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.
Whether it’s deserved or not, no one believes those global warming quacks anyway. Especially me. The world may be warming. But so what. It’s been warm before.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
15
Yes, it’s been warm before and you should thank God that you weren’t around. It was mostly desert.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Hmm… I would like for everyone who has said “it has not been proven” to stop for a second and let me fill them in on how science ACTUALLY works, because we clearly do not understand how scientific theories are developed within the scientific community.
NOTHING in science is proven. Nothing. Instead, scientific models are produced that reliably, and accurately describe our world, usually described as ‘working theories’. Those models are created, shown to peers, torn-apart, and remade until a community consensus is created. 97%-98% is a STRONG consensus, very strong. You will always have a few who do not agree. No scientist will have an eureka moment, which is a very Hollywood idea, complete rubbish. Over used example, but, gravity has never, probably will never, be proven. Gravitational theory is only a consensus of scientists, but we clearly see the effects, we have a very good model of the effects of gravity, the effects and the strength of gravity. To dismiss gravitational theory, like climate change, despite the evidence for the existence of both phenomena is ludicrous. Which leads me into the next point.
Deniers. There is a vastly difference between a skeptic and a denier, and skeptic is often misused especially on the internet. A skeptic follows the evidence and arrives at the conclusion based upon the evidence. A denier usually is someone who starts out with a conclusion and picks the evidence to support their conclusion. The wonderful thing about science, when done correctly, is how it controls for bias. You can chose not to believe what you want but it does not change reality. If you are a true skeptic, set aside your bias, your feelings, I think you will find the evidence for climate change is enormous. Finally, if you think the evidence is not good enough, remember: you, (most) politicians, other discipline scientists are not climatologists; you probably do not know what you are reading about, how to understand the data, or how to work it into a prediction. Let scientists make the scientific decisions, not your gut, not government policy.
Other notes: Sure people will make money from the enactment of climate change policies, BUT the counter-view has an equal if not more motive to ‘wish-away’ climate change. Bad argument from final consequences. Additionally, we have a vested interest, whether it is man-caused or not, to keep our climate as it is; human society, commerce has existed in this climate since inception; change is probably not in the best interest of humans. If there is a real ‘hole’ in climate change a scientist will point it out, there is WAY more recognition in tearing down a prevalent theory than accepting it, that is how you get grant money; you don’t get grant money by accepting theories and exploring the mundane. Finally, there is no money in it for scientists, people do not go to school for 8+ years and choose and to be a working scientist for the pay, trust me on that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
Some good points. Science has “proven” the earth has undergone “climate change” in repetitive cycles. It is possible that human activity has accelerated the thousand/million/billion year cycle by 20-50 years.
When the truth is based on assumptions “proven”, it become truth based on the fact that belief systems become embedded and resistant to change. Entire nations once thought that Communism would be the ideal system, thats what they were taught from their schools media etc.. was it true? Another analogy to that line of thinking: the “strong consensus” of doctors (at one time) was that smoking was harmless, possibly even healthy!
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
The “doctors and smoking” analogy has been used in this debate several times It is a bit tiresome. It’s not really the best analogy for any argument attempting to provide a case against a consensus reached based on the preponderance of scientific evidence, since most doctors changed their minds once the evidence (including results of scientific research by those pesky scientists–you know, scientific evidence) that smoking causes cancer and other health issues became overwhelming.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
14
” who is claiming climate change doesn’t happen…your whole post was directed at some non-existent climate change deniers.”
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.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
“some non-existent climate change deniers.”
Uh there are a LOT of them out there.
Sorry maybe I made it hard to understand. What I was attempting to get to is that, the people who know what they are talking about, who understand it inside and out, find the evidence convincing. If a denier is willing to set aside their preceoptions, understand the science, read the evidence, even a little, you can find the evidence convincing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
You have good points too. However, science is allows for huge overturns in theses ‘truths’ and when it happens it is big news! Right now science is pointing us towards a certain conclusion it would be wise to assume this position as well. Sure gravity fits quite well right now, EM theory has allowed us to communicate almost instantly like right now. But all of this is just ‘truths’ of consensus, but they work, very well, it has allowed for all this technology. There are scientists out there working to disprove out current model of physics, there is even some suggestion recently that aspects may be wrong. So should we quit using the electricity just because we haven’t worked out the kinks still yet, quit launching rockets because gravity just because we haven’t fully explained it? People are quick to accept a scientific consensus when it fits their needs, but as soon as it snaggs with a (not to be belittling) ‘sacred cow’ they are quick to point out the blemishes. It is very wishy-washy stance to take.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Thank you. Some how two seemingly conflicting views can both be correct.
I would like to say that illiterate barbarians did not cause global warming, it was the sciences of the “advanced” man.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’m sorry, what? Do you not agree with something?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
If climate change is ever to make it in the USA as an important and necessary problem that needs serious attention then the first thing that has to happen is it must have creditable spokespersons. The current self styled advocate is tainted just a bit. He comes across as a high pressure used car salesman. He probably does more harm than good. The second thing is that true and honest economical solutions must appear.
For example I personally have investigated bio fuels and have concluded that even the best of them is not a viable alternative. Tax dollars spent on them is a waste. Henry Ford was successful through many trial not because the government tax dollars help him, in fact he government caused much harm to his efforts, but because he had a vision and convinced others to invest their time and money in that vision. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals working on making a viable and economical solution to create the internal combustion engine that can run on water. Someone will make it happen and the entire world will know about it on the internet. The photovoltaic industry is advancing to becoming less expensive and more efficient without tax dollars.
The economy and market will find the needed solutions not so much because of the fear of anthropogenic warming results but because the cost in geopolitical and economical terms warrants it. China, for example, does not like being dependent on oil shipped from the middle east. Also the increasing need for food in the developing economies will depend on economical fuels for food production and sustainable methods of farming that require no petrol based fertilizers nor chemical pesticides. Those methods exist now. They will advance because there production cost are less.
The investment in solution must come from private sources and carbon taxes and other government meddling will only create delays for real solutions. The current 500 million boondoggle is a prime example of government waste and only hurt for real efforts in finding solutions.
If I were studying the environment or was doing research in that field I would switch to sustainable agriculture related fields because the need for food will come much faster than need to save the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Scientist also agree that global warming has occurred many times , even before human existence.
When our Pres. attempted to lift the ban on international whaling we should have realized taking sides is worthless. Censorship of peoples thoughts NO WAY, logical debate and consideration for our environment YES.
The “Green” movement was supposed to be the next trillion $ bubble — it just hasn’t worked out. The powers to be and their biased followers are angry (followers more sincere then their leaders).
Clinton Tech Bubble, Bush Housing Bubble, Obama Debt, failed Green Bubble….
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Whaling? Housing bubble? What are you talking about, friend?
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
How we blindly follow those we decide to trust, eg We thought Pres. Obama would champion the green movement instead he tried to overturn the international ban on whaling. Should we trust his sincerity concerning global warming?
From a human perspective our very existence depends on maintaining the environment.
But to some politicians and professors for that matter the word “green” as in campaign-cash !
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Whenever I hear somebody use the term ‘junk science’ I can’t help but think they are peripheral people who have no idea what they are talking about. It is a stupid classification, because the term is so non-specific that it means absolutely nothing. It certainly contributes nothing to any legitimate debate.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Did we talk about “junk science” in this post? I’m confused.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
“Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.”
Dr. Paul Roderick Gregory, professor of Economics and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, has written a must read article in Forbes, titled “Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?” (New Nostradamus of the North)
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
A misrepresentation by the zealouts (may as well go on the opposite side of the insult spectrum) should be the “97% consensus” we keep hearing about. Over 10,000 scientists were invited to take this survey and only 3,146 answered. So that 97% could easily become 30% if the remaining 7,000 scientists were on the opposite side of the debate.
Either way, the climate is changing slightly. But is global warming (not climate change, there is a difference) really the reason? Many say yes and many say no. The global warming argument is getting nowhere. Advocates instantly dismiss the scientists who have far more knowledge and experience because they don’t agree and skeptics instantly disagree with the scientists who agree with the argument who also have far more knowledge and experience. Let’s let the real scientists debate this.
(I am not insulting anyone who is posting on this page, they are speaking their minds on a popular subject. It’s just time for the scientists to come to a conclusion and either resolve the possible issue or get working on other issues that are pressing.)
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
Roma
The Author of the article is yet to provide me with the list of all the scientist who state this as fact. You as well have cited this % in your comment. Could you please provide me with this list as I requested in my above post? I really would take the time to contact all of these people to gather their input on the subject. You seem to be sure of this “97%-98% is a STRONG consensus” I am sure you have a list somewhere in a bookmark that cites all the scientist if possible would you “please” provide me the information so I can continue my research!
Thanks,
Jeff
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Jeff, the 97-98% statistic comes from this paper:
link to pnas.org
It does not include the names of these people or their contact information (other than the author of the paper, who you are welcome to contact). If I had contact information for these people, I would not freely distribute it over the internet to someone I did not know. Sorry.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
No unfortunately I do not, I was just citing something someone in another post said, unjustly so in hindsight. Unfortunately such consensus numbers are kind of misleading. You might find groups who try to quantify such consensus but it is really, really hard to do such a thing. What I might suggest if you are really interested in such a thing is to look at some of the leading scientific, peer-reviewed journals in climate change and take a survey of the number of papers providing evidence for and evidence against. That is a really good way to judge the scientific consensus of a topic. Additionally, if there are many articles on it, it is still new and controversial in the community. Even better would be is to ask a climate scientist if you local university has one, he would have a good judgment on the validity of such numbers.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
‘If the shoe fits…’
The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again – and expecting different results.
By that definition – regarding climate change – we all are stupid.
However – I think it’s safe to say the propaganda screams funded by deep corporate pockets scapegoating science and scientist to deny human caused climate change – well – they are beyond merely stupid – rather – they have chosen to be (without any remorse) Stuck On Stupid.
Look, I’m a veteran so allow me to spell it out for you scientists. War has been declared against you – and while it’s officially undeclared – it is a war none the less…
Suddenly the sound and fury from the few against you makes sense – they are waging war against you – the first casualty of any war is truth – so that they can win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the ignorant. (ignorance is not the same as stupidity – however, in this case – the ignorant are being manipulated and misled by the stupid).
So scientists – here is my advise – put aside the papers and graphs and take up arms – if your going to win this war – then you need to become warriors…
And crush the stupid enemy that started this war against you.
And make no mistake – if you lose this war – then we all lose….
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
As stated in this post, I don’t believe that “carbon trading markets” are the best way to go forward. I’m not really sure why you are fixated on them unless you read the title of the post without reading the rest of it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I wonder how many armchair climatologists are also their own armchair dentists, amateur neurosurgeons, “common sense” barbers, etc.
In what other areas of their lives do they flaunt 98% agreement of professional scientists?
Do they not brush their teeth, because only 9 out of 10 dentists recommends it? (They’re not going to fall for that liberal toothpaste conspiracy headed by George Soros.)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Um… what?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Even a 100% consensus among climatologists in support of their own working HYPOTHESIS (yes, AGW is still a hypothesis!) is truly meaningless without the support of ALL earth scientists. First, climatology is a TINY community, and every branch, be it anthropology, paleontology, geology, etc., has a strong vote on this matter since they all rely on each other. And there is NOT a consensus among all earth scientists!
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
I find it entirely frustrating that leaders are not taking this as a serious threat to humanity. Politicians are much more effective communicators than scientists and I think the problem is communication. If 97-98% of scientists who studies this are making these assertions with data to back up their opinions then why does everyone with less knowledge and information weigh in with one sided arguments against it?
This is a complicated issue and it needs some serious study. For example, I have yet to see a study dealing with the effects of warming atmosphere and oceans on the earth’s crust. This might help to explain increased volcanic and seismic activity (that’s just an assumption based on my observation of recent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes but I’d love to see the data).
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
WhySharksMatter,
Thanks for the information! I now see where they get their statistics. I do however disagree with the interpretation that the 1,300 scientist then reduced to 900 scientists by statistical analysis of the amount of papers published are a consensus. I would been a lot less skeptical if I saw a list with thousands of names with their own statement on the subject.
With so much at stake and so much controversy why has this simple thing not been done? If you want me to change my life I really need more than 900 nameless people saying I should. In the denier camp it is claimed that a paper opposing the position of the 900 takes an act of God and Congress to get peer reviewed.
If that is true would the data of the concensus be screwed in the direction of AGW proponents?
Again thanks for the information,
Jeff
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
So you know, what you are describing is called the ‘File Drawer Effect’
If it “takes an act of God and Congress to get peer reviewed” then that is usually a good sign that the evidence presented is not convicing enough to consider publishing. I find this phrase misleading though, usually papers being sent to say, Nature, are first peer-reviewed by peers in the university before it is sent to Nature where it is sent to a bunch more peers for further review. If the peers find the paper wanting, it is rejected otherwise it is published. The HARDEST things about presenting a counter proposal is that you have to make a REALLY good case or have some hard-hitting evidence when the consensus evidence is so heavy. “Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence.”– Carl Sagan.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
So why would it be so hard for the deniers to get peer reviewed? Is it because there is an overwhelming consensus supporting AGW? Why can’t they get their fellow deniers to review it? Maybe they are hard to find…
I think you answered your own question.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
The sun is not the only major source of heat…the reactions in the core of the earth generate a substantial amount of heat and only a relatively thin layer at the surface (the crust) is not liquid. The crust is solid because the surface temperatures cool the surface of the earth. The questions are:
1.) Isn’t the core’s thickness related to the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans?
2.) Do the effects of global warming significantly impact the thickness of the crust?
3.) What are the implications or risks (more volcanic activity, seismic resulting in more earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
@ Roma
Let me clear up a few things. I fully understand the meaning of Scientific Theory and am cognizant of the fact that nothing is “proven”. I apologize for my misuse of the word “proven”. But let’s face the facts that the public majority is going to refer to a situation as “proven” if they agree with the data. For instance we will use your example of gravity. While Gravitational theory isn’t “proven” the majority of people in the world agree that gravity is real and we can feel the effects of it.
Now if we compare gravity to anthropogenic climate change in the current landscape there would be a majority of scientist that agree that gravity is real and a majority of everyday common persons that did not or were not sure. Take that one step further now and let’s say not only do the scientists agree with gravitational theory they also say that because of gravity society faces collapse in the not too distant future, unless we make these drastic changes to society, lifestyle, and economy. In addition to that there are some scientist that argue gravity isn’t real, and a few more that argue gravity is real but poses no threat and then compound the argument with two media facets trading blows to determine who is right and who is wrong. I doubt that you will get a majority consensus outside of the scientific community that gravity is real. And that is just a simplified version. That is why I say that unless the science is “proven” or otherwise so overwhelmingly obvious that there is no likely other explanation there will be no acceptance of the drastic changes advocates pose.
Lastly no one seems to be able to answer the question of…What if we do decide to act and we do everything in our power to stop global warming and the earth still warms? What if acting causes an acceleration what if acting causes a severe drop in temperature? Why is the overall urge to jump blindly into action when we don’t even know the consequences if any that the actions will pose.
So many instances in the past can be referenced where supposed “good” actions have been followed only to reveal that those actions actually cause the situation to become worse and more complicated. In those instances inaction would have been the better response.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I want to address your points in “Lastly no one seems to be able to answer the question of…” because I think sometimes people get this tied up with “Is it real?” and we end up talking past each other. What I am arguing really against is the people who say it is not real. Now what to do about it, I really don’t know nor do I have the expertise to even been speculation. I think the concept of capturing our greenhouse emission would be a good start and I cannot foresee a reason who it might have some other unintended consequence as before the 1800s there was little CO2 to speak of and the climate was peachy then. It could be in part of some natural cycle that we haven’t considered yet and we have to adapt but I don’t foresee and reason except financially, why we shouldn’t capture our emissions. How to do that because more of a political, economics, society issue and steps outside climate science.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
That captured CO2 may even become a more valued resource. “is it real” regardless we cant take that gamble, in general we need to provide better care for our world.
“climate was peachy [1800]” That was prior to mankind’s rapid scientific “advancements”.
Peace and happiness to you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@sodis…
Your comparison of AGW to the gravitational theory is misplaced. Nobody disputes gravity’s effects, just as nobody continues to test Newton’s mathematics since they’ve been long proven to the point of becoming theory. What you do see, however, is a constant and frenetic tweaking and tuning of the AGW math in an attempt to create a solid model. And nobody has done that yet.
Yes, the globe has warmed, but if the warming is totally normal (which the geologic record would strongly suggest), then there’s NOTHING we can do about it, and it’d be hugely burdensome on the global community to fight a losing battle. It’d be far for more wise to adapt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Gravity and physics research in general is different as far as science goes because gravity can be tested and retested as many times as we want.
CO2 traps heat, that much has been tested in the labs all over the world a long time ago. However you can’t take a duplicate Earth, inject it with a bunch of CO2, wait a 100 years and see what happens. You can’t even look at another planet that is almost identical to Earth but with a rising levels of CO2 because we don’t know of any such planets.
One thing that scientists can do is to build very accurate computer models of Earth and test them with different levels of CO2 and speed up time. However any model is just an approximation and a simplification and we might be missing something important.
Another way to test the hypothesis is to look into the past when the levels of CO2 were different and see what was going on. However we don’t have very precise data from the past and some important details might have been different back then like no people belching gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
Because of the impossibility of setting up climate experiments for the whole planet climate change will never be as certain as gravity and it’s unreasonable to require the same burden of proof. However even when faced with incomplete data we are routinely able to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Most scientists are convinced in case of the climate change.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@Tom
You’re certainly right-on with the current state of the AGW model, however, you’re not right with regard to it’s accuracy. Predicting the past, as modelers often do to test their math, provides only marginal indication of future accuracy with complex systems. Even physicists who computer-model the behavior of structure fires routinely build full-scale replicas to gauge true outcomes, and these are systems far simpler than global climate.
As an engineering geologist, I work in a field that models landslides, and despite the advancement of modeling software, it’s all too easy for a desk jokey to calculate the existence of a landslide when one doesn’t actually exist (or vice versa). In many cases, the outcome is dependent on the subconscious (or not) notion of the engineer who must often assume input values (soil strengths, bedding orientation, etc.) when real data isn’t available… this is strikingly similar to how AGW models are run.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t make any claims as to the accuracy of the models. Just the opposite. Since the nature of the problem forces us to use models instead of experimenting on the real thing there always will be a problem of accuracy.
The question is how confident do you have to be in prediction of a disaster to take any precautions. Geologists keep predicting the big one for LA and San Francisco and builders keep spending a lot money to keep up with expensive and intricate codes. So far no big one. Is everyone making their home earthquake proof a fool? Are the models that keep predicting the big one coming soon wrong and should be discarded? Maybe we could save some money by starting building bridges like everywhere in the country.
At some point you accept the uncertainty and simply err on the safe side.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Yankee doodle went to town…’
This intense focus on consensus is a straw man argument. If one doesn’t believe their is a real consensus among real scientists regarding climate change – then – why not look at the data yourself?
‘…Riding on a pony…’
If one doesn’t understand the data – then isn’t a good idea to have a climate scientist explain it to you (which, by the way, has been thousands of times in thousands of different ways already).
‘…Stuck a feather in his hat…’
Bottom line – many of the deniers here have been repeatedly told by a screaming minority not to trust climate scientists. So it comes down to no matter how many time the facts are presented – such facts are always going to hard to see when people have their heads up their asses.
Here’s another way to break the straw mans back. How many scientist’s are in consensus that climate change is human caused and how many skeptics are saying that it isn’t human caused???
Well, what is it – 97% for AGW and 2% against AGW? Okay, maybe it’s 3% against AGW. And now – PLACE YOUR BETS, FOLKS…
‘And Called It Macaroni!’
As to the so called deniers – the earth is also flat – I, for one, haven’t forgotten just a few short years ago many of y’all where a hootin’ and a hollerin’ that there climate change thing wasn’t even a happenin’ – don’t y’all feel foolish now?
By the way – I’m also very adept at singin’ ‘Camptown Races’ and am available for birthday parties, bachelorette parties, and Bar-Mitzvahs.
..wtf…
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
I think it is ironic that people think that they have to change their lives to be proactive and do something about an impending problem. At this point your way of life (or your children’s lives) will be drastically changed if you do nothing.
At the very minimum, look at the facts and not the political sides, because this is not about politics. There is a reason why most politicians are lawyers and not scientists, because the only facts that are tangible to them are the ones that support their convictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why don’t i trust climate change research?
Because too much of it is shoddy work, both for and against climate change.
The error bars people, the error bars! Error bars have meaning and when you make your conclusions you need to take that into account.
Example of a common mistake in the several papers i have read:
The temperature of the world increased by .05 +/- .1 C over the specified number of years. Therefore global warming is true.
It is just bad research, not that the anti global warming research is any better. It’s just too soon to tell. Maybe when we get some qualified researchers working on it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Well, Septic…
Are you a ‘qualified researcher’?
I got a simple way of making clear the earth is a warmin’.
Is the Artic Ice disappearing? Well…yes it is…
Are many glaciers world wide a disappearin’? Why…yes they are…
Was the last decade the warmest on record ever? Uh…yeah, that’s true…
Is there an insane drought turnin’ Texas into the Sahara o’ America? Yessiree!
Septic – pull your head out of your butt – you’ll see better…
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
scientific consensus. Does this equal scientific fact? I did not realize that science could be put to a vote.
Has there ever been a scientific consensus that turned out to be false?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Kind of. What happens is scientists make theories that describe phenomena they see occurring. The evidence to support these finds are said to be facts. They then write papers describing their theory. Then the papers are looked over by peers in their own field, looking for mistakes. If mistakes are there, your peers will gladly point them out because they are basically competing against you for funding and recogintion. Eventually there are thousands, million of papers on a topic and most of the papers will describe the phenomena with the exact same mechanism. This is then called a consensus. Scientists through independent and competitive means have arrived at the same, REPEATABLE, mechanism for the description of some event.
I did a quick google search but didn’t find a change of consensus nor can I think of one. You might say the evidence against the Luminiferous Aether might be a overturned consensus but I don’t know if it was a consensus really. If we don’t find the Higg Boson we might have to discard the Standard Model completely or maybe just change it.
But consensus does not have to be the ‘end’. Sufficient evidence can turn part or all of a consensus. Which would be really exciting. Science is always changing, improving, retesting. So a consensus is really a fancy way of saying that ‘given our current understanding this is how this phenomena occurs’. With new evidence that might change the consensus.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Please understand there is only a consensus with regard to the AGW hypothesis among climatologists. This does NOT translate to scientific theory accepted by the whole of the EARTH science community.
There have been numerous broadly accepted hypotheses that have been later disproven. Prior to the Continental Drift hypothesis developed in the early 20th century (which later became Plate Tectonic Theory in the late 60′s), the CONSENSUS among earth scientists was that earth’s features were permanently fixed. And prior to that, many scientists believed the earth was only 4,000 years old based on poor interpretations of the Bible.
Another current hypothetical model that would appear to have a consensus is that prions cause CJD (mad cow disease). Many in the field of virus research actually disagree that prions actually exist. You can’t always trust the media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Scientists gave us computers and the Internet, developed vaccines against polio and diphtheria, envisioned MRIs and x-rays and put us on the moon and conceived the space shuttles and developed genetic technologies that free innocent men wrongly accused of crimes and put guilty people in jail, and created structural clothing that shimmers like morpho butterflies and gave us cameras and solar panels and designed surveillance efforts for the West Nile virus, avian influenza and guidance to save entire species and vitamins and x-ray technology and the PCR reaction, and sequenced the human genome and all the other genomes and each and every day work tirelessly to answer questions and solve problems, and all you can do is castigate them. Go home and throw out everything out that did not emerge in some way from the mind of a scientist. You will not own much. If you ever end up in a hospital, refuse any
treatment that benefitted from the input of a scientist, if you think they are so very evil. Go on, live your life without products that scientists gave humankind, if you can.
You can start by logging off your computer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
John,
You watched the Gore telethon and believed it?
Is the Artic Ice disappearing? Well…yes it is…
” Just like it did in 1930, however this years summer melt was not a record breaker and the arctic is gaining ice as we speak at a recorded breaking level. ”
Are many glaciers world wide a disappearin’? Why…yes they are…
” Greenland Glacier melt is estimated at .01% Freaking Huge! Have you researched the fiasco about the Hemalays Glacier, I have. Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? This is a stretch but I betting that it was Green when the Viking’s decided to move there and name it. ”
Was the last decade the warmest on record ever?
” Ever? Really, Are you using Mann’s data chart that “somehow” eliminated the Medevil Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period as well as the Little Ice Age?
Uh…yeah, that’s true…
Is there an insane drought turnin’ Texas into the Sahara o’ America? Yessiree!
” Have you ever researched the Dustbowl? The central plains have always had extreme weather. Weather not climate change.”
I don’t care that much for macaroni but you can have it spoon fed to you if you please!
I have been nothing but polite and inquisitive in my posts, you on the other hand…..
Jeff
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
There were always fluctuations in arctic ice but now they ARE at the lowest levels recorded. They are low to the point where several shipping companies are planning opening ship routs to Asia through Canada. That was never possible before in human history. Sure, at one point in history of the earth there were on polar ice caps at all. But it was not a recorded history, not even human history.
How do you know that 0.01% is huge or small? I pointed it before. Would you drink 0.01% solution of arsenic? Is 0.01% of radioactive plutonium in the air huge or small? The point is that you can’t just look at a number to draw conclusions. You need to know the significance of the number.
And yes, Greenland was once green as far as there was enough grass to raise some sheep and cows on the southern tip. Timber (and everything else) however had to be imported.
The last decade was the warmest in the RECORDED history. It might have been even warmer than the medieval period but as people of your ilk rightly point out that data cannot be very certain.
Dustbowl was bad but the current drought is even worse than that. The reason we don’t see much dust this time around is because scientists came up with soil conservation strategies. Good thing that wasn’t dismissed as just another “theory”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The exact opposite of this article is true. The facts on your side are made up. The best climate scientists that exist are still beginners. Get over it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
oh brother, lord give me strength…
“Say, why didn’t Obama mention the greatest crisis imaginable (climate crisis), in his state of the union address?”
The black man in the white house – our President – snuff’s out Bin Laden… o’course, we can’t give President Obama credit for that achievement because he wasn’t born in the USA…
On the other hand – The President wants to eliminate tax loopholes for oil and coal companies – leveling the market for zero carbon renewables – which has nothing to do with battling climate change and is all about socialism!
Riiiiight – scapegoat Obama – nothin’ like an unjust lynchin’ to keep the people in line…
“For that matter, why did the thousands of scientists warning us of impending DOOM just sit there and not react to Obama’s snub?”
I dunno – cause the Congress has screamed ‘Hell NO YOU CAN’T’ at him for the last 3 years. But hey – that’s okay – Congress can fabricate a crisis and bring our nation to the brink of default, because – you know – they’s a fightin’ socialism!
blame, blame, blame, blame, do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, know nothing, no nothing, no nothing…
Hey,Schultz’s mini-me, I have a Hershey chocolate bar for you.
and another straw mans back is broken…
Thank You, Lord!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4