Global warming denialists don't have to win the debate – they simply have to confuse the public

A great article from Mark Lynas in the Guardian that sums up several key points: First, the anti-science denialists simply seek to confuse in order to stall action; second, the media is primarily to blame for this confusion; and third, the less-well-off care more about and have less impact on the climate/environment than the middle class.

The article is short and well worth the read.

First: Anyone who has argued with a denier knows that they shift from point to point without ever answering any. Attempts to reason, to be rational, or to discover the actual source of their disagreement will be met with evasion. They know, consciously or not, that they don't have science or reality on their side.

Moreover, their goal is not to 'win' the debate on climate change, but to achieve their worldview. That is, they want what they want, and they will do what they have to do in order to achieve it. Their worldview includes "Might makes Right," meaning that the end justifies the means. Meaning, you are wasting your time discussing science with these people, and need to shift to exploring values.

Second: The media has done an atrocious job of covering the climate crisis. So bad, in fact, that the rules under which they operate must be examined and changed. There is far too much corporate influence in the media; it seems obvious enough that if a few monster corporations own every major media outlet, and that those media corporations rely upon advertising from other monster corporations, then a simple conversation on the golf course is likely enough to ensure a 'fair and balanced' policy on climate coverage. 'Fair and balanced,' in this case, means giving the corporation's point-of-view versus the actual science.

Third: Middle-class people take more flights, own bigger houses (often in the suburbs), drive more and bigger cars, and buy more toys like boats and big screen plasma TVs than those less well-off. And, interestingly, the less-well-off, at least in Britain, care more about the climate crisis than the middle-class, perhaps because the latter are more worried where their next latte will come from if we get serious about doing something about climate change.

We need to show that there are alternatives, that a green world is a better world, and that a green economy is a stronger, more just, economy. I have started a site to allow people to envision Canada with this new green economy - what would your town look like, how would we travel, where would our food come from, and so on. I encourage you to join the site and contribute to the forum: www.newgreeneconomy.com. (I'll blog about it in more detail later, so to better explain the need for a positive vision.)

Mark Lynas' article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/0...