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.
I can’t believe some of you. Sounds like this became a religion for some of you. I hope you dont decide to strap a bomb on yourselves.
So far i noticed non of you ever posted any documentation about what you have said and by the way you explain yourselves you are not a scientist but rather a laymen at best. So let me enlighten you a bit. This will be short because i am leaving work but i will continue later.
1) Little Ice Age. Started about 500-700 years ago. Read here: link to en.wikipedia.org
World temps changed by +/- 4 degrees f. We have been exiting this period for the past 300 years. This means that temps have been rising for the past 300 years!
2) In the 1970′s the hippies called it Global Cooling. All the studies proved incorrect. They changed the name to Global Warming and changed the science to match. Read here: link to en.wikipedia.org
3)Climate DOES CHANGE. This is the only thing scientists agree on. The question is if we are causing it or not. If you are making the link of higher CO2 causes higher temps your correct in a test tube but NOT ON EARTH. every single record from ice cores to sediment cores proves that temp changes CO2 and NOT the other way around.
Anyway i have to go but if there are any real scientists here please specify your title and WHO pays you.
IDIOTS. The earth is fine.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Uh…jmt…Wikipedia isn’t documentation…
Oh- no source at all for number 3 (hey, nice to see you lead by example)
Your correct – the earth is fine – it’s the climate that’s fucked up…
Oh as to the ice / sediment core data – shouldn’t we be entering another cooling period – but were not.
Hmmmm, i wonder why…
Oh! And I did notice the slight about ‘this became a religion for some of you’. Gave yourself away there, didn’t you, Inquisitor?
I’m really sick and tired of the outright lies and implication that scientists are nothing more than new type of religious zealots…
You deniers, on the other hand, well – it does fit you rather well…
And the witchhunt continues…
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
John,
You watched the Gore telethon and believed it?
NOOOOPE! See my post to Septic…oh look – you already have!
-
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. ”
Came close to being a record breaker, didn’t it? Com’on now – you can tell us the truth…
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. ”
Dude – what are you smoking? “This is a stretch but I betting that it was Green when the Viking’s decided to move there and name it.”
That isn’t even a stretch – it is absolute fantasy, though.
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?
Onooooos! Yous gots me! Them scientists wit their ice cores and measurements are lying to me! Blame da Mann!
Dude – seriously – what the hell are you smokin’?
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.”
Hey – we agree. Weather is not climate. So – is drought the result of weather or climate? Ah ha! Maybe you should take another hit on that bong – seems to be helpin’ ya think better…
I don’t care that much for macaroni but you can have it spoon fed to you if you please!
Shucks – you don’t wanna hear me sing ‘Camptown’?
I have been nothing but polite and inquisitive in my posts, you on the other hand…..
Okay – and your comrades get a pass – right?
Welcome to the War, Jeff – choose your side – but choose wisely…
I’m a lit’em up that are Stuck On Stupid.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
When did the people who don’t believe in a proposed theory “deniers”?
Look, until you get the pro-AGW people off the government tit, and people that use 10x the same “dirty energy” that an average user consumes then you will have a difficult time convinencing the public of your theory.
My problems with this theory is all computer models and advocates have been wrong on CO2 retention levels (and CO2 minimal role as a green house gas due to atmospheric volume), ice cap melting, and didn’t Al Gore say that manhattan island would be under water in 2010?
You have the every people advocating “GW” setting up schemes to make millions of dollars off it. Are they reinvesting their money towards clean energy or prevention? I would bet they are probably fund the very research to keep lining their pockets.
I find that “GW” is used a propaganda to fund green energy (which I support for other reasons than “GW”)research which has proven to be still in its infancy and complete unfundable by private parties due to it lack of implenmentation and effectivness.
I thought this article was a direct example of a projected attack against Republicans and people who have yet to be convieneced of “GW”.
Good day and God bless.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Oh… One last time for everyone. COMPUTER MODELS?
How if all the data provides vaild proof that this new attack towards corps and industry (“GW”) is correct… Then why are they always wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Brian,
The thin veneer of appearing ‘civilized’ really doesn’t work anymore. Deniers knock down a hornets nest of data and facts – and then don’t expect to be stung. And I think it was clearly stated earlier the difference between a skeptic and a denier…
Unfortunately, way too many deniers are posing as skeptics.
Case in point – many of the deniers here shut the hell up when i made the comparison between the percentage of scientists for AGW compared to those against it. I didn’t just break that straw mans back – I blew his head off.
I wouldn’t have to resort to such measures if – well – the deniers were honest. But that’s probably the main point – How can a denier be honest with anyone when they can’t even be honest with themselves…
In any case, this other tack of ‘quiet’ belittling and thinly hidden contempt for AGW in repeating the word ‘theory’ – well – it reminds me of the scopes monkey trials of a previous era…
And, imo, scientists have been too kind in trying to gently break the news to everyone regarding AGW…and I can understand their frustration when they are repeatedly attacked for presenting their findings.
And last – what attack on corps and industry are you talking about? After all – some energy corporations have lead the attack against AGW and have a minority of ‘scientists’ on their payroll scapegoating others…
Ironic, isn’t it? The very few ‘experts’ claiming AGW is a conspiracy by the majority to make money – are actually being paid to write such propaganda…
So I’ll try something different.
You’re right, Brian. Collecting data and making models doesn’t work – not for evolution, not for weather predication – hell, not even for discovering new sources of oil. It didn’t work when building the atom bomb and it doesn’t work for nuclear power plants. Such models also do not work in genetics and they sure as hell don’t work on Wall Street…
Uh – scratch Wall Street – they don’t use science…
Hell, even the scientific models used for creating the IC chips to have computers and cell phones, and satellites and GPS doesn’t work.
It’s all one big conspiracy to make money. Just like no bid contracts for Halliburton…
As for politics, well, there are no real conservatives left in the Republican party – we’ve all been purged out by the NeoCons and their Tea Party Collaborators…sucks – but true. Nothin’ but Rinos left.
I dunno, Brian. All I can tell you is that blind faith is bad – very bad.
The AGW consensus isn’t based on blind faith – or any faith for that matter – it’s based on a science. And overall, the model is correct.
That is the simple truth.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Glad this john guy is on the side of the people that believe in man-made global warming. He seems to have some major delusions of grandeur his quote:
“”"”"”(Case in point – many of the deniers here shut the hell up when i made the comparison between the percentage of scientists for AGW compared to those against it. I didn’t just break that straw mans back – I blew his head off.
I wouldn’t have to resort to such measures if – well – the deniers were honest. But that’s probably the main point – How can a denier be honest with anyone when they can’t even be honest with themselves…) “”"”"”
After doing nothing more then “refuting” jeff by saying he must be smoking dope over and over again. Then using the logical fallacy appeal to authority over and over again. Then he says weather is not climate, which according to NASA the only difference is the amount of time you are measuring it, which would be about the equivalent to saying microevolution is not evolution.
Sucks both sides seem to have clueless people trying to debate things they know very little to nothing about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Nice try, but the argument (at least to agnostics like myself) is not about whether climate change is happening, but it’s cause. The downside of the AGW view is that if it’s wrong, resources which should be being devoted to living with climate change are instead being devoted to a futile effort to prevent it. Wouldn’t it be wise to at least consider the cost of being wrong?
There are at least two reasons why it could be: the Earth’s climate history shows multiple rapid warmings (and coolings) before the, fueled by burning fossil fuel on a previously unheard-of scale, Industrial Revolution; and, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the solubility of CO2 in water. The supposition that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes temperature increase is, to put it politely, questionable: open a bottle of room-temperature soda to see the truth of this. I’ve seen precisely zero evidence that increased CO2 is not a result, rather than a cause, of climate change.
Another thing which has bothered me for a while is the sheer scale of climate physics. Consider if you will the fact that, every single day, thunderstorms dissipate more energy that all the nuclear explosions to date. Does a finger in the dyke comes to mind?
Something else that worries me is the fact that atmospheric CO2 on the east coast of the USA (over which the prevailing winds are westerly) is lower, that’s right LOWER, than on the west coast. How can this possibly be, given that the USA is (allegedly) responsible for 40% of global CO2 emissions? It’s the photosynthesis (of the most intensively cultivated continent on the planet) stupid!
What the climate alarmists should be doing is greening the planet. Here are a couple of examples of how to do so: stop the decimation of rain forests, especially in S. America and do to as much of the Sahara as possible what Israel has done to the Negev, i.e. make it green.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Hi Alice,
I shall go down the rabbit hole with you…
“The supposition that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes temperature increase is, to put it politely, questionable: open a bottle of room-temperature soda to see the truth of this. I’ve seen precisely zero evidence that increased CO2 is not a result, rather than a cause, of climate change.”
Um…basic science / chemistry – C02 is called a greenhouse gas for an important reason:
link to ucar.edu
Open a bottle of soda? Wot da fuuuuuuu??? You can’t be serious, but just in case…
Your soda ‘model’ as a comparison to climate change just doesn’t work (and I’m being polite). However, excess C02 is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic…not good – not good at all…
Thunderstorms? Your confusing weather with climate…
Ummm…climate doesn’t care about ‘east’ coast or ‘west’ coast – and neither does C02. (Yeaa Boiyyz!) okay – my last (remark) was uncalled for…
Climate alarmists should be greening the planet – okay – why limit that standing order to climate ‘alarmists’??? I dunno, maybe BP and Halliburton can help us green the planet – you know – by cleaning up the oil in the Gulf. No???
Rain forest in South America – ummm – what about the temperate forests in North America – don’t those count???
ummm…the Sahara isn’t in North America…
um – as for the Negev:
“85% of the Negev is used by the Israel Defense Forces for training purposes. In the remaining portion of the Negev available for civilian purposes, a large number of citizens live together in close proximity to a range of types of hazardous infrastructure, which includes a nuclear reactor, 22 agro and petrochemical factories, an oil terminal, closed military zones, quarries, a toxic waste incinerator Ramat Hovav, cell towers, a power plant, several airports, a prison, and 2 rivers of open sewage.” link to en.wikipedia.org
You have a choice, Alice – take the red pill and continue as you are – take the blue pill and continue down the rabbit hole…
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Was curious as to how they came up with the so-called consensus for climate scientists agreeing with the whole man-made global warming hoax, and also how many climate scientists there actually were, and I came upon the actual paper. Apparently all you people who are basing your entire belief in man-made global warming are basing it on the opinions of just 79 people:
. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2
You are being misled, here is the link first to the site a few people have been using to back up their claims for evidence of AGW: link to skepticalscience.com
Then here is the non peer reviewed article they got the numbers from: link to tigger.uic.edu
I was trying research the amount of scientists who believe this AGW hoax vs the ones that don’t and came upon that, there is a petition of like 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PHD’s the majority of them not climate scientists but intelligent, educated scientists that signed the petition rejecting AGW. If you’ve a problem with most of them not being climate scientists remember that only 20% of the ICCP scientists are climate scientists as well.
Hopefully some people will look into it some more, I don’t understand how so many seemingly intelligent people are falling for this stuff.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Comment Removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Being in grad school, I sadly did not have the time to really delve into all the arguments in depth, but there are a few points people have to keep in mind. No science can prove 100% that something will not occur. We cannot prove a negative 100% because that would be against the definition of scientific theory. So is it possible that global warming does not exist? Sure, but again please present proof. In order to get your point in whatever debate you need to be civil and just focus on the proof that the other person is presenting as opposed to their character. Lets leave the mudslinging to the politicians
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
The graph shown under point 1 is from NASA GISS. It should be noted that this is in conflict with the other main data sources (Hadcrut, RSS, UAH). Also note that GISS admits in writing that they are not the best authority on global temperature, and refer to Hadcrut as the authority.
It’s interesting that all the models predicted warming over the past 10 years, but it hasn’t happened. Therefore the models are either wrong, or we need to wait longer for data to substantiate them. At this stage, it’s all hypothesis with no real data to support it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
There is climate change, and it is caused by a number of variables that include long term continuing changes that people have nothing to do with: 1. The swing from Ice Age to Thermal Maximum; 2) The changes of the seasons; 3) The Earth’s wobble; 4) Gravity, as in the movements of the Moon, Sun, Jupiter and the whole of the solar system as it affects the levels of radiation that the sun generates (sunspots) and the changes in the behavior of water from vapor to rain to snow/ice to biosphere to rivers to oceans and the whole of the hydrologic cycle.
There are human activities that have changed the face of the planet: 1) deforestation; 2) building of cities and concentrations of human populations; 3) energy consumptions that cause the extraction of buried elements to come to the surface including fossil fuels, minerals, waters from aquifers, etc. Deforestation is the biggest climate changing factor. Young people have not seen the extent of the forests 6 decades ago and would be unable to appreciate what has been lost. And those that lived 6 decades ago has failed to appreciate the extent of the forests of the 4 generations of people before them going back to before the steam engine was invented.
The problem that has caused the skepticism has nothing to do with climate change per se but as to what is or what are driving the changes in the climate. To claim that it is driven by solely by CO2, is to ignore that it is not the only product of human activity that can bring the changes in the climate. CO2 as emitted by cars and trucks, is insignificant when compared to changes that is caused by the loss of the forests. The debate on CO2 is diverting focus away from the real problem which is the loss of the Earth’s forests, and thus diverting attention from the real solution which is to stop the cutting and begin restoring the forests to as close as it was in the last century. The CO2 distraction is costing so much attention away from the real solution.
If we restore the forests, all CO2 will disappear. If we restore the forests, we will replenish the aquifers. If we restore the forests, we will bring back living forms to levels that existed in the past. With the forests we will be producing more oxygen and taking out CO2; we will be reducing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere that is causing destructive storms, heavy flooding and snowfall; we will be laying out a carpet of wind cushions to take the harshness that has characterized the climate patterns that are developing today. If we will restore mangrove or coastal forests, we will be cooling down the waters that are along the coasts of all islands and continents by shielding these waters from solar radiation; the benefit will be the cooling of waters that help restore coral that live along or near the coasts.
Let us take care of the forests and all the concern about CO2 will vanish.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I will have to agree with the last post. We should really do something, and then we can see if it had an effect and adjust our data. This whole head in the sand mentality is really not getting us that much further. I think we need to realize that something is happening and then try to halt it and then readjust models, and see where we are. Currently we arent doing very much.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
The thing with the money arrangements that are seen as solutions to climate change is that it distracts from the real need for every country to bring back as much as it can of the forests that it has lost.
Carbon trade allows some people and countries to escape from the real obligation that is to bring back the forests that they once had. We cannot pay our way out of it.
The solution is to identify lands that should have forests again or those that can be made to bear forests to make up for the lands that humanity has taken away for its settlements, agriculture and wood production. This identification has to be locally specific so that people can identify with it. Verifiability of forest restoration accomplishment is a must to keep us from being deluded by cosmetic reforestation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@ Autodidatic:
“Apparently all you people who are basing your entire belief in man-made global warming are basing it on the opinions of just 79 people:”
You really should read the sources you post – reading really is fundamental.
To that end, I’ll repost your source you used to prove ‘The Great AGW Hoax’…
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
link to tigger.uic.edu
The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific
consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad
group of Earth scientists. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…
With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys…
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policymakers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
—
1. This was just a survey
2. In any case, over 3,000 answered it
3. They agree AGW is occuring – period.
Autodidatic – the next time you accuse scientists of promoting a hoax, perhaps you should go look in the mirror first…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Three question about climate change is really whether anything can or should be done about it. Earth’s climate is always changing. Man made contributions are negligible in the long run. At best, we can delay warming a little. But given that glaciers are much worse and we are still at risk of another deep freeze, maybe we shouldn’t even do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Hi Gabriel,
I can appreciate rebooting the carbon cycle by planting more trees. But forests can only absorb so much carbon – there is a limit to biological carbon absorption…
To really reset balance – it must be coupled with zero-carbon energy sources…
And since we’ve now breached the natural methane hold – I think the best we can hope for is climate mitigation. Imo, AGW can not be reversed now…
We’ve already exceeded the tipping point (methane release – nasty, nasty feedback loop)…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Despite the opinions of the author, the purpose of this is to look at a hot topic with caution of extremes for both sides. Statements about all scientists getting rich off of climate change or that all deniers are idiots only work against the supposed goals of both sides. If this were an objective, rational argument the skeptics would want more conclusive evidence on why we need to act now. And the environmentalist would be trying to show that there have been studies that show some warming. BUT, this isn’t rational, so the real reason is that republicans think that the enviro-liberals are going to tax their brains out in the name of their cause, so they deny the source. Now its a political stance, and unfortunately has turned into many people distrusting ‘science’ like it’s a dirty word. Science doesn’t work in proofs- math does. And unfortunately, climate analysis is completely estimating possible outcomes based on past data- making it a lot more like probability or educated conjecture. The people who want a eureka moment will never get it. Most republicans will never accept climate science because its only foreseeable outcome is increased government regulation and involvement, because that’s the only option environmentalists put forward. This nothing but political radicalism and hate wrapped in a shroud of ‘science’. The conviction of both followers make me only see radicals and conspiracy theorists, not Americans looking for answers. Common ground, understanding of other opinions (though you may disagree), and action via compromise are the only ways we will move forward in this century. The change is coming- not in favor of either side of this debate, but toward a middle ground. just maybe not in the next few political cycles. I really hope its coming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
If you think global warming is a fact, spend a winter in New York City.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Sorry mate, but NYC is not representative of the world. It is as meaningful as saying spend a summer in Malaga if you don’t think global warming is a fact.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I dunno, Dan,
‘This nothing but political radicalism and hate wrapped in a shroud of ‘science’.’
First, if your referring to AGW as political radicalism – then your wrong. Political radicalism is what we are witnessing from the Tea Party Clan – and you know – I haven’t seen any of them compromise on anything – even when they’ve been shown to be wrong most of the time – such as their view on AGW.
‘Common ground, understanding of other opinions (though you may disagree), and action via compromise are the only ways we will move forward in this century.’
Quick – someone tell Congress and the Tea Party. Good luck with that.
Your beating around the bush by stating it’s ‘educated conjecture’ – falling short of calling it a ‘theory’. So let’s just completely clear the air – Is AGW science – or not?
Rhetorical question. AGW is not mere opinion – it’s science.
As far as answers – better yet – solutions to this growing peril we all face, I’m sidestepping the deniers and doing my part on the ground getting the real work done.
So don’t ask me to hold them by the hand and pamper the deniers – it is far better to tell them flat out they are wrong. I know they don’t like that fact – but then again, they don’t seem to like a lot of simple facts.
And last – both the CIA and our Military are preparing now for the impacts of climate change.
If they are preparing – ‘eureka’ – then we should be too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Gabriel Atega,
I agree with your wish to restore the forests. But I think you look at Carbon Dioxide as a poison. Its not! When CO2 levels drop below 220ppm plants/trees stop growing, most trees actually like the CO2 levels in the upper 400ppm range and higher. Most commercial greenhouses add CO2 to increase growth rates.
I made a comment on another blog asking how many trees it would take to reduce CO2 levels to 1800′s level. I was provided with a study that stated it would take one trillion trees.
From the information that I have been able to find I think the next time we see a drop in the CO2 levels will be the onset of the next ice age as the oceans cool the ability for them to sink CO2 is increased. The puny amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere is like a drop in the bucket to the overall effect of the natural carbon cycle.
And I promise I will not feed the Troll…
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
I dunno, Jeff – maybe I should ask a real scientist…
The other answers seem to be confusing CO2 absorption with CO2 storage, the question is not asking about storage. Rainforests and woodland are good CO2 sinks as the trees contain large carbon stores in their trunks etc as previously identified above, but once a rainforest or woodland is mature it does not take up much CO2, as trees must die (and then rot, releasing CO2) to make way for new trees to grow, so the net usage of CO2 is negligable.
Most grasses are C4 plants which are much better adapted to capture CO2 and convert it to useable carbon compounds than C3 plants (rainforest plants are C3 plants), in this respect grasses are better at ABSORBING CO2, in the same time period and area. A grassland is not good at storing it, as stated above, seasonally grasses tend to die releasing their CO2 back into the atmosphere, but storage was not the question, so I believe the correct answer is grass.
The question askes “of the same area” both rainforest and grass of the same area are absorbing the same amount of sunlight (only the canopy of a rainforest absorbs sun, thats why there is little growing on the ground in a rainforest, very little light penetrates, thus there is little photosynthesis, and thus there is little CO2 absorption). If the same area of vegetation is absorbing the same amount of sunlight (think of a birds eye view of both, there is the same area of “green”), but the grass is more efficient at using that light to fix CO2 because it uses C4 photosynthesis then it will as a result be absorbing more CO2, it’s as simple as that.
Source(s):
I am a Biologist
also see link to wc.pima.edu
for discussion of the different kinds of photosynthesis
-
As for the puny amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere – your right -humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years – drop in the bucket!
>trolling my eyes<
Source (with purdy pictures!): link to greenoptions.com
So – where's your source, Jeffrey?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
John, you really should re-read that, like I said the study shows that only 79 of them were climate scientists. And that is where they get the consensus of climate scientists agree with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
while i’m sure we as a spiecies are adding co2 into the air. why is it some people overlook the obvious, what removes it from the air? trees and plants right? well how come everyone is complaining about all the things that release co2 in the air, but fail to mention all the trees world wide that have been cleared and not replaced. my opinion (yes i get one like everyone else) is that yes we are increasing the co2 on the planet, but its because we are removing the things that filter it out. if you removed your air filter in your vehicle how long would it run? 6 months? a year? 5 years? certainly not as long as if you replaced it and kept it clean. don’t get me wrong i’m not a “tree huger” but this is what makes sense to me. more co2 requires more trees and plant to filter it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hi Gary,
I agree more trees should be planted – but it’s not enough on it’s own.
Think of it this way:
The car is left running in the garage emitting CO2 into the house. To counteract it, ferns are added to absorb the extra CO2.
Eventually, the house is filled with ferns – and no more can be added. But the car is still running…
In short, there simply isn’t enough space in the house to absorb all the extra CO2 released from the running car.
Earth is our house – fossil fuels are the running car. This is why I stated earlier that planting trees must be coupled with zero-carbon energy sources.
We have to shut down the car in order for the ferns in the house to keep the CO2 in balance. And that’s fine – I have no problem switching to an electric car. (fueled by solar panels, of course)
Maybe that’s not a good analogy – but it’s the best I can offer.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
You are correct, it is not a good analogy. Keep in mind that ferns need CO2 to produce oxygen. Cut out the CO2,plants wilt, no oxygen, then what?
Things are not as simple as all that!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Lumberjack, yes, they are pretty much that simple. Plants used to cover pretty much the whole planet without any help from humans. Plants decompose and release CO2 back keeping things in balance.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Comment removed – Sock Puppet
Like or Dislike:
0 
0