Chicken Global Warming Deniers

I've had it with arguing with skeptics.  It's like whac-a-mole.  You squash one ill-informed comment, 10 more pop up in its place.  Our local papers have had some global warming articles recently, and I've been arguing the global warming case to the ill-informed.  It's alright when you are joined by many others on the comment thread who are arguing the same case.  But it's not so good when the threads get overrun by global warming deniers.

I read hekebolos' diary last week, http://www.dailykos.com/...

He made the case that we needed to use fear against the deniers.  So I started to respond to a denier with that tactic.  I faltered as I composed the comment.  I felt like a fear-mongerer.  I felt like I was playing right into the hands of "State of Fear" mindset.  I didn't feel like it was the right approach.  I discarded the comment and went on my way.

Over the next few days, though, it kept going around in my head.

How do you appeal to the capitalists?  The optimistic, laissez-faire, America first crowd?  

So I was the lone voice, it seemed, on the local paper's comment thread yesterday.  My one reasonable comment was "Thumbed down" below the viewing threshold.  On the local papers (there are 2), you can give a comment a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down."  If you get more than 2 thumbs down, your comment is hidden by default.  You can change this, of course, but the default is what most people leave it to.  So anyways, my one reasonable comment was "Thumbed down."  7 or so thumbs down.  I was exasperated. Then I posted another comment along the lines of:  "What are you guys so afraid of?  Are you afraid of change?  Are you afraid that the US can't live without oil?  You guys don't think we can innovate our way out of this?  I am not afraid.  America will, and shall lead the carbon-free energy revolution.  Follow us."

To my surprise, I received no thumbs down for awhile.  I finally did receive a couple later on.  But I think maybe that could be the right approach.  You can put the deniers on the defensive.  Accuse them of being chicken that we can't fix the problem.  Accuse them of underestimating America.  Paint a, dare I say, "morning in America" image with the "We will and shall lead the carbon-free energy revolution."

It is better than the constant whac-a-mole of arguing point by point what the skeptics bring up.  Dismiss the denier arguments.  Don't even quibble over the specifics.  It will just go on and on, wasting your time.  If they don't want to believe it, they won't.  But if you accuse them of being chicken, you just might surprise them.  Hopefully shock them into thinking a new way.

Here's the meme:
Global warming deniers are fearful. They are afraid of change. They don't think the US can stand up to the great challenge before us. They don't think we are capable of innovating new energy sources, of sequestering and capturing carbon, and of implementing other measures to keep our planet system stable. They are terrified that we have to cut back our lifestyles, when that is the farthest thing from the truth. We can live just as well, just by being smarter about it. Those afraid of change need to get out of the way, for this great nation of ours can, and shall lead the way in the carbon-free energy revolution!

•  Around for a little bit

  I'm going to hang out for a few minutes and see how this goes.

  by Greenkermie in AZ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:26:40 PM PDT

•  good framing

  If you saw "An Inconvenient Truth" you may remember a part where Gore says something along the lines of "it's amazing how many people go straight from denial to despair, without pausing for a moment to consider what we could do to solve the problem."  He goes on to point out some of the "impossible" accomplishments this country has achieved in the past, that all we need is political will to overcome this problem.  A similar point.

  Did you notice this article about global warming in the NYT recently?  It's by the former chief climate correspondent for that paper, and he ends his collumn this way:

  Some experts believe that no matter what humans do to try to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, a doubling is all but inevitable by 2100. In this view, the urgent task ahead is to keep them from rising even higher.

  If the concentrations were to triple, and even if they just double, there is no telling at this point what the world will really be like as a result, except to speculate that on balance, most of its inhabitants probably won't like it much. If James E. Hansen, one of the bolder climate scientists of the last two decades, is right, they will be living on a different planet.

  It has been pointed out many times, including by me, that we are engaged in a titanic global experiment. The further it proceeds, the clearer the picture should become. At age 71, I'm unlikely to be around when it resolves to everyone's satisfaction — or dissatisfaction. Many of you may be, and a lot of your descendants undoubtedly will be.

  Good luck to you and to them.

  After reading that I muttered to myself, "whoa."  

  by Lee on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:40:58 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    It looks like I'll be around to see some of the changes.  I'm in my mid-thirties.  I am expecting a LOT of people to eat crow in 10 years though.

    by Greenkermie in AZ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:49:20 PM PDT

    •  or drink it,

      as the case may be

      I just turned 30 myself, so at this point I'm expecting the full tour.  (sigh)

      by Lee on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:52:41 PM PDT

  •  The most scary scenario

    involves massive release of methane hydrates from arctic seas to the athmosphere. And guess what? There are signs that methane hydrates are already going up...

    I agree that we should affect the public and influential people by whatever means that work. The claim that responsive measures would hurt economy enormously is just so fin. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for that - we know no economies failed because of effective climate concerns. In contrary - investment into CO2 clean technologies already shows features of being the innovative vehicle for the market.

    At best, their "common sense" economic concern is just as good as our concern about the climate. Economic fears should be opposed by the same standards as climate fears. I am glad to see that  totally agree that challenging anxiety of real change and innovation apparently works. We need more of this!

    (Deep down, that is where the problem boild down to: those filthy rich oilmen, media moguls and their political clients wish nothing but to cement their status, and freeze any change for centuries. Some of them really do not see a hell coming. Others probably hope to inherit the planet after climatic or nuclear armageddon. How mighty they could be mistaken...)

    by das monde on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 03:51:44 AM PDT

•  There's another item on their agenda

  A letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal called global warming a hoax perpetrated by those who want more government control over the economy. The writer also argued that today's temperatures are normal and only look like they're rising because we're emerging from the Little Ice Age.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:43:56 PM PDT

  •  even not having seen the letter

    I still had to chuckle at that "argument," because I can't imagine what kind evidence s/he put forward to back up it up.  But all opinions are equally valid as we should all know by now.

    by Lee on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:51:03 PM PDT

  •  Easy to counter

    You could point out the steep rise in the last few decades in temperatures.  Whack!  another mole.

    Instead, you could point out that the economy would have greater freedom from not being bound to limited, troublesome energy sources.  Troublesome to extract, and troublesome geo-politically.  And the economy would thrive on the new technology and jobs.  The only ones who thrive with the status quo are the fossil-fuel industries.

    by Greenkermie in AZ on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:52:05 PM PDT

    •  If it keeps rising

      You might have grapes growing in Newfoundland -- like they were when the Vikings came over a thousand years ago and called it Vinland.

      From wikipedia

      Finally it has been speculated that grapes did in fact grow in Newfoundland (47-51°N) in the past, but not any more due to climatic changes. The time period of the Vinland settlement corresponds with the Medieval Warm Period (from about the 10th century to about the 14th century). Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1°C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56°N) and southern England (ca. 51°N).

      by william shipley on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:52:26 PM PDT

      •  as that wikipedia article points out

        there are a number of theories about that:

        There are a number of theories to explain this discrepancy:

           * It was an early marketing attempt, something like the naming of Greenland by Erik the Red. In this theory, Leifr's naming of Markland and Vinland was to encourage others to explore and settle there.

           * A theory subject to much debate among scholars is that there was a misinterpretation of short-i *Vinland as long-i Vínland. In this theory the naming is based on the Old Norse word (short-i) vin f meaning 'meadow; pasture'. Vin is a common name on old farms from Norse times in Norway, and present-day use of the word are Bjørgvin, the Norse (and Icelandic) name of Bergen, Norway, and Granvin, where vin translates into 'pasture' in both. A poetic Norse name of the Danish island of Sjælland (Zealand) was Viney 'pasture island'. The actual word also existed in Old English, and an interesting parallel to the Norse name Vinland is the name of the village Woolland in Dorset: This was written "Winlande" in 1086, and it is interpretted as 'meadow land'. This theory can be combined with the previous one: Estridson might have embellished Adam's mistake if he believed it would increase the fame of Vinland for joint financed ventures he would no doubt claim for himself. One problem with this theory is why the sagas outside of Adam of Bremen's account also refer to long-i Vínland, and mention vines as well. Since the sagas were written later, an explanation for this could be that the sagas were somehow influenced by Adam of Bremen's account.

           * Alternatively Estridson was joking or lying, or even referring to similarly sounding Wendland instead in an earlier account, where grapes did grow, and this was later confused with Vinland by Adam of Bremen.

           * Another theory is that we have not discovered the true location of Vinland yet, and it is further south, where grapes do grow. More subtly Vinland could be seen as a gateway or northern part, in reach of more temperate areas where grapes grew.

           * Another possibility is that later, longer voyages further south, reporting Concord style grapes confused the story told about the settlement, as there were individuals of the crews who had ventured out on their own to return with tales.

           * Still another possibility is that the reference is to any of the abundant berries in Newfoundland, including gooseberries or blueberries, which are both abundant near L'Anse-aux-Meadows and are both suitable for winemaking.

           * Finally it has been speculated that grapes did in fact grow in Newfoundland (47-51°N) in the past, but not any more due to climatic changes. The time period of the Vinland settlement corresponds with the Medieval Warm Period (from about the 10th century to about the 14th century). Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1°C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56°N) and southern England (ca. 51°N).

        by Lee on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 12:09:58 AM PDT

        •  The other explanations

          Do not cover the grapes in southern England.  The Medieval Warm period definitely gave longer growing seasons in Greenland as well.  It's hard to reconcile the statements that this is the warmest year ever with the historical records from the Vikings in Greenland who lived in a lusher land than is present today.

          If you look at the affect of climate changes on human development, farming etc. in the last thousand to two thousand years you can see significant variation.  It's quite possible that the 'magic' behind the Stradivarius violins is the result of finer grain of the wood at that time due to the little ice age. We also know that all of recorded history is relatively mild compared to the ice ages and inter glacial periods we are aware of.  Climate is definitely naturally variable.

          I do not think that the science is as settled as it is portrayed to be.  A search of available papers, on the web looking for data that isn't obviously put out by people with a specific agenda reveals a lot of alternative theories and explanations.

          Interesting alternatives to greenhouse gas formation is cloud variation (reflectivity) due to variation in cosmic ray flux and the simplest explanation of all -- solar variation.  The solar variation possibility may well be reflected on Mars.

          by william shipley on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:43:14 AM PDT

•  Not a bad idea

  Surely it's worth a try, if nothing more than to see if it works. We love to rise to a challenge.

  I think one of the problems is that this is not a simple issue to understand (and by this I mean the science, so many moving parts). The average person, heck the above average person for that matter, can't get their head around all the different inputs.

  So it gets boiled down to, "The earth is getting warmer." I would add that most people accept the fact that people are contributing to that.

  What you're left with is "What does that mean", and I think this is where we lose some people.

  I know this was not addressed in this diary, but it should be relevant to the topic. People have to stop making extreme over-the-top statements about the effects of GW. People start to tune you out, and I believe you lose credibility in the debate.

  Just a small step.

  by NoBigGovernment on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:19:01 AM PDT

•  Check out Flagstaff

  There is an argument in Federal District Court over the use of treated sewage effluent to make fake snow for the ski slopes of the San Francisco Peaks.

  Meanwhile, the news this year was that the ski operations couldn't open during the Christmas/New Years' holiday when they normally do their biggest business.  There wasn't enough snow in the mountains.

  It should dawn on people in Arizona that global warming could affect weather systems in the southwest.   Water is a scarce resource and developers have generally held sway in the legislature and thus, regulation of water resources doesn't have the emphasis it should.  It isn't a serious situation.  It is absolutely red warning light critical.

  Solar energy is way underdeveloped in Arizona, a state with a lot of sun.  Perhaps a big factor in denial about gasoline and oil dependency is that people have to drive huge, long distances in this region.

  I live in a rural part of the state, where it may be hundreds of miles to a grocery store with bulk bins for granola, or to a movie theater.  The healthcare system depends on air ambulance service which costs thousands of dollars.

  I think people are afraid that there is no alternative to the automobile, pickup truck or SUV that can drive long distances and make it across rocky, muddy or sandy tracts of land as well.

  I think people figure that when it all comes down, they will either just be SOL, or something will save the day that can't be anticipated.  A lot of people in the West are not the rugged individualists that myth portrays, but rather, helpless before great trends and conditions set by powerful people elsewhere.

  by Stuart Heady on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

  •  Geothermal

    Also Southern Arizona is a prime location for geothermal.  This is way under-developed as well.

    by Greenkermie in AZ on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 11:39:46 AM PDT

•  We're here to help

  My one reasonable comment was "Thumbed down" below the viewing threshold.  On the local papers (there are 2), you can give a comment a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down."  If you get more than 2 thumbs down, your comment is hidden by default.  You can change this, of course, but the default is what most people leave it to.

  When you post a comment there, post a link to it here in an Open Thread or relevant environment diary and you can get a few more thumbs-ups that will help counter thumbs downs.

  by raines on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

•  They're not all the same

  You seem to be saying that all deniers are oil-driven republicans, but there are other types, so you're arguments aren't going to work universally.

  *There's the religious irrationalists who can't believe that God would let his favorites down.

  *Some are conspiracy theorists.  They don't believe a word the gov't tries to sell them, so they see this as just another form of control. Asked, "to what end?" they are still trying to figure that out.  Now that even Bush seems to be jumping aboard, it only adds fuel that it's part of some vast world-wide plot.

  *There is another set of people who are actually scientists.  They believe the earth is warming but do not agree with the catastrophic predicitons that films like "The Day After Tomorrow" portray.  They think if the hysteria is not toned down, it will end up being counterproductive to improving the environment, because everyone will simply throw up their hands with a sense of futility.

  *Oh yes.  And I've discovered a new set.  A group who believes the warming of the oceans actually points to the beginning of a natural ice age.  And that man's effects have actually kept the ice at bay for now.  And that we should burn fossil fuels like hell if we want to survive.  I don't even know where you would begin with fellows like these.

  by Sigmarlin on Thu Feb 08, 2007 at 11:40:51 AM PDT