Monday, July 30, 2007

Skeptics, This Way Please

For as long as global warming has been at the forefront of the media, there has been climate change deniers muddying the public discourse and slowing progress towards solutions.

The press, our politicians, and even the progressive blogosphere, have been integral in giving these "skeptics" a voice - by accommodating opinions that are patently false, and lending authority to those engaging in an agenda of misinformation.

While deniers arguments gain coverage in the mainstream thanks to so called "balanced reporting", bloggers are to blame for freely publishing deniers comments regardless of how demonstrably false they are - a practice that gives the false impression of a debate about the facts of climate change when in reality there isn't one.

There are those who are genuinely misinformed or under-informed about global warming and to their credit seek new information and correct their opinions as they learn more. For the rest - those that knowingly perpetuate lies, or stubbornly refuse to consider new information - it is time that they were treated for what they are, the intellectual children of the online community.

To that end, today represents the beginning of a new comment moderation policy at The Conscious Earth. The following rules will go into effect immediately:

  • Anyone making ad hominem attacks in the global warming debate will have their comments summarily rejected.
  • Commenters that regurgitate an existing and previously debunked skeptic argument will be directed to the Grist's Skeptics Page, where they can learn the facts behind the false evidence they are citing.
  • Subsequent comments regarding the point in question will be accepted only if they provide new evidence that counters the conclusions of the scientific community or that represents new findings not previously discussed in the blogosphere.

In the name of genuine climate change debate, I encourage all members of the green and scientific community to take a similar approach. I'll be placing this post at the top of The Conscious Earth's Top Posts section. Feel free to link to it if helpful. You can also use the following form letter for responding to comments.

Public debate requires learning, openness to new information, arguments that address issues, freedom from personal attacks, and the basic ability for rational discourse. By accommodating deniers, and their refusal to engage in any of these behaviours, we've all played a role in lending authority to their irrational opinions and in slowing progress towards solutions.

Nobody would spend a decade debating bed time with a 5 year old. It's now long past due to end the current climate change "debate" and send deniers to bed, without their supper.


yo said...

Congratulations on your blog, it is very informative and I linked it to my ow blog for that reason. I was posting an article about how the weather has changed, and talked a bit of Climate Change and the "deny" side. I find this issue extremely interesting and important for all of us. Thanks for this information.

Odiyya said...

very welcome yo.

Jay said...

I will be doing the same.

ThunderDragon said...

I find the term "denier" related to climate change and global warming inflammatory and offensive. Using that sort of terminology does nothing but make things worse.

I do not "deny" that there is something going on, but I think it is extremely arrogant to say that it is humans who are the primary or only cause of it. We have been industrialised for little more than two centuries. I just find it incredible that we could have been the only cause of it - we have undoubtedly affected it is some way and sped up the process, but I doubt that we alone could have possibly "caused" it.

yo said...

Well, taking into account the Earth was fine for millions of years and it is now getting wrecked after only two centuries of Industrial Revolution should tell you something.

Odiyya said...

Dear Thunderdragon,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to the global warming issue. Please see the following page to find the scientifically endorsed and verified response to the information you provided. If you have additional and relevant information to add after reviewing it, I hope you'll return to share it with our readers here.

Thank you for your shared interest in creating solutions for global warming, and a sustainable economy where all can prosper. If you'd like additional information on why you're being directed to the link above, please visit this page.



ThunderDragon said...

yo, WTH are you on about? The earth has been through various climate changes in its time. It's just going through another. If the climate is really so sensitive, I would be surprised if it had not exploded by now.

Odiyya: I'm not "denying" that climate change is happening. I find the use of the term and your very attitude towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with you quite disgusting. I'm just not convinced that mankind has CAUSED it. That is a big difference, and one which those of you who use the term "deniers" are ignoring, and thus driving people towards the other side of the debate. The more people label me a "denier" because I dare to question their received wisdom, the more I disregard them as idiots.

You want me to "believe"? Convince me. Not by posting links, but by explaining it to me. If the best you can do is post a link and say "read this" then, well, I despair.

Odiyya said...

believe it or not thunderdragon, its not my responsibility to explain anything to you.

This is my comment on rational discourse. The facts about global warming are right there in front of you. That you don't want to take the time to inform yourself is ultimately your issue. If you want to engage in a debate, the rational thing to do is inform yourself first.

So we'll try it again. Read this page. Come back when you can contribute something that hasn't already been disproved.

Take responsibility for informing yourself. Once you are informed, if you have new evidence to contribute, not what you 'think', then offer it. That is what intelligent debate is.

Daimyo Higham-Baka-Ohta said...

...While deniers arguments gain coverage in the mainstream thanks to so called "balanced reporting", bloggers are to blame for freely publishing deniers comments regardless of how demonstrably false they are - a practice that gives the false impression of a debate about the facts of climate change when in reality there isn't one...

Completely agree and I'm going to post on this this morning.

Thunderdragon sid:

...I do not "deny" that there is something going on, but I think it is extremely arrogant to say that it is humans who are the primary or only cause of it...

He is one who has been sucked into the "fashion" of denying because the governments have embraced it and used it to make money and oppress the common man.

If the government had come out the other way and made money that way, I thnk most of these deniers would be believers.

None of which alters the phenomenon itself.

Daimyo Higham-Baka-Ohta said...

Odiyya said...

excellent post DHBO. Well said indeed.

ThunderDragon said...

Posting a link is not an argument.

It is not your "responsibility" to explain anything to you, but if you believe in something then you have to be able to do more than just say "go read this" but to make your point yourself.

And you are still continuing in the frankly offensive manner of talking down to anyone who dares to question your received wisdom - and that annoys me more than anything else.

Odiyya said...

TD - Consider this a level 200 global warming course. Issues are discussed with the understanding that readers have actually read about the basic facts. You need to do that before can contribute a valid opinion to the arguments at hand.

You don't spend time in medical school teaching students basic biology, that's what undergrad is for. Likewise, this isn't a forum on whether or not global warming is happening and that we are to blame. that has been well established regardless of what you think, and the facts about it are readily avaiable for anyone who wants to learn. I've made them available to you 3 times now.

This is a forum about policy and solutions, and it assumes that you've taken the time to become informed before you've started typing. If you want to take part, you need to come to the table prepared.

So once again, take responsibility for informing yourself before commenting on an issue. It's right there in front of you. Do you want to learn it? The choice is yours.

Otherwise you need to stop barging into the advanced class and finish your homework. We'll be here when you're done. Feel free to return.

Daimyo Higham-Baka-Ohta said...

Odiyya, it's hotted up over at my place too. I've been fighting a lone hand.

Odiyya said...

I just dropped by mate. i'll stop in at day's end as well.

ThunderDragon said...

If, as you say, climate change has been "well established regardless of what [I] think" then why is there such doubt?

Besides, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do what we can to minimise our affect on the environmental, whatever that effect may be, just that I am not convinced that humans could possibly be the sole cause of any climate change, and that your inflammatory language towards anyone who expresses anything but complete subservience to your received wisdom helps no-one, and is remarkably offensive.

Odiyya said...

There is such doubt because individual's like your good self insist on indulging their own egos by commenting on issues that they have not taken the time to learn about.

Read first, then think, then comment. You could have easily done that if you spent the past day reading the info available rather than making unsupported statements.

Sue said...

The material at Gristmill's skeptics page is thorough, detailed, and really nicely organized. However, the majority of posters of comments present a wide range of positions critical of anthropogenic global warming. My fear is that an unsophisticated reader, or one that was already in some form of denial would feel supported by the comments with their many links, pseudo-science, or garbled science, and come away more convinced than ever that anthropogenic global warming is non-existent, or inconsequencial.

one and only hypnos said...

First of all: a good blog!

second: I can understand perfectly why you take this step. Always having the same arguments thrown at you, rebutting them only to see them reappear as a phoenix rising from the ashes is very frustrating. Just like the solar activity hypothesis( I even posted an article on my blog about this) that has been refuted. Still many people refuse to accept that.

Like this you can make no headway. And the more we argue, the less we do to save the environment.


as a scientist i have several questions, 1) what happened to the hurricanes predicted for 2006, what happened to the hurricanes predicted for 2007, why was the winter of 2006-07 8% colder than 2006, why was april the coldest april recored in 113 yrs, and why have norwegian scientists studying the gulfstream concluded global warming has had no effect on the gulfstream contrary to prediction and therefore is a non-event for norway??

E. R. Dunhill said...

I think the arrogance (or perhaps simply ignorance) may be in assuming that humans’ enormous consumption of fossil fuels will have little or no impact on the environment. Humans consumed around 1.14 trillion gallons of petroleum fuel products (gasoline, diesel fuel, air gas, kerosene, &c) in 2005. To put that gigantic number into some kind of perspective, consider Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. If the lake were completely drained of water and instead filled with petroleum fuels, humans would burn the entire contents of the lake in about one year. Bearing in mind that these are rough numbers and that demand obviously increases over time, this still illustrates a recent history of a staggeringly large demand.
For those unfamiliar with Lake Pontchartrain, there’s a big Landsat image of the lake and New Orleans at:

Odiyya said...

davidkperdue. If you're going to make assertions you need to cite something. If you can give some links to the findings you've provided i'll happily respond. Until then i don't know what you are talking about.

I'll say this much. The one thing skeptics ignore constantly is the following math. If you have a 1,000 studies that indicate global warming is a problem and 1 that indicates it may not be, what side of the leger are you going to trust?

Having said that, I've never seen these so called exceptions that prove to be valid, so by all means, dish it up.

one and only hypnos said...

@Davidperdue: I would also like to see some articles about what you said. Indeed. Dish it up.

@oddiya: I personally know a couple of skeptics and there is not much you can say to convince them. If they have one study that supports them, then they will gladly ignore the other thousand. They have no problem with that.

Odiyya said...

I hear you, which sums up the need for the approach proposed by this post better than i ever could.

Amritbir Kaur said...

I recently read a report in the newspaper that even not wearing ties leads to less CO2 being released into the atmosphere. So to control global warming a change in lifestyle is also required, including fashion, lies wearing ties and jackets in warm weather.
Your blog is a brilliant effort to save our environment.

Sue said...

RE davidkperdue comment: Don't know about the specific figures that he referenced, but from NOAA/NCDC records look up it is clear that there were signifcantly more all time record low temperatures in the U.S. in April 2007 (39), than there were all time record high temperatures (15). However, the existence of one month of unusually cold weather is a ridiculus response to the issue of global warming which concerns long term climate trends. It is not just that we've had one or two unusually warm months that provide evidence for global warming, but that we've had more than a decade of such records. If ten years from now, davidkperdue can point to a pattern of a decade's worth of record low temperatures, then he migth have a case against global warming. It could indeed be true that this April was the coldest April on record, that does not negate decades of long term weather trends, any more than a 75 degree Christmas Eve(which I have seen here in the normally cold Appalachian mountains) means that there is no more winter weather on the way.

Bill Beck said...

Great Site I linked to it over at my place ( I can't see how anybody would think our actions over the past 50 years hasn't had an effect on the world around us.

Knights of Nee said...

What do we do with these denialists. As odiyya stated, the debate is over!

"Likewise, this isn't a forum on whether or not global warming is happening and that we are to blame."

"This is a forum about policy and solutions." Translation for the denialists, the ways and means by which governments will control your behaviour to reduce green house gases. As a former Luddite, I welcome this.

"Otherwise you need to stop barging into the advanced class and finish your homework." I mean really, how do these people make it through the day!

davidkpperdue, you are not one of our scientists. Anybody can claim to be a scientist. Where are your papers?

yo said, [Earth] getting wrecked after only two centuries of Industrial Revolution.

I have discarded everything associated with this revolution except the Internet. I will allow myself this one luxury.

sue said, "My fear is that an unsophisticated reader, or one that was already in some form of denial would feel supported by the comments with their many links,.."

My fear and concern is that we are not dealing more harshly with these "denialists," these "vampires." We must deal with them like we deal with the phony terrorists in the phony war. Because thet are phony we just can't ignore them!

thunderdragon, get yourself koolaid and I will send you some appropriate medication (not sure how I will get it to you as I no longer use any fossil fuel based postal delivery services) then join us again for some "policy" discussions.

By the way, I have two Amish carriages for sale (horses not included and shipping not included). Just send me a Herring.

NEWS FLASH!!! ALERT!!! I have just been informed that the massive computer hubs and the millions of PCs that combine to form the worldwide internet consumes vast amounts electricity derived from either fossil fuels and/or dangerous nucler power, therefore, I can no longer participate in any forum that contributes to CO2 emissions.

Besides, the internet is a product of the Industrial Revolution which is to blame for the current crisis. Like the combustion engine, one of the worst inventions of man and provides a forum for denialists. Down with the internet!

Whos with me?

Knights of Nee said...

Death to the deniers

Graves said...

I just stumbled on your blog today Odiyya, excellent and very informative. It's unfortunate that when it comes to global warming that it is still considered by some to be a "debate". I suspect the percentage of skeptics is probably around the same as those who believe sasquatch is an alien who was dropped off from a spaceship. Hardly a debate.
Keep up the good work.

Thunderdragon, nowhere is it argued that humans are the root cause of global warming. The argument is that data suggests that humans are altering the emission cycle.

And if you're annoyed by being called a "denier", imagine how annoying it would be if YOU had mountains of data supporting your argument and I came along and expected you to convince me, but providing access to that data so I can inform myself is off limits?

What exactly would you then say to me, other than "get off your lazy ass"?

alvinwriter said...

It is one thing to deny global warming and another to deny that humans are primarily responsible for it. What we cannot deny is that the machines of humankind release too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We all know what greenhouse gases like it can do---which is trap heat. This practice os releaseing carbon dioxide into the air is the one thing that we can change for the benefit of our life on Earth.

Global warming skeptics say that the warming we're experienceing is natural and caused by other factors. If this is so, then we have no choice but to adapt to the changes, since it would be pretty much the Earth's will. But in the meantime, even as the debates continue, we should all do our part in what we can change, and that's to mitigate the release of CO2.

MIT issues plan for safe use of coal:

- Alvin from TheScienceDesk at

Larry said...

It is clear that the number of reports, documents, photos and data supporting a warming global climate grows each year, as do the number of once skeptical, now on board, scientists. Even many of the once loudest voices challenging the “Green House effect” have reluctantly acquiesced, and now speak in terms of uncertainty.
They say thing like “the changes will Not be as quick “ or “Not as severe”. Interestingly, this is coming at the same time that some in the scientific community are questioning some of the scientific procedures and objectivity of some of the data being used to, in their words “Prop-up the theory of man-made climate change.

There are those that are still asking is Global Warming is Fact or Fiction . Personally it seems like the mountain of evidence is difficult to question, but I must say that I have bumped into people that are quite bright as well as liberal leaning, Gore voting people that do raise questions about the“Scientific consensus?”
Larry Lubell

FreedomFighterXL said...

I actually believed for six years that man-made CO2 emissions cause excessive global temperature change, and that this change would come with a load of problems for the Earth's eco-systems.

But that was a while ago. I would like people to point out any inaccuracies in my views:

There just isn't enough evidence for me to switch back to being a believer. Refer to my blog for reasons why.

Odiyya said...

FFXL - I appreciate you taking the time to comment but at a glance all your arguments have already been proved false, inaccurate, or misrepresented. So I refer you straight back to the link highlighted in the article above - Grists skeptic page. This addresses it all.

Steven Chen said...

I think I know where Thunderdragon came from. By the way, there are many of them out there.

Here is my response to them.

I try to look at the environment issue from natural resources perspective. When people over use the natural resources, they cause environment problems. Part of global warming is caused by human activities. Burning fossil fuels and cutting down the forest are main part of that.

The global warming deniers will use all kind non-sense so that they can keep over use the natural resources for their selfish reason. Some of the “conservatives” do the same. There is no way to change the mind of those people, because they are just selfish. It is sad. I hope God could see that. Saving the Earth, God’s proud creation, is more important than anything else.

The good thing is that there are still a lot people care about their children. I try to get those people on board. I am telling those people that the deniers are trying to steal the natural resources from their children. By the way, a favorite climate is the most important natural resource.

FreedomFighterXL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FreedomFighterXL said...

Odiyya, you obviously didn't actually read my blog, you just assumed that what I stated on there has been refuted. I don't want a link to a site that goes over what I've already been hearing. I've already come across that information on "A few things Ill considered."

What I would like to see is SPECIFIC inaccuracies in my posts. Not a strawman attack that refutes arguments different from my own.

One problem I have with the site you referred me to is it's explanation on "proof" that CO2 does cause this 2/3rd's of a degree change over the last 120 years.

They admit that proof is something mathematical, and the funny thing is that two of my posts prove empirically (through computations) that CO2 cannot be held responsible for warming the atmosphere.

If you would like to point out what is wrong with my calculations let me know. But I'll make it simpler for you. Let's see if I can at least put a catalyst in your mind as to why I switched sides.

Venus is often used as an example for the greenhouse effect. It has 96.5% CO2 in it's overall atmospheric composition. And the temperature of Venus is 842 degrees, which is 14 times hotter then the Earth (60 degrees). But the funny thing is, Earth has less then .04% CO2 in it's atmosphere. So the percentage of the atmosphere on Venus that consists of CO2 is 2,500 times greater then the percentage on Earth.

2,500 times higher percentage of CO2 and yet Venus is only 14 times hotter. And that's not taking into consideration the fact that Venus is closer to the sun or has a magnetic field 7 million times weaker then the Earth. If I included those factors CO2 would appear to have a cooling effect.

The fact is we as an industrialized species can only account for a few hundredths of a percent of the earth's atmosphere being made up from greenhouse gases released over the last 120 years(see part one of my global warming posts to see how I arrived to that conclusion). And since we would need 2,500 times more CO2 in our atmosphere for the earth to be even near 14 times hotter, there is just no way in hell we can call this slight warming an occurance from Anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases.

Read my recent blog posts. Go over the inaccuracies, and prove that I'm wrong. If anyone sees an inaccuracy just point it out and I will confess to it. Until then I will remain one of the few environmentalists that doesn't accept the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Odiyya said...

As I'm sitting on a creepingly slow internet connection on the otherside of the planet at the moment, there is no chance of reading through your homework at this time. However, based on what you are saying here, your argument is flawed, as your ignoring two things. One, the many compounding variables involved in the relative positions of the earth and venus. you can't simply take one variable and compare it across two planets with radically different orbits and compositions and assume they will have the same temperature relationship.

further, you are assuming a linear relationship between c02 and temperature across these variables which is not a valid assumption.

so, in the grand scheme of things i'll try to find the time to check your homework, but in the meantime your assumptions are extremely flawed. the biggest of which being that you can use a different planet that is millions of miles away as a proxy for the earth.

FreedomFighterXL said...

Guess what? The fact that there are so many variables between earth and venus shows even more that CO2 plays little or no role in it's temperature.

Is there a factor I didn't mention about venus in my blog that would have a cooling effect? One that doesn't occur on earth?

I agree, venus is millions of miles away from the earth, in fact it's at least 25 million miles closer to the sun then earth is, which is one of the many variables that shows conclusively that CO2 plays no role in it's hot temperature.

And no, the assumption that there is a direct linear connection between CO2 and global temperature is not something I advocate, that is what I am told by many AGW believers abroad. Yet the graphs show clearly that there are far more factors involved aside from CO2 that we have no control over.

Anonymous said...

I'm no expert on this issue, but odiyya I'm pretty sure that if venus is millions of miles closer to the sun then that helps to explain it's warming, not CO2. The same goes for other factors that FFXL mentioned, like venus having no magnetic field. It seems that all this would be what is warming venus along with the fact that it's thinner crust let's interior heat rise through to warm it's surface.

While I agree with what you said FFXL, I was wondering, are you really sixteen? I've worked with high school students on issues like this and those blog posts don't look like they came from a teenager. :/

And odiyya, if your net connection is really that slow, get DSL, or cable internet. It'll save you time and energy. :D

Odiyya said...

hi anon, thanks for the feedback.

two things though. where did it say I was 16? double that and you'd be close to the truth. as for DSL...if you can figure out a way to pipe that in to the scattered african villages i'm writing from now, I'm all ears ;).

Freedom fighter, i'm sorry but your critical thinking ability is sorely lacking. i can say nothing more to your last comment, but there's nothing else to comment on.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't saying you were sixteen odiyya, I was referring to FFXL, he claims in his profile that he is sixteen, but I'm pretty sure that is just something he uses to get people's attention.

I'm not calling you crazy for believing in Man-made global warming, I was a believer in it a month ago too, but after doing some research and reading FFXL's blog, I'm starting to think maybe global warming is more complex then I once thought.

In that last statement all you really said is that FFXL's thinking is poorly lacking, this is totally consistent with an ad hominem attack that you claim deniers make much of the time in the above post.

I'm not yet fully converted to "denier" status just yet, what I am trying to do is see if there's anything FFXL missed, or if someone could refute it. So far I haven't seen any honest attempts to do such a thing. Most people just refer me to that grists skeptics page that you told FFXL to go to, but that doesn't cover any of the arguments that he put in his blog.

I would like to think that the supposed 3 billion Richard Branson is offering to fight this problem is actually going to go for a worthy cause, not something that isn't even a real reversible threat. But until I see rebuttals to the recent blog posts FFXL has made, I can't say I will go back to being a believer any time soon.

Odiyya said...

ok. i've taken a couple minutes to take a cursory look at some initial points of FFXL. he's offering nothing new. In order:

1. the level of temperature change: this has been beaten to death by skeptics consistently, all of whom ignore the impact of small changes in temperature on climate systems. it doesn't take a 10 degree change to start impacting our climate.

2. RE: "Now based on the theory that green house gases building up in the atmosphere caused heating and nothing else has a mentionable effect". this statement is simply ignorant as nobody has made this claim. co2 increase if a forcing agent. it impacts global temperature in the context of many other variables that also do.

3. re: "as we keep releasing more and more CO2, it shouldn’t spike up and down as the graph shows." Yes it should. this is because its not the only factor impacting climate. nobody has insinuated this except those building over simplified arguments.

FFXL may sound convincing in applying his grade school science lessons to this situation but he is utterly ignoring a 4th variable called compounding variables. climate is impacted by much more than co2. co2 simply happens to be the most critical forcing agent in the overall climate model that is being affected by man's activity.

Anonymous said...

I can understand what you mean, but here's a few problems/questions I still have:

1.I totally agree that this is the one avenue many deniers take to refute the issue of Global Warming. Whether it's John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh, the first thing they usually bring up is just how small a change it is.

While my initial reaction to FFXL's blog post was that maybe 2/3rd's of a degree in warming over the last 120 years (according to a graph he used) was capable of a little more damage then FFXL may have thought was possible, he recently (as of several minutes ago) made a post where he answered that question for me.

What he pointed out is that (using his hometown as an example) temperature changes in a single year can fluctuate as much as 100 degrees, and nature adapts just fine to it. He then asks the question of just how a 2/3rd's of a degree change over the course of 120 years can matter if nature can adapt so quickly to far greater changes in a single year.

I think he had a point, if nature already adapts to 100 degree changes in a single year, then what does the current warming over more then a century mean for eco-systems?

2 & 3. I think what FFXL was trying to make in these points was that based on what many people assert (that it is primarily greenhouse gases) the data trend should be more linear.

From what I can see he seems to agree with you, he's not trying to use that point alone to say it's not man-made at all, but he does seem to make the point that global temperature is far more complex then CO2=heating.

The one question that stands out for me out of everything else is this: At the moment I don't think man-made CO2 emissions play a big role in the current warming, but what are the other human caused factors that warm the planet?

Odiyya said...

hey anon,

i'll need to come back to some of your other points later, but i can address your concern on temperature change. i'm not sure if the 2/3s of a degree figure is accurate, and i'm also curious where you'd see a 100 degree flucuation in temp (i'll assume you're using hyperbole here), but taking the 2/3rds figure as given there is a three fold issue here.

first is that the temperature changes is still increasing, so whatever effects we have now are strengthening.

second, yes nature rebounds nicely from a one year temperature spike, but not without effects. what we are talking about here is sustained temperature increases, and any farmer will tell you that relatively small fluctuations in climate can have significant impacts on the behaviour of crops...same goes for the rest of nature. in fact, the very definition of climate change means sustained alteration in climate, not a freak year.

the third point, and maybe most important is that any temperature change quoted is an average figure for the globe. the dangerous part is that changes are more exagerated at the polls. this is why scientists are raising such large alarms about melting in both greenland and antarctica, because a small change in temperature at the equator translates into a large change at the poles, by a matter of degrees.

so while the average change may seem small, the effects of it are large.

Chervil said...

Odiyya - great post and one I will be linking to from my blog. I totally agree with you. I have noticed that almost any Internet forum I have joined which starts of with a varied debate will eventually get a climate change denier (or "man made climate change denier") on board who will then move to argue against the scientific consensus by using sarcasm, nasty personal comments against people trying to do the right thing, false presentations and other tricks.

I initially tried arguing the case for science, as you have done, but I am now wondering whether a better way of dealing with these people is to ignore them.

You can spend your whole life arguing with them and trying to show them what science is telling us, it is all to no avail. Maybe that is the idea behind it - keep those, that actually want to change things, so busy trying to argue with the 'sceptics' that they never get around to doing anything else.

It is almost as if it has become some sort of religion to be a "climate change denier", and there is no arguing with people who absolutely want to believe in something no matter what.

By the way - from reading the other comments I wonder whether "anonymous" is really "FFXL"...

Odiyya said...

thanks Chervil, and welcome aboard. your comments sum things up well. its not debate that needs to be stopped, but misinformation. if new information came up that called the current consensus on climate change into question, or that indicated a radically different way of dealing with it, it would be both welcome and needed. but obviously, that hasn't happened.

the most appalling factor in this issue is the obvious lack of critical thinking capability among deniers. though they like to think its those of us warning others about climate change that are the "religious fanatics", or "ecofascists" (whatever the hell that means), its almost never the case, and certainly isn't here on this site.

but if a person is not capable of being objective about an independent topic, they certainly won't be able to objectively look at their own thinking. the best we can do is not allow mature discourse to be corrupted by it.