How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic

[theclimateblog]

I recently stumbled upon Coby Beck's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (not to be confused with World-Changing's in-progress Universal Climate Change Skeptic Response), and I was floored by the level of attention to detail and thoroughness of research that Beck has done to create his "Layman's Guide" to the anthopogenic global warming debate. Beck

Comments

[theclimateblog]

The paleoclimate data has given us ideas of the "natural" range of climate variability- we know that the climate does vary, on certain timescales (some of which we understand better than others), and we have an idea of the range, but also the rate. For example, recent ice and ocean core data about the Younger Dryas interval (the cold reversal referenced in The Day After Tomorrow) shows that at least the North Atlantic region may have cooled 5-15 degrees C (depending on where you were) within less than 20 years. This showed for the first time that rapid climate change events were really possible, which had been debated before (people thought of climate change as a gradual process). The paleoclimate data have revealed a number of discreet events, which people have then "looked for" in records across the globe to get a better sense of the timing and extent of these events.

Also, paleoclimate data are being used to compare modern rates and degrees of change to predict vegetation response in particular, including what could happen with different CO2 regimes, temperature, and aridity.

Contrary to what a lot of skeptics will say, the paleoclimate data do NOT support the notion that modern warming is "normal" and part of a long-term cycle. There's a lot of argument about the "overdue glaciation hypothesis," which suggests that we've put off the next ice age, but even if we're in an extended interglacial it's still essentially agreed that we're exceeding the rate of warming at the end of the last ice age, and there's a lot of evidence that suggests that 2005 is the warmest year in the last 400,000 years (to give a sense of comparison). That's pretty contended, though.

That's a lot- is that what you were looking for?

[brdgt]

That was what I was looking for, especially the last part. I think non-paleoclimate scientists and climate change activists stay away from paleoclimate data because they assume (or have bought into the "skeptics" contention) that if you look at that scale our current warming looks like "just a blip" (this was actually said in class).

We had an interesting discussion about how scientists have almost been "baited" by the skeptics who have monopolized on the idea of uncertainty by responding with assertions of certainty, when we can never have certainty. Perhaps a move to the European style of the "precautionary principle" would be a better response.

We also talked about how the two things that the Bush administration edits out are issues of certainty and health effects - an indication that maybe we should be stressing the health effects because that may be a way to get through to people - why else are they so threatened by that?

[theclimateblog]

Bill Cronon talked about the precautionary principle as it regards to the "we need more data" statement in an interesting way, because it can be used both ways: Skeptics say, "We don't have enough data to support climate change, so we shouldn't do anything until we know more just in case..." While scientists say, "We don't have enough data, so we need to go get MORE data."

It's true that we can't express certainty, but we can express statistical significance!