Those who deny the science coming from AGW and climate change, and who therefore deny climate change and are by definition irrational, will be pleased to know they can now brush up on denial technique.
at the same time, those of us who accept the science of AGW and climate change and are therefore rational can get yet another glimpse of the shallow idiocracy that is climate change denial.
it’s all contained in a brief article entitled “The Key Flaws of Climate Pseudoscience” by writer Dave Olsen published on Medium.com on Nov.12
the article’s subtitle is “The repeated flaws in the arguments of the small but dedicated group who reject conventional climate science, based on their own “evidence”.”
the full spectrum of denial idiocy isn’t advanced in Olsen’s essay - that’s more seen daily in denial posts on HC climate threads - but a couple of major themes in the denial jumble are raised.
OLSEN:
”Climate science is easy to deride.
“When scientists and decent politicians present the nuanced argument that current climate change is caused both naturally and anthropogenically, the populist right can counter simplistically but effectively that climate change has happened for epochs, or bring up their spiel on the Medieval warm period.
”.“There have been times of much more rapid change, but the world is still here”, they said. The reason these arguments are so effective is because they are true, in the most simplistic sense possible. The problem, then? They entirely miss the point, subverting the issues and dialogues surrounding anthropogenic climate change.
”Here are the two key flaws in the pseudoscience of the right.
(1) “The climate has always changed, but the world has always survived the changes”
”This is one of the more fundamental and unforgivable arguments involved in the pseudoscientific argument. It holds that changes have often happened quickly in the past, and that this is mostly natural, and thus there is no need to worry.
“There are two issues here. Firstly, just because the world and life in general have survived huge climatic changes, it doesn’t mean that we could survive such changes — and nor could many other animals currently alive. No-one thinks that the world is going to explode if we don’t limit atmospheric carbon to 450 parts per million — just that the human race could face an existential, costly, and destructive threat. Secondly, changes in the past were natural, and the trend over many millions of years is steady and repeated, with a slow incline and a sharp decline in temperature. It is clear that, since the Industrial Revolution, temperatures have increased at a rate far greater than should naturally have happened. We don’t know what the effects of such an increase could be, because we can’t just compare back to the past. We are subverting the natural order.
(2) ””Humans have prospered with more atmospheric carbon”
”This is my favourite bit of bogus climate science, because they’ve all learnt it — they’ve got their numbers, their details. It really is commendable. If only it were of any consequence.
”The Medieval warm period must’ve been raised to me 50 or 100 times in responses to my stories. It was a time of great prosperity, of growth, and all with much warmer average temperatures than we currently experience.
”As with the last flaw, there are a couple of issues with this argument. Firstly, it ignores all considerations of relativity and rates of change. The rate of increase in temperatures involved in the present predicament cannot be matched by the conditions of the Medieval warm period. A faster rate of change means that we cannot seize on the potential advantages to any good effect, because we must fight stronger and more frequent hurricanes and forest fires, as well as rising sea levels. Secondly, the Medieval warm period only applied to the North Atlantic region — other regions cooled, and suffered somewhat. What we are seeing presently is not regionalised changes but worldwide increases in temperature. The two events cannot be compared. Even though some regions of the world should currently be cooling, they are not, as a direct result of human activity.
”These two flaws in the climate pseudoscience are, in themselves, similar. They relate simple facts to simple conclusions using flawed logic designed to aid their cause. Parts of the facts are omitted to avoid the flaws being easily exposed, and the comparisons to the modern world miss fundamental differences.The intellectual argument must continue to be advanced, with more of a focus on combatting directly the arguments of the populist right.
“For too long, the media dynamic has been the pseudoscientists rebutting the points of the scientists. If we can begin to reverse that dynamic, then we’ll be able to expose the fundamental issues of the climate science deniers, and make progress in the worthy fight against the climate emergency.”
Expand
