Global warming denial

Overview
Global warming denial is denial that global warming (GW) is a problem (or, in some cases, denial that anything should be done about it) using arguments which have already been refuted.

It seems to be a problem mostly in non-scientific establishment circles within the United States.

There are a few legitimate-appearing arguments against global warming which have not yet been addressed; some of these are already-refuted arguments in modified form dredged up for public consumption by very well-funded anti-GW interests, but some may be genuine.

ignoring refutation
GW deniers often reiterate otherwise-legitimate arguments which have already been refuted, dishonestly repeating them as if those arguments had not yet been addressed.

false dilemma
One of the techniques used by GW deniers is to reduce the problem to an all-or-nothing false dilemma – either:
 * GW exists and we are causing it and we should take draconian measures to stop it, or else
 * GW doesn't exist; if it does, it's not our fault; if it's our fault, there's either nothing we can do about it; if there's something we could do about it, the effects won't be that bad if we don't so it's really not worth the fuss.

Any flaws found in the pro-GW fork become, to them, arguments against the whole thing – making this effectively a straw man misrepresentation of global warming advocacy.

winner-take-all thinking
GW deniers tend to take a combative approach to the discussion, trying to undermine GW's credibility without actually addressing the matters of fact it raises; this is in turn fed upon and encouraged by those who like to keep debates stirred up rather than seeking to resolve them.

To counter this, GW proponents might make a set of specific proposals regarding what should be done under various conditions, where the conditions are stated in terms which can be measured. For example, "If a forecast is made which everyone agrees was done using sound methodology, and that forecast shows global temperatures averaging more than 5 degrees above normal over the next 25 years, then we as should be willing to spend at least X dollars of global resources, divided proportionally among the signatory countries by GNP, towards either reversing the temperature change itself or at least ameliorating the effects of said change on the most vulnerable members of our global habitat (to be divided amongst humans and non-humans according to a formula set out in Appendix C etc. etc.)"

Although the core GW deniers might carefully overlook these proposals and shift the debate back to their preferred grounds, it could help clarify the situation for people who are honestly confused about the issue.

irrelevant accusations
GW deniers often accuse GW advocates of being "alarmists" or fearmongers. This is a bogus accusation on the following levels:
 * It again deflects attention away from a discussion of the facts (which could be resolved) into a claim of nefarious motives, which is not relevant when the accused have presented extensive facts to back up their assertions
 * It is a form of ad hominem attack, i.e. calling the arguer's credibility into question rather than addressing the content.
 * Fearmongery is only a valid accusation when fear is being used to get people to obey or support a particular group or individual (a technique used shamelessly by the anti-GW Bush II administration). This accusation is more difficult to deflect, though it seems clearly wrong to me. -.

Whistleblowers

 * James Hansen, "NASA's top climatologist", has claimed in writing and on TV that the Bush-Cheney administration has tried to restrict and suppress discussion of global warming (hardly surprising, as they are anti-science in general).

Denialists

 * Roy Spencer

Denialist Organizations / Projects

 * Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms
 * ClimateCheck.org (UK)
 * Cooler Heads blog
 * Cornwall Alliance
 * Global Warming Hoax: "Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming" .. "Arguments based on science, news, and common sense. This site is non-partisan and non-religious based. In fact we fight the new faith based religion of global warming."
 * GlobalWarmingInsanity.com
 * Heartland Institute
 * Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
 * Science and Environmental Policy Project
 * Science and Public Policy Institute
 * Space and Science Research Center
 * surfacestations.org

Reference

 * (Climate change denial)
 * (GW denial): very brief page claiming that GW is a political tool of "a powerful liberal special interest group: the environmental lobby." (Who funds the environmental lobby? Who makes money from environmentalism?)
 * Global Warming frames the debate as largely political, with the data not supporting the idea that there's anything to worry about (as of 2007-08-04; verified 2008-02-10)
 * (no article as of 2008-02-10)
 * (no article as of 2008-02-10)

Anti-GW Sentiments

 * Air Quality and Climate Change policy statement by the John Locke Foundation, a North Carolina conservative think-tank
 * 2008-03-20 It gets better and better includes the typical GW denialist sneering, but Woozle does some detailed critique of JLF's position

to file
For twenty years you and the other faithful lapdogs of industry have dutifully parroted the sophistry fed to you by the fossil fuel crowd and by free-market ideologues. As the evidence mounted, you moved on to the next set of bogus arguments... and you blame scientists for being dishonest?
 * 2012-02-24 Bickmore on the WSJ response "The Wall Street Journal posted yet another op-ed by 16 scientists and engineers, which even include a few climate scientists(!!!)."
 * 2007-03-04 All in a Good Cause by Orson Scott Card: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online); see global warming is junk science for details
 * 2007-01-11 Federal Way schools restrict Gore film: 'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial
 * 2006-11-01 Scientists say White House muzzled them (alt)
 * 2006-07-27
 * Cold, Hard Facts: op-ed by Peter Doran, a polar researcher whose paper on the Antarctic climate has often been misinterpreted (by e.g. Michael Crichton) as strong evidence of global cooling, or at least evidence against global warming
 * Leaked Memo Reveals Coal Industry Propaganda Plan
 * 2006-07-20 The Heat Is On by Peggy Noonan seems to be blaming scientists for not having a firm consensus on the issue. Is this the signaling shot for a conservative attempt to shift the blame as the reality becomes inescapable?
 * 2006-07-02 Don't Believe the Hype: "Al Gore is wrong. There's no 'consensus' on global warming." Umm... yes, there is? (need article about scientific consensus on global warming, I guess...)
 * 2006-04-12 Climate of Fear by Richard Lindzen: "Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" Yeah, right. It's those darn fascistic GW people trying to intimidate poor helpless oil and chemical companies into not polluting the atmosphere, for their own selfish purposes...
 * 2006-07-28 A response from Stefan Jones on Contrary Brin:
 * Also, the claim that there is no scientific consensus on global warming is a myth; see The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


 * 2006-01-30 Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him: James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming...
 * 2006-01 Decoder: "How the White House edits out global warming" by Paul Rauber

Debunking Myths

 * Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70s? No "If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here."