Here's a straightforward approach to dealing with denial. Most of these points make sense to me:
Tips for dealing with denial
- Communicate a consistent message. Do not attempt to “soften the blow” too much, by making the issue seem less than it is.
- Try not to provide too much information at one time. This sometimes can overwhelm [deniers]. Keep the first meeting as brief and succinct as possible, and end with the scheduling of a follow-up meeting.
- Ask open-ended questions, and allow [deniers] plenty of time to talk.
The IPCC is being reviewed by the Interacademy Council (which represents dozens of national science academies). And they're taking public comment. This might be a good chance to get some improvements. The comments form is at:
If you can't think of anything, here's what I wrote:
- The IPCC needs to report more frequently. Interim reports, or even annual updates would be very useful.
- More focus on possible tipping points.
Of the three announced national carbon targets I've heard of lately, two are arithmetically worse than Kyoto targets, and one is technically worse. The latter is Australia's target, already discussed here.
The others are the recent US announcement, and the recent China announcement.
The US announcement was for a 17% cut, which sounds a bit better than the Kyoto US commitment (or non-commitment, as it turned out) of 7%. But it's not really better, because it's on 2005 levels, where as Kyoto was based on 1990.
There's a pigeon nesting in the apple tree in my yard. The pigeon has already laid its eggs - two creamy pink ones. The apple tree hasn't dropped it's leaves yet - some are yellow, some are still green. It's the 7th of July - the middle of winter.
Granted, both species are introduced, and the apple is some bastardised cross-breed grafted Frankenstein, each graft of which seems to bud, fruit and drop leaves at different times (which makes it very difficult to know when to prune it). But the image is pretty bizarre.
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Electrical Union (CFMEU) says the release of figures warning that emissions trading will cost thousands of jobs is part of a scare campaign.
I'd like to declare here and now that I'm sceptical about the "reality" of the round earth. There are many dissenting voices, sceptics of the current "consensus", and significant evidence to show that the earth is not round. Not to mention that it's bleedingly obvious - just look out the window: No curvature there, eh?
But despite this, dissenting voices in the debate are silenced. Proponents of the round earth hypothesis pursue their beliefs with a zeal unmatched even by the world's most fundamentalist religions. While it's true that many scientists believe that the earth is round, there are also significant dissenting voices, but were one to mention this in general conversation, or on talk back radio, one would immediately be shouted down, cut off, ostracised. In short, censored.
This is not how science should operate. Science is not decided by majority opinion, but by healthy debate. And while one side is being censored, there can be no real debate.
I'm not saying definitively that the earth flat or round - I'm still undecided, just that the debate needs to be opened up, so the true process of science can run its course, with maximum access to evidence and competing theories from both sides. Until all the information is on the table, I'll be most skeptical of the majority-imposed "consensus".
Sound familiar? The above arguments are frequently used by the denial-o-sphere (denial-o-plane?). While obviously climate change science is not so developed, or certain (or simple) as planetary physics, that does not mean that the above arguments have any weight in a climate context.
I've been starting to learn Octave, a maths programming language. Octave is similar to other packages that are often used to create nice graphs that you often see around the place, especially when it relates to climate change. This is a bit of a slap-dash tutorial on how to get some graphs happening with Octave.
That's right, Rudd's targets of 5% by 2020, from 2000 levels mean almost nothing.
According to the UN(1), Australia's 1990 emissions totalled 416.2Mt.
When I'm reading about climate change in public forums like the internet, or newspapers, I expect to see denial argments all over. Usually, they're the same old shit, that's been roundly debunked by numerous people. So it's a pleasant suprise to find new arguments - it gives you something to think about.
This one really was suprising though: Richard Lindzen is well known for being a good debater, and well-read. He's one of the last deniers that mainstream seems to accept.