Answers to Global Warming Skeptics

Like the debate over Intelligent Design, the controversy over global warming is being fought over in the popular media even though the consensus of the scientists who are actually researching climate change is that humans are having a greater impact on global warming than natural sources. As a measure of the certainty of this, major insurance companies are now revising their business projections to take the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into account. (Insurance companies know very well how to make money on projections of real future events and they are not going to be swayed by any so-called "propaganda from tree-hugging environmentalists"—if the science conclusions are good enough for the insurance companies, then you may want to think twice, three times, many times, before discounting the IPCC conclusions.)

You can take a look at the carbon dioxide and climate change data yourself from the links on the Online Trends page of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Besides carbon dioxide trends, CDIAC includes data on other gases that respond to infrared, role of the biosphere and oceans in the cycling of greenhouse gases, fossil fuel burning emission of carbon dioxide, effect of land use changes (deforestation, paving over, etc.), long-term climate trends, etc.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community (i.e., those who are actively engaged in climate research, publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and allow their conclusions to be tested by others) is that the global warming that is happening is mostly human-caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Despite this consensus there is considerable debate among the general public. There is big disconnect between the scientists and the general public. The popular media is usually interested in fanning the flames of controversy instead of educating the public. Therefore, they will look for opponents of the scientific consensus to provide a "balanced view" and give equal credence to the global warming skeptics. The voices of the few (unqualified) are magnified to be equal to the voices of the many. Sigh!

Rather than giving arguments to counter all of the claims of the global warming skeptics on this page, here are links to those who have already done that work. All of the links to external sources will appear in a new window.

• New Scientist's feature on climath myths and misconceptions called "Climate change: A Guide for the Perplexed". The feature looks at 26 common myths in the global warming controversy (remember the controversy exists primarily among the general public, not the scientific community of climate researchers).
  1. Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
  2. We can't do anything about climate change
  3. The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
  4. Chaotic systems are not predictable
  5. We can't trust computer models of climate
  6. They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
  7. It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
  8. It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
  9. Global warming is due to the Sun, not humans
  10. It's all due to cosmic rays
  11. CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
  12. The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
  13. Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
  14. The oceans are cooling
  15. The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
  16. It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
  17. We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
  18. Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
  19. Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
  20. Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
  21. Mars and Pluto are warming too
  22. Many leading scientists question climate change
  23. It's all a conspiracy
  24. Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
  25. Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
  26. Polar bear numbers are increasing
• Scholars and Rogues blog includes a detailed debunking of 21 myths put forward by global warming skeptics posted in 2007 by Brian Angliss. Some of the myths debunked are also in the New Scientist feature above but not all. One minor error, though, is Angliss said that the IPCC created the models. IPCC does not create the models; they use the results from the peer-reviewed models created by the climatologists. Here is the list:
  1. Myth #1: All the CO2 in the air at present comes from the mantle.
  2. Myth #2: Increasing CO2 in the air is due to gases coming out of solution as the ocean heats up.
  3. Myth #3: Humans are not the source of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  4. Myth #4: CO2 is rising at 0.38% per year, not 1% per year as the IPCC Third Assessment Report claimed.
  5. Myth #5: CO2 is such a weak greenhouse gas that it cannot be the cause of the observed warming.
  6. Myth #6: CO2 concentrations are not correlated with global temperature due to periods in the geologic history when CO2 was higher and the planet was in an ice age.
  7. Myth #7: Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than modern temperatures.
  8. Myth #8: The existence of the Medieval Warm Period has been ignored in order to support anthropogenic global heating.
  9. Myth #9: Modern temperature increases are a direct result of the Earth's climate exiting the Little Ice Age.
  10. Myth #10: Global cooling between 1940 and 1970 happened even though anthropogenic CO2 was rising.
  11. Myth #11: Cosmic rays hitting the earth are behind global heating.
  12. Myth #12: The Stefan-Boltzman law breaks the equations of global heating.
  13. Myth #13: Computer models are too inaccurate to accurately predict a system as complex as the Earth's climate.
  14. Myth #14: The oceanic storage of heat is required to account for the differences between data and early models. But the updated models still require an unrealistically large oceanic depth of water to make them work right.
  15. Myth #15: The oceans have already begun to cool in response to natural variations, so global heating is wrong.
  16. Myth #16: Satellite measurements of tropical air don't correspond to directly measured temperatures, so global heating isn't actually happening.
  17. Myth #17: Global heating will be good for the planet, not bad.
  18. Myth #18: Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and since humans have almost no direct impact on the amount of water vapor in the air, humans can't be the cause of global heating.
  19. Myth #19: We don't have enough climate data to make valid predictions of any kind.
  20. Myth #20: Volcanoes spew more CO2 into the air in a single eruption than humanity has emitted in its history.
  21. Myth #21: Ice core data shows that CO2 has always followed an increase in temperature, so this is what must be happening now too.
• "How to Talk to A Global Warming Skeptic" by Coby Beck might be helpful in figuring out how to talk with skeptics of global warming. Beck is not a climate researcher; he is an engineer working on artificial intelligence but I think he provides a good layman's take on the debate in the general public.
• DeSmogBlog was created to clears the public relations (PR) campaign that is trying to cloud the climate change science. They are very familiar with PR tactics.
• The Truth About Denial feature article in the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek includes a history of the global warming denial movement. A number of postings in the comments area continue the same old denial arguments illustrating the strategy of trying to win a debate by shouting louder than your opponent. The old denial arguments are central to the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" discussed below.

In March 2007, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) broadcast a show called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that seemed to counter all that "Inconvenient Truth" stuff from Al Gore, et al with experts (including some with PhDs) claiming that the human-caused global warming was just a scam. Unfortunately, the people who were swindled were the viewers of the BBC GGWS show. Though broadcast overseas, it has been viewed by many thousands of people in the United States courtesy of internet TV (and will probably be broadcast on the Fox channel sometime soon). Needless to say, there were many problems with the "documentary". Here are a few links to critiques of the show:

• Christopher Merchant created a video point-by-point critique of the swindle show and posted it to Google Video in 2007. He has since updated his critique and you can download the video (100 Mb) from his homepage. Chrisopher Merchant is a lecturer in Earth Observation in the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests are in remote sensing and modeling of air-sea interaction. Merchant's analysis of the Swindle film shows how the film's editor and speakers use every trick in the book to attempt to deceive the viewers of the Swindle film. One logical fallacy Merchant points out is that the film uses the fact that the Earth's climate has always been changing (a correct statement) to "prove" that humans could not now be cause global warming (an illogical conclusion). There are other errors in logic and rhetorical tricks used by the film makers that Merchant details in his video. He also shows how the film makers used a long-ago discredited science paper from the 1980s to make their case about the Sun being the cause---this paper is still being recycled in the climate skeptics internet postings. If you were to continue the flawed, incorrect analysis of that 1980s paper to today's data, you would see that the paper's Sun's "activity" index went down while the global temperature INcreased---something the film makers conveniently do not show even though the film was broadcast twenty years after the science paper was published.
• George Marshall's posting "The Great Channel Four Swindle" examines the credentials and probable biases of the experts using in the Swindle show.
• RealClimate's "Swindled!" posting. RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
• DeSmogBlog's play-by-play critique. Also see Jim Hoggan's editorial about the PR firms involved in confusing the general public.

Still Don't Agree with the Climate Change Scientists?

If you still think the conclusions of the IPCC and numerous other science organizations are invalid, the climate science is flawed, etc., then how about considering economic and national security reasons? Energy from fossil fuel burning (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is getting more and more expensive since it is a non-renewable resource that is shrinking while the demand for energy is ever increasing. Oil reserves in the most optimistic of scenarios will survive another few decades at most. The US produces less than a third of the crude oil it consumes (the percentage has steadily decreased over the years). A sizable chunk of the United States supply of oil comes from countries that are politically unstable or questionable or have less than warm relations with the United States. While the top two oil exporters are friendly to the U.S. (Canada and Saudi Arabia), the top 15 exporters list from the U.S. Department of Energy includes countries such as Venezuela, Iraq, and Russia. The other exporters will also feel more and more pressure to export to other countries such as China and India as their energy needs grow as a result of their conversion to a Western-style economic system. If you add in the health costs that arise from the respiration and ingestion of the by-products of fossil fuel burning, the costs will be prohibitive (especially as China and India ramp up to Western levels of per capita consumption).

"America's addiction to oil"

What Can You Do?

The world would get warmer even if we were to stop all fossil-fuel burning now because of the time it takes for natural processes to get rid of the human-generated excess of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons). Does that mean it is hopeless? No. We can still prevent the warming from becoming catastrophic. We can lessen the amount of eventual warming. No one thing will be the answer that saves us. A number of simple, smaller things added together will be the answer. In the long run, the things we do now to slow the growth of greenhouse gas increases will not only prevent catastrophe, it will save us a lot of money and make the world more politically stable. Consider this like saving for retirement or like investing in the stock market for the long-term: invest some money now to reap a greater reward later.

• The Princeton Environmental Institute has created a Carbon Mitigation Initiative that divides up the difference between a "business as usual" carbon rise and a stabilization at 2005 levels of carbon rise into "Wedges" using currently available technology that is commercially produced.
• What You Can Do from ClimateCrisis.net.

Return to Human Role in the Carbon Cycle

Go to Astronomy Notes home

last updated: June 12, 2010