Below is a listing of all the articles to be found in the "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" guide, presented as a handy one-stop shop for all the material you should need to rebut the more common anti-global warming science arguments constantly echoed accross the internet.
In what I hope is an improvement on the original categorization, they have been divided and subdivided along 4 seperate lines: Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, Levels of Sophistication. This should facilitate quick retrieval of specific entries. Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
Please feel free to quote from, paraphrase, link to and otherwise use any or all of them in the best way possible to fight the good fight against mis- and dis- information where ever it appears! Email suggestions for new topics or links to more current scientific information to "a(dot)few(dot)things(dot)illconsidered(at)gmail(dot)com" or leave them in the comments.
(all rights are reserved for commercial use. Linkbacks are greatly appreciated. Please do not represent this material verbatim as your own)
Stages of Denial
- There's nothing happening
- Inadequate Evidence
- There's no reason to think the earth is warming
- A couple of warm years is not a trend
- There are problems with the temperature records
- One Hundred Years is not Enough
- Glaciers have always grown and receded
- The warming is just Urban Heat Island effect
- The CO2 rise is measured on top of a Volcano!
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- Contradictory Evidence
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- Antarctic Ice is Growing
- Satellites Show Cooling
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- Warming Stopped in 1998
- But The Glaciers Are Not Melting
- Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing
- Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
- Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
- Some Sites Show Cooling
- No Consensus
- Global Warming is Just a Hoax
- There is no Consensus
- Instituitional pronouncements hide the real debate
- So much consensus in a science is sure sign of pressure
- Benny Peiser did a survey of the science and there is plenty of dissent
- The American Physical Society does not endorse the so-called consensus
- We Don't Know Why It's Happening
- Models Don't Work
- We can not trust unproven computer models
- The Models Don't Have Clouds
- If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
- Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
- Prediction is Impossible
- We Can't Be Sure
- Hansen Has Been Wrong Before
- We can't explain past climates, so who knows
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- Prediction is Impossible
- Climate Change is Natural
- It Happened Before
- It was Warmer During the Holocene Climatic Optimum
- The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
- It was so warm 1000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
- Global Warming started 20,000 years ago!
- The Hockey Stick is Broken
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- It's Part of a Natural Change
- This is Just a Natural Cycle
- There's Global Warming on Mars Too
- CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanos
- The Null Hypothesis Says it Natural
- Climate is Always Changing
- Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's
- The CO2 Rise Is Natural
- Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
- It's Not Caused By CO2
- Why don't they ever mention water vapour?
- Water vapour's Greenhouse effect overwhelm's CO2
- There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming
- There's Global Warming on Mars Too
- CO2 Lags Not Leads
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- Geological History Does not Support CO2's Importance
- Historically CO2 Never Causes Temperature Change
- It's the Sun, Stupid
- Climate Change is Not Bad
- The Effects are Good
- The Effects are Minor
- Change is Normal
- Climate Change Can't be Stopped
- Too Late
- It's Someone Else's Problem
- Economically Infeasible
Scientific Topics
- Temperature
- There's no reason to think the earth is warming
- There are problems with the temperature records
- One Hundred Years is not Enough
- This is Just a Natural Cycle
- A warmer world will be better
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- The warming is just Urban Heat Island effect
- Satellites Show Cooling
- Warming Stopped in 1998
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- Some Sites Show Cooling
- Atmosphere
- Extreme Events
- Temperature Records
- A couple of warm years is not a trend
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- Storms
- Droughts
- Cryosphere
- Glaciers
- Sea Ice
- Ice Sheets
- Oceans
- Modeling
- Scenarios
- Uncertainties
- We Can't Even Predict the Weather Next Week
- Chaotic Systems are not Predictable
- We can not trust unproven computer models
- The Models Don't Have Clouds
- Climate Forcings
- Solar Influences
- Greenhouse Gases
- Why don't they ever mention water vapour?
- Water vapour's Greenhouse effect overwhelm's CO2
- There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming
- CO2 Lags Not Leads
- CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanos
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- Geological History Does not Support CO2's Importance
- Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's
- The CO2 rise is measured on top of a Volcano!
- The CO2 Rise Is Natural
- Historically CO2 Never Causes Temperature Change
- The US Is a Net CO2 Sink
- Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
- The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
- Aerosols
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
- Paleo Climate
- Holocene
- It was Warmer During the Holocene Climatic Optimum
- The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
- It was so warm 1000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
- The Hockey Stick is Broken
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
- Ice Ages
- Geologic History
- A warmer world will be better
- Geological History Does not Support CO2's Importance
- Climate is Always Changing
- Historically CO2 Never Causes Temperature Change
- We can't explain past climates, so who knows
- Scientific Process
- Global Warming is Just a Hoax
- There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming
- There is no Consensus
- The Null Hypothesis Says it Natural
- Instituitional pronouncements hide the real debate
- We can't explain past climates, so who knows
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- So much consensus in a science is sure sign of pressure
- Benny Peiser did a survey of the science and there is plenty of dissent
- The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
- The American Physical Society does not endorse the so-called consensus
Types of Argument
- Uninformed
- There's no reason to think the earth is warming
- A couple of warm years is not a trend
- One Hundred Years is not Enough
- There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming
- A warmer world will be better
- Action on Global Warming is Suicide
- There is no Consensus
- We can not trust unproven computer models
- Misinformed
- It was Warmer During the Holocene Climatic Optimum
- The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
- Antarctic Ice is Growing
- CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanos
- It was so warm 1000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
- Satellites Show Cooling
- Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's
- It's the Sun, Stupid
- The US Is a Net CO2 Sink
- But The Glaciers Are Not Melting
- Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
- The American Physical Society does not endorse the so-called consensus
- Cherry Picking
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- Antarctic Ice is Growing
- Satellites Show Cooling
- Warming Stopped in 1998
- Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
- Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- Some Sites Show Cooling
- Urban Myths
- The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
- CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanos
- It was so warm 1000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
- Hansen Has Been Wrong Before
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- FUD
- There are problems with the temperature records
- Glaciers have always grown and receded
- Why don't they ever mention water vapour?
- Water vapour's Greenhouse effect overwhelm's CO2
- This is Just a Natural Cycle
- Kyoto is Ineffective
- There's Global Warming on Mars Too
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- CO2 Lags Not Leads
- There is no Consensus
- Antarctic Ice is Growing
- The warming is just Urban Heat Island effect
- We Can't Even Predict the Weather Next Week
- Chaotic Systems are not Predictable
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- The Null Hypothesis Says it Natural
- Geological History Does not Support CO2's Importance
- Climate is Always Changing
- Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's
- The CO2 rise is measured on top of a Volcano!
- Global Warming started 20,000 years ago!
- The CO2 Rise Is Natural
- The Hockey Stick is Broken
- Historically CO2 Never Causes Temperature Change
- The Models Don't Have Clouds
- Warming Stopped in 1998
- We can't explain past climates, so who knows
- If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing
- Benny Peiser did a survey of the science and there is plenty of dissent
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
- Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling
- Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
- The American Physical Society does not endorse the so-called consensus
- Non Scientific
- Global Warming is Just a Hoax
- Kyoto is Ineffective
- Why Should the US Join Kyoto?
- Hansen Has Been Wrong Before
- Instituitional pronouncements hide the real debate
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- So much consensus in a science is sure sign of pressure
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- Underdog Theories
- Crackpottery
Levels of Sophistication
- Silly
- There's no reason to think the earth is warming
- Global Warming is Just a Hoax
- A couple of warm years is not a trend
- Action on Global Warming is Suicide
- There's Global Warming on Mars Too
- The CO2 rise is measured on top of a Volcano!
- Naive
- One Hundred Years is not Enough
- Glaciers have always grown and receded
- Why Should the US Join Kyoto?
- Its cold today in Wagga Wagga
- CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanos
- We Can't Even Predict the Weather Next Week
- We can not trust unproven computer models
- Satellites Show Cooling
- Natural Emissions Dwarf Human's
- The Models Don't Have Clouds
- Warming Stopped in 1998
- It's the Sun, Stupid
- We can't explain past climates, so who knows
- Likely, mostly, probably...even scientists aren't sure!
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- Some Sites Show Cooling
- Specious
- There are problems with the temperature records
- Why don't they ever mention water vapour?
- There is no Proof that CO2 is Causing Global Warming
- This is Just a Natural Cycle
- It was Warmer During the Holocene Climatic Optimum
- The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today
- A warmer world will be better
- Kyoto is Ineffective
- CO2 Lags Not Leads
- There is no Consensus
- Antarctic Ice is Growing
- The warming is just Urban Heat Island effect
- It was so warm 1000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
- It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising
- The Null Hypothesis Says it Natural
- Geological History Does not Support CO2's Importance
- Climate is Always Changing
- Global Warming started 20,000 years ago!
- The CO2 Rise Is Natural
- Historically CO2 Never Causes Temperature Change
- Hansen Has Been Wrong Before
- Instituitional pronouncements hide the real debate
- The US Is a Net CO2 Sink
- But The Glaciers Are Not Melting
- If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
- Antarctic Sea Ice Is Increasing
- So much consensus in a science is sure sign of pressure
- They Predicted Cooling in the 1970's
- Benny Peiser did a survey of the science and there is plenty of dissent
- Grapes used to grow in Vineland
- In 2007 to 2008, temperatures dropped as much as they rose the whole 20th century
- The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
- The American Physical Society does not endorse the so-called consensus
- Scientific
Environment
Politics
Comments
Thanks! I am bookmarking this post, because I have a friend who visits my blog frequently and thinks that he is a sceptic because he doesn't buy global warming. My own defenses have been rather weak, because I haven't got the training to analyze climatology.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 5, 2008 6:39 PM
The version here is more compact and hence easier to navigate in my browser (Firefox 3), but (for now) I greatly prefer the version here, simply because the individual articles are not (yet) suffixed with reams of denialist spam.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | August 5, 2008 8:51 PM
in IE too, it is a bit more compact over there, 9 1/2 page-downs versus 12 here. Oh well! I will be following the comments on the articles here, I just could not keep up over there as all comments on the 5-15+ Grist posts per day come in a single listing. So I hope we will manage some useful discussion and I will certainly control any spam-like behaviours!
Where ever you read it, glad people find it useful! (more articles coming soon)
Posted by: coby | August 5, 2008 9:03 PM
Glad to hear it! Yes, I've found your guide a very handy reference tool, and a useful springboard to the primary literature.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | August 5, 2008 9:41 PM
Two things:
I love physics. As such, I have to dispute your assertion that GW is anthropologic. I would gladly go over the math with you; however, there is not enough space here. Study the laws of thermodynamics - Laws, not theories and not consensus.
I am involved in a study of cosmic rays. Your points totally leave out various other cosmic and solar factors.
Posted by: Joe Garcia | August 12, 2008 4:19 PM
Sorry, meant cosmic radiation, not rays.
Posted by: Joe Garcia | August 12, 2008 4:21 PM
hi coby and so on,
i have only one question: in the long climate history there can not be found one correlation between co2 rising and temperature rising. every time the temperature was rising many decades befor the first co2 signal was registratet. today it must be different, we should accept, or what? if the co2 has an initial effekt on temperature, why had this effekt never been registratet bevore? for that i did not found any answer in the web in no ipcc report, never ever. can anybody help me?
regards
chris (meteorologican, so you can talk sientiffic...)
Posted by: chris | August 13, 2008 1:18 PM
Hi chris,
I refer you to several articles in the section [Stages of Denial - I.3.3 - It's Not Caused By CO2], specifically, "CO2 Lags not Leads", and "Historically CO2 never causes warming", and there are other related entries.
If you still have questions, please ask them under those articles. Thanks for the comment!
Posted by: coby | August 13, 2008 2:28 PM
hi guys,
yes i did look at all the articles in the sections, but: there is a forcing by around 1-2w/mē given to co2. this solar back radiation forcing must have been the same in history and at least on the landscapes there must be found a signal a few years later. so for me this is the most important point of all the theories and it is not explained seriosly. everybody knows the effect of geernhouse gases, but the effekt of co2 is not found in history. i can not help, but there is a big carelessly in the articles and studies.
Posted by: chris | August 14, 2008 1:04 AM
chris,
Your question is unclear. You acknowledge that greenhouse gases have an effect, CO2 is a greenhouse gase, so what are you missing?
Posted by: coby | August 14, 2008 9:41 AM
Thanks for an excellent commentary, and for not ducking the issues that are flying around.
I have three questions about the scientific process. (I agree with your point that real science is made in the serious journals, not in position statements and conferences - I did a science PhD myself.) My questions are:
1) What about positivity bias: the well-known effect that negative results are less likely to be published? Would researchers whose results did not predict global warming or support other aspects of the "consensus" be less likely to pass peer review?
2) What about self-censorship bias? Notoriously, early measurements of the speed of light tended to cluster around the most recent measurement by a "great scientist", and this lack of objectivity delayed convergence on the now-accepted value. Climate change modellers whose results diverged from the "consensus" might similarly be less likely to report, especially as the field has so much political as well as scientific pressure in it.
3) What about funding-induced bias? There is now (rightly) a fair amount of funding available for research into global warming. Professorships, entire research departments, and even global institutions depend on it. How much funding and job security is available for research that attacks the "consensus"? This is important, because a theory is only as good as the strength of the attacks it has withstood.
Many thanks, and good luck with your contributions to the public debate.
[Hi Rob,
I don't doubt that the biases you mention are real and could effect the progress of research. I would note two things though, firstly the first two effects you describe probably had to be overcome to get where we are. Global warming research is not new and it has taken a long time for the current consensus to emerge. Even now IPCC projections continue to be very conservative and many predicted effects are happening much faster than expected - arctic warming, sea ice melt, permafrost response. But your points are taken.
Secondly, the funding bias you mention seems apply pressure in the opposite direction. NASA is having its earth sciences budget slashed for example. And there is plenty of special interest money around supporting guys like P. Michaels and S Fred Singer and the Soon's etc.
Again though, your points are reasonable, scientists are human and humans have all kinds of concsious and un conscious biases. We must look carefully at all our information.
Thanks for the comment!
Coby]
Posted by: rob | August 19, 2008 5:48 AM
Hi coby,
Im from Sri Lanka and im 16 years old.Ill be participating in a debate on the the 5th of September and the topic for the debate is "the inconvenient truth is that there is nothing we can do about global warming so quit trying".Ive decided to oppose the topic.If it's no trouble could you point out what sort of arguments the Proposition could come up with.(so far im guessing they would take the anti AGW standpoint and say that its all natural so lets quit trying).What ive thought of doing is approaching this issue by first substantiating the AGW theory and then saying "even if, for arguments sake" AGW theory is wrong does this mean we cant do anything about global warming and quit trying natural or man made because at the end of the day it is still harmful.And of course i will be asking the legitimate question of "at what point do you say that we cant do anything about global warming?" but do you think the proposition would likely go with an anti AGW argument or come up with something else? if you think they are what kind of tips could you give me?
Im asking you these questions because i admire your blog and because im feeling kinda confused (partly because i watched "the great global warming swindle" and then "the inconvenient truth") and i think you can help me.Thank you.
Posted by: Maleen | August 30, 2008 5:55 AM
This is an interesting site--having read oodles of articles and comments on this subject,I am still an opan-minded sceptic.I am old enough to remember the dire predictions of an impending ice age .I believe it was in 1973 that it was postulated that we were all going to die from the extreme cold.I read everything I could find on the subject and, taking into account that the scientific results of the research were compiled by "climate change experts",I remained on the fence but wary.What happened to this climate change certainity?
Posted by: Dianne | September 8, 2008 11:01 AM
Hi Dianne,
Please see this article:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php
There was no agreement of climate experts about severe cooling in the 70's, just some exagerated media stories.
Posted by: coby | September 8, 2008 1:17 PM
Wow. Cool site with lots of work. It must have taken you ages but you have done a good effort.
Posted by: Ben Tehan | September 11, 2008 8:19 PM
Many thanks for the hours of hard work and careful thought you've clearly put in to this site. Two topics I haven't seen addressed in this list (although I may have missed something) are:
1. the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, which claims 30,000 scientist signatories who question consensus about global warming
2. claims that the IPCC is dominated by a clique, as in this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html
It'd also be great to have available quick background guides to the organisations behind claims like these. Sourcewatch is very helpful in this regard, but to have brief info on your site could save me some effort!
Posted by: Gordon | September 18, 2008 1:40 PM
Thanks for the feedback Gordon! Yours is a good suggestion, one I have thought of already...so many ideas so little time ;-)
Maybe soon though!
Posted by: coby | September 18, 2008 2:02 PM
Coby,
First, thanks for a great resource. I've referenced this (and Skeptical Science) frequently, and I'm glad to see it on ScienceBlogs. Frequent Deltoid commenter cce has put together a similar layman guide that's worth looking into as well.
Regarding the Oregon Petition, though, there's a great resource available at Things Break. Be sure to look through the comments. CCE's addressed it as well. Hope that helps, if you choose to do this as a topic.
Posted by: Brian D | September 19, 2008 10:48 AM
Great stuff. Thank you so much for collecting and organizing it.
I'd like to see your comments about this stuff which seems to be gaining traction lately. (short version: credited scientist expects cooling - blames solar activity):
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2006/08/25/Russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/UPI-75561156555554/
Posted by: Matt Whiting | September 20, 2008 5:59 PM
Thankyou so much for compiling this information. I am involved in a long standing debate with some sceptics.The debate just goes round and round. Every assertion made for the reality of AGW is met by a denial, all of which are listed on your page! It is like talking to a brick wall. I am convinced that nothing will convert the sceptics, not evidence, nor argument, nothing. Is it because of psychological blocks, fear, vested interests, lack of scientific knowledge,.. what? I am not a physical scientist, I am a psychologist, but I am convinced by the evidence for AGW and take time to study the literature. The case seems proven to me. How to get the message across is proving to be the insurmountable task.
Thanks again for all your hard work!
Posted by: Susannah | October 11, 2008 7:53 AM