About a week ago, MT posted an article titled, Dogs and Deniers, which included the following video, which sums up beautifully the frustration we face when attempting to discuss the issue of climate change with those already convinced that it’s all a scam – who seem to hear what they want to.
Following this, Greenfyre did a little searching and found that this animation model was freely available for general use and so in his post, Global Warming Panic Explained, he completed his own version of the animation.
I can see the benefits in this approach, which has long been used by Greenman3610 and Potholer54, for it’s able to reach a far wider audience at a much more rapid pace. Most importantly the message that Greenfyre repeats over and over again is the real take home message that fails on many deniers – don’t trust me or any consensus, but instead take the time to verify the evidence!
Of course, a general reply to this is, “I used to assume the theory of AGW was correct, until they did a little research…”
In yet another recent Greenfyre post titled, Skewed views of science and other bits, he includes two useful videos that explains what sceptical science is and how it is applied. These videos should be watched by such individuals followed by Greenfyre’s response to the denial animation.
It isn’t sceptical to remain unconvinced by the evidence available regarding AGW, but rather to understand the details of the sciences involved and to critically assess the studies that have been carried out. The best of which are not solely those that match up with the results of other independent studies, but those which have also been independently re-tested, thereby not only reviewing the conclusions, but also the methodology and results!
Those who tell me that they did their own research which lead to opposing views on AGW tend to dredge up isolated papers from a few “usual suspects” and that such research doesn’t include reviewing where this paper has been cited and following the chain of review explains how such people fail to understand why the vast majority of relevant working scientists agree that our activity is having an effect on global temperatures (ie. the consensus isn’t like social polls, but the result of critical minds trained on the subject that have reviewed and tested the research available).
Anyway, a thank you for the time and effort must be expressed to Greenfyre for his effort to explain science, scepticism and the reality of the AGW public debate and also to MT for his original post on the animation.