Please help me refute the points in this global warming LTTE!

[bbernardini]

The "gentleman" who wrote this is a regular in the Editorial section. His singular goal in life seems to be to shoot down anybody who thinks global warming might be a problem. Of course, he always fails to mention that he works for Lyondell, a self-described "leading global producer of chemicals, fuels and plastics." One of Lyondell's subsidies is Equistar, "one of the largest producers of ethylene, propylene and polyethylene in North America and a leading producer of ethylene oxide, ethylene glycol, high value-added specialty polymers and polymeric powder." Both companies have had pollution complaints, particularly in Texas. According to one report, "Lyondell’s Channelview plant is the nation’s No. 1 polluter of 1,3-Butadiene."

Anyway, here's the bulk of the letter, which conveniently fit into four paragraphs:

First and foremost, the scientific community has not come to an “overwhelming majority decision that human actions are affecting our climate in a negative manner.” A 2003 German survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 countries found that although 82 percent believe that global warming is happening, 56 percent believed it was mostly due to human activity, and only 35 percent believed that models can accurately predict future climate conditions (Heartland Institute Web site). This view mirrors that of the American people polled in 2006 by the Pew Trust: 70 percent believe global warming is happening, 41 percent believe it is due to human causes and 19 percent think it is a high-priority issue.

Over 19,000 American scientists, including this one, are signatories of the global warming petition which states “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Last week, following an international conference in New York City featuring hundreds of scientists who say global warming is not a crisis, a new survey of 51,000 professional engineers, geologists, and geophysicists in Alberta, Canada, found only 26 percent believe global warming is caused by human activity, and 68 percent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”
Advertisement

That’s a lot of very knowledgeable people who disagree with the notion that the “global warming debate is over.” If immediate action needs to be taken, it is that Mr. Long and the minority who share his beliefs stop telling everyone else to shut up and start listening.

[kristopher]

1. You aren't going to shoot down or refute his arguments. He's mostly right.

He is telling you that, for whatever reason, he isn't convinced.

selected quotes:
has not come to an “overwhelming majority decision

only 35 percent believed that models can accurately predict

There is no convincing scientific

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects

in the foreseeable future,

hundreds of scientists who say global warming is not a crisis

disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”


This guy isn't arguing science, he is talking about a popularity contest. What he needs to change his mind we can't say for sure, but the evidence is going to keep coming in and there are going to be more and more firm statements from scientists about specific dangers, their severity and their timing.
Most people are willing to initiate action that is meaningful. If the power balance shifts in DC we are going to see some policies implemented that are going to help a lot with getting the voice of science back into a place of respectability where it can do for us whaat it is supposed to.

Forget the jerk and volunteer for a Dem campaign.

[phantom power]

3. I've begun addressing some "debates" that way:

Begin the discussion with a question: "What would it take to convince you of X?"

[kristopher]

9. It isn't a question that can be answered.

We rarely know, in advance, what it will take to convince us about something as complex as this. Any answer is not going to provide a target that will actually be effective.

Here is a diagram of how I perceive these debates. "A" is the skeptical average Josephene and "B" is the person who advocates action to address climate change.

A: I don't believe it because of reasons 1,2 and 3.

B: 1 is a logical fallacy, 2 is a false fact - here is the proof, and 3 is right wing propaganda - here is the full story.

A: (Doesn't acknowledge response and moves on) I don't believe it because of reasons 4,5 and 6.

B: 4 is a logical fallacy, 5 is a false fact - here is the proof, and 6 is right wing propaganda - here is the full story.

A: (Doesn't acknowledge response and moves on) I don't believe it because of reasons 7, 8 and 9.

B: 7 is a logical fallacy, 8 is a false fact - here is the proof, and 9 is right wing propaganda - here is the full story.

....

A: (Doesn't acknowledge response and moves on) I don't believe it because of reasons 123, 124 and 125.

B: 123 is a logical fallacy, 124 is a false fact - here is the proof, and 125 is right wing propaganda - here is the full story.

A: (Doesn't acknowledge response and moves on) I don't believe it because of reasons 1, 2 and 3...


In this debate, neither side has a belief in the authoritative validity of the other side; the discussion isn't a search for the truth so reasoning and factual accuracy isn't persuasive. This is an exercise in re-enforcing self identification with a group.

[XemaSab]

2. He's got problems with some of the parallels he's drawing

A 2003 German survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 countries found that

*although 82 percent believe that global warming is happening,
*56 percent believed it was mostly due to human activity, and
*only 35 percent believed that models can accurately predict future climate conditions (Heartland Institute Web site).

These are not the same as:

This view mirrors that of the American people polled in 2006 by the Pew Trust:

*70 percent believe global warming is happening,
*41 percent believe it is due to human causes
*and 19 percent think it is a high-priority issue.


For the second set of "facts," who the hell cares what the uneducated American public thinks?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Well, you can forget about convincing *him*

But perhaps you can counteract some of his "talking points" with "talking points" of your own:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.ehow.com/how_2163901_talk-global-warming-skeptic.html
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

[seasat]

5. Well the so called petition with 19000 signatures is a fraud.

You can find some engineers and scientists that disagree with the green house gas theory of climate change. For instance the American Association of Petroleum Geologists disagrees with it. However, the American Geophysical Union, one of the largest (over 50,000 members) and most respected independent organization of earth scientists has overwhelmingly supported the theory.

The German Survey was one done by Bray and Storch online. They made it anonymous but required a password and it was sent out to only qualified scientists. However, it came to light that the password and information was posted to a climate skeptics mailing list. Since it is anonymous they have no way of verifying that there were not several responses by the same person. They also have no way of verifying that there were not folks who got the password but were not invited responding. In other words, it's bogus.

The 19000 signature petition is a fraud. What happened is that a theoretical physicist with no back ground in climatology or earth science formed a conservative group to attack climate change. I believe his name is Seitz and he was formerly a higher up in the National Academy of Science. They sent out a non-peer reviewed article that was formated to look like a National Academies study that stated that increased CO2 was good for plant life and they would capture more of it mitigating the effects of climate change. That letter was sent out sometime in the late nineties and a card was enclosed to respond if you agreed with it. They then set up a website where anyone could come and post as a signatory on the petition supporting the letter. The New American Scientist tried to verify some of the signatures of folks on that petition that were scientists in a field that might study climate change. They couldn't find one that would confirm that they supported the petition. Some of the signatures (being a web site) are absolutely bogus. Many of the signatures are from medical doctors, high school teachers, and others that do not work in a research field. Only folks supported by the oil and coal industries give that debunked survey any credibility.

The conference in NY is put on by the Heartland Institute, conservative opponents of climate change sponsored by coal and oil companies. They are paying people a $1000 a head to speak at it. At a real scientific conference, the scientists pay their own way (usually through their grants). Real Climate has the background on it.

Here's the Canadian survey, if you read through it, you find that 70% of the respondents were engineers not scientists. Many engineers work in fields, such as the oil industry, and would oppose actions against mitigating climate change because it would affect their jobs. Some engineers are not any more scientifically qualified on climate change than the average person. My brother-in-law is a transportation engineer and I had to explain to him how CO2 acts as an "insulator" in our atmosphere. As it is, the 26% were those that believed climate change is "solely" caused by humans. Another 45% believe humans are partially responsible. They kind of left that part off in his post about the survey. The survey did not have 50,000 responses. He's BSing on that one. Only 1077 voluntarily submitted their responses.

For the right amount of money, you can find folks that will say that the earth is really flat. That's what the coal and oil industry is doing.

[bbernardini]

6. Well, I THOUGHT my rebuttal letter was done...

...but you've given me some great material with which to rework it a little bit. Thanks!

[seasat]

7. Glad I could help.

I'm an oceanographer and invariably someone at a social event will ask me if man's influence on climate change thing is real. I've had to learn all the wing nut talking points because they usually have heard a few. The site RealClimate.org is probably the best source of information on the web about current news on climate change. It's a blog by a group of scientists working on climate change and answers a lot of the media misdirection by the fossil fuel industry.

[bbernardini]

8. Here's my response so far. Thoughts?

Once again, Dan Pourreau uses the Editorial page of the Daily Local News to further his ill-informed claims and denials about global warming. His letter is filled with so many inaccuracies and half-truths, one hardly knows where to begin. For example, Pourreau cites a survey from 2003 to support his claims. Are we to believe that there has been no scientific study between 2003 and 2008 that might result in a change to these survey numbers (most likely a change that Pourreau won’t like, and therefore ignores)? Additionally, the manner in which the 2003 survey was conducted was so flawed, there is no way the results can be seriously considered.

The claim that over 19,000 scientists believe that humans do not contribute to global warming is laughable. First of all, how many of those 19,000 scientists are climate scientists? Very few, I suspect. In fact, none of the faculty members of the institute that distributed this petition are climate scientists. Their scientific opinion regarding this matter is no better than the average non-scientist. Secondly, this petition was originally distributed beginning in 1999, long before current studies showing the clear impact of humans and industry on global warming.

As for the “international conference,” it was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the website of which Pourreau also cites. What he fails to mention is that the Heartland Institute is funded in part by Philip Morris, ExxonMobil, and countless conservative foundations and business owners who stand to lose some of their precious billions if they do the right thing and clean up their act. This so-called scientific conference was not an attempt to discuss ideas and further scientific understanding. Its purpose was, in the words of a letter sent out by the Heartland Institute, “to generate national media attention” for global warming denial. Of course, the scientists speaking at this conference are going to say global warming isn’t a crisis. They’re being paid by the people who would benefit most from that position.

Pourreau cites the Canadian survey in a misleading fashion. 70% of the respondents to this survey were engineers, not scientists. My father is an electrical engineer, and he's no more scientifically qualified in matters of climate change than the average person. Pourreau also conveniently left out the fact that while 26% of respondents did not believe climate change was caused by humans, another 45% believed that humans were partially responsible. Finally, the number of participants in the survey was not 50,000, but 1,077 (this number is directly from the report on the survey).

Could the fact that Pourreau’s employer was identified by researchers at the University of Massachusettes Amherst as being the 53rd largest corporate producer of air pollution in the US have anything to do with his position? As Upton Sinclair once said, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

[seasat]

10. Much more eloquent than my writing.

Just one technical correction regarding the Canadian survey. The 26% are folks that believe humans are completely responsible. 27% did not believe humans were responsible at all so a total of 71% believed humans had an impact on climate change.

You might also want to list some of the groups that support the theory. Wiki has a nice summary of all the groups that endorsed it. I was wrong in one part in my post. According to Wiki, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has now taken a non-committal position on the green house gas theory of climate change. Until they released this statement, they were the only major scientific organization that rejected the theory.