Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Have you heard of the Four Dogs Defense/  If not, time to read ahead to learn about it and how it relates to Climate Change from guest blogger James Wells.

Climate deniers, borrowing the playbook of their tobacco brethren and deniers of health impacts generally, rely on a version of the “Four Dogs Defense.”

1.First of all, I don’t have a dog.
2.And if I had a dog, it doesn’t bite.
3.And if I had a dog and it did bite, then it didn’t bite you.
4.And if I had a dog and it did bite, and it bit you, then you provoked the dog.”… the tobacco industry played it something like this, as you may know:

1.Smoking definitely doesn’t cause cancer, there’s no evidence it causes cancer.
2.There’s no consensus on the evidence; smoking may cause cancer but second hand smoke definitely doesn’t.
3.Mice may get cancer but mice are not humans, cigarettes are not additive.
4.People choose to smoke — and who are we to impose on people’s constitutional rights? – etc.

For an issue that is this complex as global warming, it requires more dogs, but it’s pretty easy to see the influence of the original four dogs.  The new and enhanced pack of dogs used by climate deniers goes something like this:

1. The climate won’t be changed in the future by some paltry human impacts.
2. Well, the climate sure isn’t being changed now.
3. Even if it’s changing, we don’t know it’s due to emissions
4. Anyway, who says it’s a problem?
5. It’s not possible to make such big changes as you suggest
6. It’s too expensive to change even if it is possible
7. It’s too late now
8. It’s all the climate scientists’ fault for not providing a convincing enough case,
back in 2011 when there was still time to do something about it.

Any time you are hearing or reading a denier argument, it’s important to identify which dog it is.  Here’s why: The dog you are getting includes an implicit concession of all of the previous dogs.

For example, why would anyone talk about dog #6 if they had a strong argument anywhere along dogs 1 through 5?  If a denier could win anywhere in dogs 1 through 5, then dogs 6 and beyond would be totally moot, they wouldn’t even go there.

They’ll try to confuse the public by running up and down the dog chain, apparently randomly.  They will try to combine multiple dogs in one sentence.  Don’t get fooled.  Recognize the key dog you are getting.

Let’s say you’re talking with someone like, oh, I don’t know, let’s just say Mitt Romney, and he says something like this:

“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”
…
“I believe that climate change is occurring.… I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

It would be natural to get drawn right into the fray, like a moth to the flame, and start hurling facts, numbers, findings, all-important linkies, about why this person (or this Ken-doll, as the case may be) should believe in a causal relationship between emissions and climate change.  But it’s actually better to see what has been conceded.

we don’t know what’s causing climate change — FUD on Dog 3
And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us — Way down at Dog 6
I believe that climate change is occurring — Conceding Dog 2

When it’s even necessary and possible to respond (instead of just putting out your message, or just reading on), an effective response is to graciously accept the gifts of the dogs not contested and build from there.  Like:

As little as 10 years ago, climate scientists expressed concern that we might see warming in 50 or 100 years.  As we are agreeing, we’re seeing warming right now.  That’s an amazing acceleration from previous projections.

If you are in, rather than just observing, the discussion, you can deliver a simple, short answer that is appropriate for the dog that is still contested.

So you are agreeing that the earth is warming.  I assume you don’t dispute that Carbon Dioxide levels are rising.  It’s a high school level experiment to show that increased CO2 causes more heat to be retained.  Just coincidence?

Never mix up the dogs.  If you do, you just get a dog fight, a kind of snarling mess.  Always focus on only one dog at a time.

Of course, you are not going to convince the denier.  The discussion is entirely for any objective audience that might be reached.  The denier will just go barking up and down the chain of dogs.  Don’t worry about that, it’s just what their trainers taught them to do.

The most important thing, in any discussion of this kind, is not to win the day on debating points as such.  I think it’s most important just to stand proud and say you are really concerned about global warming and favor action.  The RW works hard to make every one of us feel alone in that concern.  Simply stating those basic facts can help someone else not to feel as alone as they have.  When considering whether or not to gently respond to your FIL from GlennBeckistan, remember that your other cousin at the same holiday dinner table may be thinking hard about these questions too.

Which brings me to the headline point of the diary, that in the larger scheme of things, the deniers are on the run. Why?

Because they are losing control of Dog 2.  Earth is warming and we all know it.

To be sure, it’s good news borne of bad news.  They are losing Dog 2 because the directly observable evidence, that the earth is warming right now, is so overwhelming.  All the linkies and diversions in the world can’t answer the basic question: If the earth is not warming, why are ships running in sea lanes that have been ice bound since before the dawn of civilization?

A blockbuster in the scientific community recently came from Robert Muller. This avowed skeptic of prior global warming findings led a huge study of available climate data, resulting in this statement (in the WSJ no less!):

Global warming is real.

Dog 2, done.  He goes right on to add an obligatory call to Dogs 3 and 4:

Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

But in a given day, one dog, from this outspoken former skeptic, is a huge step.

There’s excellent coverage of this at Climate Progress, of course, with the coup de grace coming from  Eugene Robinson:

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

It’s going to take some time for this finding to percolate into into wider awareness, but it’s a powerful turning point.  Dog 2 is truly toast.

For a little more evidence, look carefully at the knuckleheads attempting to pander their way to the Republican nomination.  (8 candidates, 8 dogs of the Apocalypse, more than coincidence?)  Amid the climate denial and FUD, a careful look shows that when they say “The science is not in”, they are generally pretty careful not to say exactly what it is they think is unresolved (although Romney was pretty clear above that for him, it’s Dog 3, or maybe Dog 6, or maybe the dog riding on top of the car, or – oh, which audience am I talking to again?).  The ambiguity is so that they can pander with the best of them in the primary without being pinned to an obviously wrong Dog 2 position in the general election.

The next key thing to realize, if you look at the succession of dogs, is that each dog is less powerful than the one before.  Once Dog 2 is conceded, Dog 3 is absurd.

Ok, so you say this person was not harmed by tobacco.  She died of cancer after a long bout with emphysema.  She smoked for 25 years.  Her siblings, non smokers, are all healthy.  And it was just coincidence.

Good luck with Dog 3, guys.  It’s crumbling around you.  And beyond that, it gets even tougher to pretend.