When reading anti-global warming conspiracy nonsense, one of the things I always notice is the tendency for these arguments to contain temperature data of a particular climate. State of Fear does this as well, with detailed graphs regarding the average temperatures of the U.S.A. over the last several decades.
This is something similar to the "it snowed last winter, therefore global warming is a myth" argument perpetrated by the scientifically illiterate, but in a slightly more sophisticated form. Indeed, certain climates have not been getting warmer, and others have actually been getting cooler. Global warming deniers will point to these graphs of localized climates as proof of their claim that global warming doesn't exist.
Of course, what you won't see are graphs detailing the global temperature averages over the last century. And you would think this data might be important when your talking about global warming.
This type of rhetoric takes advantage of the fact that the most immediately noticable of global warming's effects are occurring over the oceans, not over landmasses. Now I'm not going to make a claim as to whether this dishonesty by omission is indeed deliberate falsification, or mere misunderstanding of what global warming entails. But this type of "it isn't happening in here, therefore it isn't happening anywhere" arguments are becoming a staple of anti-global warming rhetoric.
The overall problem with this is the very human tendency to ignore something if it isn't happening in immediate spatial and temporal proximity to yourself. These arguments take hold because of this, and an entire claim (global warming doesn't exist) that has been very easily debunked becomes a widespread belief.
I like your point, I think anything global is inherently hard to visualize and make concrete in one's head. Looking out the window to see massive snow is much more compelling. Snowfall is also such a great example of how 'common sense'-type soundbytes against global warming are so hard to fight especially when the science goes into a non-intuitive place.
ReplyDeleteWe associate snow with cold and just because of the winter visual it's symbolic of a cold climate, so when record snowfalls happen its easy to take that as the climate getting colder. The maddening (not actually a) paradox is that snow (and rain) is predicted to increase in moderate latitudes by climatologists because warmer temperatures move more moisture into the atmosphere and stronger winds from increased temperature differentials will move it farther away before it falls. Then to point something like that out to someone who doesn't believe climate science makes you look even more ridiculous in their eyes because they see those nuances as intellectual sleight of hand or outright condescension. I once had a Thanksgiving conversation with some rightwing relatives go shockingly wrong making that point about snowfalls.
This need for localization of the effects of global warming is one of the main contributors to the anti-Global warming movement. It's easier to convince people of your evidence when they can simply look out their windows and see it. Where as graphs and charts can be easily lost on the baseline audience.
ReplyDelete