URGENT - help needed refuting climate change denial letter

[Fishnut]

This letter is in my local newspaper. I really want to refute it but the deadline is noon and I've got the vets this morning so I was hoping I could crowdsource a reply. Please can you guys help me form a response that's suitable for publication in the next couple of hours. If you're looking to procrastinate here's a great opportunity!

Climate letter.jpg (561.76 KiB) Viewed 3933 times

[bmforre]

Here's Temperature records from the last 2000 years

Copied from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatu ... 1000_years

Large-scale reconstructions covering part or all of the 1st millennium and 2nd millennium have shown that recent temperatures are exceptional: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 concluded that "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."

This represents the best knowledge we have at present.

[Fishnut]

Thanks

I'm trying to go for a "bigger picture" approach as it's impossible to succinctly refute every idiotic point.

This is my first draft which was hastily written in the car on the way to the vets (I'm not driving!). Comments, corrections etc much appreciated

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. All the scientific evidence gathered shows this to be the case. The scientific consensus is agreed - anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Climate change deniers cherry pick (often misunderstood) data while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it does and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

[lpm]

You need to refute the letter’s most misleading errors:

- Temperatures were not 4 degrees Centigrade warmer in the Medieval Hotting Period, they were 4 degrees Kelvin warmer
- Although the atmosphere is indeed 95% water vapour, this is very dry relative to most of the world’s surface – oceans are 100% water
- Geothermal heat is not measured in tons, it is measured in litres, but in Britain we should go back to measuring it in gallons
- Drilling holes even 2,000 feet deep will release obvious trolls

[Gfamily]

Thanks

I'm trying to go for a "bigger picture" approach as it's impossible to succinctly refute every idiotic point.

This is my first draft which was hastily written in the car on the way to the vets (I'm not driving!). Comments, corrections etc much appreciated

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. All the scientific evidence gathered shows this to be the case. The scientific consensus is agreed - anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Climate change deniers cherry pick (often misunderstood) data while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it does and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

I would start with specific refutations as that means the writer's lies are countered for people who don't read the whole thing. So, start with a paragraph to point out that the Medieval Warm Period was at most about 1 degree and was predominantly in the North Atlantic region, so was not a Global warming, unlike our current warming.

[lpm]

Wait, what, you're seriously answering that letter?

[Bird on a Fire]

Temperature has historically varied both up and down, but all climate scientists agree that the current upward trend in global temperatures is due to the combustion of fossil carbon.

Obviously that won't result in a greener planet, as the hottest parts of the planet are deserts.

Absolutely nobody is proposing a tax on breathing. The problem is fossil carbon, not short-term carbon cycling.

The atmosphere is not 95% water vapour. It's "78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere." - from wiki

[Bird on a Fire]

Id start with criticising the irresponsibility, then throw in a few easy wins showing how factually inaccurate it is.

[Bird on a Fire]

A suggested edit:

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. Historical temperature fluctuations have indeed occurred, both up and down, but the scientific consensus is agreed that the current upward trend is due to human activity. Anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Basic fact-checking would reveal the serious errors in D Dean's letter. For example, any textbook will confirm that the planet's atmosphere is composed almost entirely of nitrogen and oxygen, rather than "95% water vapour" - the true figure is at most 1%. The hottest parts of the planet are deserts, so to suggest that increasing temperatures globally will lead to a "greener planet" is clearly false.

Climate change deniers cherry-pick (often misunderstood) arguments while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not create spurious debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it is, and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

[Fishnut]

Thanks everyone, particular BoaF. I've just sent it. Now to wait til next week to see if they print it.

[tom p]

Wait, what, you're seriously answering that letter?

it was published in a paper. no matter how stupid it is, that means that lots of people, most of whom will be ignorant of the reality, will have read it.
Whilst the bloke should have been denied the oxygen of publicity (or even the oxygen of oxygen), having got it, he should be rebutted so his lies don't infect others

[lpm]

The opposite. The more ridiculous letters in local papers, the better.

Make climate denial nothing but the ramblings of confused old white men, riddled with obvious errors. Answering creates two sides and the illusion of debate; ignoring shows these things are just idiots with tinfoil hats.

Not that the paper will print this response, anyway. Where's the click bait? You think failing media will do stuff without click bait?

[Holylol]

I don't remember if I found this resource here or not, but there is a compilation of arguments used by denialists and comments/responses to these arguments here:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It might be too late for the article that is the subject of this topic, but may be interesting or useful in other occasions.

[Martin Y]

But people are stupid*.

*Where "stupid" means woefully underinformed about all kinds of stuff and liable to absorb part of whatever reassuring message they read without necessarily thinking it through. If people read unchallenged b.llsh.t in a newspaper they imagine to be honest and truthful, then their takeaway, however fragmentary, will be that Greta's just being hysterical and everything will be fine.

[lpm]

So what? Why would it matter if one confused old white man changed the mind of another confused old white man?

GWPF and the like need the "equal debate between two sides" illusion to continue as long as possible. If they get ignored, they die. Stop helping them.

[Bird on a Fire]

So what? Why would it matter if one confused old white man changed the mind of another confused old white man?

They vote. And, indeed, are voted for.

[lpm]

So what? When do they vote? Would their vote be changed? What magical powers do votes have?

People who like Katie Hopkins also vote. We don't hear much about Katie Hopkins any more - because more people have learned to just ignore her confused hatreds and have stopped debating what she says. Newspapers these days don't print stuff that just disappears into a void with everyone ignoring it.

If this silly letter generates controversy and fills up a page next week and it gets entertainingly debatey, then the newspaper is guaranteed to print letters like it every month or two. It's a Darwinian process. Delingpole wins because he's so good at generating enraged responses, unknown thousands of Deliingpole-wannabes die out because they get ignored.

[Gfamily]

You might as well say who gives a damn about the lies written in national papers about Europe and immigrants.

[lpm]

Debate controversies. Definitely don't debate things that are no longer controversies - that just keeps the failed side alive.

[Woodchopper]

So what? When do they vote? Would their vote be changed? What magical powers do votes have?

People who like Katie Hopkins also vote. We don't hear much about Katie Hopkins any more - because more people have learned to just ignore her confused hatreds and have stopped debating what she says. Newspapers these days don't print stuff that just disappears into a void with everyone ignoring it.

If this silly letter generates controversy and fills up a page next week and it gets entertainingly debatey, then the newspaper is guaranteed to print letters like it every month or two. It's a Darwinian process. Delingpole wins because he's so good at generating enraged responses, unknown thousands of Deliingpole-wannabes die out because they get ignored.

Alternatively, if misleading claims aren't challenged, people assume that they are true.

Unfortunately there's no good option. Ignore Delingpole and give the impression that he isn't wrong, or disagree with him and draw attention to his lies.

[Bird on a Fire]

I don't know how relevant the references to "clickbait" are - not all local newspapers are online, or at least get most of their readership from paper copies. If that's the case here there is less risk of amplifying stupid/dangerous views and people by responding.

[Martin Y]

Writing to the paper saying "this person is wrong; there is no controversy" is not perpetuating an imaginary controversy.

[lpm]

Alternatively, if misleading claims aren't challenged, people assume that they are true.

That's not the case. The psychology of believing stuff is more complicated. People are simultaneously gullible and sceptical.

For example, if false stuff challenged by someone you don't like - say, an expert what can talk proper English - you are more likely to side with the false claim.

[lpm]

Writing to the paper saying "this person is wrong; there is no controversy" is not perpetuating an imaginary controversy.

Yes it is.

[lpm]

I don't know how relevant the references to "clickbait" are - not all local newspapers are online, or at least get most of their readership from paper copies. If that's the case here there is less risk of amplifying stupid/dangerous views and people by responding.

Even print in ancient times did the same thing - they continually surveyed readers to see what they liked best. Letters pages have always been popular with readers, leading to newspapers putting in clickbaity type letters.