dry, and wildfires could be easily sparked.




this is weather, not climate.
"It's cold today, so there is no climate change" is not
a scientific observation, it is an anecdote.
There are many good sites to help get the larger picture on this critical
issue, (some are mentioned above) and many people on this list have a good handle on it.
Please consider the possibility that the National Academy of Science, the
American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and
EVERY respected professional scientific organization on the planet
may have looked at some of the issues that you bring up.

[kristopher]

14. You're fighting the wrong battle.

Education isn't the solution - all the information is already out there. The only people who continue to deny climate change are doing it for non-rational reasons. When you engage on their terms - ie treating their concerns as if they were based on reason - all you do is validate their non-rational motives.

Denying global warming using reasons such as "it is cold somewhere" or because "Al Gore uses a jet" is stupidity made manifest. It deserves only to be labeled for what it is and ridiculed.

[greenman3610]

24. I think it's important to put the info out there in a form that average people can understand

The deniers have a limited number of "truthy" factoids - "there's global warming on other planets",
"it's cold outside so there's no climate change", "temperature leads CO2", etc, that
are not meant to win a scientific argument, they are designed to confuse the
public at large - since every month they can hold off meaningful reform is
billions of dollars in their pockets.
To get the political change that we need, we need give Obama the
political cover that he needs to make the tough decisions- and that
means covering every possible media with counters to the canards
that are repeated endlessly on talk radio, cable tv, and a thousand
other venues.

[Barrett808]

25. Word. n/t

[kristopher]

26. That's the approach I've endorsed for years.

However I've recently concluded it is wrong. The fans of Limbaugh, Hannity et al simply aren't interested in adopting a new model of the world. Speaking in generalities, they just want to stir the pot. I'm sure the detailed motivations cover a variety of views but whether it is someone that feels they are sticking their finger in the eye of "a bunch of know it alls", someone that enjoys causing "the enemy" to spend a large amount of time writing a personalized, well thought out response to a prepackaged (no thought required) snip of trash from the propaganda machine, or just someone who wants to irritate "a treehugger", the fact is that responding to these individuals with reason as it relates to the evidence of global warming is of absolutely no value in moving climate policy forward.

I'm not saying that there is no place for better, more easily understood educational materials, or that 100% of people who have doubts about climate change fit into the box I just constructed. However, given the current level of support for GWB and Palin, and given the continued following the right wing media enjoys, I assert that MOST of those resistant to policy action on this topic do fit. They may not all want to engage personally, but they are listening to Limbaugh etal precisely because they experience it vicariously through those public personages.

If you bother to listen to those opinion leaders, you'll find that they effectively inoculate their listeners against any and all voices of reason that you and I accept as authoritative. Scientists are in it for the funding, Gore is in it for the fame or the money from carbon trading and besides he flies on private jets and has a big home so he's a liar. It has been going on for 25 YEARS - two and half decades of shaping a mental model that you cant penetrate built around values that have been molded to cling to their voices of authority against all comers.

So frankly, I've concluded that anyone who accepts arguments like the claim that global warming is a hoax because Al Gore lives in a large home is not only as dumb as ditch-water, but they are also people of malicious intent.

[Nederland]

17. I think you misunderstand

I'm not a global warming denier.

What I'm saying is that people around here don't understand the concept you just described. There are many people around here that will post things about the weather and claim they are proof of climate. And despite what kristopher claims they aren't taken to task when their weather post supports global warming anywhere near as forcefully as those like the post above. DU is very selective about how it enforces good science.

[kristopher]

20. Repeating your erroneous logic doesn't make it true.

Repeating your erroneous logic doesn't make it true.
Anomalous cold weather in Chicago doesn't disprove global warming; in fact, it is consistent with predictions of shifting weather patterns. It is stupid to claim it disproves global warming.

Shrinking glaciers, increase in violent storm systems, and thinning polar ice are also consistent with predictions based on global warming, and ARE evidence of climate change; so it IS NOT a sign of stupidity to monitor their occurrence in relation to climate change concerns.

Please support your claim that assertions such as "Katrina proves global warming" are "frequent" and allowed to go uncorrected.

[kristopher]

13. If you don't already have it straight...

Anomalous cold weather in Chicago doesn't disprove global warming; in fact, it is consistent with predictions of shifting weather patterns. It is stupid to claim it disproves global warming.

Shrinking glaciers, increase in violent storm systems, and thinning polar ice are also consistent with predictions based on global warming, and ARE evidence of climate change; so it IS NOT a sign of stupidity to monitor their occurrence in relation to climate change concerns.

[Nederland]

15. What if it's not anomalous?

What if the weather in Chicago really has gotten consistently colder? Would you consider that reasonable evidence against global warming? I wouldn't.

What I'm trying to say is that people around here will frequently post about some very small area of the world that getting warmer and offer it up as evidence of global warming. Take Mt Kilimanjaro for example. There have been lots of threads (and commentary by Al Gore himself) about how the glacier there is melting and how that is evidence of global warming. It's not, and numerous reputable scientists took Mr Gore to task for putting that observation in his movie. That's because in and of itself the fact that the glacier at Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking is not evidence of anything other than the fact that the glacier at Mt Kilimanjaro is shrinking.

Only global trend matter, and as you and I both know, the global trends say the world is getting warmer. Everything else is just noise IMHO.

[kristopher]

16. I don't think they do.

People around here do NOT "frequently post about some very small area of the world that getting warmer and offer it up as evidence of global warming". You are making a totally unfounded assertion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=Kilimanjaro&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

And that has exactly what to do with deniers making stupid claims?

[Nederland]

18. You realize that you proved my point?

Your link contains numerous posts by people claiming that the melting of the glacier at My Kilimanjaro is proof of global warming even though it isn't.

[kristopher]

19. No I didn't and no it doesn't.

The link contains a couple of post like that from 2005/2006. There were 235 hits total and from a quick scan, it looked like most dealt with deforestation as the cause of ice loss.

That does not support your pointless point.

[Nederland]

21. Disagree

But I'll tell you what. I'll read EE for the next week and list all OPs that confuse weather for climate. I bet there are at least 10 every week. Deal?

[kristopher]

22. Not fair to you.

As I said, the ones that do get posted are, contrary to your assertion, usually corrected.

[kristopher]

23. Just review a few pages of archives. That should do it. nt