How To Win Any Argument Against A Global Warming Denier
Quick, while they’re not looking, write a comment about how the planet’s getting colder and loads of scientists think humans aren’t changing the climate. Don’t forget to use quotes from other denial websites, passing them off as scientific papers; and for God’s sake don’t say you work for an oil company – remember, we believe in AGW now.
Look! A response.
La! La! La! We can’t hear you!
It would be funny if it wasn’t so important: global warming denial is alive and well, on a blog, a forum, a chat room and a viral video near you. Now, before you make a comment like the one above, I just want to add that this article is for people who do believe that the activities of humans are changing the climate and all sorts of other natural systems. End of. If you don’t believe it then I really haven’t got time for your whining.
So, without further ado, if someone really is getting on your nerves, banging on about how “the science is uncertain” and “the climate is getting colder” and “the glaciers are growing” (all utter garbage, by the way), be they a corporation, a politician, or just someone you are getting sick of, then here is How To Win Any Argument Against A Global Warming Denier
(Don’t worry, even if they read this, they still won’t be able to do anything about it)
One
Hear them out — it doesn’t matter an awful lot what they say, but it’s polite to listen, even if it’s just to find out how entrenched their position is and therefore, how much effort you’ll have to go to in order to dig them out (it’s for their own good, and ours). Maybe they are just scared: after all, global warming is very, very scary and, just like someone who has been told they have cancer, a certain level of denial is a very common response. Maybe they are just repeating what they have heard verbatim just to say something, or maybe they are trolling (if it’s a web site). But, if they don’t admit any of this (and that’s almost certain) then you have to assume that they are in it to win it.
Two
Here’s the first part of your riposte: The history of global warming denial (or AGW / Athropogenic Global Warming denial, to be precise) is essentially a history of corporate lobbying since the early 1980s. It was the oil companies, the coal mining companies, the car manufacturers, the road constructors, the loggers and all the other corporations who would obviously not be able to carry on business as usual if they were found to be changing the climate, that did it first, and did it big time. The history of AGW denial is deep, dark and sophisticated and it involved some of the finest creative and persuasive minds that have ever graced the corporate and political stages. Corporations were responsible for and funded some of the most successful denial lobbies (think of the Global Climate Coalition, The Heritage Foundation, The Oregon Institute and The Cato Institute for starters) — here’s an excellent primer about their work — and some of the most successful advertising campaigns trying to convince the public that everything is fine and they should carry on doing what they do.
If the denier doesn’t agree with you here, then they are clearly deluded, and you are within your rights to say so. The facts bear this out and no AGW denier can deny this part without making themselves look foolish.
Three
A lot of denial — now that even the most corporate-minded politicians and dirtiest companies at least say humans are causing the climate to change — is now related to the amount of financial benefit it is claimed politicians, “green” companies and (get this) environmentalists will gain from a populace that believes humans are causing the climate to change. I make no bones about the awful behaviour of some companies and politicians that are using climate change as an excuse to sell more stuff, but look at what the oil and car companies and particular are also doing: they are using “green” credentials to try and sell more oil and more cars — the net effect being more global warming, not less. Bear in mind the history of denial being a corporate history, and you can see where this is going.
Now, here’s the crux of your argument: Who has the most to gain from a popular belief in anthropogenic global warming?
Politically, there aren’t any real winners: civilized humanity has screwed up the planet and politicians deservedly look shit because they have helped bring this upon us. Admitting AGW is real makes most of them look stupid and, in the eyes of a free-minded electorate, unelectable.
Corporations don’t win at all, unless they are able to greenwash sufficiently to make us buy more stuff, or do more polluting; but in the end, even the most effective greenwashers will have to admit that if we truly want to prevent climate change, their businesses are screwed. Admitting AGW is real makes corporations scared.
The Global Elites are comprised of corporate heads and leading politicians: all but the most paranoid conspiracy theorist, has to admit that there is no secret cabal formed of all-powerful elites that will benefit from a belief in AGW; we know who runs the cabals, and as I have already shown you, AGW is bad news for them.
Humanity in general. Hmm, now we’re on to something. If we truly believe that humans are causing the climate to change, and that we have to fundamentally change our behaviour, without the meddling of corporations and politicians, and that we do manage to avert catastrophic climate change then, yes, humanity as a whole will benefit, as will virtually every ecosystem on Earth.
So who’s pulling the strings to show, more so as time goes on, that humans are changing the climate?
Just a lot of climate scientists, concerned environmentalists, humanitarianists and other ordinary human beings who just want to find out the truth. People who have nothing to gain but their future on this little blue-green planet.
- Posted in : Environment, Keith, Positive Change, Videos
- Author :keithf
Comments»
@keithf
Link is broken. This one worked for me:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.pdf
Thanks, Cormac.
N.B. Have deleted all comments by Judy Cross, a serial reposter of articles from the Heartland Institute and other denialist blogs. As I said, this article is not intended for her and others like her. I hope she enjoyed the brief recognition, but she completely failed to respond to ANY of the points raised in this article, so her comments are not relevant.
Are you kidding? This won’t win any arguments. This is just typical fodder for a shouting match.
In point one, a proponent who thinks “It doesn’t matter WHAT they say…”, will be easily identified within the first few statements and associated with the picture of the woman you provide. You expect that to win an argument?
Point two uses the “Follow the Money” philosophy to construct a “common sense” conspiracy scenario based on straw-man economics. It isn’t sufficient to show that corporate money went into GW denial. Thousands of everyday honest people work for those corporations and its rediculous to suppose that they all happily swallow the corporate line just to keep their paychecks. You better be able to show plenty of cases of corporate goons using muscle to silence dissenters. A knowledgable opponent WILL be able to do it. They will have evidence about a politicized scientific/academic community doing so by denying promotions, denying tenure, firings and blacklisting of scientists.
Anyway, the “Follow the Money” logic has severe limitations. Money is just a liquidity of power. Henry Kissinger once said that money is nice but “the greatest aphrodesiac is power.” Money gives you control over what you can buy, but real power gives you control over others and their posessions as well.
Point three sends your debaters into battle without helmets when you say that politicians and global elites do not benefit from the global warming argument. You are, after all, dismissing, without evidence, what is likely to be the core of your opponent’s argument at a point where he is most likely to have stacks of accusations. Those accusations will say that AGW is the driving force behind a drive for a single world government under the control of elitist social engineers and politicians. Saving-the-planet is the key to getting the world to acquiesce to total world government control. He is likely to have organization names, leaders names, verifiable agendas and be able to show the interconnectivity with AGW proponents. He’ll say that scientists historically have not made much money unless they get government grants or are identified as a leader in a highly public cause (or associated with one who is). He’ll be able to show all sorts of benefits to Politicians and Elites.
You’re right about the corporations though. It is difficult for them to justify AGW to continue business as usual. But corporations are in business to make money. They will adapt, sell, or kowtow to anything the public needs or thinks they need. And if the public can be pursuaded to go farther in ANY direction that is likely to be profitable, the ad agencies will be there for the push. When the market dissapears for SUV’s, small cars will be made. Corporations making money is like the “life will find a way” mantra of the movie Jurasic Park.
You seem to have contradicted yourself by separating the elites from the corporations. Corporations are the apotheosis of the powerful top teir, and you state, “corporations are in business to make money. They will adapt, sell, or kowtow to anything the public needs or thinks they need. And if the public can be pursuaded to go farther in ANY direction that is likely to be profitable”, so by saying that power is far more important than money – I’m not sure I would take Henry Kissinger as a reliable witness, given his involvement in more cover-ups than I have fingers – you deny the power of the corporations. I recommend you read Chapter 13 of A Matter Of Scale for a breakdown of this.
With all that said, have you tried this on an AGW Denier? I bet *they* start shouting before the end of stage 2. You just need to stay calm :-D
N.B. I don’t know if you meant it, but you revealed a money-driven motivation of your own, by saying that, “scientists historically have not made much money unless they get government grants”. I know plenty of scientists, and few of them are driven by anything but the desire to find evidence and develop provable hypotheses: if, as you suggest, scientists are driven by money and power, then they certainly would *not* have revealed what they have – and thus showed all government and corporate efforts up to be a sham.
You are perhaps confusing them with career technologists and policy makers, who most certainly *are* in it for the money. There is a huge gulf between what the climate scientists are saying, and how their evidence is interpreted.
“Corporations are the apotheosis of the powerful top tier.”
I don’t think so. I see cCorporations as freight trains that have only partial ownership/control of the tracks and the Top Tier as investors ducking in and out of influence in one corporation or another and nudging the track switches.–guys like George Soros, Tim Geitner and Alan Greenspan (now replaced by Ben Bernanke).
Kissinger wasn’t making an argument to win points. He was stating a personal motivation that has been assigned import by others in his position. Also, he wasn’t so much a “witness” surmizing other’s motivations but proclaiming his own.
I’m not sure how you interpreted my statement as saying scientists are dirven by money. Only shallow people are driven by money, and many of them don’t get very much of it. Most people, including people with lots of money, are driven by achievement, desire for significance, acceptance and power or influence over their environment (within and outside of their personal space). As I stated, money is just a liquidity of power and influence. It makes relitave levels of power negotiable and tradable. When money is gone, then be fearful, because power will be centralized and will be denied to those who don’t have it. (Proponents of communism/socialism miss this concept)
I see “A Matter of Scale” is a free online book. I’m interested and I’ll take a look. Not knowing anything about the book, I have an initial prejudice. Most scale analogies fall apart. You cant take a design for a bridge a farmer uses to take his cart across the creek and simply scale it up, unchanged, to span SanFrancisco Bay. It would collapse on its own even if it were possible to build. Economic and social analogies have similar problems and offer opportunities for invalid argument.
Thanks for responding. I offer you two quotes from A Matter Of Scale in relation to this:
“When you think about it, humans in this culture seem to want conspiracy theories about strange things we don’t understand; we seem to want unassailable forces running our lives from ivory towers; we seem to want this because we cannot accept that perhaps we are all in this together and the truth will hurt a bit too much.”
“Civilization is defined, more than anything else, by the cities in which it primarily operates: as the cities get larger, they must import more and more energy, food, materials and finished goods from a larger area outside of the city; and they must also become more complex. You cannot simply make systems bigger to support larger numbers of people; above a certain threshold a “step change” is required, and a layer of complexity has to be added – such as requiring a distribution system to feed a million people, compared to a single farmer who can directly feed a few dozen people. This leads to considerable stresses.”
Enjoy the book, and let me know what you think when you have finished it.
Keith
This is a joke. I am currently an AGW denier and I came here thinking I would find some scientific data to support the AGW case. However, all I find is one meaningless point and two points of conspiracy theory!
Why not respond to the points, Daneroy? Do you have a refutation of the article?
In fact, I suggest you read this more detailed article, and see if you have anything to say: http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/34507/
There is no point arguing the science against an AGW Denier; all the science in the world has no effect on deep-seated denial – it is not rational so cannot be argued against in a rational manner.
“Politically, there aren’t any real winners: civilized humanity has screwed up the planet”
I guess if you’re poor, live in a developing country, and don’t make enough to buy a car to contribute to global warming you aren’t “civilized.” Language is important, particularly if your goal is to win a debate. The guy who wrote this blog is either an intellectual lightweight or a sock puppet.
When someone can show me that the average core temp of the oceans has increased significantly then I will beleive in Global warming.
Do you want someone to come round to your house personally, Tom? Do a bit of research. By the way, when oceanic core temperatures have significantly risen we will be well and truly screwed – but then maybe you want that.
So your saying the core temps have not risen?
I said “significantly” risen, as in irreversible. The reason, I would suggest, you are looking for this evidence, is because it is one of the latest indicators of global warming: every other indicator is in the red, but you would prefer to wait until the patient is breathing their last before announcing they are sick.
Please respond when you have a response to the article, rather than a straw man argument.