What About the... 
Library and Links: What About the Contrarians?
This 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? Why do we hear so much from the contrarians? What are some disturbing elements regarding contrarians? What about the emails? What about the IPCC? Where can I get more information and references on contrarians? What about a Contrarian Quote? What is "Cargo-Cult Science"?
At the end of the essay there is a FILM, a PRESENTATION, an RSS FEED, and a COMIC STRIP.
Roll curser over graphs to see captions. Large views are here, here, and here.
Note: You may need to scroll down using the border on the right, outside the text box. Click on the highlighted words above to navigate.
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.
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.
What do Contrarians say about Global Warming?
Various contrarians hold mutually inconsistent beliefs and positions. 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). 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). 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). 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).
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".
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. Contrarian claims are often just misapplied illogical conjectures using irrelevant data, unwarranted generalizations, and sometimes mathematical mistakes. The contrarian strategy is similar to, and arguably derived from, the old propaganda strategy of the tobacco lobby. Contrarians generally do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, mostly because of the generally low quality of their work. Instead right-wing blogs and media loudly proclaim contrarian claims, often in lock-step. A few contrarians publish quality climate papers, but they also sometimes give unpublished talks repeating incorrect contrarian claims.
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.
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.
What are some Disturbing Elements regarding Contrarians?
This just in from ClimateScienceWatch: "Senator James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has gone a step beyond promoting his long-notorious global warming denialist propaganda. He is now using the resources of the Senate committee to seek opportunities to criminalize the actions of 17 leading scientists who have been associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports."
This is not the first time that right-wing US politicians from oil states (again notably Inhofe) have attacked climate scientists. Here is Michael Mann's 2003 Senate testimony.
Similar disturbing history is in the article by Rich Piltz called "The Denial Machine - Science, Censorship, and the White House" examining contrarians and the Bush Administration HERE.
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.
While contrarians are mostly a US phenomenon, disturbing developments in Australia are reported HERE and HERE.
What about the 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. Commentary and analysis is given in many places:
HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
See especially the Pew Center on Global Climate Change email analysis, which also lists the myriad statements by professional science organizations affirming human-induced climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists analysis is also excellent.
Media inaccuracy regarding the emails has been rampant. 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.
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.
The few minor glitches in the IPCC reports should be contrasted with the contrarian product, which is full of glaring errors.
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), Grist, Prof. Stephen Schneider's website, NERC, EDF, Island of Doubt, and Climate Progress.
An excellent review appeared in Scientific American entitled: "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense"
Hard-hitting videos on U-Tube called the Climate Denial Crock of the Week are instructive.
HERE is the Union of Concerned Scientists "Fact-checker" site debunking contrarian claims.
A persistent and incorrect claim of contrarians is that solar effects are responsible for recent global warming; here is a paper debunking that contrarian claim, with documentation of the "flawed science" behind it.
An op-ed by one of the most vocal contrarians, Patrick Michaels, was refuted HERE by the AGU (American Geophysical Union). The AGU said: "Mr. Michaels's op-ed reflects a political strategy to sway popular opinion on climate change without regard for facts or the enormous body of scientific evidence...The result damages the scientific community and is a disservice to the public." Here is a report indicating perhaps WHY Michaels makes such misleading statements.
Here is an essay "The Attack on Climate Change Science" by Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. These attacks use Swift-Boat tactics. HERE is a report on a well-known contrarian who admittedly played a part in the Swift-Boat incidents attacking John Kerry and John Murtha.
Here is a great recent essay by Al Gore, "We Can't Wish Away Climate Change" .
Mostly, climate contrarians are not climate scientists who publish in peer-reviewed climate journals. HERE is documentation.
There are a few European contrarians. HERE is a recent article in Le Monde entitled "Le cent-fautes de Claude Allègre" documenting numerous contrarian errors. HERE is a detailed refutation of deceptive contrarian arguments of one Viscount Monckton, who has no scientific credentials.
Finally HERE is documentation that links creationists and contrarians in right-wing politics and attacks on science in school curricula; and in South Dakota, astrology.
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 Wikipedia's list of contrarians and what they say. And HERE is a long list of contrarian links, organized by topics.
---------------------
* Reference: Prof. Richard Feynman's famous talk, "Cargo Cult Science".
---------------------
FILM on contrarians, Canadian perspective:
---------------------
PRESENTATION: Click on the right side of each page to advance to the next page
-------------
Here is the Skeptical Science RSS FEED.
-------------
Here is the Comic Strip
---------------------
Last updated 27Feb2010
-
Featured Article
Quick rebuttals to contrarian claims from Skeptical Science
Here from Skeptical Science is a great list of quick rebuttals to many fallacious claims by contrarians / global warming skeptics. Clicking on the text will take you to the Skeptical...
Latest News
Michael Mann cleared by Penn State inquiry on three counts
The results of the recent inquiry of Prof. Michael Mann by Penn State University completely exonerates him on three counts related to the infamous hacked emails stolen from the Climate...
