The Pope's Climate Encyclical and Why Climate Deniers are Their Own Worst Enemy

It should go without saying that when you deny reality long enough, eventually reality makes you look foolish. Climate deniers have been denying the science behind man-made climate change for so long that they have lost even the illusion of credibility. They have become their own worst enemy, and as such have put themselves on a path of complete irrelevancy.

Deniers have chosen this path, of course. By blatantly denying even the most basic science and by egregiously promoting the most obvious and ludicrous falsehoods, deniers have marginalized themselves to the point of inconsequentiality. Deniers now find themselves being taken as seriously as Donald Trump's presidential run. Yes, they have become that buffoonish.

And alone.

Deniers used to hide behind ideological blinders, seeking protection for their anti-science beliefs in the arms of "conservatives," the "religious," and "Republican" comfort groups. Now deniers find themselves in a category among themselves. In contrast, intellectually honest and informed people who identify within these traditional labels no longer provide cover for denial.

Religions do not condone denial of the science

This point is brought home as Pope Francis, leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, issues the Vatican's papal encyclical on climate change and the environment. [Here is a summary of the main points; and here is the full letter, in English] In it the Pope acknowledges the unequivocal science demonstrating human activity is causing our climate to warm, and that the changes observed and coming present a significant risk to humanity.

Let me stop here and reinforce this to make it clear, because this is a point that climate deniers have intentionally tried to confuse as they attack the Pope. What the encyclical does is acknowledge the 100+ years of peer-reviewed climate science, which unequivocally demonstrates humans are warming the climate system. Climate deniers have falsely stated that the Pope shouldn't be "doing science" because he isn't a scientist. But the Pope isn't "doing science," he's simply acknowledging the science done by climate scientists and documented in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. So where the Pope (and the scientists of the encyclical that reviewed all the evidence) acknowledge the science, those attacking him are denying the science.

The point is that the Vatican is actually paying attention to the science, something they have been rightly criticized for not doing in the past and on other issues. Acknowledging the science is happening also in other religions and religious leaders. There are strongly Christian climate scientists, for example, who recognize that religious beliefs and the scientific reality of man-made climate change do not conflict. All religions have come to understand that the science is the science, and that their religious beliefs include stewardship of the environment. Denial of the science is shirking the moral responsibility to shepherd God's creation. Thus, deniers cannot pretend to be following religious principles. In fact, religions are leaving deniers behind.

Conservative principles do not condone denial of the science

Climate deniers have also shrouded their denial under the mantle of "conservatism." But that's false. Conservatism actually would acknowledge the science and protect - conserve - our resources and our planet. Deniers who hide behind their "conservatism" are actually false conservatives. Honest conservatives recognize that real conservatism includes stewardship. It also means looking at the evidence and acknowledging realities, then taking steps to honest dealing with those realities. Real conservatives don't let their blind ideology stand in the way of action. Real conservatives support "meaningful solutions," they don't deny reality in an effort to avoid having to take responsibility for offering those solutions.

Republican beliefs do not condone denial of the science

Many deniers seem to think they can hide their denial behind the "Republican" party mantra. That again is false. In fact, deniers are not listening to their own Republican scientists. Despite the usual blather from deniers that climate science is a "liberal hoax," climate scientists come in all flavors of political identity. Kerry Emanuel, Barry Bickmore, and others are Republicans despite and yet are also highly respected scientists doing climate research. Even looking beyond that, Republicans in the past have often been in the forefront of protection our environment. It was Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, a constant target of modern "Republicans." Just recently it was John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, who was leading the Republican efforts to pass sweeping legislation to encourage renewable energy development and deal with climate change.

All of these demonstrate that climate deniers, while they still claim to be under the umbrellas of conservatism, Republican, or religious principles, are in actual fact separate from all of those.

Deniers, through their increasingly obvious dishonesty and denial of even the most basic scientific fact and physics, have ostracized themselves from the realms of credibility. Religious principles dictate the opposite of what deniers claim. Conservative principles also dictate the opposite of what deniers claim. And whereas Republican principles dictate taking responsible action to conserve our environment, Republican deniers have made denial of the science a parlor game in which they are so stridently buffoonish that it is clear to everyone that they are being blatantly dishonest for their own personal ambitions and the benefit of the fossil fuel and extremist right wing lobbyists who finance them.

Which gets us to the future. Climate deniers have become their own worst enemy by so intentionally and demonstrably given up all illusions to honesty. Will they eventually realize this and stop being so dishonest and buffoonish? The answer is no. If they stop, they will by definition cease to exist. But more importantly, they have invested so much into their fantasy world where they think dishonest denial is acceptable within religious, ideological, or party frameworks, they (i.e., deniers) will simply slink away into oblivion, eventually resurfacing to deny they even denied in the first place.

Because that is what deniers do.

Book Review - The People's Republic of China/Chemicals by William J. Kelly and Chip Jacobs

An important book, poorly written. The People's Republic of China Chemicals purports to reveal how the offshoring of American manufacturing to China helped China become the most polluted country on the planet. It does achieve that goal, though perhaps in spite of itself. While the title suggests a discussion on chemicals, the vast preponderance of the book is focused on the massive air pollution problems in China. This isn’t surprising given the authors’ previous collaboration, a book about the smoggy days of Los Angeles.

The early chapters provide some historical background on China’s dynastic rule and frequent invasions by the Japanese, the British, and others, as well as its own political infighting. Their overly rosy characterization of Mao’s various attempts to control everything once he and the communists took over is somewhat naïve – or at the very least, incomplete – but they generally capture the essence of how China came to set itself up as the world’s factory. The authors’ explanation of how entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and various bilateral and multilateral trade agreements spurred the rapid growth of industry and economy, while perhaps overly rancorous, is well done.

In short, the book documents through rapid-fire detail and personal anecdote the rise of Chinese manufacturing and with it the extraordinary increase in coal-based pollution. The authors relate how bad the air pollution has become, and the subterfuge of the Chinese government to deny its existence even as giant screens in Tiananmen Square broadcast barely visible images of splendid panoramic vistas through the gritty air. The book does a good job of showing how China periodically shut down industry and banned automobiles in an effort to clear the air, usually when foreign dignitaries were in Beijing for meetings, during the 2008 Olympics, and for other events in which foreign media were present. Finally, near the end they discuss chemicals other than smog, though only superficially. They also touch on some attempts by China to do something about a problem they recognize but can’t solve alone. This last point deserved much more attention than it got. Still, the information they present is important for all of us to know and understand.

The biggest negative about the book is the writing. It often appears that the two authors each took the lead on different chapters. Some chapters are clearly written and eminently informative. Other chapters are so full of hyperventilating prose seemingly more interested in hearing its own breathless recitation of a thesaurus than communicating the information. In fact, these chapters and sections contain so many clichés (sometimes not even getting them right, e.g., “pedal-to-the-medal”) and bombastic turns of phrases that half the sentences carry no meaning whatsoever.

That said, the basic message, though too often lost in the laborious, self-indulgent writing, is that China became a cesspool of pollution in part because of our offshoring of manufacturing jobs to them. With global warming and prevailing air currents, that pollution is coming back to haunt us. So as difficult as it sometimes is to get beyond the verbal gymnastics, the book is still a worthwhile read.

Debunking the Rare Published Climate Denier Paper - Monckton edition

Climate deniers rarely publish papers in scientific journals for the simple reason that they rarely do actual research. Instead, deniers prefer to write Op-Eds in business magazines and newspapers, or offer themselves as pundits on cable media, or just write on blogs. None of these is peer-reviewed, so they can say pretty much anything they want. In rare cases, however, deniers will publish in a peer-reviewed journal. When they do, the published work never stands up to scrutiny. Never.

One recent denier paper caused an uproar because it claimed to overturn decades of actual climate science research, specifically arguing that climate models "run hot," that is, that models show greater future warming than warranted. To no one's surprise, the paper has now been soundly debunked. While once again deniers' claims are found to be false, the episode provides a good illustration for people who want to assess the veracity of denier claims.

First, assess the scientific backgrounds of the authors of the study. The denier study is authored by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs.

Monckton is not a scientist, and worse, has been repeatedly found to have lied about what scientists and their studies say. He also has been told by the British House of Lords to stop referring to himself as a member (he isn't one).

Soon is an aerospace engineer with a long history of providing denier "deliverables," i.e., publications that meet the needs of his fossil fuel funders. He has co-authored at least three papers that have misrepresented the science.

Legates is a geography professor who often co-authors papers with Willie Soon and other climate deniers.

Briggs somewhat ridiculously calls himself as "statistician to the stars." [Or perhaps, "numerologist to the stars."]

All of these authors are also affiliated with various climate denial lobbying organizations such as the Heartland Institute. None of them does original climate science research.

Second, assess the quality of the journal. As noted in an earlier post, quality standards in journals can vary. In every field there are journals that are considered to be preeminent, and other journals that are considered second tier. The better journals tend to be more stringent in their peer-review process since they normally receive many more submissions than they have room to publish. The journal for the Monckton et al. paper is a new Chinese journal called Science Bulletin, which most climate scientists had never heard of prior to the right wing promotion of the Monckton et al. paper. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad journal, but it does suggest that Monckton and his co-authors (and their corporate promoters) had to search around for a journal whose standards were low enough to allow publication. Deniers, again on the rare occasions that they publish in a journal at all, generally find that only obscure or lower tier journals with limited or no peer-review standards will allow them to pass the first step in the review process. This is why so many denier papers are published in the British policy journal E&E, which is specifically focused on publishing denier papers that can't pass basic peer-review.

Third, assess the quality of the paper. Aye, there's the rub (to paraphrase Hamlet). Whereas it's difficult enough for the public to adequately assess the authors and the journals, it's even more improbable that the public can assess the veracity of the science supposedly being presented.

This last point is worthy of elaboration. Deniers count on the public not being able to evaluate the science. After all, climate scientists, like other professionals, spend many years in specialized education and work experience learning how to do research and evaluate the research of others. That is why deniers so rabidly use their lobbying organizations and paid bloggers to seed the internet with their talking points, knowing that the ideologues will plagiarize and saturate the blogosphere before the paper can be debunked, which it is every single time.

Fourth, assess whether the paper has withstood scientific scrutiny. Whenever a single paper claims to overturn the state-of-the-science based on 100+ years and 100,000+ papers, it's a good bet that the single paper is wrong. Sure, single papers can sometimes catch things others missed, but to overturn that much science it will take thousands of other studies confirming that single paper before we can be assured of its veracity. So if a paper makes what appear to be outrageous claims, search to find out if scientists have debunked it already. While the rebuttal paper described in Nuccitelli's article will invariably take some time to come out, there usually is some discussion of papers on various blogs. Which gets us to the last point.

Fifth, assess the trends of the authors and organizations involved. In other words, know who can - and cannot - be trusted to provide honest information. The public needs to make an effort to be informed about who are the paid deniers and the lobbying organizations that support them. Given that these deniers have long histories of misrepresenting the science, the public can safely assume that anything and everything these people and groups produce will be false. In this case, all four denier authors are from the usual small cast of deniers who constantly offer up unsupportable opinions. All four are associated with denier lobbyists. And the methods of the paper clearly show that they concocted model inputs that are contradicted by actual data and evidence. No wonder their results are unsupportable - they ignored real data and just make stuff up.

It's critical that the public knows who are scientists and who are lobbyist spokespeople. All four authors of this particular paper more close resemble spokespeople than scientists. If they want to be scientists then they have to do actual research and produce actual scientific papers that stand up to scrutiny, just like all legitimate scientists have to do. Alas, they don't. Nothing they have produced ever stands up to even the slightest scrutiny. And it isn't just a case of being wrong, it's a case of consistently misrepresenting the science and intentionally cherry picking the information to reach a desired conclusion. Every single time.

Since the public isn't likely to start reading highly technical scientific journal articles directly, it's important to learn which sources are reliable and which are not. 

I'll have more on the methods of real scientists vs deniers in future Exposing Climate Denialism posts.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to the Public

Last week we took a look at how climate scientists can communicate the science to policy-makers, so today in Part 3 we'll look at how scientists can communicate directly with the public. Together these are a three-part series on how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public.

Communicating with the public is actually the most important of the three target audiences, and the one that scientists are least likely to have spent much time doing in their careers. And that's a shame because policymakers (notwithstanding the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and rich campaign donors) are most influenced by public opinion. It is the public who are the real drivers of change. It is they who give policymakers permission (or pressure) to take action. If enough of their constituents demand action, they will act.

But reaching out to the public is inherently more difficult for scientists. Scientists, like all professionals, have usually spent considerable time (and expense) getting specific education, training, and life experience in their area of expertise than the general public. In these days of specialization it seems we all have our expertise, whether it be in some climate related science, economics, brain surgery, law, plumbing, or bridge design. Each field builds up its own set of jargon, technical words that have specific meanings within their field but may have no meaning to anyone outside that field (or worse, mean something completely different outside the field).

So it's critical to reach out to the public, but scientists have to do so in ways that can be understood and are meaningful. Here are a few examples, though this by no means should be considered an exhaustive list:

1) Speak at libraries, churches, schools, etc.: Talk about science in a church? Of course. I was recently in a church whose stained glass windows included one celebrating several of our greatest scientists - Albert Einstein, George Washington Carver, and others. Libraries, churches, and schools all have one thing in common - they are places where the community comes together to learn. Off to give a talk about your area of specialty.

2) Drop the jargon: For the above and any time you're talking to the public, avoid technical jargon like the plague. Don't say "anthropogenic climate change," say "man-made climate change" or even just "global warming." Learn, and then keep in mind, how the public understands the words you will use. If you must use some technical-sounding terminology (like, for instance, the word "terminology"), then explain it briefly and clearly. Don't belabor the minute details that are only important to other scientists, just give them the basic information so they understand it. Trust me, if they want more detail they will ask you for it in the Q&A.

3) Teach a class or a MOOC: This is especially good when you have a community college or a "lifetime learning" opportunity. People will sign up to learn and you can teach at the level of the participants. Face-to-face in a classroom situation is always a good way to build community rapport, but these days you can teach online, either by yourself or through a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) organized through Coursera, edX, or similar organization. As this post goes live there is a MOOC being taught by John Cook and others called "Making Sense of Climate Denial."

4) Make yourself available to the media: Most of the public will get their science via some form of media. For some this is the network news or cable news (or cable newsertainment) programs, but more and more it is through reading blogs. So start a blog. But also reach out to the relevant journalists and science writers in the field. Most traditional media outlets have cut so far back on science-trained journalists, along with shaving publication times from days to mere instants, so journalists trying to write science pieces will need rapid responses and clear information. Learn how to provide it (there are some good suggestions in the book "Am I Making Myself Clear?").

5) Do a TV show: Granted, this opportunity isn't available to anyone, but if you have the panache of Neil deGrasse Tyson or the quirkiness of Bill Nye the Science Guy, go for it. Start on YouTube. Put together some short videos about the science of your specialty; use some cool graphics and music (make sure you have copyright permissions!), and post them. Just don't be boring. People hate boring, and frankly, people think scientists are boring. Have some fun and the public will have fun too. Meanwhile, the public will be learning a thing or two about the science.

Which gets us back to where we began. Making sure the public has an accurate understanding of the science is the first step in getting them to educate their legislative bodies and other policy-makers that action is necessary. As noted in last week's post, the more people in Oklahoma know how climate change affects their state, the more likely they will want their representatives to represent them. The same with people in Florida understanding what rising sea level will do their state, and Californians understanding what how El Nino/La Nina impacts will accentuate their water woes.

The public deserves to understand the science enough to demand appropriate action. Scientists have an obligation to make sure they reach out to the public.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to Policymakers

Last week we took a look at how climate scientists can communicate the science to scientists in other fields. That was Part 1 of a three-part series on how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public.Today in Part 2 we'll look at how scientists can communicate with policy-makers.

Why this is so important should be self-evident. Policy-makers - Congressmen, Presidents, Executive Agencies (like EPA), and their equivalents at state and international levels - are the ones charged with determining the correct policies needed to address the unequivocal science of man-made climate change. Sure, virtually all the candidates from a particular party who want to be president have offered up various versions of denying the science and/or have argued no action is necessary, but the fact is the science is so unequivocal that even that particular party will have to take action. So how do scientists adequately communicate the science to these policy-makers and policy-maker wannabes?

Obviously this starts with having a clear understanding of the science, something we've talked about in previous posts. Let's assume that's the case. Here are some things that climate scientists can do in an effort to reach out to policy-makers:

1) Write white papers: But keep them short, preferably bullet points. Despite the conventional wisdom, policy-makers are busy people who spend many hours keeping up with debates with colleagues on the Hill (for example) while maintaining contact with constituents back home (not to mention all those fundraisers with lobbyists and supporters). They are not going to be reading any actual scientific literature, nor would they likely understand it if they tried. [Note: by "they," I mean their staffs.] So write shorter white papers, again with a lot of white paper and bullet points, that succinctly summarize the main points and gist of the science. As much as you think policy-makers need the details, they don't. All they need are the basics so that they can grasp the unequivocal nature of the data and conclusions.

One caveat on this point. Some policy-makers, e.g., regulators or science-trained legislators, will want more detail and will ask tons of pertinent questions. When you find one of these by all means be ready to devote significant effort to accurately and clearly keep them informed of the science. As I write this the name Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator (D-RI) immediately pops into mind.

2) Comment on relevant legislation: There are several facets of this that I'll lump into one line item. State and Federal legislators often propose bills or make speeches (see "Sheldon Whitehouse" above) that may or may not ever make it into law. Get your comments on the record. At the federal level there is a docket for most legislative actions so as a scientist you should look for opportunities to put the science on record. This also holds true for proposed regulatory actions. The USEPA, for example, has various rules and regulations related to climate-influenced action; put your comments and a summary of the data in the record.

3) Reach out to legislative staff: While each legislator (especially US Congressmen/women and Senators) have their own staffs, they each also sit on several committees, and those committees each have a staff. Speak to them. Send them comments. Offer your expertise. Last year a group of climate scientists offered to give a briefing to Florida Governor Rick Scott, and after some public pressure, he let them come in and explain the basics of climate science (which he promptly ignored). In a similar vein, both the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Society of Toxicology arranged for briefings with Congressional committee staff charged with modernizing the nation's top chemical control law (TSCA). Will staff always pay attention? Not always. But they won't know at all if you don't offer.

4) Testify at hearings: This is easier said than done since you have to be invited by one of the party's in order to get on the agenda. This is where making the effort to get information in front of key regulators, legislators, and their staffs pays off. But here's the kicker, once you get an opportunity to testify, don't waste it by simply rattling off the science they should already know. Certain legislators will "play dumb" or make statements that are miming the usual talking points provided by lobbyists. Don't let them get away with it - tell them when they are wrong, and do it directly. [Secretary of State John Kerry did it right, for example, when he explained to Senator Marco Rubio that Rubio's much stated beliefs about the Iran talks were "absolutely wrong." (see about 2 minutes in)]

A note on this point as well. There is a certain decorum expected in all legislative and regulatory proceedings, so I'm not advocating yelling "you lie" when someone, well, lies. But as scientists and citizens we all have an obligation to make sure policy-makers understand the science correctly, and that means calling them out when they repeat known falsehoods. They simply don't repeat the same talking point verbatim over and over by accident, so don't let them get away with it. The danger of directly calling them on such things brings with it the likelihood that you'll find it hard to be asked to testify to that committee again, but if that is what you're worried about then you will be doing a disservice to the science and the public.

5) Reach out to their constituents: Legislators are supposed to act in the best interests of their constituents, but all too often they conflate "lobbyists/campaign funders" with "constituents." Sadly this is a result of our current political system, but if enough of their constituents press them for action, they will be forced to take action. So reach out to the public in those states, for example, where Senators or Representatives are hurting the voters due to their denial of the science and subsequent need for action. An obvious example, one of many, is Oklahoma, which faces increasing drought risk and economic instability from climate-related changes even as their senior Senator pitches snowballs and quotes scripture in his denial of the science. If you live in Oklahoma and your area of expertise is impact of climate change on drought, or conversely, understand how wind or solar can be employed in Oklahoma, then make sure Oklahomans know it.

Next week's post will take a more in-depth look at how scientists can reach out to the public.

How Climate Scientists Can Communicate the Science to Scientists in Other Fields

A few weeks ago we talked about how to communicate climate science to all three target audiences - other scientists, policy-makers, and the public. We touched on how scientists "do science," i.e., through research, data analysis, conference attendance, and scientific publication. Today we'll take a closer look at how scientists can communicate climate science to other scientists, including those scientists who specialize in other fields.

1) Publish the Research: As already noted, the main way for scientists to communicate the science to other scientists is to publish it in peer-reviewed journals. Doing so allows scientists to carefully lay out the premises, the methods, how the data were analyzed, the results, and the conclusions, all so other scientists can evaluate - and recreate - the work. I've discussed peer review in depth in previous posts. [Click on these links to read Part 1 (basics of peer review), Part 2 (when peer-review goes wrong),  Part 3 (abusing the system), and Part 4 (using the internet to bypass peer-review) of the series.] Once published, the research is further scrutinized, which may confirm or refute the work, and usually leads to more studies...and more publications. Many climate researchers, for example, have hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers (whereas most climate deniers have few, if any, peer-reviewed publications).

But think about the scientific publishing process for a moment. Like physicians, for example, where individual doctors may specialize in endocrinology, brain surgery, dentistry, or podiatry, scientists may specialize in astrophysics, archeology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, geology or dozens of other specialties. The more specialized the professional training and expertise, the greater the likelihood that a given scientist won't be keeping up to date on advancements in other fields. A biologist is likely to have memberships and subscriptions to several biology-related organizations and journals, but may not be reading a physics journal discussing heat transfer in atmospheric systems.


This presents the dilemma that while journal publication is critical, it is largely focused on communicating with other scientists within your own field. That said, despite the tendency toward greater specialization, there is also a greater need for multidisciplinary collaboration. For example, ecologists looking at migratory patterns will see that those patterns are being modified by climate changes.

So how does one reach out to scientists in other fields?

2) Presentations at Universities: We've already said that scientists attend scientific conferences to find out what other scientists are doing, but here we have the same problem as with journals. With limited funds, scientists are usually only able to attend one or perhaps two conferences in their primary area of focus. One way for climate scientists to reach out to scientists in other fields is to give presentations at Universities, especially if it can be arranged such that all relevant scientific departments have the opportunity to attend. We all have friends in other universities - set up a brown bag or evening talk next time you're in town.

One key point for presenters to remember is to avoid scientific jargon that may not be understandable to scientists in other fields. This is less of a problem than it might be when communicating to the general public (more on that later), but try talking about quantum flux to an ecologist and you'll see some glassy eyes nonetheless. The goal is to get the gist of the information out to other scientists so they can have informed discussions with others in their fields (and with their non-scientist friends). They won't need all the details, but as scientists they will want to have enough detail to feel comfortable that the science is sound. Make the time to present to them.

3) Explain the IPCC Process: This can be done as part of item #2. With so much disinformation floating around out there (much of it intentionally wafted onto the winds of blogs by lobbyists), it's important other scientists have a sense of how the scientific consensus was arrived at, including how the IPCC and other organizations assess all the scientific literature. Bottom line, all the science from more than 100 years by thousands of scientists published in more than 100,000 peer-reviewed papers unequivocally demonstrates that human activity is warming the planet. Make sure other scientists understand how that unequivocal conclusion was obtained.

4) Call out Misinformers: Let's face it, there are people and organizations out there who are intentionally misinforming the public. Most misinformers are lobbyists and political operatives, but a handful of those misinformers are scientists. It is important to call them out on their misrepresentations, errors, and in some cases, outright falsehoods. This shouldn't be as hard as it sounds - scientists are not afraid to question methods and conclusions at scientific conferences and in publications; this is no different. As professionals we have an ethical obligation to call out people who are repeatedly misreporting the science. Do it.

5) Explain "science" in terms of the big picture: Yes, scientists are encouraged to narrow in their research question so that it can be tested. That's the focus of your peer-reviewed publications. But when reaching out to other scientists, especially those in other fields, it is more important to give them the bigger picture.Your study looked at melting of glaciers? Explain how melting glaciers affects overall global warming, or drinking water sources, or tectonics. Don't just tell them your study conclusions; tell them what your study conclusions mean to our overall understanding of the big picture science. And tell them how your findings are relevant to their field of study.

6) Write a Blog: And set up a Facebook group. And produce videos for YouTube. And teach a MOOC. These will be especially useful when communicating to the public, but they can also be directed at a more technical level to other scientists. Don't be afraid to experiment with social media (have your kids show you how).

7) Teach Students How to Communicate: While most of the focus of this piece is on scientists communicating to other scientists, don't forget that your students are the scientists of the future. It is imperative that they know how to communicate to other other scientists. Again, this goes beyond just publishing in journals and presenting at conferences. All the above applies to them as well.

While there are likely other points that can be offered on how to communicate the science to other scientists, these seven points cover the most critical. The goal is to broaden your field of vision so that others can understand the meaning of your work. In this age of limited resources, it's important to make the effort.

Future posts will explore how scientists can communicate to policy-makers and to the public. Stay tuned.

An Open Letter to Media Matters about How to Interview a Climate Change Denier: Marco Rubio Edition

Dear Media Matters:

The media routinely enable climate change denial and misinform the public. A recent article by Media Matters of America touted "how to interview a climate change denier," using two media interviews of Marco Rubio. Media Matters suggested that Jorge Ramos's interview was effective while Bob Schieffer's was not. I disagree. In fact, both represent profound failures in journalism.

Take a moment to watch the two videos in the Media Matters article here. Each video is less than a minute.

Media Matters correctly notes that "Schieffer allowed Rubio to again deny the science of climate change with no pushback." However, Media Matters then suggests "In contrast...Ramos emphasized that '97 percent of the studies on climate change say that you are wrong.'"

Somehow to Media Matters the Ramos interview constitutes "pushback." Here is why Media Matters is absolutely wrong, and that it does a disservice to the public by suggesting Ramos's interview is a model for future interviews.

Schieffer clearly lets Marco Rubio sling his talking points without any kind of challenge, then races to the next topic - gay marriage - to presumably do the same thing, and then to the next topic to do the same thing. Politicians like Rubio (and all the other candidates) count on never having to support their talking points...even when they clearly are as dishonest and illogical as Rubio's.

But Ramos does exactly the same thing as Schieffer. Sure, Ramos in his question does state that 97% of climate scientists say Rubio is wrong, but then Ramos goes right ahead and lets Rubio rattle off his almost verbatim talking points. Ramos doesn't challenge Rubio to support the false statements just made; he simply rushes off to the next topic (again, gay marriage) to give Rubio a chance to spout his meaningless talking points on that one too.

I'm sorry, Media Matters, but you've failed here as much as did Schieffer and Ramos. In both cases the reporter gave Rubio a set up line and then didn't bother to critique the veracity or logic of Rubio's well-rehearsed falsehoods and platitudes.

Here's what should have happened:

Schieffer/Ramos: Asks question.

Rubio: Rattles off talking points.

Schieffer/Ramos: "But Mr. Rubio, 97% of scientists say you're wrong. Also, your statement that 'the climate is always changing' is a platitude with no meaning. What scientists have clearly stated is that more than 100 years of science unequivocally shows that human activity is warming the climate system. As someone who wants to be president, you would be obligated to deal honestly with the policy implications of that science. Now, Mr. Rubio, are you saying you deny the science that 97% of climate scientists agree shows unequivocal human drivers of man-made climate change?"

[Later, after Rubio has tied his tongue in knots trying to pander to science deniers without actually blatantly lying, Schieffer/Ramos would ask how Rubio can be so uncertain about the unequivocal science while simultaneously being able to say a policy on climate change originally pushed by conservative Republicans would 'with certainty' result in 'economic devastation.' The illogic and contradiction of his responses could be further explored in additional follow up questions.]

By touting Ramos's simple statement of fact during the preamble to the question as "how to interview a climate denier," Media Matters misses completely the need for journalists to challenge the talking points of the candidates, not simply let them read them off their memorized cue cards without having to support anything they've said.

Instead, I would suggest the following few points for journalists and Media Matters to consider for the ubiquitous interviews and debates with climate deniers seeking the presidency (or any political office):

1) Challenge falsehoods: This may seem obvious for journalists, but in this age of corporate-owned, ratings-driven, news-entertainment, most journalists are not even journalists at all. While we can't expect partisan pundits to honestly evaluate the candidates, the public has a right to expect news networks and news-evaluation websites to challenge obvious falsehoods and misdirections.

In the "what should have happened" example interview above, Rubio's platitude about the climate always changing should be called out as exactly that - a platitude with no meaning. His statement that he/we don't know how much warming is due to human activity should be called out on two aspects: a) for contradicting his "climate always changing" platitude, and b) for being blatantly false. His bait-and-switch to disagreeing with policy implications should also be called out on two aspects: a) for being an obvious attempt to deflect from his denial of the science, and b) an utterly ridiculous statement unsupported by any facts. Rubio should than have been asked to provide some evidence for his obviously false statements, along with what sources he is relying on.

2) Don't switch topics: In both interviews the journalist spent less than a minute on climate change, then switched topics without challenging Rubio's statements. That is exactly what the candidates want, and the media is glad to oblige because they want to cover as many topics as they can squeeze into the sound bites they believe their viewers are only capable of handling. The result is that the media allow the candidates to intentionally misinform the public while supporting nothing they say with any factual evidence. Which gets us to what really needs to happen.

3) Do focused interviews: Believe it or not, most Americans are capable of listening to more than 40 seconds on any given topic. Rather than squeeze six topics into a five-minute interview, spend the entire interview on one topic. There will be dozens of opportunities for any network to interview each of the more viable candidates, so why repeat the same meaningless interview dozens of times? If you have only five minutes to interview a candidate, focus the entire five minutes on climate change. If you can get 15 minutes on climate change, even better.

For longer interviews, say, for an hour, perhaps invite two or three (or ten) candidates at the same time and have a discussion on climate change. Other topics would also be given focused attention in subsequent interviews, which candidates are always willing to do because it is free advertising for their campaign.

As I close this open letter I note that it is mostly directed at journalists, non-journalist interviewers (the now ubiquitous "on-air personalities"), and journalistic watchdog groups such as Media Matters. But here is another suggestion - involve scientists in the interviews. Not just as interviewees, but as interviewers. Let a climate scientist interview Marco Rubio. I don't mean "debate him," I mean interview him. Or let other science journalists/communicators (e.g., Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum) interview the candidates.

This latter idea isn't new. In 2008 and 2012, and now again for 2016, there is something called ScienceDebate. Touted on their Facebook Page as "a nonpartisan, nonprofit dedicated to raising the profile of science and technology policy issues along the U.S. presidential campaign trail," ScienceDebate is one way in which climate deniers running for president would be compelled to support their positions - and have their platitudes, falsehoods, and intentional misdirections challenged with actual facts.


With critical action on man-made climate change necessary, the media will have to do better when they interview climate change deniers running for the highest political office in America.

Making Sense of Climate Denial - An Online Course

The Dake Page is focused on communicating science and exposing climate denialism, so we are happy to see the presence of an online course by John Cook entitled "Making Sense of Climate Denial." The course begins today (April 28, 2015), so there is still time to join up and participate.

And participate you should. Designed as a MOOC, a "Massive Open Online Course," the course can be taken for free from any computer accessing the internet. It runs for seven weeks and includes a variety of informational videos, quizzes, and supporting materials. It's a must for anyone who wants to understand both man-made climate change and how some folks remain in denial of climate science.

It's originator is John Cook, best known for his website Skeptical Science, one of the most valuable sites out there for debunking climate denial. For the MOOC, Cook has brought in a great cast of science communicators, as well as interviewed many climate scientists. The MOOC even has its own Facebook community page.

The first week went online April 28, 2015 and focuses on introducing both the course and climate denial. Cook and others examine the consensus, the psychology of denial, and the spread of denial. Through the ample use of video, each section delves into the science, ways to examine the science, and how deniers misrepresent and misunderstand the science.

For example, in the first section on Consensus, there are a series of videos that look at:

• Consensus of Evidence
• Consensus of Scientists
• Consensus of Papers
• Knowledge-Based Consensus

The Knowledge-Based Consensus video delves into three important components of scientific consensus - consilience of evidence (i.e., different lines of evidence lead to the same concluson), social calibration (i.e., everyone uses the same language and standards of evidence), and social diversity (i.e., evidence comes from a variety of people and regions). The sum total of all of the evidence, when it unequivocally leads to a conclusion, is what becomes the consensus.

The section on Psychology of Denial examines ideological biases, the five characteristics of science denial, and how deniers attempt to block any action. The Spread of Denial section examines the manufacture of doubt, the history of misinformation campaigns, and various ways deniers use the media to misinform the public.

All of these topics have been discussed here on The Dake Page in various forms. John Cook's MOOC addresses them in an organized and highly informational way. I strongly recommend everyone interested in climate science sign up for this course.

Making Sense of Climate Denial

Feel free to wander around The Dake Page for more information and background on Exposing Climate Denialism.

[Note: Because John Cook's MOOC starts today, this issue of The Dake Page is being published on Tuesday. It will return to its normal Thursday publishing schedule next week.]

How to Communicate Climate Science to all Three Target Audiences

Do you need to communicate climate science? If you live in today's society the answer most likely is yes, you do. This applies not just to climate scientists and scientists in other fields, but to bloggers, writers, journalists, policymakers, and anyone interested in science and/or has a family.

Scientists in all fields engage in a series of steps to communicate the science.

1) Research: Yes, scientists have to do research. Usually a lot of it. Generally this starts with a literature review to see what other scientists have published before. What are the key questions that need to be asked...and hopefully answered? How and why is this research potentially important? Scientists do the research, conduct the studies, and collect the data.

2) Analyze the Data: In these days of supercomputers, satellites, and "big data," the amount of information may be massive. All of that has to be analyzed. Sometimes this can take years. Generally there are teams of researchers working on a project. This can be especially true when that project consists of data collected from all over the world, from satellites, from oceanic transponders, from ice cores, and from potentially hundreds of other places.

3) Attend Conferences: An integral part of communicating the science is attendance at scientific conferences. Thousands of researchers can gather at some central location - or remotely via online symposium capabilities - and present short papers about their research. In between sessions you'll find scientists discussing the latest research. From experience I can confidently say that scientists are not shy about telling other scientists when they think they are wrong...or may have missed something. All of this helps bring out questions, and identify additional experiments to address those questions.

4) Publish: Science is the totality of all the research. Scientific studies generally examine individual pieces of a very large puzzle, and all of those pieces must be examined in context with all the other pieces in order to draw wider conclusions. Some of that is done at conferences, but mostly this is done by publishing the work in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Once published, the study can be looked at by any and all scientists with the interest and expertise to evaluate it. This usually leads to more questions, more studies, and more publications.

So if you're a scientist and you've gone through all of these steps you can consider your science communication done, right?

Wrong. You've only just begun.

Long gone are the days when scientists had the luxury of doing science in their lab or field site, publishing in scientific journals, and moving on to the next study while letting others communicate the information to the wider audiences. Today, with the ubiquity of internet connection and the prevalence of "Google Experts" (i.e., not experts), the chance of the science being misunderstood by the public is huge. Add in the professional lobbyists who intentionally misrepresent the science and you have the makings of a lot of people being misinformed.

The first step scientists and others must take is to understand that there are three distinct audiences to whom you must communicate the science.

(1) Other Scientists: This is the easy audience. Other scientists, especially those in the same field of study, generally will attend conferences in person and read the full scientific papers in scientific journals. This is how science has traditionally been communicated.

(2) Policymakers: These include everyone from regulators (such as EPA) through legislators (e.g., Congress, states) on up to the President of the United States (and his or her equivalents in other countries and international bodies). The bigger the issue the greater the likelihood that policymakers will have to pass laws or implement policies to deal with the issue.

(3) The Public: While it has always been the case to some extent, in this connected world the general public's role in making policy has grown exponentially. Policymakers (notwithstanding the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and rich campaign donors) are most influenced by public opinion. It is the public who are the real drivers of change. It is they who give policymakers permission (or pressure) to take action.

That is why the aforementioned lobbyists and donors spend so much time and money shaping public opinion. Often they do this by intentionally misrepresenting the science.

Think about that. Not only is the science often incredibly complicated, which can be hard for the public to follow, there are organizations and individuals out there intentionally trying to mislead the public.

Imagine them doing that without scientists standing up for the science. Imagine what happens when the science is misrepresented without any scientist correcting the misrepresentations. How is the public to understand the science when the only "science" they are presented in terms they can understand is misrepresented? And how are policymakers to make informed policy when they have been intentionally misinformed...and themselves intentionally misinform to avoid taking responsibility for action?

That is the take-home point of this particular post. Scientists must ensure that the science is accurately communicated. And that communication must be to all three audiences - other scientists, policymakers, and the public.

Since the methods for communicating to each audience are different, future posts will examine the specific challenges and present specific communication tips for communicating to each audience in ways each can understand.

An Open Letter to the 2016 Presidential Hopefuls re: Climate Change

Dear 2016 Presidential Hopefuls:

Climate change will be a significant issue during the 2016 election cycle. It could even be the defining one. I know some of you would rather avoid the topic, but, well, you can't. Part of being President is taking responsibility for the future of America, and that means dealing with man-made climate change, whether you like it not. If you don't want the responsibility, don't run.

The actions the next President takes on man-made climate change are critical. Given that the ramifications of non-action are significant impacts across the entire gamut of executive responsibilities, the choices made may very well be the most important decisions defining our nation's future.

Man-made climate change impacts our health and the environment, which should be enough in themselves to warrant action. But since some of you act like those things aren't important, keep in mind that man-made climate change has dramatic impacts on our economy, our national security, and on immigration policy. We've already seen impacts on our climate, on social norms, and on ecological and economic patterns. Those will continue to get worse.

So let's start with the basics:

The climate system is warming, and

human activity is the dominant cause of that warming, and

          impacts are serious and already occurring.

These are unequivocal facts. Denial is not an option. Some of you think that playing politics with our future is just another parlor game of no importance. But guess what; being President means you have to deal with the hand you're given. And that means dealing with man-made climate change. Oklahoma's drought doesn't go away because an 80-year-old Senator tells his 20-something-year-old aid to run outside and bag a snowball in the middle of winter. Denial is a slap in the face to your constituents, and when you're President, all 320 million Americans are your constituents.

Luckily, some people have been taking responsibility and providing leadership. The current administration has been taking steps despite Congressional inaction. We've already seen carbon emission reductions and shifting toward renewable energy sources. In 2014 the President signed a landmark agreement with China to move both our countries forward. Other actions between the US and India and with Europe continue the trend in a year that could end with a significant global climate change commitment in Paris. That Paris agreement is going to put pressure on all the US presidential candidates to explain how they will address man-made climate change.

Most options for dealing with climate change involve reducing carbon emissions, both here at home and, through our leadership, in the rest of the world. There are many ways that this can be accomplished, so rather than irresponsibly and dishonestly deny the science, feel free to propose your preferred option.

But be honest about it. The last time there was an effort to reduce carbon emissions, the two parties offered up their preferences. The Democratic party generally favored a carbon tax option, while the Republican party favored a cap-and-trade option. John McCain, George W. Bush and other Republicans actively lobbied for cap-and-trade and managed to convince the Democratic party to support it. But guess what; as soon as everyone was behind cap-and-trade the Republicans started attacking it. Yes, they attacked their own proposal. Touted as a "market-based mechanism" (which it is), suddenly it became a "socialist agenda" as soon as Democrats agreed to it.

Sorry, but that's just not honest.

As a 2016 presidential hopeful, it is incumbent upon all of you to be honest with your proposals. And since the president is president for all of the country, not just the party he or she belongs to, this means having the honesty and leadership capacity to keep your own party honest. That isn't always possible, as the recent Congresses have aptly demonstrated, but your obligation will be to the entire American people, not to one party.

Being president isn't an easy job (as George W. Bush will remind you), but it is a critical one. If you can't handle the responsibility, don't run for the position.

But hey, there is plenty of time between now and election day, so you have the opportunity to be a leader. That starts with taking responsibility for your actions and the actions of your supporters. And it means being honest. Some of you haven't started off too well in that regard.

We'll be watching.

Signed,

The Voters

Why Climate Deniers Desperately Need "The Pause" in Warming; And Why The Pause is not a Pause

A new article by scientists Dana Nuccitelli and Michael Mann reiterates the fact that the climate system continues to warm. Their opening line begins "over the past 17 years, the Earth has warmed rapidly." This continued rapid warming is borne out by the overwhelming science during the period climate deniers often claim there to have been a stoppage in warming (and even more bizarrely, a "cooling").

The climate is warming rapidly, so how can climate deniers claim it isn't?

Nuccitelli and Mann explain it quite nicely in their article, which I urge you to read in full. To begin with, deniers always ignore all the data sets except their preferred single set of satellite data, which deniers claim shows cooling. With that in mind, Nuccitelli and Mann note:

First of all, it is wrong: the satellite data clearly show ongoing warming over the past two decades.

Secondly, the satellite data in question only estimate the temperature of the atmosphere above Earth's surface. We, and most other living things, reside on Earth's surface, and the data tell us that surface warming continues unabated.

Finally, warming of the atmosphere accounts for only about two per cent of overall global warming; more than 90 per cent goes into heating of the surface and the oceans. That heating contributes to the melting of the ice sheets, and the acceleration of global sea level rise.

Clearly the "pause" is not a pause at all. One of the best ways to see the fallacy of deniers claiming a pause is to look at the following global land-ocean temperature record:

[See larger]

As is evident to everyone, temperatures vary from year to year due to short-term influences like El Nino and La Nina events, volcanic action, aerosols, and natural variability. Just as evident to everyone is that the overall trend is one of warming. There are short periods of time where the rate of warming is slower or faster, and even a period where warming seemed to have stopped (this was a temporary condition when toxic aerosols from unregulated air pollution were masking the warming effects of CO2), but clearly the trend is warming.

In short, it's clear human activity (mostly burning of fossil fuels) is warming the climate system. The rate varies due to short-term influences, but the main driver of the warming is increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The science on this is unequivocal (i.e., clear and undeniable). In recent years, even more of the warming has been going into the oceans (where most of it goes anyway) as the lack of El Nino, the recurring La Ninas, the increased volcanic activity, and the increased aerosol emissions from rapidly growing China all have contributed to a slower rate of increase in the warming of the atmosphere. That heat is still there; it's just that more of it is in the oceans. This is temporary. El Nino's return and other indicators helped 2014 become the hottest year on record, and 2015 is already on pace to surpass that record. The evidence supports the idea that the rate of warming is actually increasing, and will likely speed up rapidly.

So why do climate deniers keep insisting that "the pause" means climate change isn't happening or has stopped?

Because they have no science to back up their denial. If you look at the history of climate denial you'll see deniers hop, skip, and jump from one false interpretation to another. They must ignore the vast majority of data, extract one factoid, and create an entire fictitious story line that is contradicted by the actual truth. That is why you see deniers argue that a single paper is the "death knell" for man-made climate change, only to have the author of any legitimate study come out to explain it does no such thing. Deniers must ignore the science and fabricate conclusions that are divorced from reality. And that's what they do every single time.

Which begs the question, how do scientists and the honest public deal with climate denial? I'll have more on that in future posts, but the first thing that scientists can do is be careful about adopting the language of denial lobbyists. The "pause" or "hiatus" language is denial language. It was created by lobbyists to falsely throw doubt on the continued warming. As denial lobbyists intended, the denialosphere of paid, ideological, and conspiratorial bloggers quickly saturated the internet with the two misnomers. That was to be expected. But scientists started using the terms in their own blogs and conversations, thus playing into the lobbyist's intended deception.

Instead, scientists should have clearly explained that short-term influences routinely cause short-term variations and that the overall trend continued. Perhaps a more accurate term should have been used by scientists ("faux pause" was belatedly adopted by some climate scientists, but even that mimes the lobbyist-preferred misdirection). The problem here is that scientists are not always very good at communicating with the public, whereas lobbyists have ample experience in that regard since the very job of lobbyists is to manipulate public opinion and provide cover for political allies. While I can't recommend scientists become more political, I can recommend scientists spend more time reaching out to the public and communicating the science accurately.

In that regard, there is much more work that needs to be done.



Source of graphic: "Warming since 1880 yearly" by DHeyward - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warming_since_1880_yearly.jpg#/media/File:Warming_since_1880_yearly.jpg

The Galileo Delusion - How Climate Deniers Create Alternate "Realities"

A recurring tactic of climate deniers is to liken themselves to Galileo bravely standing up to the "alarmists" dogmatically pushing the "hoax" of man-made climate change. Tea party and Koch-funded Republican Senator Ted Cruz recently did exactly this in a delusional response to an interviewer's query. The following divorced-from-fact fabrication (as discussed by Chris Mooney) distinctly illustrates the Galileo Gambit (aka, Galileo Delusion):

On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don’t engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream, ‘You’re a denier.’ They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

Like virtually everything climate deniers say, Cruz's entire statement is false. Egregiously false. Buffoonishly false.

Why so false? Because he made it up. Or more accurately, he parroted the lobbyist-written talking point without having any understanding of what he was saying, nor any desire to know. It's a sound bite intentionally invented by the climate denial lobby. Like most sound bites, it has no actual meaning, and the insinuated meaning is usually the opposite of reality. Politicians like Cruz are taught to say it and count on their ideological followers to accept it as having the implied meaning even though everything in it is false.

To illustrate this same sound bite/talking point in another way to demonstrate the fallaciousness of it, take a look at this equivalent logic:

Dead Elvis Denier: "Elvis is alive!" [Provides no evidence, but states this EMPHATICALLY! and repeatedly.]

Honest people: "Um, no, Elvis died in 1977." [Provides voluminous evidence, including coroner's report, photos of dead Elvis, estate papers, weeping widow, and boxcars worth of empirical data that prove Elvis's unequivocal deadness.]

Denier: "See, I'm right and you can't prove otherwise so you will just call me a denier! I'm Galileo!" [Still provides no evidence, but states this with even greater paranoia and breathlessness.]

Honest people: [Rolls eyes]   

And so it goes.

By now it should be clear that the mention of Galileo by climate deniers is much more akin to a Delusion than a Gambit. Frankly, it demonstrates that fact is irrelevant, and even hinders the preferred message of climate deniers. They don't care that what they say is gibberish because they know that their amateur denier followers don't care about fact and that most journalists won't challenge them on the lack of fact.

The basic falsehoods and fallacies in Cruz's statement can be summarized as:

First, he implies that climate deniers have "pointed to evidence that disproves apocalyptical claims." That is absolutely false. No climate denier has ever pointed to any legitimate evidence disproving man-made climate change. None. Zilch. Nada.

Second, his statement that "alarmists" (i.e., the world's climate scientists and 100+ years of published data) "don't engage in reasoned debate" is ridiculously false. His entire statement is 100% false. He's doing the same as the the Dead Elvis Denier. Try having a reasonable debate when one person is rattling off false talking points and delusions while dismissing all the actual science.

Third, the idea that deniers are randomly called deniers is silly. Deniers are called deniers because they deny. They deny 100+ years of published science. They actively must ignore, dismiss, or concoct some elaborate conspiracy of "fraud" encompassing thousands of scientists from all over the world going back more than a century. Even well-known and demonstrated basic physics is in on this grand conspiracy. When you have to deny the entire body of published science and replace it with something off a conspiracy blog or a climate denial lobbyist website then, well, you're a denier. By definition.

Fourth, they can't even get the basic facts of Galileo correct. Cruz and all climate deniers like to ring the "Galileo" bell alongside the "flat-earth" bell (when they aren't inducing Pavlovian responses by screaming "Al Gore!!"). But Galileo had nothing to do with flat-Earth, as it was well established scientifically that the Earth was round (hence Columbus sailing the ocean blue long before Galileo was even born). What Galileo did was show that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the opposite. Copernicus had suggested this long before, but Galileo had the audacity to 1) demonstrate it through measurement with his telescope, and 2) publish it in Italian (instead of the less-accessible Latin) so common people could read it. It was Galileo the scientist who went up against the dogma of the Papacy.

Therefore, if Cruz and his fellow Koch-funded deniers would like to get their roles correct, Cruz would be akin to the dogmatic church protecting their doctrines of faith by edict. It would be today's climate scientists in the Galileo role, diligently measuring and documenting the science.

And this is what is so amazing about the Galileo Delusion; the perpetrators of climate change denial don't even care that they don't get the facts right. To them this is all about political expediency. Making stuff up to them is an adequate substitute for accurate facts, especially if it fits in a bumper sticker sound bite.

Scientists, on the other hand, have to do actual scientific research, publish it, and have the science stand up to scrutiny. Which climate science has done. If anything, man-made climate change is proceeding at a pace faster than what we anticipated. The delusional pontifications of Ted Cruz and his denier colleagues are to blame for the lack of more substantial action. Which is why the climate denial lobbyists spend so much money on false sound bites for the Ted Cruz's of the world to dishonestly parrot. It blocks policy action.

By the way, it should be noted that lobbyists routinely adopt language describing their own actions and accuse their adversaries of doing it instead. It's reminiscent of George Orwell's "doublethink" from his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Future posts in Exposing Climate Denialism will address this cynical misuse and abuse of language.


[Photo credit: Wiki: "Justus Sustermans - Portrait of Galileo Galilei, 1636" by Justus Susterman]