CHAPTER 13 236

CHAPTER 13

CONTRARIANS, DOUBTERS, AND DENIERS: THE

POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Introduction

It is all too easy to dismiss those who disagree with you as

stupid or venal, and climate change—global warming—is a

highly charged political issue. It is not clear why it should be,

and it is really hard to understand why people are driven so

passionately to believe that global warming is a hoax, some kind

of job-killing conspiracy by scientists to halt economic

expansion, without a shred of evidence to support this idea.

There is not a climate scientist alive who wouldn’t be elated to

find that the earth wasn’t actually warming, for professional and

well as humane reasons. Showing that the warming is not

anthropogenic would be Nobel Prize winning work. But facts

are facts, notwithstanding the efforts of climate change deniers,

who almost always have an axe to grind, though sometimes are

just uninformed. Although a healthy dose of skepticism is

always a good thing, it should motivate one to evaluate the

arguments in an open-minded fashion. Skepticism should be a

prelude to enlightenment, not a weapon to be wielded for

political purposes. Outright denial is, frankly, no longer an

intellectually honest position. One can argue the degree of the

problem, but not whether climate change is happening or that

man is the cause. We are simply beyond that point.

CHAPTER 13 237

Denial, unlike honest skepticism, seems usually to be

motivated by politics. Rarely is it the result of a careful

examination of the data bearing on climate change. Ignorance is

excusable, and can be remedied, but denial based on ideology,

politics, or self-interest, is a rejection of established science,

and in the end futile. This has been proven time and time again

in human history. (flat earth, geocentric model, evolution). It is,

after all, perfectly reasonable to accept the reality of global

warming and yet argue that it does not require massive

intervention in the global economy; that is, it can be adjusted to

over time. But denying the science is simply a dead end. No

one likes the idea of a warming planet, and we all understand

that mitigating the effects of climate change may be disruptive.

But little is gained by denying the science just because you don’t

like what it says. Yet that approach is surprisingly widespread,

and with the same motivations as the denial of the effects of

smoking or DDT in the last century.1

There are, of course, reputable scientists who challenge the

science to one degree or another, and we have no wish to hide

that fact. They are by any measure few in number, but that

doesn’t mean they can be dismissed out of hand.2 Some, but

not all, have a political bias that somehow blinds them to the

facts about a changing climate, and in a few well-known cases,

they have been climate change deniers for so long that no other

position is possible; admitting that one has been wrong is often

very difficult. Others, however, do confront the scientific

consensus head on, and argue that the case has not been made

for a slow, steady warming of the planet, or if they accept that,

1 See Oreskes and Conway (2010) on these issues.

2 See the paper by Anderegg, et al (2010). They found that 2% of the most highly cited climate scientists were

unconvinced by the evidence (UE).

CHAPTER 13 238

deny that the evidence for a man-made cause is convincing.

Some believe that it has not been shown that the sun cannot be

the cause. There are, as we noted in the previous chapter, real

uncertainties.

Richard Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric scientist,

continues to dispute the consensus view of global warming and

in particular the IPCC’s conclusions. He argues that the ECS is

on the order of 0.50C rather than around 30 C. Although

Lindzen has impeccable credentials, his work has been

challenged by many scientists, and his advocacy of a very low

climate sensitivity flies in the face of an enormous body of

evidence of warming in the 20th century, requiring a much

greater value, probably above 20C and more likely near 30.

Lindzen’s case does show that while there is a very strong

consensus among climate scientists, it is not universal. On the

face of it, one also has to take into account serious critics like

Fred Singer, who had an important career in atmospheric science

and rocket research. While there is nothing new in his

arguments, his authority has persuaded many that there really is

no scientific consensus. His views have been countered in

many places and one is not surprised to learn that he has been

funded by the fossil fuel industry.3 Other skeptical scientists

with major reputations include Robert Jastrow and Fredrick

Seitz.4 In passing, it is worth noting that most of these otherwise

qualified deniers are long past their scientific prime and usually

are offering opinions well outside their fields of expertise.

Willam Happer, who has connections to the Heartland Institute,

3 I have tried to avoid ad hominem attacks, but for those interested in trying to understand why otherwise sound

scientists may be climate change deniers, there is ample material available. 4 Both died in 2008. They, along with William Nierenberg, founded the conservative George C. Marshall Institute.

In his 80s Seitz was an important figure behind the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition on climate

change and was an apologist for the tobacco industry.

CHAPTER 13 239

is an atomic and nuclear physicist with impeccable scientific

credentials, though not in climate science. He held an endowed

chair in physics at Princeton and is a member of the National

Academy of Sciences. He has been an adviser to presidents on

matter of defense and intelligence, but in the last decade he had

adopted the conservative position that increasing atmospheric

carbon dioxide is a benefit to man, a position, as we have seen,

that is simply untenable. Nonetheless, he was until recently a

member of President Trump’s National Security Council. He a

member of the CO2 Coalition, backed by fossil fuel interests and

the Mercer Foundation, and has said that we are in a CO2

“famine.” 5 Patrick Frank and Roy Spencer, associated with the

Heartland Institute and George C. Marshall Foundation,

respectively, are two more examples. 6 The views of John

Christy, who with Spencer is at the University of Alabama

Huntsville, thinks that predictions of the degree of warming are

alarmist, have been criticized by many experts in interpretation

of satellite temperatures.

Freeman Dyson could be thought of as more of a

“contrarian” than a denier. The arguments he has used in

downplaying the seriousness of climate change mainly address

modeling, which is an easy target. But as we have shown in the

first five chapters, the planet is warming and man is indeed the

cause. Modelling, as imperfect as it may or may not be, is only

our way of trying to see into the future, not the present. Another

interesting case is that of Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who

recently announced her retirement because of what she called

the “craziness” of climate science. Not really a global warming

5 E&E News, Jan. 25, 2018.

6 Ironically, Frank’s paper “Propagation of error and the reliability of global air temperature projections” was

critiqued by Spencer on the CO2 Coalition website.

CHAPTER 13 240

denier, but rather something of a gadfly, Curry has often been at

odds with her colleagues.7 But authority, per se, has no place in

science (on either side), as Galileo argued long ago. If a

notable scientist says something is so, that well may be fairly

persuasive, and if one wants to settle for the view of an “expert,”

then so be it. But it is not proof. The experts have often been

wrong. And although I have spoken of the current “consensus,”

one should be cautious and recognize that consensus and truth

are not the same thing. Any open minded person has to consider

seriously the views of eminent scientists who disagree with the

consensus, while at the same time remembering that these

“mavericks” (to use a loaded term) are in a tiny minority of

scientists, and especially of climate experts.8 It is sad to see

politics influencing scientific opinion, but scientists are flawed

human beings just like everyone else. But we are all subject to

the tyranny of the data, and the point has recently been made in

another context that you are entitled to your own opinions, but

not your own facts. The eminent physicist

A recent study looking at the connection between

conservative think tanks and climate change-denying book

publications (108 books) found a strong correlation, but noted

that in the last decade more books had been privately published

or published by “vanity presses.” In neither case are these books

subjected to the peer review process, which means that they

perpetuate the same discredited arguments without being

subjected to any kind of scrutiny.9

7 See her Climate, etc. blog.

8 It is impossible to mention anything like all the books published in this area, including those by authors who

might just be called “unconvinced,” such as Donald Rapp. 9 A recent example is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano. Morano’s credentials

include working for Rush Limbaugh and Jim Inhofe.

CHAPTER 13 241

Unfortunately, climate change skepticism has not abated,

despite accumulating data that point in only one direction.

Typically major efforts to deny climate change have been

backed (and funded) by politically conservative groups,

individuals, or corporations (for example the Heartland Institute

and the Heritage Foundation), and have employed scientists

who may have something in the way of credentials but also

have a history of bad judgment on scientific questions. Very

often money is involved. For some reason religion is part of the

issue, many are also deniers of Darwinian evolution, and not a

few are simply confirmed “conspiracy theorists.” It would be

unduly optimistic to say that the deniers are in retreat, since, for

example, the powerful Republican Party leadership in the U.S. is

still nearly universal in its denial of global warming. While

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas loves to talk about putting data

ahead of dogma, his view of what constitutes data is dubious, as

he attacks the “dogma” peddled by what he calls “climate

alarmists.”

Given 21st-century means of electronic communication,

which are both instantaneous and ephemeral, it would

accomplish nothing to go into detail on the resources available

on all sides of the climate issue.10 The internet is awash with

sites which challenge the conventional wisdom on global

warming. In most cases they are hosted by organizations or

individuals with a political bias, and rarely provide accurate or

up to date science. In a few cases, attention is legitimately

focused on open questions in climate science, including the

10

A few hints, however: Skeptical Science is an especially good site devoted to debunking critics of anthropogenic

global warming (AGW). Others include “How to talk to a climate denier,” grist.org, and Real Climate: Climate

Science from Climate Scientists. There is a database, with credentials, of climate change deniers at

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

CHAPTER 13 242

statistical methods employed, but the general strategy seems to

be to claim that one question mark or uncertainty brings the

entire edifice of climate science crumbling down. The standard

technique of “cherry-picking” the data, focusing on a short-term

pause in warming, for example, while ignoring a century of data

that shows warming, demonstrates a lack of intellectual

honesty. On the other hand, legitimate skeptics have been

unfairly derided for questioning the consensus view, despite at

least some basis for their contrary views. Climate models are

especially vulnerable to attack, as they continue to be developed

and elaborated. They are, after all, only models.

Those who think that what today passes for a consensus on

global warming is some kind of grand conspiracy to stop

economic development, should note that in every scientific field,

perhaps in every academic discipline, there are gadflies,

superbly qualified-- brilliant, perhaps--but because of some

accident of education or employment are out of the mainstream.

Given the chance, they would seize the opportunity to identify

an error, a bad assumption, or a flaw in the data. Nothing could

enhance one’s reputation more than showing that everyone else

has been wrong! They often play a useful role and if there were

some problem being hidden by the “establishment,” some

conspiracy, they would jump at the chance to point it out. It is

not quite true to say that opponents have failed to contribute

anything to the discussion, but they really have very little to

show for their skepticism. Those interested in this particular

part of the climate change debate should consult Climate

Change Denial by Washington and Cook or Merchants of Doubt

CHAPTER 13 243

by Oreskes and Conway,11 who devote much more space to it

than we can.

We will close this section with one of the more remarkable

documents from the history of the climate change denial

movement. It was published in 1998 as part of the “Oregon

Petition” by the Oregon and Marshall Institutes and a portion is

as follows:

“…..The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the

environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and

damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no

convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon

dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will,

in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the

Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases

in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects

upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

An accompanying research review added that “Mankind is

moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below

ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion

into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush

environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon

dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more

plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial

Revolution.”12

11

Washington and Cook (2011); Oreskes and Conway (2010). 12

Robinson, Robinson and Soon (2007). Arthur B. Robinson was being proposed for the post of science advisor iin

the Trump administration in early 2017.

CHAPTER 13 244

Such nonsense takes the breath away! 13 Perhaps no more

egregiously wrong-headed and misleading statement has ever

been uttered by a body of self-identified “experts.” The paper

characterizes CO2 as a “minor greenhouse gas” in its 2007

update. The Oregon petition, signed by over 30,000 “scientists,”

is a major asset for the deniers, but the dubious and spotty

credentials of the signatories have been analyzed by various

sources.14

There are, of course, uncertainties at every step in the

arguments that lead to the current consensus on the effects of

pouring more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These cumulative uncertainties impact the ultimate conclusions

so that it is not surprising that a few scientists retain some

skepticism. But there are two points to be made about this.

First, such skeptics are in a very small minority, something that

has real meaning, and second, given the gravity of possible, if

not probable, outcomes, it has to be our mission to prevent them,

even if the damage turns out to be smaller than we now think.

But the impacts are likely to be very large and many of them

irreversible.

Nonetheless, there are, as we have pointed out on many

occasions in this narrative, unanswered questions or

uncertainties about the magnitude of certain factors that will

determine the degree of warming that the world will experience.

The greatest care has been taken in evaluating the contribution

of variations in solar output to the warming, and while we are

13

This reminds one of the exchange between Kepler and Galileo in 1610 concerning the Church’s unwillingness to

accept as real, things seen through the telescope “my dear Kepler…. what shall we make of this? Shall we laugh or

shall we cry?” 14

The Marshall Institute was co-founded by Fred Seitz, solid state physicist and former president of the National

Academy of Sciences. The Heartland Institute is especially notorious for its unfounded arguments against climate

change.

CHAPTER 13 245

reasonably sure (“high confidence”) we understand the sun, it is

always lurking in the background. So not all skeptics have lost

their objectivity, but climate change denial is a position that

becomes harder to honestly justify with each passing year.

The Arguments

Because some will say “you didn’t address this,” or “what

about that….,” or “I heard on Russ Limbaugh that….,” I will

briefly tackle some of the supposed challenges to the narrative I

have given in previous chapters. The list of skeptics’ objections

to the conclusions of climate scientists is very long, but since all

or most are easily disposed of, it would profit little to list them

all. Indeed we have answered most of them in earlier chapters.

A few, however, have wide currency, which may justify

recounting them:

Global warming ceased in 1998; temperatures were much

warmer in the Holocene climatic optimum without human

influence;. the East Antarctic ice sheet is growing; no global

warming in mid-20th century (1950-1975); satellite temperatures

show no warming; water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than

CO2; any warming due to CO2 would be swamped by that from

water vapor.; the Mann, et al “hockey-stick episode”; shows

errors and dishonesty; the same scientists who predict global

overheating predicted cooling in the 1970s; the CO2 effect is

saturating and further increases in CO2 will not produce more

warming; we are on the verge of a new ice age; correlation is not

causation; there is no evidence that CO2 concentrations are

causing warming; ncreased atmospheric CO2 is a benefit to

mankind; the impacts of global warming will be minor;

technology will save us; the current warming is due to the sun;

CHAPTER 13 246

the climate has always fluctuated and this is no different.; there

is a strong correlation between the length of the sunspot cycle

and global temperatures, showing the decisive role of the sun;

cosmic rays, whose intensity is controlled by the sun’s magnetic

field, cause increased cloud nucleation, again showing the

importance of the sun; the post-war economic boom, driving

GHG emissions, did not result in a global temperature increase;

CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases and thus must be an

effect rather than a cause; the Munk sea level rise “enigma” and

so on.

There are other claims that are literally crazy, as well, but

every one of the issues listed above is well known to climate

scientists and is either readily explained or is irrelevant because

the claims are false or have explanations unrelated to the

current crisis. At the risk of being repetitious in some cases, we

devote the next few paragraphs to some of these supposed flaws

in the scientific consensus:

To begin with, there are those who believe that the entire

evidence for global warming is an out-and-out fake perpetrated

by NASA and other governmental bodies. If you believe that

about your government agencies, I cannot help you. You will

not have believed any of the data I have offered in preceding

chapters and you will have had to assume a world-wide

conspiracy involving all governments in faking the scientific

data. How you got this far is a mystery to me.

Critics sometimes argue that there is no such thing as a

“global temperature” and therefore it makes no sense to talk

about global warming. Obviously there is no single global

temperature, although a number of about 140 C is generally

CHAPTER 13 247

accepted, but what we take to be representative of the

temperature of the planet is an appropriate average of many

thousands of measurements, taken over almost the entire globe,

continuously. We then monitor how that average changes over

time. There are important technical issues involved in merging

all of the temperature records, both in space and time, but this is

by now a well known art.

Those who claim that global warming has stopped since

1998 are guilty of two things. First they pick an arbitrary slice

of the data just to make their point, while ignoring all the other

data. Second they enjoy fitting horizontal straight lines to

portions of the data, applying a kind of stair-step representation

of it, ignoring the fact that the stairs, as stairs do, ascend. The

climate record is by nature very “noisy” and full of oscillations,

even experiencing cooling episodes, but recall that the 20 hottest

years in the 1880-2019 period have all occurred in the two

decades since 1998, and that of the 15 warmest years ever, all

but one have occurred since 2003.15 Anyone who looks at the

data for the last 130 years will notice that between about 1945

and 1975 there was, indeed, no warming (see Figures 3.1 and

3.2 ), and even though the previous 35 years and the last 40

years have shown dramatic warming, that quarter-century of

stable temperatures is notable. Warming pauses are not

unprecedented, but the figures show that the rate of warming

after 1975 was essentially the same as between 1920 and 1945.

Given that the temperature is increasing at only about 1/100 of a

degree C per year, natural fluctuations will often overwhelm that

slow change. 16 But for the skeptic, this issue might be the only

15

See Chapter 4. 16

A reader of this manuscript (GB) urged that I emphasize that fitting a trend line to the limited and noisy data that

we have on global temperatures is not trivial.This process of linear regression yields a fit to the data, with a specified

CHAPTER 13 248

one with any purchase, with all other issues easily shown to be

false or irrelevant. While the jury is still out, climate modelers

believe that this hiatus in warming can be explained, at least

partially, by atmospheric aerosols emitted in the days of rapid

economic expansion after WWII, before the advent of pollution

controls, and models are able to reproduce this feature by

including aerosols.

It is true that global temperatures were nearly as warm

during the “Holocene climate optimum” more than 6000 years

ago, as now, long before man could have influenced the climate,

but it has never been claimed that CO2 is the sole factor

modifying the climate (see Chapter 1).17 On the time scale of

5-10,000 years other factors come into play, including the sun

and the well understood orbital/spin forcing of the Milankovitch

cycle that we talked about in the first chapter. Global

temperatures are, however, now higher than any time in the last

2000 years and probably 800,000 years. But our focus is really

on the two centuries or so since the advent of the Industrial

Revolution, because this is when the steady climb we can now

document began. The figure below, covering most of the 20th

century, shows observed and modelled temperatures compared,

with both showing large fluctuations, and that the modelled and

measured temperature changes are very similar.18

confidence level measured in various ways, including mean square error and the correlation coefficient r. To discuss

this in detail would take us too far afield. It is crucial to be sure that most of the departure of the data from the fit to

the data is due to the relation between the variables rather than to the noise in the data. It is also important to know

that these statistical tests have been handled carefully and honestly. 17

There have been times in the distant past when CO2 levels were much higher than now, but again, CO2 is only one

factor determining the climate. 18

Models that are able to reproduce these historical data are much more likely to predict the future accurately.

CHAPTER 13 249

Figure 13.1. Measured and modelled global temperatures

since 1900. Modelled forcing factors—the sun, volcanism,

etc. are also shown. From the Grist.org climate-energy site.

While Antarctic sea ice and perhaps even the East

Antarctic ice sheet may have been growing, the West Antarctic

ice shelf has been melting rapidly and could become unstable.

In general, the ice cover of the Antarctic continent is shrinking,

and in fact it is thought that the melting of the ice shelves is

CHAPTER 13 250

what is causing the lowered sea surface temperatures and

buildup of Antarchtic sea ice.19 Furthermore, Arctic sea ice has

been shrinking rapidly, and glaciers, while sometimes

thickening locally, have been melting and receding all over the

world, including, notably, in Greenland. In general, a changing

climate does not affect all areas of the globe equally. There is

more thermal inertia in the southern hemisphere because of the

large ocean masses, thus moderating the climate. So there is

real concern over the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet,

whose melting or collapse would have disastrous consequences

for sea level rise. This is not an immediate issue and whether

there has been a slight increase or decrease in ice mass is not

relevant, but in the long run, this sheet and others are of great

concern.

Another example of geographic dependence of effects of

the warming of the planet is that sea level has dropped in the

Arctic at the same time that it has risen elsewhere. But while the

level of the oceans, over the globe, is complicated, the rise

since 1910 of about 20 cm (about 2mm/yr) is well established.

Sea level rise has two main causes: thermal expansion of the

oceans, and melting of land ice cover, both of which are in

response to higher temperatures. The conservative IPCC

projection is for a sea level rise of less than 1 meter in this

century, but many experts believe that the rise could be very

much more, even at a modest 20 C temperature increase.

We have earlier explained the role of water vapor in the

climate cycle (Chapter 3), so that issue needs no further

comment; it is simply a misunderstanding of the physical

evidence. And, despite all claims to the contrary, global 19

Recall our discussion in Chapter 9.

CHAPTER 13 251

temperatures derived from satellite observations do show

warming, as one can see from the figure below, and agree very

well with surface measurements.

Figure 13.2 Surface and satellite temperatures (in red) over

the last four decades. Rohde, Global Warming Art Project(?)

Finally, there was indeed some concern in the 1970s over

the effects of aerosols, prompting Time and other media sources

to write alarmist stories about a new ice age. Despite a flurry of

such stories, the scientific literature was overwhelmingly

concerned about global warming as the figure below, from a

paper by Peterson, et al titled “The myth of the 1970s global

cooling scientific consensus,” shows.20

20

Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008). The paper gives a good historical summary of early ideas about global

warming.

CHAPTER 13 252

Figure 13.3. Frequency of papers showing concern over

global warming (red) and cooling (blue) over a 15-year

period in the 1970s. Note that almost all papers expressed

concern about warming. Peterson (2008)

In any case, scientific consensus does often change, and should,

in the face of new and convincing data as well as from new

theoretical understanding. As the authors noted, “climate

science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and

1970s.” So either way, this controversy is of historical interest

only. That said, the role of aerosols continues to be an active

area of research.

Since the possibility of an important role for the sun in

causing the recent warming is quite real, it has been important to

address the claim that there are strong correlations between solar

activity and global temperatures. The award-winning film

“Climate Conflict,” produced for Danish television, and

featuring two self-styled climate “mavericks,” has been very

influential, especially in Denmark, supposedly exposing

conflicts between the data and the idea that global warming is

CHAPTER 13 253

caused by increasing levels of GHGs. It turns out, however, that

the scientific arguments in the film are without foundation, as

noted in Chapter 4 and in the literature.21

On the time scale of tens of thousands of years, the relation

between CO2 and temperature is very complicated, mostly

because on that time scale the orbital factors of the Milankovitch

cycles come into play. So the fact that CO2 levels sometimes

lag behind temperatures is irrelevant since GHGs are not the

only cause of temperature change. Intense periods of volcanism

are known to have influenced the climate and fluctuations in the

Atlantic thermohaline circulation (AMOC) can have

millennium-long effects on temperature. In recent times, as one

can see from Figure 4.11, CO2 levels and temperatures track

each other very closely, but as we pointed out earlier, even after

greenhouse gas emissions stop, the temperature will continue to

rise, until a new energy balance is achieved (Chapter 10).

It should be said that criticisms of methodology can be

useful especially in deterring a kind of “herd mentality,” which

is not unheard of in science.22 Reconstruction of past climate

data, especially from proxies for global temperatures, does

require sophisticated statistical analyses that are free from

conscious or unconscious bias. Methodological errors have

been found, requiring withdrawal of papers and or reworking of

data. Such is the nature of science; perfection is rarely attained.

As with any active scientific field, there are disagreements and

even disputes, corrections and retractions. An example is a

paper by Mann, et al (1999), showing reconstructed northern

21

See especially Damon and Laut (2004) in the journal EOS, which can easily be found online. 22

The “nuclear winter” controversy is an example of how wishful thinking, the devotion to worst-case scenarios,

and even politics, can lead scientific consensus astray. The jury is still out on this issue, but it is clear that earlier

conclusions lacked a firm scientific basis.

CHAPTER 13 254

hemisphere temperature data, based on methodology that turned

out to be flawed. But the improved reconstruction, versions of

which we have already shown, is very similar and thoroughly

convincing,23 and many subsequent studies have verified the

earlier results. The figure below (13.4), from our Chapter 3,

shows how temperatures have spiked in recent decades.. No

major conclusions have been affected by this scrutiny, and the

National Academy of Sciences has endorsed the modified

conclusions. This controversy provided fodder for the climate

change deniers, especially the infamous Jim Inhofe, but the

episode serves to show how science is able to correct itself

through debate and the peer review process. 24 Much discussion

of this issue can be found in the 2007 IPCC report. The

message here is that deniers will always seize on the

disagreements which are part of normal scientific discourse as

fundamental flaws in the consensus about climate change. This

is the only ammunition they have, since the basic science is not

in serious dispute.

23

See Rahmstorf (2008), for example. 24

Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (1999). Without getting into too much detail, a paper by Mann, et al in 1998, showed

a very flat temperature curve followed by a sharp “left turn, thus the ” the hockey-stick” label. Subsequent analyses

of the data and of the earlier methodology significantly revised the temperature reconstruction, making the

“medieval climate optimum” more prominent. The deficiencies of the earlier analysis were identified by the

scientific community and corrected. Literally dozens of new analyses of these data have confirmed the new

understanding, which shows a rapid increase in temperature since the 1880s.

CHAPTER 13 255

Figure 13.4 Global temperatures in the last two millennia.

Richard Rhodes, Wikimedia commons.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate

Change

It is only fair that we mention the NIPCC and its extensive

report Climate Change Reconsidered, with paid lead authors

Craig Idso, the late Robert Carter, and Fred Singer, and

sponsored by the conservative, free-market Heartland Institute.

The report cites a large body of good science, mostly casting

doubt on it, using it to try to show that claims of anthropogenic

global warming are false or exaggerated. Unlike the IPCC’s

reports, which it consciously mimics, and with a name designed

CHAPTER 13 256

to confuse and give the impression that it is a scientific

document, the NIPCC report is very polemical. As scientists, the

authors know the lingo and how to parse the arguments, but that

does not make them correct. It would appear impressive to

anyone with only a casual knowledge of the issues, but on the

whole it represents arguments crafted to reach a predetermined

outcome, which is denial of the conclusions we have come to in

this book. The report disputes the accuracy of the global

temperature record, challenges the assumed climate sensitivity,

and imagines a much larger role for the sun in changing the

climate. It contends that CO2 is a vital nutrient of which we

need more--all issues we have addressed in previous chapters.

Although its conclusions have been extensively refuted,25 it

undoubtedly has had significant impact, especially because

300,000 copies have been shipped to K-12 and college science

teachers. Unfortunately, only specialists can readily spot the

fundamental biases and misuse of science that the report

represents.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have endeavored to give equal time to

climate change critics, without letting their criticisms go

unanswered. The real and convincing evidence of global

warming has been the subject of Chapter 3 and those that

followed it. The cause of this warming is not seriously in

dispute, and global warming deniers have never provided an

even remotely convincing alternative explanation. They like to

make the point that there has been a shift among scientists from

speaking of “global warming” to talking of “climate change,” as

though there was some hidden uncertainty about the direction of 25

The “Real Climate” site and its “wiki” are an example. Or the National Center for Science Education blog.

CHAPTER 13 257

the change, but that, as with the rest of their arguments, is

without any merit. Call it “climate change” or “global

warming,” in either case, the planet is heating up.

To be fair, there are also well-intentioned climate activists

who have been guilty of what the climate deniers would call

“alarmist” rhetoric. The consequences of unconstrained

warming will be very dire, as we have shown, but the earth will

not literally “burn up,” as some advocates seem to be claiming,

though without question increased drought will bring more and

more intense wildfires. A recent New York Times article titled

“How scientists got it so wrong” was also alarmist, though the

issue under discussion, abrupt climate change, is very real.26

Jeremy Ripkin’s new The Green New Deal , sub-titled “Why the

fossil fuel civilization will collapse by 2028….,” is, frankly, a

bit hysterical. The truth is bad enough without the need to

embellish it.

Surely it is time, with the fate of the planet in the balance,

to stop challenging the science with no firmer basis than

political ideology, and instead, move on to attempt to solve the

problem, something which ought to be self-evident. The only

intellectually honest rejoinder to the science we have offered in

this book is to say that the planet is indeed warming, but by a

lesser degree than usually claimed, and that we can live with the

consequences, or will be rescued by technology. This is a

matter of judgment or perhaps hope, but one should remember

26

New York Times, Nov. 10, 2019.

CHAPTER 13 258

that the actions taken or not taken in the next few decades will

determine the earth’s climate for centuries.27

Addendum: advice for skeptics

Skepticism, especially enlightened skepticism, is an

honorable position, something we noted earlier. But if it is

grounded in prejudice, willful ignorance, or ideological purity, it

is not honorable. If you have come this far in the book you

should, if you have read carefully, seen the arguments. So what

is missing for you? I reiterate: i) the planet is warming

(Chapter 3); ii) CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have been

rising steadily since the industrial revolution and we know that

the carbon in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels

(Chapters 4 and 5); iii) we can almost certainly rule out any

significant role for the sun in the global warming (Chapters 1

and 4); iv) all the physics we know, plus the models that

incorporate this physics, show that this is exactly what we would

expect to happen as a result of growing CO2 concentrations

(Chapter 6); and finally, v) we see evidence all around us of

climate change: record temperatures, shrinking glaciers, sea

level rise, increasing drought and more intense tropical storms,

effects on the biosphere, wildfires, etc (Chapter 8). At this

stage, all I can do is ask you to think through this again, with an

open mind. For those who were just confused when you opened

this book, I hope it has helped.28

27

I have to say that the proposal by the newly formed “Green New Deal” in the U.S., whose goal is carbon

neutrality in 10 years, while admirable, is unrealistic. If we can accomplish this by 2050, we will have likely met

the 20 C goal. We could do better, but it seems unlikely.

28 For further elaboration of the topic of this chapter, see Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand (Washington

and Cook, 2011).