” I want to know why there are those who believe that the whole global warming thing is a hoax. Who are these people and why do they think this way?”

Here’s a good place to start:

“Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology”
by Johnny Rook

http://www.dailykos.com/ story/ 2008/ 5/ 12/ 143145/ 743/ 173/ 513430

I have created a blog of my own, with a long article (now over 60 pages long) that seeks to expose the denier PR and fraud, while showing how much consensus there is. I’m a layman, so I use lots of quotes and links to articles and websites like this. I think you might find it to be a decent springboard for what you’re looking for. That’s been my intent, to steer people to real climate science websites and hopefully away from the nonsense that is so widespread on the internet.

http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 11/ climate-change-and-disinformation.html

I also welcome any suggestions, criticism or encouragement about my blog from those who are more knowledgable.

Jack

“Now, if only I could get my denier friends to read, this is where I would send them.”

I agree. I leave links to this site (and others, but none as much as this one) all over the internet. One way to do that is to make comments on articles and blogs and direct readers to good sources like Climate Progress.

You might want to also get your denier friends to read the new book “The Carbon Age” by Eric Roston. It’s a great read that explains in no uncertain terms what humans are doing to the natural short term carbon cycle. Having read the book, one would be hard pressed to entertain any skeptic notions about natural cycles, or most of the other popular skeptic arguments.

Here’s a quote from the book.

“Humans have sped up the global carbon cycle at least one hundred times faster than usual, transforming the world into one that we eventually might not recognize as our own.
Manmade global warming is a geological aberration, nearly meteoric in speed. Human speed has crunched the geologic timescale in to half a century. Events that typically unfold over many thousands or millions of years have begun to occur within a human life span.”

“Life has always been driven by geology. The flow of carbon through living things entwines evolution with the inanimate forces of nature. But there is no evidence before now to suggest that biology has ever accelerated the long term carbon cycle onto a short term path. Nothing other than meteorites have changed geology as quickly as humanity. Industry is a powerful new path of interaction between life and geology.”

“In a short period of time, humanity has gone from an influential species, to the most powerful driver of evolutionary and geological change on the planet – more powerful than plate tectonics, silicate rock weathering, solar hiccups, or orbital perturbations. Some scientists, amateur astronomers, and Hollywood filmmakers look fearfully to the skies for civilization ending bolides. They should look inward. We are the meteor.
Industrial energy policy is a biogeochemical force and should be thought of as a cousin of earthquakes, volcanoes, pandemic disease, erosion and other phenomena that shape the face of the earth.”

A little different from claims by Arthur Robinson (of Oregon Petition infamy) that industrialization increases biodiversity and that the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the healthier the environment will be.

Here’s the take home message, from the book, that cuts through much of the denier nonsense, at least for me. It’s what he is referring to in regard to accelerating the long term onto the short term carbon cycle.

It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth, by precipitating out of the short term carbon cycle, and being locked away in coal deposits and into the long term carbon cycle. Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation of carbon back into the atmosphere and thus, back into the short term carbon cycle, in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond. This is an unprecedented occurance, probably in the history of the planet.

I was giddy to read an article in the times taking issue with “the whole growth model. I did, however, take issue with Friedman’s conclusion that “We must have growth,” even if it is of a different sort. I wrote a piece about it on my blog: http://drollerdrome.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 03/ bedside-moment-with-thomas-friedman.html

I’ve only been reading ClimateProgress for about six months, but it’s excellent and indispensable, just as Thomas Friedman says. Joe Romm “gets it” thoroughly, knows his stuff and writes well.

Any criticisms? Only minor ones: some “inside baseball” that has more to do with long-running insider arguments than with building the case, and some whimsical names for opponents (denier-eqs?) that I find a bit distracting.

But! This is a magnificent ongoing work, and the only regret we all have on discovering Joe and Climate Progress is that we didn’t discover it sooner.

Floyd

PS Unlike on most blogs, read or at least scan the comments; they’re often quite informative (excepting perhaps this one.)

If I were a betting man, I would say Berlin / Sussman win the debate and that Hansen / Romm lose. Coal stays in and we will pour $ Billions in to CCS to just feel like we are doing something, money that could be better spent on other things for more benefit.

Wes Rolley: CoChair, EcoAction Committee, Green Party US

[JR: I think you are failing to draw the distinction between aggressively pursuing R&D, and actually believing CCS will prove to be a massively scalable, affordable, and practical solution. I have spoken to Berlin, Sussman, and Podesta many times on this subject -- and there really isn't the kind of difference opinion that you seem to think.]