Andrew is a post-doctoral researcher in North Carolina focused on population and conservation genetics in hydrothermal vent communities.
Few scientific fields generate as much controversy as climate change. Misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and outright lies are common. While environmentalists rightly criticize anti-global warming activists for not being truthful, neither side is innocent. Presented here are five common misrepresentations from both sides and the truth about those issues.
Misrepresentations from Climate Change Deniers:
#1: The Earth is not getting warmer.
Who said it? Among others, all of the Republicans serving on the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. Earlier this year, Henry Waxman, a Democrat serving on the committee, proposedan amendment calling on Congress to acknowledge that the Earth is warming. All of the Republicans on the committee voted against it.
The truth: According to NASA, the two warmest years ever recorded were 2010 and 2005. Five of the six years tied for the third warmest year ever recorded have been since the year 2000 (2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009). In other words, last year was the warmest year ever and the whole last decade was the warmest decade ever. The planet is warming.
Global temperature map courtesy of NASA
#2: Humans are not responsible for the Earth getting warmer, it’s a natural process.
Who said it? Among others, former Republican Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. In an interview earlier this year, he said “The weight of the evidence is that most of it, maybe all of it, is because of natural causes.”
The truth: In a well-known paper published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, William Anderegg and colleagues found that 97-98% of climate scientists who are most commonly publishing papers support “the tenets of anthropogenic climate change” (that humans and human activity are a major cause of climate change). That sure doesn’t sound like “maybe all” of the evidence is against this idea.
#3: There is no scientific consensus on whether or not climate change is happening.
Who said it? Among others, current Republican Presidential frontrunner and Texas Governor Rick Perry. In a recent Presidential Debate, he said about climate change that ““The science is not settled on this…scientific theory that’s not settled yet”.
The truth: As stated above, 97-98% of climate scientists seem to agree. Additionally, the National Academies of Science of many countries including those of all the G8 nations (United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia), have issued statements showing that they agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change. National academies of other major global economies (such India, China, South Africa, Brazil) have also issued these statements. To be sure, there are those who do not agree, but this is basically as close to a scientific consensus as anyone could reasonably expect.
#4: Scientists lie about climate change and have been caught doing so.
Who said it? Many conservatives and conservative organizations have tried to make political hay of “climategate”. Conservative commentator James Dellingpole called the incident “the final nail in the coffin” of climate change, and said “The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth… has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed.”
The truth: A NOAA report cleared all U.S. government scientists of any wrongdoing. The National Science Foundation cleared other U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained how the so-called “scandal” was overblown and that the specific criticisms leveled against various climate researchers were exaggerated or made up entirely. Three independent panels have cleared these climate researchers of wrongdoing. The “climategate” e-mails do not show any wrongdoing by any climate researchers, and neither does anything else.
#5: Environmentalists and climate scientists lie about climate change so that they can get rich.
Who said it? Among others, Rick Perry. While campaigning in New Hampshire, he said “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”
The truth: Actually, Rick Perry is correct when he says that greed is having a strong influence on the climate change debate. He just identified the wrong side. Energy companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the debate. Scientists and environmentalists do not become scientists and environmentalists to get rich.
Misrepresentations from Climate Change Advocates
#6: Hurricane Irene was a result of climate change.
Who said it? Among others, environmentalist and author Bill McKibben. He wrote that “Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.”
The truth: It is indeed extremely rare for a serious tropical storm to hit New England, and while many climate change models predict more storms and more extreme storms, it is impossible to tie any one storm to climate change.
#7: Sea level rise related to climate change is already so bad that many small Pacific islands have been evacuated.
Who said it? Among others, Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. “The citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”
The truth: No such mass evacuations have occurred. They may happen in the future, but it is difficult to predict exactly how much the seas will rise in the future, and different studies have different conclusions. At least one study concluded that many low-lying Pacific islands have actually gained landmass lately.
#8: The only way to save ourselves is a cap and trade system.
Who said it? Among others, the Environmental Defense Fund said “Cap and trade is the most environmentally and economically sensible approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions…the only certain way to limit pollution.”
The truth: Even though many leading figures from both U.S. political parties once embraced the idea (including 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain), the high estimated cost likely doomed this plan from the beginning. It certainly has no chance of passing in the current political climate, and the very fact that it won’t happen means that it isn’t the best solution. A variety of other solutions, each with their own pros and cons, are available to us, including a carbon tax, increased investment in alternative energy, increased energy efficiency, geoengineering, and planting trees on a large scale. We could even (gasp) use some combination of these ideas. The environmental movement would be well served by advocating solutions that will help the planet and have a chance of passing rather than giving up because their main idea is politically impossible.
#9 The proposed Tar Sands pipeline is the make-or-break moment for the environment.
Who said it? Among others, prestigious climate scientist James Hansen. In an opinion piece, he wrote that if President Obama approves the Tar Sands pipeline, “ it is game over.”
The truth: Extracting oil from tar sands emits much more CO2 than traditional oil drilling, and the currently proposed plan will result in cutting down hundreds of thousands of acres of trees to facilitate drilling. Environmentalists are right to strongly oppose it and to support green energy projects instead. However, many factors contribute to climate change and no one pipeline or drilling project is the be-all end-all for the planet. As we’ve said many times before, if you believe that your side is correct, then there is no need to exaggerate points. The facts on this issue speak for themselves, there is no need to artificially inflate its importance by claiming that one pipeline will be “game over” for the environment.
#10: Anyone who denies climate change is stupid.
Who said it? Among others, British economist Sir Nicholas Stern (author of the famous Stern report about the economic effects of climate change) said that climate change skepticism is equivalent to being a “flat-earther”.
The truth: Even if we accept without question the premise that climate change is happening, we are responsible for much of it, and we need to act, that does not mean that anyone who doesn’t agree is stupid. In many cases, climate change skepticism can be tied to hearing only one side of the issue, or a natural distrust of environmental or liberal policies. Disagreement or skepticism does not make people stupid even if one side is objectively correct. There are a large number of people in the United States who do not accept the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change. As environmentalists, to a large extent, this phenomenon is both our fault and our problem. If we communicated the facts more effectively, no amount of lies and distortions from the other side would make a difference. Public support will be needed to make any sort of meaningful environmental policy change, and it is our responsibility to convince the public that our side is the right one. The facts are on our side, but you’ll never convince anyone to join you by insulting them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
22
No, it does not say that. We have a responsibility to correct misrepresentations from the other side but we should do that without calling people on the other side idiots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
42 
63
Isn’t it true that the Earth’s long term climate has changed cyclically from colder than we currently experience to much warmer than it is currently? In fact, isn’t it true that the current climate is relatively cooler than normal? If this is true, and I believe it is borne out by scientific evidence, is the crisis one of “rate of change” as opposed to absolute temperature level? Also, doesn’t the evidence show that long term climate changes at a relatively fast pace once it begins? From an ecological standpoint, doesn’t this portray a more robust ability for plants and animals to adapt than is painted by some in the scientific community? Is climate change more important, as a political and lifestyle issue, to the human animal than to other aspects of the Earth ecology?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
25
No Ron, current climate is NOT cooler than normal. The average temperature of the Earth is warming and has been the warmest on record this decade.
Hot debate. What do you think?
38 
38
(1) Yes, the Earth’s long term climate changes cyclically and we are not at either extreme right now. It’s a complex cycle with intermediate ups and downs involving (to our best guess) some combination of planetary alignment, axial wobbling, and volcanic activity.
(2) The current climate state is considered an “ice house” state, cooler than the alternative “greenhouse state” in which there is little to no ice on the surface of the planet. I don’t think there is enough evidence to say what the “average” over the lifetime of the Earth is like. However, we have been in this same “ice house” state for all the time that the human species has been on Earth.
(3) No, the crisis is still one based on the absolute temperature level. The current global climate is warmer, on average, than any time in the past *of humanity*, to our best research, and getting even warmer than that.
(4) I don’t think there’s particularly conclusive evidence either way to say how the rate of long-term climate change varies. It’s something people are studying right now to the best of my knowledge.
(5) It depends on what you consider “adapting”. When climate change (or any large-scale environmental change) occurs, some species go extinct, others evolve to the point where they are very different than they used to be, and yet others who were scarce spread to be more populous in the new situation.
(6) Climate change is important as a political and lifestyle issue because it causes CHANGE in ecology. Flooding and unusual storms, extinction of some species and spread of others species, and other instability are expected results of climate change. However, depending on when anthropogenic greenhouse gas proliferation stops, the results could be pretty extreme for the entirety of the Earth’s ecology. I don’t think we have a good picture of what will happen in the long term if climate change continues.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
6
Don’t confuse “warmest on record” with “warmest”. At the same time, don’t entirely dismiss evidence just because you mistrust its source.
Many of the issues in climatology are complex, and no one has all the right answers. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to recruit a supporter. Or brainwash one.
Whether global warming is “real” is unimportant. What is important, is insurance. How do we buy insurance that our kids will have a healthy planet? Frankly, we can’t. Too many factors are beyond human control.
But what if humans ~could~ damage the climate.. ~Could~ we make it better again? Would it be worth trying? Why not? What do we lose if we try? Or, what ~could~ we lose if we don’t try?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
27 
42
Yes the fussion reactor in the sky warms the earth!
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
10
If sun was the culprit the upper atmosphere should be warming up but it’s actually cooling. That’s because sun has entered a period of lower activity. What is warming is the lower atmosphere and especially areas around cities.
Climate is a very complex problem and that’s why scientists keep studying it to refine their understanding. But just we don’t understand something completely doesn’t mean that we don’t understand enough. We don’t understand gravity or electricity completely but that doesn’t stop us from sending satellites or building electronic equipment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
43
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
24
from skepticalscience.com:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
15
I never read about anybody denying ice ages or the warm medieval period. Can you provide some links?
You are right that the climate was much warmer in the past. There was a time millions of years ago when earth was mostly desert. Are you saying it’s not a problem or are you saying we are helpless?
The evidence against sun activity caused warming is that the upper atmosphere is actually cooling. It’s warming only in the lower part where the concentration of CO2 increased. And yes, the concentration of CO2 is small but what does that mean? Would you drink a glass of water with 0.04% of arsenic in it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
20
I thought you were the one that was saying “Are we just supposed to pretend the medieval warming period never happened?” Who exactly is pretending that or wants us to believe that? I thought you had some links, no?
And yes, my example with arsenic is pretty meaningless and that was precisely the point. It was supposed to illustrate how meaningless your statement was. Do you really accept as evidence a claim that 0.04% of something is harmless just because the number looks really small? If so you wouldn’t have a problem with 0.04% solution of arsenic or ricin or some nerve gas, would you?
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
38 
48
1. Actually predicting climate that far into the future is easier than predicting the weather for next week. Climate predictions are approximations. They don’t tell you what temperature will be on 02.13.2056. It’s like predicting the day of your death is nearly impossible but it’s not unreasonable to say that most people will die after 80.
2. Scientists are wrong sometimes but so far the track record is on the side of science. The predictions made about the climate in the 70s match what is happening now almost exactly.
3. Scientists did not vote on whether the temperatures are rising. They did careful measurements and studies. They concluded that the only reasonable explanation for what’s going on is the rise of CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere.
4. What does a proof mean to you? Science does not prove anything. Science shows overwhelming evidence. Do you have overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
5. Yes, humans have weaknesses no matter which side they argue. That why you should look at the evidence and the logic and the strength of the argument.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
13
An what if you’re wrong and 2100 is going to be a disaster? Even if I am around to say “I told you so” what good will it be? It’s not like we can decide then to start doing something about it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
6
Actually what I think David is saying is that we need to correct the mistakes and misrepresentations from the other side (and from our own side as well). He does not say that everything the other side says is wrong. He says that we should correct mistakes without resorting to broad spectrum generalizations by calling the other side idiots. And this method can be applied to other hotly debated topics as well.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
3
Perhaps “It’s the Sun” should be number 11 on this list. Everyone should check out Skeptical Science, and in particular this post – link to skepticalscience.com – to find out what’s wrong with the “it’s the sun” canard.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
9
I am so disappointed in this and every other article, regardless of what side of the debate they are on, regarding climate change. You still cannot keep your bias from tainting the article even when you try to be fair.
First of all #2 in the deniers section…the natural process theory.
No one can say for sure why the planet is warming or whether the warming trend will continue. But certainly “97-98% of climate scientists who are most commonly publishing papers support “the tenets of anthropogenic climate change”” is not evidence that global warming IS man made…that is only the opinion of those scientist….support in numbers does not make any idea correct. At one point in time 97 to 98% of all doctors didn’t think that smoking was bad for your health.
Second #3…Scientific Consensus
Agreed…97 – 98 % is a consensus…but no one has said Eureka!! I have found proof that the current warming trend is man made” until then…the debate is still out.
Next we go on to lying….While I don’t believe that anyone is outright lying (and this goes for either side) I do believe that the focus of the data is manipulated, be it by the media, PR or scientists themselves…”We found all this stuff that supports our theory…we also found a few things that go against it too, but we won’t mention that” or “See look at this graph, see how well it demonstrates my theory…never mind that it doesn’t actually represent the data I am talking about…it works as a visual to support my findings”
This will likely never be solved until we actually “Know” what is going on to cause this warming trend.
With regard to getting “rich” while I agree that no scientist became one to “get rich”…no one became a scientist to be “jobless” or “poor” either. Both sides are funding climate science like crazy and anyone can say that greed is driving BOTH sides of the debate.
Moving on to the Advocate misrepresentations
It is clear where you fall regarding the denier or advocate…in your attempt to “call out” the advocates you still go on to generally support the ideas behind each of the statements that are “lies” as labeled.
You go on in your final statement to clearly state that you feel the “Advocate” is objectively correct. Which is in itself ironically placed within this article as it is a misrepresentation of the term “objectively correct”. Objectively as used in the sentence means “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” which is clearly not the case. As an advocate of man made global warming you clearly are emotionally driven to push for change that will stop our influence. You are willing to do whatever is generally agreed will stop the warming and return us to a “normal” uninfluenced climate. Regardless of the fact that we may find in 10 years or so that we were completely wrong and Man has had little to no influence on the climate in any way and it was instead some other influence, you are ready to act now…just in case.
Now I do not want to confuse anyone, I am completely undecided on whether Man has influence the climate to cause the current warming trend. I cannot make a decision because no one has presented me with solid proof of Man’s involvement in the warm up. I will say that I do believe we are in a warming trend, however temporary or stayed. I am also an advocate for conserving, I do not see anything wrong with using less to live. I personally try to conserve wherever I can and whether that helps out the climate or not is of little concern…it just seems silly to waste.
I would personally like everyone to stop trying to prove themselves or their argument as correct and instead push for change regarding personal habits. I would rather there be a movement for more people to grow their own food, waste less, reuse more. I know the later items waste less, reuse more are very popular, growing your own food is not as popular a rally cry. However the more self sufficient we can become as individuals the better we will all be in the long run. Instead of monumental change regarding how and were we get energy, lets start focusing on small personal habits that can change right now and do not have to be tied to global warming, but couldn’t hurt the situation either.
Thanks.
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
28
The warmest year ever….in recorded history! Which is what 130 years!! How old is the earth? 4-5 billion years old!! Is 130 years of weather data enough? Nope. Can you prove that ice core data is accurate? Nope. Although I don’t trust the science, we should alway conserve our limit resources and try to be good stewards to the earth.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
31
Why don’t you trust science? Do you trust the science that made your computer? Or do you just pick and choose which science to trust depending what’s convenient for you?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
5
There is not enough evidence to say why the earth is warming. With that said, pollution is bad and we should stop doing it. It doesn’t matter how many scientists say something is true, it has to be right and have the data support it. There is not enough reliable data to support the assertation that climatic shift is caused by humans. It is PROBABLY caused by humans. The evidence supports that it could be human activities, but there is not yet enough data to prove this irrevokably true.
Does this make me a climate change denier? I guess it does, but I still think pollution is bad.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
33 
43
Comment Removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
True or not, can we all agree that companies need to clean up their messes? This issue distracts from the plain fact that we are polluting the air land and sea for profit and this behavior is not sustainable. Companies and people should be held responsible for their behavior and morally, we all have an obligation to clean up the way we live.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
3
I keep seeing “All” or 97 – 98 % is a consensus. I have asked on many sites for a list of these people. I am still waiting for the list. You also have cited this in your post. Could you please provide me with a list that entails 100% of the climatologist and show me the ones that have personally agreed?
Just because scientific groups declare that AGW is real does not mean that the members of the group support that same feeling. Is there a current list of polled members and which questions were asked? I would tend to believe that most scientist do indeed agree that there has been a slow warming trend since the Little Ice Age. In fact it looks identical to the MWP and the Roman warm period. Which had temperatures warmer than today.
The biggest problem with the whole AGW is that Carbon Dioxide has always lag temperature not preceded it.
Your statement on scientist not getting rich from Global Warming must have overlooked: link to wattsupwiththat.com
I would love to make an extra million a year.
How about Mann receiving a grant for 1.8 million for research on Mosquito Vectors. Has Mann received a degree in biology now?
I started researching this topic several months ago with an open mind. The statement that switched my beliefs was ” AGW is a scientific fact and is indisputable all respected scientists agree.”
My 3rd grade science book defined this for me “All science is Theory and is subject to change based on currently known evidence and subject to change as new evidence is brought forward”. Nothing is science fact…..
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
21
Most of science is based on facts! There would be no science without facts. What science does not provide is proof, just overwhelming evidence.
FACT: CO2 traps infrared radiation (heat). That was discovered over a 100 years ago.
FACT: Lower atmosphere and ocean surface is heating up while the upper atmosphere is cooling.
FACT: The concentration of CO2 in the lower atmosphere increased 50% over the past 200 years.
What’s your theory?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
7
I agree wih amy totally, and I am still unsure about climate chage. One interesting fact about funding for science, that on a recent grant form to get funding for DNA research, they asked about personal belief in global warming. Yea because the two topics really are related. If you say no to these questions, you research does not get funded. That is how they get these 95% scientific community beliefs. Very tricky.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
12
Most grant agencies do not choose to fund people based on those people’s personal beliefs (with the exception of certain NGOs). They fund based on the quality of the proposal, and the PI’s past track record as a scientist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
This is more of the left’s agenda to misrepresent the facts in order to exert more control over people and make the left’s special interests billionares (GE, Al Gore, etc.) The “climate experts” are cherry picked to provide the answers the left wants. The truth about climate change?
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output. “Greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere also influence Earth’s temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% – 0.3% to Earth’s greenhouse effect. Approximately every 100,000 years Earth’s climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
If you think that generating green house gases will warm the planet, you should be making them as fast a possible since the next ice age is coming. However, there is really not much you can do to affect it.
Don’t be fooled by these leftist global alarmists. They are only in it for there own gain and it is not the truth.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
24
@ Southern Fried Scientist
I question your Skeptical Science Link as to the Sun is not the cause. Look at the graph and the references. The authors or data generators change at the exact year the the sun temperature and the Earth temperatures start to deviate. Please review this then tell why they are different if they are different. Sometimes you have to be skeptical of skepticalscience…
Like or Dislike:
4 
13
Read the rest of that post – link to skepticalscience.com and link to skepticalscience.com
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
WSM,the only thing I would pick a bone with is this statement:
“If we communicated the facts more effectively, no amount of lies and distortions from the other side would make a difference.”
As someone who has followed anti-evolution arguments since the usenet days, and now keeps an eye on the many-headed anti-science arguments, I would have to say that NO amount of effectively communicated facts will made a significant difference in either the quantity or prevalence of the lies and distortions from ‘the other side’.
I agree that most deniers are not idiots and should not be treated as such; but most deniers do seem to be driven by ideology and riven with mistrust, both of which diminish the acceptance of fact, and tend to reinforce the rejection of fact pattern analysis.
That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t continue to make clear, concise explanations available. We should of course try to educate those whose denial is based mainly on lack of information or interest, and thereby win their support for doing things that might mitigate AGW; but we cannot expect that many, let alone most, AGW deniers will respond to logic or argument. Evidence indicates otherwise; just look at the comments above.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
7
“we cannot expect that many, let alone most, AGW deniers will respond to logic or argument. Evidence indicates otherwise; just look at the comments above.”
Which further advances my argument that we (including me since I’ve now written a post about it) are doing it wrong.
There are certainly some people who will never agree with AGW, but there are likely many, many more who would agree with it if it was presented correctly.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
7
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
17
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
It’s always fascinating to me that climate change deniers throw around names of the few respected (or semi-respected) scientists who agree with them as if they prove some major point, but completely ignore the names of the 100x as many climate scientists who do not agree with them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
6
I agree with you to an extent but, on the other hand from grade school on alternate theories are rarely examined. Scientist are put on track to believe and thus prove “science” from a very narrow view point. Consider how much money certain groups (including the WH) pay to persuade researchers.(who funds the research, who pushes both solar and oil)
Sharks do matter and so does the climate. The way we (humanity) care for the Earth is bordering insanity. We need to place vital land air and sea above big-screen tvs and political rhetoric, agreed !
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
What are you talking about? In what way are scientists not acting as if climate change isn’t a real crisis?
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
“I presented exact quotes and links to those quotes, many from influential people. I’m not really sure how you could possibly conclude that no one is claiming that climate change isn’t happening even without these links and quotes.”
That’s a bit disingenuous, the quote from Rick Perry says the science isn’t settled, the link you listed for the Republicans voting against ““warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” just as abundant scientific evidence confirms.” is not even the entirety of the amendment that was shot down. You did not list one quote of someone denying climate change happens or is happening.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Will the earth survive global warming? Yes.
Will life survive global warming? Yes.
Will out civilization survive gloabal warming?
Probably not.
7 billion people have to eat. Change the rainfall pattern so that places we used to farm don’t get rain the way they used to, and there’s going to be problems. Raise your hand in the air if you think that India, Pakistan and China won’t get into a nuclear if the Indus river fails to support the population that it used to, or if the the Ganges delta floods and the population of Bangladesh tries to move to India, or if the Yangtze river fails.
What would the United States be capable of if its citizens were facing persistent famine becuase the Midwest became a desert? ANYTHING.
We stand on a knife edge, and our civilization can fall ust as easily as Rome did. Will you, your children and grandchildren live through the end of Western civilation? That’s the stakes!
To say that “oh, its natural, let nature take her course is the utmost in foolishness. Those with nuclear boms are not about to let nature take its course if nature dictates that they should all starve to death.
Just what do you think brought about the end of the Roman empire? Or put Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan on the attack? Collapsed the Mayan empire?
Oh yeah, natural climate change. It can put paid to our civilization too. Denial is the utmost in foolishness.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
10