ENGLISH 23
(A.K.A. CLIMATE CRISIS 101)
Deep Dive
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
After reading the start of this book I am in shock. This highlights a deep flaw that we face in our time, which is google and the ability to find anything. This leads to a problem called confirmation bias, which is a term used in Psychology referring to the act of only acknowledging opinions and facts that align with your prior beliefs. If someone was in denial or only concerned with their day to day problems and didn’t want to deal with the reality of climate change, they would seek out this book to confirm what they think.
On the surface it seems like a cohesive report disproving the consensus on Anthropocene climate change, and this could easily fool someone that may not have background knowledge of the climate crisis. It is a malicious, but successful attempt at creating doubt and confusion in the public eye about whether climate change is a pertinent issue. The goal of the Heartland Institute is just this: to cause hesitancy. The longer people feel that climate change science is still disputed, the longer that people will wait to take any action, and the longer that fossil fuel affiliates continue to frack, drill, and destroy our earth for money. It is often said that liberals have politicized climate change, but it is quite the opposite. Conservatives have forced another “side” to climate change to avoid taxes and to allow for an expanding free market.
This reading scared me more than anything else. Obviously it’s upsetting to see there are still climate change deniers who believe this problem isn’t as threatening and imminent as it actually is, but it scared me because of how well worded and convincing it was. People who may have no knowledge on climate change and global warming might read this book and think that it’s not actually a big deal and that everyone else is making it a bigger problem than it is, when in reality it’s the biggest problem humans face. The information presented in the text is so convincing in arguing against climate change that I can’t even safely say that if I had no knowledge about climate change I wouldn’t believe it.
This brings me to a more serious point, however, which is that as ludicrous as this book may seem to me and to many of my peers in this class, it seems to have convinced or reinforced the views of a lot of climate science deniers – especially judging from recent Amazon comments.
One thing that surprised me after watching Ken’s video was that there are actually states in the US that have legislation in support of climate skepticism as it should be taught in school…This is also scary because while mine and future generations are supposed to be those combatting the climate crisis, in school the youth are being taught that it is not a problem. This is a major issue. How can the burden of responsibility of climate change fall on the younger generations when they are being taught that the reality is that it isn’t an issue? How will any changes be made? We are responsible, but if it is instilled in us that it isn’t an issue, no changes will be made, and the effects will only continue to increase exponentially as time goes on. Then comes the question: when will we finally realize that anthropogenic climate change is real and has been happening for decades and finally make lasting global changes?
I will admit, the people in this book have some pretty snazzy titles. Like Marita Noon, ‘executive director of Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy’, if I didn’t have a preconceived idea of what I was going to be reading in this book, I might have thought she would be an advocate for responsible, renewable energy. But alas, no.
I think it was great that you mentioned the lack of agency when it comes to teaching about climate change in a K-12 setting. Just about the only thing I know about learning that was not even attributed to climate change in my k-12 education was acid rain and it was only cause my class was learning about the rain cycle. It makes me wonder why there is little to nothing being taught about this subject. Just like you experienced, we similarly had meetings in school featuring songs about reducing, reusing, and recycling but that was about the extent to which we learned anything relating to our environment and the possible negative effects climate change could have even though it was only implied never told. Maybe I am reaching, but it does make me wonder just who is setting the curriculum standards for my school region (LAUSD) if there are people who can take false claims and roll with them till their grave, who is to say these folk who are not the same ones conditioning an entirely new generation to do the same.
The book makes severe misguided attempts to argue its more misguided point by doing the following:
#1, attacking the “personal credibility” of the scientists (ad hominem fallacy): this strategy largely constitutes the “so-called” textbook…
#2, “vapid arguments:” the authors largely attack the methodology of the climate scientists, despite their “research” packet containing no methodology section of its own…
#3, straw man arguments: the authors frequently misstate the research of the scientists, selectively quoting certain excerpts from research papers that they claim “prove their point…”
First of all, I disagree with both the methodologies used by the Heartland institute and the IPCC. Both of these organizations have turned climate change from purely a scientific issue to a political one. I do believe in climate change and the climate crisis as a whole, and while I have no doubt that human actions are exacerbating such issues, Its still important to look at climate change from all angles.
At surface level, the presentation of information laid out in the first three chapters of “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” made the arguments seem credible. With its abundance of citations from seemingly reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal and academic language, the book seems convincing if one does not look closer into the actual arguments being made and the sources of their data.
From Current Affairs (January 2019):
“The most eminent U.S. conservative news source, the [Wall Street] Journal’s reporters are among the best in the country, reflecting a common pattern among the business press, which is written for executives, investors, and managers who need reasonably accurate information in order to run the corporate economy. However, its op-ed page is essentially Fox News with AP English, and its long tradition of climate denial and more recently fatalism…”
First off, I don’t have a problem with weighing both sides of an argument. In fact, I am of the mind that being challenged in one’s own opinion is one of the best ways to grow and learn. At the same time, I have a very serious problem with a deceptive and purposeful attempt to create chaos in the minds of the American people, especially in schools.
To add on to that list of hypocritical things that climate change deniers have done, I’m sitting here thinking about what Ken said regarding the billboard with the unabomber saying “I still believe in climate change. Do you?” Like do climate change deniers know what we could put on a billboard? I kept thinking of different prominent climate change deniers, but in the end I think the most effective billboard would just be a barrel of oil that read “I don’t believe in climate change, but I also don’t have family in Miami.”
It’s frustrating that deniers target teachers, legislators, and businesspeople but quite frankly, who else did we think they would target? They want to get at the root of our society, children who trust their teachers more than anyone. As I was reading, I was reminded of all of my teachers growing up – none of them talked about climate change at all.
I can see how Ken warned us that we may become a little convinced. A few of the passages in the first chapter, specifically under Flawed Surveys where different deniers assess Naomi Oreskes’ 97% claim did reveal some questions for me. Did he/she/they really just do a CTRL F of “global climate change” and conclude that 97% of the searches came up meant a consensus? I somehow find that incredibly skeptical, but I’ll have to admit, the text did put the doubt in my head.
They also state that the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a “mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect.” Just a couple of days ago, in the middle of winter it was over 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the Bay Area. Just by looking outside, you can tell that there is change happening. Right now, the Bay Area is facing extreme gusts of wind (I couldn’t even go out for a run because of how strong the wind was).
The authors eventually move to politicizing the issue…They then move on to assuming that the scientists who believe that man made climate change is dangerous are all liberals. Their implication is that the scientists proving the dangers of climate change are doing so as a part of a political agenda, meaning one can take sides politically on this issue, rather than trusting it as scientific fact. This is an incredibly dangerous message. Not only are they trying to discredit the scientists, they are trying to gain support for themselves and therefore opposition to climate scientists by labeling them as liberals.