Three debunkings of climate change ‘scepticism’

Reading Andrew Weaver’s new book on climate change, I came across three recommendations for journalistic sources that do a good job of examining the so-called ‘climate sceptic’ movement. Each is worth a look:

As discussed previously, there is nothing ‘sceptical’ about refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that human beings are dangerously warming the planet. There is a universe of difference between the kind of vigorous and intellectually honest debate that refines theories and deepens understanding and the cynical and strategic efforts of those who oppose action on climate change to discredit real science and create the artificial impression that a debate about the fundamentals of climatic science continues to exist.

The book also cites two websites I frequent as good sources of information:, written by five climate scientists, and, written by a a Canadian public relations professional.

Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. In the fall of 2005, I began reading for an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. Outside school, I am very interested in photography, writing, and the outdoors. I am writing this blog to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, provide a more personal view of graduate student life in Oxford, and pass on some lessons I've learned here.

5 thoughts on “Three debunkings of climate change ‘scepticism’”

  1. Some people just cannot accept it, you can give them all the evidence in the world.

    One site in particular I like to visit for computer related reviews is awful for its resident skeptic:

    He generally does make a reasoned argument, given some latest study but no doubt takes things out of contect, etc. to push his agenda…

    After reading these articles and the following comments I have found that ideologically, skeptics are generally libertarian in nature and hate any encroachment on personal freedoms (or at least thats the belief system they hide behind). Be it regulation for the greater good or not. These same sorts of people practically worship capitalism (laissez-faire of course) and want the market to decide everything. At that point, the conversation is over for me because any discussion is going to be seen as an attack on ones personal freedoms.

  2. This sort of reasoning is very much a problem:

    “I cannot tolerate the kind of regulation that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require” therefore “climate change must not be happening, or not be caused by greenhouse gasses, or somehow otherwise not require cuts.”

    The irony is that failing to take early action will require far more draconian action now. If we find ourselves having to cut emissions very sharply in twenty years, it will be through mechanisms that make current cap-and-trade and carbon tax systems look mild and libertarian.

  3. It sounds like they are ‘deniers’ in the sense of being in denial:

    “Cancer? If I have cancer, it must be no big deal. Either that or just a myth.”

  4. Once people have developed a deeply felt position on something, it is very hard to change their minds. This is especially true for a topic where you can find lots of support for either position in different online and print media sources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *