Feedback please: A troubling trend in Global Warming Denial on the internet

[kgrandia]

Before I push this piece out too far and repost on Huffington and elsewhere I was hoping to get some feedback. It's a long in-depth piece that makes some bold assertions.

A troubling trend in Global Warming Denial on the internet

Our 2008 analysis of global warming misinformation finds that there was a very significant upswing in online activity.
This trend should be troubling to US policymakers and campaigners wanting to implement new greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

Here's the stats we've generated as evidence of our conclusions (click any of the images to enlarge...

More: http://www.desmogblog.com/2008-stats-global-warming-denial-blogosphere

[EFerrari]

1. Fwiw, I noticed that lately on BookTV, there is a new spate of books out

by right wing propaganda mills that deny global warming.

[kristopher]

2. Before reading it

You say that there is a very significant upswing in online activity. Isn't that what you'd expect from a phenomenon that is created to protect fossil fuel industries when an administration dedicated to their elimination takes power?

[kgrandia]

4. Exactly

That's my conclusion. We're going to see a continued upswing as Obama tries to implement climate action.

[DCKit]

3. I don't believe it's going to be much of an issue after Tuesday.

Besides, we have no choice but to begin implementing every proven alternative energy scheme available. Our national security dovetails and depends upon a low-carbon future. If we (again) allow temporarily low oil prices to bankrupt and end investment into alt. energy, I'm moving to a more enlightened country.

The deniers won't go away completely, but too many people know the truth for them to continue to be effective.

[kgrandia]

5. The opinion polls

Are saying the exact opposite. With Obama we have a fighting chance of seeing action on climate change.

[DCKit]

7. I consider polls as just another means of manipulation.

Considering that * is still running a 34% approval rating, I'd sooner believe in Santa.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. OK then what do you believe in?

How do you determine what the population as a whole generally believes? (For example, if you don't believe GWB has a 34% approval rating, what do you believe it really is, and what do you base that belief on?)

There's no doubt about it, polls can be a form of manipulation. It's important to find out about the methodology that was used (ex. what the actual questions and answers were) before putting too much trust in it. However, in general, I believe polls are fairly trustworthy.

[kristopher]

6. Factor not taken into account

Since Obama moved into the limelight and received the endorsement of Gore, my feeling is that discussion of the topic has also blossomed on the progressive side.
Although it would be a lot of effort, you could add a lot of value by setting up a sampling regime for your searches. Randomize the samples and examine in detail 50 or so in each category. If it were me I'd also set up a daily sweep of the news and blogs using each of those search terms. This can form a very good data set over time and even in the short run it provides a good detailed view of the nature of the discussion.

[Viking12]

8. This is an observation Andy Revkin made back in 2005

When the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act first starting gaining traction. As policy action looks to be more likely, the wing-nuts amp up their denaial Wurlitzers.

[kgrandia]

9. Interesting

I think I might go back and isolate my search to the introduction of the Lieberman-Warner bill last year. Guaranteed there was an upswing.

[kgrandia]

10. Reposted it on Huffington

Since nobody jumped in and called me a complete moron, I have reposted it on Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/a-troubling-trend-in-glob_b_158288.html

Will no doubt get the trolls all in a tizzy. They're going to say things like: "See, this just proves that global warming is a lie made up by Al Gore, Tom Hanks and that leftie NASA gang."

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. From what I see, I don't buy your methods

For example, the Google search for http://www.google.com/search?as_q=hoax&as_epq=Global+Warming">"Global Warming" + hoax will return pages containing phrases like, "Global Warming is a Hoax" but also pages containing something like "Global Warming is not a Hoax" (your analysis would fall in the latter category, and would constitute a "false positive.")

See also:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027
http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/gw_faq_hoax.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

I suspect pages of both varieties have increased in the past year. The first question I would have is how has the ratio between them changed?

[kgrandia]

14. Checked that

I looked a little into the issue you're talking about and the numbers of "positive" cases are miniscule. For example a search for all mentions ever of the phrase "global warming is not a hoax" found only 46 pages.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. The 3 examples I gave came from the first two pages of hits generated by the query link I gave

Searching for "global warming is not a hoax" is not a good technique.

Try checking say… at least 100 pages you find using your query, and see what their actual stance is.

[Sal Minella]

12. We do need to refer to "Global Climate Change," not global "warming," however --

I say from a state with an air-temp of 24 below zero, and expecting a hellacious tornado season this summer.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Here's why I avoid the phrase "Climate Change"

It sounds like you're backing off from "Global Warming" (which really is what you're talking about.) Skeptics use this terminology change to say, "See! Even you don't believe in 'Global Warming!'"

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Climate Change or Global Warming?

The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are (other) changes in addition to rising temperatures."

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

• natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun;
• natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
• human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)

Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

[kgrandia]

16. Climate change versus global warming

I write online, so I want to target people interested in information on the issue.

On average, 2.2 million people in the US search the phrase "global warming" while only 368,000 search the phrase "climate change."

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Yup, my point exactly

If you use "Climate Change" instead, people may consciously or unconsciously conclude you're "wishy-washy."

[Sal Minella]

19. Okay. In my own life, here in Iowa, I am surrounded by FoxBots who smirk at each other over their

wool scarves in 25-below-zero-weather and make snide remarks about "Global Warming" being all over with.

So I guess appropriate terminology varies with the intelligence level of the people you're talking to.

[kristopher]

20. You might enjoy this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=182598&mesg_id=182828

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Sure, I deal with 'em too

I find that for most of these folks, the http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/">Common Sense Climate Index is quite helpful.

Here're some temperatures for Iowa Falls over the years:


Temperatures go up and down, but the general trend is up.

NOAA's http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/rda/index.html">Severe Weather Climatology is also very helpful.

Here's a graph of severe weather for the Des Moines radar region:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/rda/DMX.html



Ice in the Himalayas? They've never been there. But they may recognize that they seem to be seeing more hail storms than they used to.

[kristopher]

22. I have to ask

DO you actually interact with these people face to face in their environment? I know the OP is oriented to internet activity, and that may explain your use of internet references to a post including the expression on people's faces. However that reply leads me to ask if your primary mode of interaction may be missing some valuable environmental clues.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Some of them I interact with "face to face"

With resources like this, I ask them for their e-mail address, so I can send them some links. Let 'em chew on the information for a while and then follow up.

I find the local arguments, "Here are the figures for our area," are the most effective.

[kristopher]

26. I don't believe they are effective.

No offense meant, but I have trouble reconciling your words with the discussions I've been having for years. I suspect that the actual effectiveness of your attempts at suasion are much less successful than you believe.

The reason I say this is based on a great deal of this type of dialog and observation of others engaged in same. It is my unshakable conclusion that data and reason are totally irrelevant to what climate deniers believe. Their denial is a political act, not an act of rationality based on the best information available. When I've examined the arguments of the opinion leaders they follow and the way the followers employ the arguments in discussion, I've found that the only thing required to "defeat" the most reasoned and clear argument is a single point on which they can get a mental grip; they then use this point as an unmoving anchor point that allows them to deal with any cognitive dissonance a reasoned argument might create. Examples of this would be a minor, irrelevant error or anomaly in a data set; a claim of hypocrisy on the part of Gore or the person making the argument; anecdotal non-representative personal experiences; claims of conflict of interest on the part of researchers; or any one of a thousand other meaningless trivialities.
The entire nature of the denial industry orbits around generating this type of information and ensuring its widespread distribution. That isn't an accident or a mistake. It is a devastatingly effective propaganda strategy that guts the type of discussion you are promoting.

Unless you are somehow changing their basic ideological belief structure with your internet references, I just can't accept that you have somehow been successful against this strategy when all around you have failed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. "… data and reason are totally irrelevant to what climate deniers believe …"

Cognitive dissonance is a problem for anyone, including "climate deniers."

You believe what you believe, based upon your experience. I believe what I believe based upon my experience. They believe what they believe based upon their experience.

Data which verifies the beliefs they already hold is more readily accepted than data which contradicts them. That's why I give them the data, and let them chew on it for a while.

I find that anyone who has lived in the area long enough to "remember when" can recognize that the weather today is different from the weather they remember.

Once they start to realize that things have changed in their own experience they're more willing to accept that they may be changing elsewhere just as much (or perhaps even more!)

One skeptic (a co-worker) was telling me about a house he'd just bought "by the river." The people who sold it to him admitted it that it had recently flooded, "but that was a hundred year flood." he told me. "Nope," I told him, "that was estimated to be a 500 years flood. The one the year before was a 250 year flood, and the one the year before that was a 100 year flood. Now, what do you suppose the odds are of a run like that happening? Do you think it indicates some kind of change in what we consider to be 'normal weather patterns?'"

He got this thoughtful look in his eyes…

[kristopher]

28. He got this thoughtful look in his eyes…

Which disappeared the instant he tuned Rush Limbaugh in on his radio.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Actually, it seems to have had an effect

He used to send out eMail educating the masses.—One of my favorites explained that "If all of the world's glaciers melted, sea level wouldn't rise an inch." I explained the difference between floating "sea ice" and land-borne glaciers, but that didn't seem to phase him for long.

Since our little "face-to-face" about flooding, I don't recall any PSA's from him debunking "global warming."

[kristopher]

30. Deleted yr address is more probable.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Good guess, but nope

Messages were sent on a special internal LISTSERVe.

It just kills you to imagine that someone might actually be swayed by reason. (Doesn't it?)

[kristopher]

32. No. I just don't believe they are.

I suppose I could be like you and use something like the 'no true scotsman' defense, but before I go there, let's take a closer look at the argument *you've* offered.

One individual purchased a home in an area suddenly subject to a series of unusual floods. You point out that the floods are a trend (and I assume you offered that GW theory predicts this trend). This individual, who in the past routinely sent out GW denier emails on a listserve, suddenly stops sending these emails after getting a thoughtful look in his eyes.

From that you conclude that your approach is effective, right?

"Rooster and sun" ring a bell?

You have no confirmation that he accepted your statement/inference that "flooding is related to MMGW" as true. A thoughtful look just doesn't cut it and you know that very well.

You also know that the cessation of GW emails isn't evidence of a change in position on the issue. He could as easily have decided that the issue wasn't one appropriate to mass dissemination to that particular group (maybe based on your discussion), or some other similar personal decision unrelated to his position on the topic.

It doesn't "kill" me to imagine someone can be swayed by reason for I know well that reason is one of the best tools we have to communicate important ideas to others. However, it is a departure from reason to insist that this one tool is the most appropriate to be used when all the evidence tells us that is incorrect. For example:

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Global warming is not a crisis

Intelligence2 US audience confirms 46% to 42% for the motion, with 12% undecided.

Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville
Moderator: Brian Lehrer

SOLD OUT

I've included Crichton's site for his arguments, the wiki take on him and a PEW Center response to his claims.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

Note who won the debate and the validity of the arguments used. The same thing is happening in the public arena. As I said and you ignored, the rejection of climate change is a political act that is supported by a decades long, massive disinformation campaign designed specifically to short-circuit appeals to reason. AND IT WORKS.

I urge you to google Crichton and GW to read the accolades he's earned.

While I appreciate your attempts to link personal experience to hard data, it simply isn't reasonable to think that everyone has an experience as evocative as buying a home experiencing multiple rare floods. The fact is that it is hard to convince people precisely because the primary effects that motivate you and me to action are over the horizon and convincing anecdotal evidence just isn't there to point at.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. "It doesn't "kill" me to imagine someone can be swayed by reason"—then why discourage others?

People can change their minds:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107593/Partisan-Gap-Global-Warming-Grows.aspx

[kristopher]

34. The more relevant chart is at the link, not the one you posted.

The growing divide based on partisan affiliation is solid evidence supporting my perspective. From your link:
In 1997, Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to say the effects of global warming had "already begun to happen" (47% and 46%, respectively). In sharp contrast, this year's Gallup Environment Poll finds 41% of Republicans saying the effects of global warming have already begun, while over three-quarters of Democrats (76%) hold this view.

At the same time, during the past decade, Republicans have become much more likely to believe that news of global warming is "generally exaggerated" (from 34% in 1997 to 59% this year), while Democrats' agreement with that view have been fairly stable, at 23% in 1997 and 18% in 2008.

The number of core deniers is growing in spite of the best efforts of reason to sway them.

GW has been an issue since the early 80s and the right has been laying the groundwork to turn it into a political debate since then; with an acceleration of the efforts after the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The deck is stacked against your approach.

Have you read the two papers by Jacques? Especially "The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship" -
Peter Jacques

The second paper (with Riley Dunlap) not only documents the effort described in the first paper with hard data from collected publications, but also looks closer at the methods of information creation and distribution. I forget the title, but you can find it with the two authors names.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. Then you might as well dig a hole, climb in, and cover yourself up

If the vast unwashed mass of humanity cannot be convinced by reason then there is no hope.

Some of us, on the other hand, choose to do something about it.


For the past 8 years, the US administration has essentially conducted a disinformation campaign against its citizens. With new leadership, they should get the straight story. Let's see what they think then?

[kristopher]

37. New leadership is helpful.

The key is that other voting issues have given us the majority needed to take action in spite of the deniers.

What makes you think that there are only two approaches for convincing people? When did climbing into a hole or playing their game of 'jerk around the reasonable dope' become the only two choices on the menu? I prefer to argue emotions - anger and shame specifically. Using examples like 'the hypocrisy of Gore' or weather vs climate I try to tie their view to the larger failures of the policies they've been supporting and show show how they've been manipulated. A good source is 'Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air' written by the good folks at Union of Concern Scientists. Another would be the two articles from Jacques (used in moderation). Pointing out, with a little evidence, that someone has been played for a fool sometimes makes them willing to listen. Also, a little condescension is sometimes appropriate when the person starts trotting out arguments that wouldn't fool a 3rd grader (Gore etc). Follow that with again asking if they actually enjoy being taken for a fool and used like the Smoke, Mirror, Hot Air paper shows?

Then walk away and let them stew. Follow up if chance permits.

[Meeker Morgan]

23. A troubling trend in Global Warming Denial on the internet!

Our 2008 analysis of global warming misinformation finds that there was a very significant upswing in online activity.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. That's great! That's simply marvelous

Who is the artist? (Do you know?)

[Meeker Morgan]

36. See this guy

http://xkcd.com/archive/

He actually encourages hotlinking his stuff.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. Thanks! n/t