The biggest problem with the deniers is that we waste much energy and resources trying to argue with them.
Maybe this is simply the wrong strategy. Whenever someone starts spouting off nonsense, blow them off. ridicule it for what it is, nonsense. Ignore the false logic, or again blow it off. Responses like,... "people chase bigfoot too..." "if I was making bookoo bucks off of poluting, maybe I'ld agree?" "Can you read, or do you just spew whatever nonsense a lying politician feeds you?" You might think I'm kidding. I am not. There is a point where giving the ignorant and asinine view credence creates more of a problem than anything. Call it what it is...nonsense. We are trying to fight a battle using integrity with a group of people who at least at some levels lack that trait almost entirely. They would gladly let half the world perish if it made them an extra buck, or saved them 10 cents on toothpaste. You cannot argue logic with someone who is not debating whether the facts are facts, but rather just trying to hide the facts. Do not give liars the same opportunities as the truthful. If you do, they will win. why? Because liars don't need proof...they make it up as they go along, and most of those who hear will simply assume that both sides are equally credible because otherwise they would not be engaged. After all, who puts a weakling up against a heavyweight in a boxing match? Or who puts a Lucidore against andre the giant? or who pits a moron against a genius in a debate? As far as TV goes, nobody except the News Channels!!! Its time that we stop getting ourselves into spitting matches with folks who cheat, fake, and lie. IF they are dishonest, treat them so. If they are ignorant, respond as you would to an ignorant person. If they are just plain stupid, why waist your time?? eventually, if we do this, even the least interested, education, and intelligent will pick up on what is really going on. :) Malcolm On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:17 PM, John Gerlach <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I don't want to get into the whole climate change Denier issue directly but I > will add my observations in advising governmental clients on the use of the > various types of climate models (Global, Regional, various types of > statistically down-scaled) for their landscape level planning efforts. I also > have heard an earful from friends at various California state agencies > regarding > their opinions. > > What the agencies want is clear direction on how to plan for climate change. > Other than the obvious general tactics such as larger preserves are generally > better and connectivity is generally better there is little that the models > can > do to provide the level of information that the agencies expect. For on the > ground planning the resolution of the Global models is too coarse (60-100 km > pixels) and they don't really do precipitation so you just have a temperature > increase. The Global models also don't take into effect important features > such > as mountain ranges. The Regional models are also fairly coarse resolution (15 > km > pixels) but do incorporate surface features. One problem with regional models > are that they are too coarse for looking at local effects which the agencies > want but they do pick up regional patterns. Another problem of usage is that > the > output of the regional models is not intelligently utilized. Generally, the > data > are almost always reported as the average temp or precipitation per day over > a 3 > month calendar period which is not biologically relevant. Even if you were to > do > the intelligent thing and lump the data by local seasons you still have to > know > enough about how the climate actually works in the region to interpret the > data. > Sure, most models predict more variable climate but exactly what does that > mean > for a wolverine in the middle Rockies for example? PRISM data are now being > commonly used to model climate data at 800 m resolution but projecting it out > to > 50 years not to mention 100 gives you false precision even if the data are > accurate and there are a some known issues with the data. Finally, you have to > have baseline data to compare the model data to and that data is also modeled. > > So how does this relate to the public's perception of climate change? The > subject of climate change is a very complex thing with lots of almost > unintelligible (to me at least, and my training is in plant physiology and > ecophysiology) moving parts. There is a huge amount of data coming in from > field > research concerning the aparent responses of organisms and ecosystems, there > are > a huge number of inconsistent climate models that are being misused without > any > semblance of protest by the scientists that created them that I have been able > to detect, and finally, there is a huge cottage industry of climate change > adaptation in which regulated entities are connected with sources of funding > by > middlemen. > > If I get confused and overloaded by all of this what can reasonably be > expected > of a lay public? Ultimately this should not be framed as believers and deniers > as science is not a belief system - yes there is a huge field of the > philosophy > of science which shows that this is not exactly the case but that is another > huge and complex subject. Given my personal confusion and information > overload, > I resort to what I hope are accurate basics. We are doing things to the planet > that are altering its heat balance rapidly and irreversibly for 500 years or > so > at the minimum. We appear to be observing a number of phenomena ranging from > organisms to climate that support the altered climate hypothesis. > > The problem is that I have to "believe" in the competence and credibility of > the > scientists and their interpretation of the data and that is where I feel > uneasy. > Given what I perceive in my role as a non-academic and non-research scientist > who tries to understand and use the data, there is a significant lack of open > peer evaluation of the data and that gives me pause as does the the scientist > who won't speak up when his data and conclusions are over-interpreted by > users. > > By focusing on the "Deniers" you may be winning a battle but losing the war. > > Best, > > John Gerlach > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Corbin, Jeffrey D." <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, July 1, 2012 5:01:00 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > Forum > > Hello Ecolog - In March, one of the leading anti-minds of the Climate Deniers > movement, Christopher Monckton, visited Union College. EOS, AGU's Newspaper, > just published a Forum article describing our experience and that at our > neighbor RPI. Subscription is required - http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos/ - but > I've > pasted the first two paragraphs below. Anyone interested can email me directly > and I'll forward the pdf. > > -Jeff Corbin > Union College > > "In spite of the fact that 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively > publishing in the field accept the basic tenets of the Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change's (IPCC) findings (Anderegg et al. 2010), there is a > consistent undercurrent of climate skepticism among the general public > (Leiserowitz et al., 2011). To some extent, this skepticism is fueled by high > profile speakers who offer "the real view" of climate science. Our campuses > recently hosted two such speakers: Dr. Ivan Giaever at Rensselaer Polytechnic > Institute and Christopher Monckton (also known as Lord Monckton) at Union > College. (Mr. Monckton's presentation can be seen at > http://union.campusreform.org/group/blog/live-webinar-lord-monckton-at-union-college.) > > > While the intention of such speakers is often to muddy the waters with respect > to climate science (McCright and Dunlap, 2010), the effect at our campuses > was > to galvanize our students and colleagues to highlight the widely accepted > facts > of climate change and the nature of expert scientific consensus on this topic. > This communication was achieved using social media and follow-up events that > raised the profile of climate change discussions. These events proved to be so > successful that we offer our experiences so that others can capitalize on > similar visits by climate skeptics by converting them into "teachable > moments."" > > *************************** > Jeffrey D. Corbin > Department of Biological Sciences > Union College > Schenectady, NY 12308 > (518) 388-6097 > *************************** -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
