What about the Contrarians?

This abridged essay covers climate contrarians or deniers, sometimes called climate skeptics. The sections are:

• Who are the contrarians?
  
• What is the contrarian agenda?
  
• What do contrarians say about global warming?
  
• What about real scientific skepticism and contrarians?
  
• What are some contrarian tactics and fallacies?
  
• What do contrarians misunderstand about climate risk management?
• What are some disturbing elements regarding contrarians?
  
• What about the emails?
  
• What about the IPCC?
• Why do we hear so much from the contrarians?
  
• What about media inaccuracy?
  
• Are the scientists hitting back against the contrarians?
  
• What is the psychology used by contrarians?
  
• Where can I get more information and references on contrarians?
  
• What about a Contrarian Quote?
  
• What about a little humor?
  
• What is "Cargo-Cult Science"?

Go HERE for the full essay, including a video and a presentation.

Roll curser over graphs to see captions. Large views of the data are HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Who's in the picture on the left? It's the contrarian Christopher Monckton, see HERE.

Who are the Contrarians?

The "contrarians" or "climate-change deniers" are a loud vocal minority. They include some practicing scientists, who however with rare exceptions are not professional practicing climatologists. HERE is evidence that contrarians in general have far less expertise in climate science than mainstream climatologists.

Go to top.

What is the Contrarian Agenda?

The agenda for at least some contrarians is to derail meaningful discussion and action on global warming by sowing confusion and influencing public opinion. Contrarians have achieved some success in the U.S. using this tactic. Other contrarians do not have an overt political agenda but rather have an incomplete understanding of the relevant science.

Go to top.

What do Contrarians say about Global Warming?

Various contrarians hold mutually inconsistent beliefs and positions. There are four categories.

1. Some contrarians deny that recent global warming exists (they distort the meaning of global warming, which is a globally-averaged upward temperature trend seen in the data since 1975, and instead invoke irrelevant fluctuations).

2. Other contrarians do admit that recent global warming exists but claim it is not largely caused by humans (they ignore or distort the attribution provided by climate models, and they emphasize irrelevant ancient data).

3. Other contrarians admit both that recent global warming exists and that it is largely caused by humans, but deny harmful impacts (they ignore current data and expert forecasts).

4. Finally some contrarians admit that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and indeed has harmful effects, but assert that it is too expensive to try to mitigate global warming (they use outlier economic scenarios that ignore benefits of new technologies, and they ignore the immense potentially devastating economic costs of unbridled global warming). 

Go to top.

What about Real Scientific Skepticism and Contrarians? 

 It is worthwhile noting that scientists, by nature, are skeptics. It takes a long time, with evidence from many sources, with peer-reviewed journals as a filter, for scientists to become convinced. However, once a scientific result becomes established, contrary claims are treated with with the same skepticism. Contrarians misinterpret this fundamental aspect of science. They misrepresent scientific standards by complaining that their ideas are suppressed by a "scientific establishment". 

Go to top.

What are some Contrarian Tactics and Fallacies?

The contrarian product often resembles Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science". Sometimes this is because of an incomplete understanding of the relevant science. Indeed, some contrarians seem to misunderstand the very nature of science, which consists of a web of facts and theory, different from a mathematical "proof".  Other contrarians seem politically or financially motivated.

Regardless of the cause, contrarians routinely engage in various distortions of science, data, and logic. Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry-picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red-herring arguments, demanding unachievable "precision" from mainstream science with the motif “if you don’t understand this detail you don’t understand anything”, overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial-lawyer Swift-Boat-like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as "no consensus", and overemphasizing details of little significance. 

On the other hand, and although there are a few exceptions, contrarian claims constitute pseudo-science that routinely contain flagrant errors and huge uncertainties that contrarians hypocritically persist in ignoring.

Contrarians and their media outlets routinely denigrate scientific forecasts of harmful effects of global warming as "alarmist". Above all they oppose any sensible proposals of risk management of harmful climate impacts.

There are examples backing up all these statements, see the references below, and in particular RealClimate's critiques of contrarian claims. HERE is another good description.

Go to top.

What do Contrarians Misunderstand about Climate Risk Management?

What are some Disturbing Elements regarding Contrarians?

An overarching framework for right-wing and fossil fuel opposition to climate science and climate risk management can be found at Greenpeace’s website ExxonSecrets, which documents “Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change.” See also HERE and HERE.

HERE is a professor who says: "At the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings last month in San Diego, I was amazed at the number of my mild-mannered scientific colleagues who admitted, in private conversations, the pressures and/or threats they've received."

Go to top.

What about the Hacked Emails?

The recent hacked email incident, without content scientifically, is being distorted by right-wing media in a destructive frontal attack on climate science and climate scientists. 

The definitive rebuke to the attempt by right-wing contrarians to exploit this incident was provided in the exhaustive Sir Muir Russell report, which emerged after six months of inquiry, clearing scientists in the Climategate affair. HERE is the full report. The professional climate website RealClimate has a description. HERE is a report from the Guardian UK, which says in part:

"The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.

Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher."

The MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel has recently written a very hard-hitting essay: "Climategate": A Different Perspective. Emanuel castigates the right-wing attack on climate science that uses the pretext of the hacked emails and the minor IPCC report errors.

Go to top.

What about the IPCC?

The IPCC and its work is described HERE. The 2007 IPCC reports consist of summary but detailed accounts of the best up-to-date scientific and economic research on climate change and global warming, containing 3000 pages in 3 volumes. Recently a few small mistakes were found, including one isolated erroneous paragraph on glaciers in the Impacts 2007 IPCC 1000-page report. This has been used as a pretext by right-wing contrarian media to manufacture a destructive attack on the entire IPCC structure.  Actually, the IPCC has been under attack for many years by right-wing contrarians. It should be noted that no human endeavor is guaranteed 100% error-free, not even published papers. 

For analysis, see RealClimate's discussion called "The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)". More RealClimate analysis is at: "IPCC errors: facts and spin". HERE is the analysis of the Union of Concerned Scientists. HERE is documentation of misreporting on IPCC coverage of rain forests.

The few minor glitches in the IPCC reports should be contrasted with the contrarian product, which is full of glaring errors.

Go to top.

Why do we hear So Much from the Contrarians?

While the history of science is littered with discarded or crank ideas, contrarians producing such ideas today have the unprecedented advantage of being supported notably by powerful energy and right-wing libertarian interests. The media, in order to "present both sides", gives the contrarians unwarranted coverage. In addition there are contrarian Internet bloggers, right-wing politicians, and some influential newspaper editors and TV “news” shows that present only contrarian arguments. 

HERE is the way one professor put it: "What really bothers me is the stunning lack of balance in U.S. media reports on climate science. In Europe, newspaper coverage gives a pretty accurate reflection of what the leading scientists are saying. In the U.S., the scientific findings are “balanced” against the views of people who know how to spin juicy quotes but can’t even spell “climatology.” When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases a major report, its main conclusions get a few stories, while most of the attention goes to small errors that don’t affect its substance – and that show up about once every 1000 pages."

Go to top.

What about Media Inaccuracy?

The right-wing media chronically and blatantly distort climate science. However, media inaccuracy on climate has been moving into the mainstream. Here is a RealClimate article discussing a recent example of misleading media, through incompetence or intent or both; see also "Whatevergate". 

Part of the problem is the chronic inability of scientists to communicate in a simple effective fashion with the media and the public, as discussed HERE.

Prof. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at U. Victoria, has recently filed a lawsuit against the right-wing newspaper The National Post, over a series of libels based on falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

Positive signs are starting to appear of better media accountability. RealClimate reports that the Sunday Times (UK) retracted a story by Jonathan Leake on a supposed ‘Amazongate’ and published an apology. This is in response (see HERE) to an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission by Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, over the above "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" newspaper story; the story falsely reported a supposed mistake made by the IPCC .

Go to top.

Are the Scientists Hitting Back against the Contrarians?

Yes. HERE is an extraordinary letter published in the journal Science, signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates. It says: "Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence."

Further, "We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."

The Union of Concerned Scientists UCS has announced a program to organize scientists from around the country to beat back misinformation and educate decision makers and the public about the real facts on global warming. A recent UCS email states: "The Union of Concerned Scientists is leading a campaign to promote climate science facts and return the public’s attention back to the urgent need to rein in global warming emissions and implement common-sense solutions to our country’s energy needs."

Go to top.

What is the Psychology Employed by Contrarians? 

Fallacious tactics used by contrarians constitute a deliberate psychological agenda to influence the public.  HERE is an excellent essay that says: "People are only too happy to accept a message of denial: you do not need to change, it will all be fine". 

Go to top.

Where can I get More Information on Contrarians?

The most complete resource is RealClimate's Wiki, which is “an index for debunking of various popular media occurrences of climate-related nonsense”.  HERE is the list of responses to common contrarian arguments at RealClimate. RealClimate is the go-to scientifically accurate website run by professional climatologists. 

Other excellent sites debunking contrarians include Coby Beck’s How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic and Skeptical Science; these have organized lists of contrarian arguments and responses, and HERE is the Skeptical Science iphone app. More useful information refuting contrarian claims is at the UK Met Office, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Deltoid, deSmogBlog (which has a LIST of contrarians with background information), Grist, Prof. Stephen Schneider's website, NERC, EDF, Island of Doubt, and Climate Progress.

Go HERE for more reference links.

Go to top.

What about a Contrarian Quote?

To give an idea of the rampant distortion of climate science by contrarian media, HERE is a popular right-wing blog that states:  "Another global warming myth comes crashing down. No warming since at least 1995, no melting glaciers and now no rising sea levels. Basically this leaves the warmers with no credibility..." All these assertions are simply wrong.

HERE is a list of contrarians and what they say. HERE is a list of contrarian links, organized by topics. HERE is background information on contrarians. HERE is a list of contrarians with reference links.

Go to top.

 ---------------------

Humor? See Stephen Colbert's video of Fox News (at 2:43) saying winter snowstorms "disprove Al Gore's theory of global warming". Colbert uses the same cherry-picking illogic to "prove" - because it is nighttime - that the sun has been destroyed.

Go to top.

---------------------

* Reference:  Prof. Richard Feynman's famous talk,  "Cargo Cult Science".