I think it's great that Kossacks are writing more and more about Climate Change, and puttng these SwiftHack emails to rest with sound research and rhetoric. But as effective as writing is at changing minds, we all know the best way to get people to think is to confront them in casual conversation whenever the topic arises; school, work, church, the high school football game. These are uncomfortable situations, but saying nothing here keeps the anti-climate change rhetoric alive and spreading. It's hard to win on the front lines, especially when you live in a very red area. So I'm asking you, my fellow Kossacks, to help me best win this battle. Whether it's in the grocery store checkout line or a facebook thread conversation.
I've done my part, believe you me, in fighting the crap spewed by these degenerates who seek to mislead the American public. But in the face of such overwhelming numbers, it's hard sometimes to keep the fight strong and alive. And I'll admit that some of them have come at me with some pretty powerful grenades lobbed from the right. I'm going to present here a series of common climate change detractions, and I want you Kossacks to do your best in clarifying these critiques of climate change (please excuse the alliteration.)
I'm well-aware of the proof that exists for making the case for man-made climate change- the melting glaciers, dwindling polar bear population, eradication of biodiversity- all of this is enough to make me worry for the world. But nevertheless, there are still some very ignorant, very loud individuals who would love nothing more than to see oil companies make a short term profit over all else. After all, who needs a planet to inherit when ExxonMobil makes record quarterly revenue?
Nevertheless, here are some of the obstacles I've come across.
1. The IPCC is politicized and driven by a liberal agenda, and is thus not a credible source.
I've always laughed this one off, as the IPCC is made up of thousands of scientists from several different countries who only use peer-reviewed scientific sources. But this article linked to me from an acquaintance (I choose not to use the term "friend") had me scratching my head. It basically states in detail how the most crucial chapter of the 2007 IPCC report was actually only reviewed by a scant few, and that the scientific consensus is actually the opinion of a mere few. It contends that climatologists are in disagreement about the influence of greenhouse gases in the change of the climate, and other anthropogenic influences. What say you?
2. The Earth is in a cooling phase, not a warming phase. Thus, "global warming" is disingenuous.
Again, I always call bullshit on this one. However, I've had this piece quoted at me several times in discussions, where the case is made that just a few decades ago, climatologists were calling for action to fight cooling temperatures. They cite the Dalton and Maunder minimums in the sunspot cycles, and say that our cooling planet is a natural occurance, and has nothing at all to do with human life on planet Earth. What do you say to these people who so blindly shut their eyes and ears to the truth?
3. Even the UN climate guys are admitting "ClimateGate" looks pretty damn bad.
It's hard to argue against people using this, because while the SwiftHack emails have, at least here, been thoroughly debunked, we still see declining public support of anthropogenic climate change not just here, but all over. We can't deny the image of the pro-Earth movement has suffered thanks to the climate change deniers.
4. The Climate Change myth is a giant liberal hoax, perpetuated by liberal big money interests.
The wingnuts cite Andrew Weaver and his donations to the IPCC, just like I cite to the wingnuts how ExxonMobil donates heavily to the right-wing free enterprise think tanks. Using their logic that leftist money perpetuates leftist ideas just like neocon money finances neocon ideas, it's pretty much true. Even though our cause is righteous, it's hard to point the finger at big money choosing the conservative side, when we've got some big backers of our own.
When your key sources in the battle are the IPCC and the UN's climate change reports, and when those sources are being discredited by the right, then what do you fall back against? How do we win back the battle on the front lines and be ready for the wingnuts when they bring their ammo?