TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Other side of climate change debate?

I don't want to start an argument over which side is right. I am trying to educate myself with views from both sides of the issue before I form my opinion. I haven't formed one yet on man made climate change, but I can't find any TED talks that are from the camp that say man made CO2 is not the cause of climate change... Does anyone know of one I could watch?
Kind Regards,


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 28 2013: Thank you Allen, I will watch the video and I appreciate the input, and I certainly wish I could choose, and perhaps when I come to the end of my little investigation I will see it as you do. For now, however, I must reserve judgement as I think a case could be made that people in both camps have all kinds of agenda's. which is one reason why I'm finding it so difficult to get to the bottom of all this. For example, (don't mean to pick on him, but just as an example) Al Gore invests in companies that profit from green policies, and he lobbies for them. I don't necessarily think that should exclude his arguments from the dialogue (and certainly don't think he should refrain from those activities), but I think it means his statements should be subject to thorough review. I think the same should be said for what the oil companies argue.
    I sure hope your right (well actually, I don't in that it sure would be a load off if we weren't causing this ;) I see science as the unbiased search for truth as well, and onward down the rabbit hole I go!
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: Hi Tom, I agree that it is extremely difficult to get at anything that passes as the truth when it comes to climate change - or any other subject ripe for the same kind of denial, like big pharma vs natural remedies as another example.

      Something that has helped me, and might help others too, is looking at the psychology behind denial - and why otherwise bright people get sucked into believing something, even in the teeth of opposing evidence.

      New Scientist magazine ran an article on just that:


      An interesting profile of a denier by Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

      1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
      2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
      3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
      4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
      5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
      6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.