Help me debunk climate change denial

September 29, 2023 3:05 AM

More specifically, this particular form of denial, There Is No Climate Emergency

A colleague insists that we discuss alternative theories about global heating. He is the only one among the 12 of us, so initially, I just told him he is voted down, but because he is very good at his actual job, I want to show him some respect by presenting the international scientific consensus, with sources.
Showing that clintel.org is funded by nefarious sources is very good, if that is true.
Popularized presentations are best, I think.

I have read this post, but I need newer information.

Thanks ahead

posted by mumimor to Science & Nature (13 answers total)

Who is behind the viral document stating that “there is no climate emergency”? from a group of journalists who battle misinformation has a lot of good info.
posted by vacapinta at 3:30 AM on September 29, 2023 [8 favorites]

This is a pretty good debunking of that particular document - plus an analysis of the affiliations of its listed backers.
posted by rongorongo at 4:25 AM on September 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

I had never heard of this so I clicked. And stopped reading 10 seconds later when I got to a giant glaring lie that indicates these people are not interested in any good faith arguments:
Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.

What utter dreck! Climate scientists publish and critique and revise every single aspect of their inputs and assumptions. It's all there for anyone who wants to see it, in full view.

While some of the details require some level of education in science to dig into, the IPCC RCP scenarios are described in layperson terms and are specifically designed to show how different inputs and assumptions lead to different model outputs.

These people are arguing in bad faith, full stop. I'm not sure anyone who doesn't mind that will be swayed by the actual scientific findings. The IPCC synthesis reports are probably among the most thoroughly vetted scientific products ever created, and they are also pretty easy to read. The only reason to look for information to the contrary is that you don't like what they say.
posted by SaltySalticid at 4:32 AM on September 29, 2023 [9 favorites]

Yeah, I randomly looked up a signatory. They had has published several articles, none of them about climate change. I didn't look further, but the support seems suspect.
posted by pangolin party at 7:05 AM on September 29, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think it might also be important to discuss the tactics of misinformation, i.e. How this stuff gets to seem so convincing. That is, assuming this person is operating in remotely good faith.
posted by Zalzidrax at 7:07 AM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

I find it is often more productive to park the causes derail and work around what the other does agree on: there is global heating.

Discuss the practical and likely consequences of even just 1° of heating and adaptations needed like insulating buildings, reforesting and greening for heat mitigation and flood management, responding to increasing supply chain disruptions etc etc.

Also talk about the impacts on what are they motivated by / care about... how will / is climate heating affecting their investments, their favourite sport, the electricity supply of even conventional energy sources. Are they a coffee fan? Love to cook with olive oil?

Talking about future personal vulnerabilty is also important. Right now they may feel invincible but what about their ability to cope as they get older and increasingly infirm?

Naomi Klein's Doppelganger is excellent, but one of the best insights about people with alternative understandings of reality is that they are often motivated by the same feelings but just clinging to the wrong facts.

Work with their feelings.
posted by pipstar at 7:35 AM on September 29, 2023 [1 favorite]

Here is a useful and long list of climate change myths and realities. It can be sorted in alternative ways (taxonomy, popularity). It's useful for looking up a specific claim and debunking it. The resources page on that site may also be helpful.

Seconding Zalzidrax's suggestion of discussing tactics of misinformation. Here are some starting points that might help with that:

• the NRDC's "How to Spot—and Help Stop—Climate Misinformation"
• Annual Reviews' Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It

posted by StrawberryPie at 7:38 AM on September 29, 2023 [4 favorites]

The denialist movement seeks to keep us busy trying to convince deniers. After this summer, the reality is so blatant that I will post a short reply that scientists worldwide are in agreement that Climate Crisis is here, and that the consequences are dire. I also note that insurance actuaries have been factoring Climate Change in to their models for years, and that insurance rates are going up because of climate-related disasters and that insurers are leaving Florida and California because the disasters have become so frequent and costly. I've met a couple actuaries; they are fact and reality-driven to an extreme degree.

And then I go back to trying to get activists in my area to get active.

Homer42, Climate studies have been and are being done all over the world and they virtually all come to the conclusion that we are in Climate Change, that it accelerating, and that it is a severe threat to human life as we know it. Your comment does not offer citations and doesn't answer the question well, if at all. The Climate is vast and incredibly complex. Changes have not been perfectly predicted, but, overall, it's clear that we are in crisis.
posted by theora55 at 8:47 AM on September 29, 2023 [1 favorite]

I was going to say that I actually agree that "emergency" is not a helpful framing but I see that the linked document doesn't make that argument at all and is just a bunch of bullshit swept together.

I also note that insurance actuaries have been factoring Climate Change in to their models for years, and that insurance rates are going up because of climate-related disasters and that insurers are leaving Florida and California because the disasters have become so frequent and costly. I've met a couple actuaries; they are fact and reality-driven to an extreme degree.

There was a good piece from the faculty of actuaries in the UK recently that noted that the models being used for insurance and other asset risk models are actually massively undervaluing climate risk, so that's fun.
posted by atrazine at 10:26 AM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

Why not just refuse to discuss? You’re not going to change this person’s views, and having lengthy fighty conversations in a small office just pisses off everyone else.
posted by Ideefixe at 10:41 AM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

When I can be bothered I don't talk about warming (as near-100% of "alternative views" people are bad-faith), I talk about rising Carbon Dioxide - it cannot be denied. I cover items like in this metafilter discussion a while back.

I design large planting schemes (hectares to kilometres) and I want them to be self-sustaining, and healthy for the people who experience them, I also design with concrete. So I study eCO2 as it relates to plants and landscapes, so far I've found nothing good:

• Plant water efficiency rising = regional-scale plant shifts
• Increasing soil impermeabilty to water
• Flooding - as plants become > water efficient
• Fire - many plants becoming > flammable as lignin falls
• Pollen allergenicity and seasonailty
• Plant palatability shifting insect behaviour
• Lower plant nutrients (for human food)
• Human cognition - maybe this is already happening - stupidity is rising
• Even concrete durability is affected

Links for these in that link to prior comment.
posted by unearthed at 11:08 AM on September 29, 2023 [1 favorite]

I just started reading the book, 'The New Climate War', by Michael Mann, a climate scientist. The beginning gives some excellent examples of where the climate change denialist movement started and how it's funded and where their arguments come from (big tobacco, big oil, big food, etc etc - they all use the same playbook which divides us and has us fighting with one another about recycling etc when really the solution is at the level of government, public policy and not so much 'personal choice). It was a real eye-opener for me and clearly articulated some things I believe but didn't really know much about. But I already believe that there is a climate problem, so I'm not in need of any persuasion.

I also agree with some posters above that your colleague has a) been manipulated (see Michael Mann book, above), by b)some bad-faith actors, and c) once he is down this particular worm hole (and the fact that he is susceptible to this particular brand of anti-science says a lot about where he's coming from), you are unlikely to change his mind. And even if he's good at his job, that doesn't really give him the right to fake science and 'alternative facts'.

We lose when we try to be generous and 'bothsides' these issues. There is no other side. I mean, if he already believes that 2+2=5, no amount of reason or logic or science or generosity is going to persuade him otherwise. I'm sorry. It's frustrating.
posted by lulu68 at 8:53 PM on September 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

It's unlikely the presentation of additional facts alone will change your colleague's mind. Depending on which 'variety' of climate change denialist your colleague is, you might be able to side step the argument with "the U.S. military considers climate change to be a serious threat, and is taking steps to address the climate change crisis. The DOD is not some fringe political group, and in 2021 the DOD released the Defense Climate Risk Analysis report. Climate change is more than global warming. Regardless of how climate change is or isn't being measured, the potential consequences of climate change are real and possibly severe."
posted by oceano at 1:05 PM on September 30, 2023 [1 favorite]