Recently I have seen a number of opinion articles and letters to newspapers and magazines (e.g., October National Geographic) pushing the right wings latest attempt to deny global warming. These all expose how desperate the right wing is becoming about global warming and how they continually change their arguments each time they are shown to be wrong. And yet, in an ironic twist there may be a positive outcome to their latest attempt to deny that global warming is a problem.
Global warming deniers have continually changed their arguments over the years. Changing your argument is a good thing if your change is based on new evidence. That is what science is all about. But these people change their arguments as they are shown to be wrong, yet they cannot give up their basic "premise" that global warming is not a problem. We need to be aware of the phony "arguments" they are making now because the "undecided voters" may be swayed by illogical "faith-based" arguments that we don't need to worry about global warming.
At first the deniers said that global warming was not even happening. Wrong. Next, they argued that scientists were in disagreement. Wrong. Then they moved on to say that global warming would not bring significant change. Wrong again. Now the latest argument is that global warming is just part of a natural cycle and nothing to be concerned about - life will adapt to climate change as it always has. After all, wasn't most of the northern hemisphere covered in ice just 12,000 years ago?
To those who look at the facts it is obvious what the deniers are willfully ignoring. The current climate change is happening much faster than any climate change in the past. Yes, there have been large scale climate changes, but never at anything approaching this pace (unless you count great extinction events caused by massive meteor impacts, which I guess the current crop of deniers might be in favor of?). Life cannot adapt fast enough to rapid climate change.
But that is not the most important problem with this argument. The deniers are again in denial. In the past there were no large scale fixed human societies based on current sea levels and climate patterns.
We need to confront the global warming deniers in clear, simple terms in order to reach the "undecided voters" on this issue. Whenever you hear the current crop of ludicrous arguments you should respond. If we do not respond to their illogic and falsehoods they may sway the "undecideds".
The most extreme example of this I have seen was in my local newspaper. A guest opinion article claimed that Al Gore wants to stop the world from ever changing at all. He wants to prevent evolution from working its path to adapt to "natural climate change". This is hogwash and anyone who is literate in basic science knows it. But it is the type of argument that can convince "undecideds".
Although we clearly have science and the facts on our side we need to wage the "PR" campaign as well. I do not agree with those who say we should ignore the arguments on the other side, lest we give them undue credence. We need to expose them for what they are - just as we do with the anti-science arguments against evolution.
And yet, in an ironic twist, there may be a silver lining. If the global warming deniers are reduced to saying it is all part of the long term "natural cycle" and that "life will evolve and adapt so why worry", at least they are admitting that the earth is very old and that it and life have evolved gradually over time.