Letter to a Climate Change Denier

[Jackpine Radical]

The following is a response I sent to My Favorite Wingnut, who had just sent me some particularly outrageous denialist nonsense:

So let me get this straight. You see no problem with our continuing to do things that will render the Earth uninhabitable in the fairly near future--certainly within the lifetime of your grandchildren

Let us talk about the life you are wishing on your grandchildren. They will not have food because of widespread drought. They will not have water because we will have drained most of the aquifers with bad corporate agricultural practices, and poisoned the rest through gas fracking. There will be no air to breathe because the seas will have absorbed so much CO2 that they have become too acidic to support the plant life that produces oxygen, and the remaining forests will have died off due to the increasingly inhospitable conditions brought about by climate change.

Certainly there can be other factors besides anthropogenic ones in climate change, particularly in the long view. The thing is, the change that's about to befall us is avoidable but private interests, driven by greed, choose to let the world crash & burn while they extract the last blood from the rest of us.

All of this so that some very rich people can get a lot richer--while doing in the vast majority of the earth’s population. You have fallen for the lies being propagated by the very people who want to kill you off as surplus population.

There is a reason why 95% of scientists with advanced training relevant to the issues accept climate change theory as almost certainly true. These people are trained to separate facts from nonsense, and the facts overwhelmingly point to the general scientific accuracy of the models.

You know, when it comes right down to it, you’re a lot meaner person than I have realized, in that you are so willing to condemn your own grandchildren to the sort of world that the Climate Change deniers are wishing upon us.

[pscot]

1. Let us know how he responds.

May the scales fall from his eyes.

[xtraxritical]

21. The disasters you refer to are the longer term ones, more immediately

sea level rise is already displacing people and forcing them to move entire countries, such as the Maldives. I would think that the lack of winter this year all across the nation would be an eyeopener. Flora and Fauna are confused as spring comes earlier every year. Early blooming and then freeze is a major problem.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. Wonderful! Do you mind if I send this to some that I know?

I don't know how much good it will do. They don't acknowledge that man has had anything to do with climate change, therefore man can't do anything to correct it. They are waiting for gawd to take care of it.

[riderinthestorm]

3. I want to tear my hair out when someone tells me this is all "normal" cyclical events

and that there's nothing to worry about....

You can't even argue with them since they're so completely unable to comprehend or listen to the discussion. One of the farriers who comes here just came out with climate change denial bullshit a few days ago. Now this is a guy who works outdoors (or in the doorways of barns but close enough to outdoors) on a daily basis. He has horses of his own so he's INTIMATELY connected to the outdoors daily. He knows precisely how weird our weather has become but nope, doesn't believe the scientists, its just normal cyclical stuff, nothing to worry about. It'll all be okay.

I'm blown away whenever I encounter them (my mom's one of them too). It's really amazing in a sick kinda way...

[lunatica]

6. Well he seems to believe the scientists who say it's 'normal cyclical activity'

Maybe you should simply ask him what evidence does he have that climate change is a normal cyclical activity. Is it perchance SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of cyclical activity?

How did he learn what is normal cyclical weather activity?

[riderinthestorm]

10. yes he brings up the Ice Age, and the times during the medieval era as his proofs.

He was standing there with some of my clients and I caught the eye of one of them who rolled her eyes....

I try to never tangle with the farriers - the other guy who comes out is a major fundie. Homeschooled his kids because they "teach the devil" there.

The folks who are attracted to horse shoeing are unusual to say the least but since my life and livelihood really does revolve around that old rhyme, I tend to let them rant without interruption or argument. I've learned from hard experience that you absolutely cannot change their mind, you will only lose their goodwill, and professionally it gets me into positions I'd rather avoid.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

[Ocean Raider]

18. "the times during the medieval era"

You mentioned "the times during the medieval era as his proofs"


To what does this refer? Is it a good point?

[riderinthestorm]

25. Hi, sorry, I've been busy all day and just got back on and saw your question

And the answer is, I have absolutely no idea if its valid or not, it's just always been this vague reference by climate change deniers.... Here's a wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The guy's a nut! I'm guessing it's something he heard on Faux News because my mom parrots this as well. I refuse to engage them anymore. They have chosen to believe the worst fringe group of scientists who have no credibility on this at all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. My tea party neighbor parrots this, constantly.

Guess it's a repug talking point.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. Yes! The person I work with accepts the view of only 2% of climate scientists who state

that climate change is cyclical and not man made. This only proves that "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Give it a try.

I don't really hold out much hope that things like this will matter to the guy I wrote it to, but maybe for some who haven't emotionally committed to the denialist position….

It's very interesting that a number of little pieces that I have posted around on the web have originated like this one--as exasperated responses to this guy that I write in order to relieve my emotional tensions. So at least he serves that use for me.

[lunatica]

7. Well it seems they do rely on scientific evidence that climate does change cyclically

If they know the weather has changed in the distant past to ice ages or whatever what are they relying on to know such a thing. Why, guess what?! Scientific evidence!

[Jackpine Radical]

9. You inspired me to send this as a followup to MFW:

You keep talking about ice ages. There were no ice ages. Prove there were ice ages.

Please note--

Since you refuse to acknowledge the implications of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that indicates the existence of global warming, and since there is nothing but an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to indicate the existence of the Ice Ages, you are not allowed to selectively use scientific evidence to support your belief in the Ice Ages but not in climate change.

[lunatica]

11. Asking them to prove ice ages is a stroke of genius!

Because the only proof we have is through scientific study.

You nailed it!

edited to correct spelling

[Narkos]

5. Nice work...n/t

[Speck Tater]

8. A waste of breath. He won't believe a single word of it.

He will parrot back something he heard on Fox News and consider the matter closed.

And as an aside, I've found that calling somebody mean rarely works to recruit them to your side. That merely makes them even more entrenched in their own position. When people are attacked, oddly enough, they react to protect their own ego, which does not even remotely include the possibility of admitting they were wrong. By attacking you make it impossible for them to consider that they might be wrong. (Oh, and yes, I do realize the irony in the fact that by pointing this out to you I've pushed you into being even more entrenched in your own position concerning the matter at hand. You will reiterate why you believe that what you did was the right thing, and I will have done you a disservice by denying the chance to actually reconsider. My heartfelt apologies.)

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I'm not going to defend my comment in terms of entrenchment--

certainly you're right in that regard, but I figured he was hopeless anyway, and I wanted to see if I could get some sort of reaction from him that indicates he has a semblance of a conscience.

[Speck Tater]

23. I just can't figure out why people don't yet realize...

that conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular are just plain mean and stupid. That's a dangerous combination, but it's what we're faced with.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. I just can't figure out why those people? don't yet realize that they ARE

just plain mean and stupid and RUDE too.

I am sick and tired of them.

I really am.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. So I got an answer from him & replied to it…

On Mar 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Wingnut wrote:

I admit there is global warming. So what. We just morph to the next life form. What is the problem. Do you really feel we have reached the end of your so called evolution. The definition of arrogance or stupidity.

Here is my reply:

Ya know, it would be a lot easier to discuss this if you had some clue of what evolutionary theory is all about. For example, just off the top of your head, can you list the major ways in which genetic variety increases in a deme? By what mechanisms does it decrease? For that fucking matter, what is a deme?

What is the standard operational definition of fitness in the biological sciences? For that matter, what is an operational definition?

Define heritability in terms of analysis of variance. What are the implications of heritability for the relationship between an organism's genotype and phenotype?

Do you have sufficient knowledge, which I would expect of any freshman biology student, to answer any of these questions?

Do you know ANY damned thing about this stuff? I bet you don't even have the vocabulary, let alone the mathematical and statistical background, to have the right to an opinion on biological science.

Get back to me on evolutionary theory when you can present some credible evidence of having ever read anything more authoritative than a Jehovah's Witness tract on the topic.


Honest to God, there are some things you don't know shit about, and you come across as a moron, which you most certainly are not, when you display your ignorance of the topics you're pretending to have worthwhile opinions on. You're very bright, but--well, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect, if you know what I mean.

But then I guess that's the best I can expect from someone who slavishly adheres to the opinions of a lying moron like Limbo (or is it Limb-Arrrgh?) who also feels free to pontificate on things about which he knows nothing--like when he revealed his ignorant beliefs about how female contraception works. (One pill for every encounter, he thought--I guess he got it mixed up with the Viagra he uses with those little Dominican boys.)

[Speck Tater]

26. hehe. Well put.

It amazes me that people will pass judgement on a branch of science that they have no knowledge whatsoever of. I've read a few books on genetics, especially Dawkins, but at least I have the good sense to admit I don't have a clue when it comes to passing any kind of judgement on the work of geneticists who know what they're doing. And the same applies to climate science. I've read a few books, and can talk semi-intelligently with my friend the retired navy meteorologist, but when it comes to passing judgement on global warming, I leave that to the experts, and trust the consensus.

One of the biggest problems with stupidity is that it doesn't recognize it's own limits.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. "One of the biggest problems with stupidity is that it doesn't recognize it's own limits."

Ah, but there you're wrong. Stupidity has no limits. Einstein once said something like that, iirc.

[barbtries]

31. hehe

nice reference to limbaugh. is it true that your correspondent is a smart person, yet listens to limbaugh? i cannot fathom that.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. He's fairly bright but unread, and pretty much in a chronic rage state.

Limbaugh suffices to feed his rage, and that's the only "truth test" that matters.

[izquierdista]

12. I'd take a different tack

Leaving the importance of science to the next to last paragraph is where I differ with you. That should be the first argument out of the box. Climate deniers are in the same boat with creationists and anti-abortionists -- they let belief do their thinking for them.

But trying to pry loose the hold of belief is a difficult task. You can't do it with a flood of facts, because the believer hangs on even more desperately as the sea of facts threaten to inundate them. You have to do it little by little, getting them to agree that science is what is making their life better, not their belief system (usually based on religion). Agricultural science is what makes a bounteous harvest possible, better varieties and more scientific knowledge of how food crops grow, not prayers or sacrifices to the rain gods.

Climate deniers are science deniers, usually because they don't understand science and don't know how science has made their lives better. The Renaissance and the Age of Reason have passed them by, and although they use all the advances of science that modern life offers them, they have no clue how those advances came about. They compartmentalize science into fortunate discoveries (like the telephone) that must have come about because God must have decided to sprinkle some progress on humanity. In their mind, prayer and supplication are what progress depends on, not observation, analysis, theory, and experiment.

I never attack people's beliefs directly. All I can do is point them to some part of science that is important in their life, something that already has a foothold in their personal belief system. The more I ask them to observe and analyze, the larger science grows in importance to them. Soon they find that science in contradiction to their belief system and it's time to make a choice. Usually what they do is fence off a larger area for science, still leaving their received wisdom belief system in charge of the area outside the fence.

A practical example are the oil drillers in Texas and Oklahoma. There are many Baptist petroleum engineers there, people who look at geologic formations during the week to decide where the oil is, and on Sunday nod in agreement to the creationist sermon they hear. It takes a might strong fence to be a successful oil worker AND an upstanding member of the local church. If they had to make a choice between the two, they would probably go with their social group (emotion) than with what puts money in their wallet (intellect).

I don't think it makes any headway to call them mean, or to describe the world awaiting their grandchildren, or even to point out who is making a killing off their foolishness. You only make headway when you can get them to take their nose out of their Bible, their eyes off of FOX News, and their ears away from talk radio, and you get them to observe and analyze the world. What about the weather that we are experiencing? Is it part of a trend? What do they notice? Who are they going to believe, the latest set of talking points they heard, or their lying eyes?

[randr]

13. There is soon to come a time,

and it may be very close, when the climate deniers will be called to task. As rising sea levels, seasonal swings, record high and low temps, and all the associated disasters and costs make it more than apparent we are in for one hell of a ride. Global warming will become an undeniable fact of life. The causes will be moot. The solutions will be, hopefully, found in the nick of time. The costs will be the highest price humanity will have ever paid for continued existence on our planet.
We will come to see the predatory practices of the fossil fuel oligarchy as evil personified. People who have made a practice of denial will be called out as pariahs.
The "Earth First" movement will finally be acknowledged as the new loving principle we need to adopt to save our planet and the deniers will be seen in the same light as the perpetrators of the Inquisition and Facist movements of the past century's.
A hard rain is gonna fall!

[Ocean Raider]

15. Who are the 5%?

"95% of scientists with advanced training relevant to the issues accept climate change theory as almost certainly true"


Where is the best place to go to identify the 5% who do not agree and to compare their credentials against the 95% who do agree?

[Hissyspit]

28. Here is a place to start:

Last edited Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:26 AM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Stonepounder]

16. I take a slightly different tack.

My argument to climate-change deniers has always been that even if the 2% of scientists who say this is just normal cyclic change, the amount of crap we are dumping into the atmosphere can't be slowing the change down. So, if we why not try and cut down on the pollution so as to at least not accelerate the 'normal cyclic climate change'.

[KG]

17. i've found there's often a religion component to the denial. they believe

god will fix it all somehow. oy.

[Ocean Raider]

19. "the times during the medieval era"

One member mentioned "the times during the medieval era as his proofs". I am posting my question to him again for the whole group.


To what does this refer? Is it a good point?

[Hissyspit]

27. No, it's not a good point:

It's the "medieval warming crock." Watch this video here:

[Ocean Raider]

34. Medieval Warming Crock: Boring Cooling: Interesting

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Hissyspit,

While your moniker makes me think you are a Hater, my moniker "Ocean Raider" .... well.... it was the best I could come up with.


However, your recommendation was fascinating. Talk about a plethora of data and interpretations.

My first thought is to find that the case for global warming due to the sun to be not really interesting or persuasive. What interests me is the case where the lack of sunspots leads to cooling.

I am following links from your suggestion and I will not come up for air for a couple of weeks. Talk about Info Overload. I love it.

I wonder if those periods of low sunspot activity were the only thing keeping us from boiling over.

[raouldukelives]

20. K&R

Pretty close to what I tell people I know who think it's wise to invest in the stock market. Wise for you maybe. Certainly not for anyone who will have to live with it's consequences.
Most people tend to only care about themselves anyway. Hence it generally falls on deaf ears.