find it here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/06/30/223457/-How-to-debunk-the-Right-s-lies-on-global-warming-Part-3
--Kim
Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:50 AM PDT
How to debunk the Right's lies on global warming, Part 3
by BruinKid Follow3
permalink 13 Comments
You guys may want to check out Part 1 and Part 2, which had detailed the connections several big climate change skeptics had to Big Oil. "Fine," conservatives will say when you bring this up, "but so what," they'll ask, "you haven't refuted the science behind their arguments. I ain't buying it, you global warming alarmist." And then the debate usually descends into spirited name-calling after that.
This diary will attempt to provide, once and for all, a scientific rebuttal based on logic to one of their key arguments. Then, I'll show you exactly how to frame the issue to put yourself in an unassailable position. This is key. Too many of us (myself included) get emotional when arguing with these people who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming research that shows climate change is indeed being influenced by humans. This is a trap, and they'll pounce on you and make you play defense, instead of the other way around. Follow me below the fold to see exactly how to argue with them.
The argument I will focus on debunking is, as I said in my previous diary, a column Dr. Carter wrote in 2004 about carbon dioxide. Very interesting first paragraph.
- The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Rather, the presence of this trace gas in Earths atmosphere is vitally important for the growth of plants. And in extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, plants in turn release the oxygen that is required for the respiration of most animal life forms, you and me included.
Error 1: Before I go about debunking the first error, I first need to introduce a little biology and chemistry. Oh no, you say, I'm not good at science! Well, neither am I. I'm in statistics, I know some math, and I absolutely suck at biology and chemistry. But these are just the basics one can pick up from Wikipedia and other sources online, and I've tried to distill it down enough so that you don't have to be trained in science to understand it.
Dr. Carter talks about these plants taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. This is a chemical reaction called carbon reduction. Anyone know what the overall process behind it is called? Photosynthesis . Heard of that, right? Now, photosynthesis technically only applies to converting sunlight into chemical energy in the form of ATP and NADPH. But what happens to that stuff? The ATP and NADPH then get used to transform carbon dioxide into glucose and oxygen. And there's the oxygen the plants give out. Basically, without the photosynthesis in the first place, most of the chemical energy won't be there for the plant to produce oxygen.
But few people seem to know this: plants also take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere! This is a process called respiration, i.e., breathing. Think about it. Plants need oxygen to survive. Now, plants are respiring 24 hours a day nonstop. That means they're constantly releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Photosynthesis, however, only occurs during the day. (The "photo" part of photosynthesis represents light.) And it turns out carbon reduction in the daytime completely overshadows plant respiration, so the net effect is one of taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. So... what happens in the nighttime? Without the sunlight to spur on the chemical reaction, what happens? Respiration takes over. At night, plants are pretty much just spewing forth carbon dioxide and taking up our oxygen. Click here for a tutorial on this process if you want to brush up on it.
Now, the way this applies to Dr. Carter's column is that he had to have known this. That he doesn't mention it at all is a sign he may not be completely forthcoming with his readers, leaving important facts out. And how many people knew that plants also spew back carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? But, you could make the case that leaving this fact out is trivial, because overall, plants still take in a lot more carbon dioxide than oxygen, and release a lot more oxygen than carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Error 2: What plant is most responsible for releasing the oxygen into our atmosphere? Trees? Flowers? Grass? Nope, none of the above. In fact, their output of oxygen is almost negligible. Whaaaa..., you say? Yep, about 98% of all the oxygen in our atmosphere comes from phytoplanktons living in the ocean. (Although some have put the figure at only 90%. Still, 90%'s a lot.) Yes, plankton, the stuff you thought was only there for whales to eat. Well, they've got more functions than just that. Now, how many of you, when you read Dr. Carter's paragraph mentioning plants, thought of trees and flowers and grass, and not ocean life? Maybe you thought of algae. But phytoplankton? Probably close to none of you did, and those that did probably have a pretty good background in science to begin with. Most of you thought of embryophytes, otherwise known as "land plants" in common parlance. Most of you probably have never heard of the word "embryophyte" either. I know I hadn't until I researched this. (BTW, one thing I cannot find online is if phytoplankton respire the same way land plants do.)
See, here Dr. Carter employs the trick of parsing the language that Bush and Company frequently use. While not techincally incorrect, the way he writes it is very misleading. Because he's not writing this for a scientific journal and other scientists who'd know what he really means by "plants". He's writing this for the layperson who may not have a good science background and doesn't know any better. He knows who his audience is, and so as a scientist, he has to know this will happen, and his failure to clarify what he means is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. It's this obfuscation of the whole truth that I find so callous, when the consequences could be so potentially grave for all of us. Obfuscation to lead us into a war with another country (Saddam + 9/11) or to make us do nothing about a potentially deadly threat is reprehensible. But that's still not the kicker.
Error 3: Look at his first sentence. "... carbon dioxide is not a pollutant." Dr. Carter is claiming carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because plants need it to produce oxygen. Well, in the same line of thinking, oxygen is necessary for animal life, including us. But, if we were producing huge amounts of oxygen, enough so that it raised the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere by just a few percentage points, it would make wildfires on Earth unstoppable. Pure oxygen, when added to combustible materials, causes them to combust far more violently. Just look at what happened to Apollo 1. It took only 17 seconds in a pure oxygen environment to kill the whole crew. Trained astronauts who could hold their breath for over a minute were suffocated to death in just 17 seconds.
Burning is a chemical reaction involving oxygen, so flames become more intense with more oxygen present. That's how welding torches work, for instance. Acetylene by itself doesn't burn very hot. But add a bit of pure oxygen, and it can cut through blocks of steel. So could oxygen be a pollutant? Of course. Increase oxygen levels enough, you can get uncontrollable wildfires. Increase carbon dioxide levels, the models predict disastrous global warming. For another example, iron is a heavy metal necessary for life. Take too much of it, and it's toxic. Same goes for other heavy metals. This is the crux of it all: Carter's argument is simply and entirely without logical foundation. Anything can be a pollutant if there's enough of it, and this is a mistake no self-respecting scientist would ever make. The rest of his article is all based on the lie that carbon dioxide is simply not a pollutant, and that is being completely intellectually dishonest.
Tim Patterson, another one of the so-called Friends of Science, was also echoing Carter's beliefs that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
- He mocked the view that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. "It's plant food, it's a natural part of the atmosphere."
All right, so now you know one of the logical mistakes these scientists supported by Big Oil are making. Don't be fooled by it. But when arguing with climate change skeptics, many will simply refuse to hear any scientific or logical arguments, feigning ignorance or just being unconvinced this intellectual dishonesty is even a big deal in the first place. Some of you may have these same doubts. So now, I provide the unassailable argument. We have to base this, as Al Gore has said, as an ethical issue. Here's what to say to these skeptics:
- Why is it that conservatives are so against taking precautionary measures against a possible catastrophic climate change? Nobody is saying that those scientists should ever say that global warming is without a doubt caused by humans (yes, I realize they ARE saying it now, but since you can't argue with some of these people based on the science itself, I'm giving up this point to focus on other ones they can't as easily dodge), but only that there is an indication that human activity may be linked to a very rapid warming of the environment. That's not actually saying very much at all. However, are you willing to ignore the possible ramifications of doing nothing to investigate or prevent this possible catastrophe in a future that your children and grandchildren will have to grow up in?
- It seems to me that the generation of my parents acted completely irresponsibly in the '60s and '70s. And now, during the time of possible catastrophic change, they are again being irresponsible in not actively pursuing ways to possibly mitigate this change. How much does it really cost to change our behavior as a precautionary measure? What Al Gore's point is is to show people that there are productive ways of dealing with this issue that are not reactionary, and not economically unsound, that it can actually be economically beneficial to adapt our behavior as a preventative measure.
- The point of all this is to ask where the burden of proof lies. What the clear majority of scientists are telling us is that our actions are potentially very harmful, and that there are economically viable solutions. Isn't the burden of proof on the side that says that our actions are not harmful? Because this is the side where there are potentially dire consequences, but not on the other. The other side says, if we're wrong, we're wrong, but then there'd be no potential disaster for the planet. If your side is wrong, our future is f*cked. So why the resistance? Does it really make sense?
- As far as the paper trail to Big Oil, the point is there's not much money in the global warming camp. The money is where the oil industry is, and certainly they have vastly far more resources than a couple of science foundations in a country where those in charge now are very against any notion of global warming. What's more reasonable, to think about rich environmental groups attacking the poor, poor corporations, or the extremely wealthy corporations funding a minority of scientists for their personal gain? Does the National Science Foundation have a known bias or vested interest in proving global warming either way?
- Also, most scientists, when they publish their results, go through a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality of their work. Scientists paid by oil companies generally publish columns raising doubt, which have no peer review. The peer-reviewed papers they publish actually don't seem to cast much doubt. But then they're publishing a bunch of op-ed columns designed to be submitted to newspapers, or prepping to go on FoxNews to decry global warming as nothing more than a "hoax perpetrated on the American public". Where's the scholarship in that? And most of the stuff ExxonMobil is funding is not for actual new and innovative research to be done (just a small amount is). Most of it goes to letting them cram op-ed columns down our throat. Where is the science in that? But still, I will say that all sides need to be looked at carefully, because scientists are not without prejudice and self-interest.
- As for the warming trend, no one is saying that the Earth is any warmer now than it's been in the past, on a geological time scale (again, I write this only to debate with people who are impervious to scientific fact). But human beings do not live on a geological time scale. This apparent warming trend appears to be occurring very quickly (a geological blink of an eye, if you will), and most scientists in the world are afraid that we and our habitats cannot adapt to it. There is also a question that if human involvement is responsible for this change, because of its apparent speed, it might begin an uncontrollable warming.
- I don't think any of these concerns are alarmist. I think that they're reasonable concerns posed by the vast majority of scientists who are probably quite reasonable people. Nobody is saying that we should destroy our economic infrastructure in order to minimize the possible environmental impact of human beings. What people are saying is that there are technological alternatives out there that can and should be explored, but which are not seriously being explored at this current time, even though they may actually benefit us economically, socially, and politically, and that we are running out of time to correct this. Why?
- Now, careful consideration of the vast majority of viewpoints of scientists and climatologists should be considered a reasonable action. Noting the possible economic interest of those dissenting scientists who are in fact paid by oil corporations is as well reasonable. What is extreme and unreasonable is to assume without any evidence that environmental protection will result in economic tragedy. Why is it some of you want to disregard these climate models as being unproven at best, and hogwash at worst, while putting your faith in economic models that say our economy will collapse if we increase our standards for carbon dioxide emissions?
- What concerns me is the opposition to acknowledging climate change. The arguments all lie around ignoring a potential problem, and pretending that either it doesn't even exist, or that the jury is still out. Many of the prominent scientists who are climate change skeptics are in fact sponsored in part by ExxonMobil, an extremely rich and powerful company that has a vested interest in the status quo. If you want more names and connections, you can find many of these names at ExxonSecrets.org. There's verifiable money trails. Now I am not saying that every dissenting scientist is paid off by the oil companies, though it may appear that way. I am saying that many of them are engaging in an incestuous relationship with the oil companies that have an obvious agenda and a vested monetary interest in having climate change not being taken seriously, which does taint these scientists' message. And I'll also say that I'm confident that there are reputable scientists who, in good faith, disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community. But this should play no bearing on our actions. Why?
- Because our actions, if taken appropriately, should not be economically destructive, but rather economically profitable and politically empowering. These actions may also help avert a potential catastrophe. So my question is, why the staunch opposition to taking these actions? Most of the support for this opposition comes from large corporations that historically have made huge profits at the expense of the environment. So why should we remain beholden to them and their wishes, when we can create new industries, new jobs, and new technology, that will increase our political strength in the world, crush our Middle Eastern foes financially, and most importantly for some (and least importantly for others), lessen the environmental impact of human beings on the planet to help ensure a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.
- It seems to me that the generation of my parents acted completely irresponsibly in the '60s and '70s. And now, during the time of possible catastrophic change, they are again being irresponsible in not actively pursuing ways to possibly mitigate this change. How much does it really cost to change our behavior as a precautionary measure? What Al Gore's point is is to show people that there are productive ways of dealing with this issue that are not reactionary, and not economically unsound, that it can actually be economically beneficial to adapt our behavior as a preventative measure.
And yes, if you were wondering, most of what I wrote above was culled from several different debates on other message boards I've had with these people over the last couple of weeks. Several of them I got to shut up quite quickly, another one actually wrote, "I surrender," and claimed he had work to do to make a living. I told him not to worry, that he could post his response over the weekend when he had more time. He never took me up on that offer. LOL.
I hope this diary has proved useful in both shedding some light on the science behind this, but more importantly, how to frame and debate the issue with those who refuse to acknowledge the growing threat of global warming. I close with a quote from Upton Sinclair:
- It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Originally posted to BruinKid on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:50 AM PDT.
13 comments | Permalink
Tip jar (n/t) ( 12+ / 0-)
by BruinKid on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:17 AM PDT
only if they are logical ( 2+ / 0-)
Trying to reason logically with someone who is ruled by emotion is often a fruitless enterprise. When someone wants to argue global climate change with me, I interrupt them and ask "What would you do if the science was convincing to you?"
They usually stammer and say that won't happen. Or they say something like "China and Europe are the problem too"
My point is that often they are using scientific language to support their feelings or just parroting what they hear on the radio. They aren't lacking adequate scientific information.
by friendscallmelenny on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:56:23 AM PDT
I finally got a right winger to come to our ( 1+ / 0-)
side on global warming. After trying to convince him that we were funding both sides of the war on terror, he finally saw a Discovery channel movie that told him just that. He then flipped and quit listening to Rush and started believing that alternative energy was the best way to head for our nation.
"Maybe you know something I don't know." -- G Dub (-4.38,-3.03)
by don the tin foil on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 08:59:02 AM PDT
This plays into an argument you will ( 1+ / 0-)
hear which has been variously distorted in wingnuttia as "one volcano puts more pollutants in the air than all the cars in the world... or than all the cars in the world in 50 years...or 100 years... or even than all the cars in the world since the beginning of time."
Note the use of the word "pollutants." As the diarist notes, the climate change deniers don't claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant so they are right...volcanoes belch a lot more ash than your car does. They also belch a lot more sulfur dioxide than your car does. But this false factoid ignores the one thing we are most concerned with in the case of climate change - carbon emissions.
According to the Dept of the Interior US Geological Survey division website (sorry no link), human causes of carbon emmissions are 150 times greater than the carbon emissions from all of the volcanoes in the world combined.
You will hear this stupid volcano fact come at you often (and I'd love to know with which wingut it started - Viagra Boy perhaps?)so know your facts and don't let them get away with it.
If you want something other than the obvious to happen - you've got to do something other than the obvious...Douglas Adams
by trillian on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:04:56 AM PDT
Sometimes you get the feeling ( 2+ / 0-)
it has absolutely nothing to do with the science. They are arguing a position - not reality.
Their right-wing gods tell them that to support the fact of global warming is to support the liberals. It's the same as supporting the leftie tree-huggers and Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and the Sierra Club.
They will never do that no matter what the science says. And they will always find scientists who can be bought by industry and who will offer them non-factual comfort.
Throw Richard Pombo out of the House! Support Jerry McNerney
by Naturegal on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:10:49 AM PDT
Commonsense ( 2+ / 0-)
I wrote a Commonsense Argument for Global Warming last week. It breaks down the logical basis for global warming into easily proven pieces.
I think for the carbon dioxide is not a pollutant meme, we need to understand that it came from wanting the EPA to monitor the stuff. If it cannot be labelled as a pollutant, then the EPA won't regulate it. That's going to have to be overcome legislatively, I fear. In the meantime, carbon dioxide is the second most important "greenhouse gas" behind water vapor. We can't control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (and humans have little impact globally on that gas), but we can effect changes in our carbon dioxide emissions. That is why it should be regulated; not because it is a "pollutant".
Just my $.02.
We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org
by smokeymonkey on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:25:42 AM PDT
Thank you for this!! ( 0+ / 0-)
I'm going to bookmark your entire series! I've needed this to debate my wingnut father-in-law. Although it's not that difficult, he keeps telling me to read that stupid Crichton book no matter how many times I point out that it's a WORK OF FICTION!!
Accountability. It's what's for dinner.
by By The Root on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 10:34:42 AM PDT
Relevant to his remark that ( 0+ / 0-)
carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
A good analogy to draw is that most medicines are poisons in large doses. They are only therapeutic in proper dosages.
It's Time To Rage
by LivesInAShoe on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 11:01:46 AM PDT
excellent diary ( 0+ / 0-)
Recommended and blogged about (in a few minutes).
This hits close to home for me because certain outspoken Republicans I go to school with love to bug me about this.
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." - Dan Quayle
by PhantomFly on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 07:56:08 PM PDT
Thank you for this diary. ( 0+ / 0-)
I have not had time to read it, but I will. I appreciate you putting this together.
by Dianna on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 09:43:02 PM PDT
The national security angle ( 0+ / 0-)
I sat down this morning with my coffee and scone and your diary was the first I happened upon. I thought, okay, I need to read this, but it's Saturday morning, and maybe I should see what else is out there first, but I stayed with the diary; I'm glad I did. Thank you.
One question that comes to my mind in driving home a point is to argue national security. Perhaps someone out there can frame this better than I, but the question to them goes something like this: Let's just say that tomorrow we no longer had to power our cars with oil - we still use it for heating and a few other inductries, but let's just say it's no longer needed for cars.
What might the first, greatest benefit be? -A more secure country - we'd have reduced our dependence on foreign oil at least to the point where we wouldn't be worried about where our energy is coming from.
My line of thoughts are centered around the Right's concern about national security. It seems as though even they could appreciate the independence from Middle Eastern oil.
If they were to say, "Well sure, but it'll never happen." A response might be - okay let's put efforts into bringing down our percentage of usage at least to levels where we could be independent. That's certainly got to be worth it and good for our country.
I'll stop there; I think I may be starting to ramble. I think everyone sees my point and perhaps someone knows how to clear it up with their arguments.
Thanks for sticking with this.
by Irish setter on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 07:53:10 AM PDT
the key to the effects of CO2 is the amount ( 0+ / 0-)
of atmospheric gas is present. There are others, such as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that block IR radiation, but the CO2 is the major player ..
The increase in ratio of CO2 {and to a lesser amount methane} to other gasses in the atmosphere is the key to what makes the 'greenhouse effect' work.
Believe it or not, the government has a website, showing the 'carbon cyle', as well as the increase in what humans have done to increase these 'greenhouse pollutants' in the air.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/...
Check it out, quick before Rove shuts it down.
Journalistic standards aren't just for 'journalists', anymore. We're all journalists, now.
by shpilk on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 10:28:32 AM PDT
If you look at the graphs, you see that ( 0+ / 0-)
the ocean is tremendously larger in carbon content (sequestration) that the entire rest of the carbon cycle.
Perhaps you can tell me why the ocean carbon sequestration cycle is not being mentioned as a possible solution.
With those numbers: 38,000 vs 120, wouldn't even a tiny change in the process make a huge difference in atmospheric carbon?
The graph shows the ocean to be about 1% efficient in removing carbon. If it were 3% efficient, it would balance our output from fossil fuels.
Isn't this what the ocean iron-seeding experiment was about, the phytoplankton growth experiment?
Faith or evidence. You decide. 94801
by ormondotvos on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 11:29:05 PM PDT
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment