We all know them. Family, friends or just that jerk at the office who spouts off all the time about how global warming is a myth, or isn’t caused by man made emissions, but results from natural causes. Someone who is basically in denial, despite the evidence that keeps hitting us in the face every day as we read about warmer winters, the accelerated rate of glacial and polar ice melting, and the more frequent occurence of more violent hurricanes. But like me, most of you aren’t climate scientists. So, how do we combat the well honed right wing talking points that attempt to dismiss global warming?
First, go read this new blog by Coby Beck, A Few Things Ill Considered. He’s compiled a handy list of the right’s favored arguments against global warming, and prepared responses to each of them, with links to his blog posts that shoot them down:
. . .[W]hat I would like to do is provide a layman’s guide to defending against the assorted specious attacks that are out there, both by pointing out the basic logical fallacies they are based on and providing some appropriate reference material to avoid the typical “is too, is not” exchanges these things frequently devolve into. Nothing like a nice link to an authoritative resource to refute the factually incorrect pontifications. Nothing like a calmly presented and solidly logical rebuttal to put the scaliwags in their place! […]
So without further ado here are links to the best responses I can think of for the following climate sceptic arguments, please feel free to refer to, paraphrase or quote as desired:
Second, after you have checked out his blog, go put Mr. Beck’s hard won knowledge to use the next time you come across a global warming denier. (Thanks, and a hat tip to Gavin at Real Climate, the best place on the web to get the skinny on the real science of climate change from real climate scientists).
to hotlist for easy future reference.
Steven D was listening in on the chat I had with Mr. Damnit this morning as we were seeing all the “strange weather we’re having” reports.
There’s a methodology out there called “strategic questioning,” which I am just starting to look into, when I’m not otherwise avoiding work I’m supposed to be doing, like right now. But in my first scan of material on this, I was struck by one strategic question, the “what will it take” question.
Instead of going point by point to convince someone, you start by asking them, “What would it take to convince you of…(in this case) the reality of global heating as a serious crisis we need to confront?”
The answer provides a guide to how you approach convincing them. Or to exploration with other questions until you get to the nub of their objections.
This seems like it could be a fruitful approach. The Ill Considered Questions’ post is a great catch, and as usual my compliments to Steven D for keeping this issue on the front page.