Nearly half of Americans are climate change deniers.
They have their reasons.
Al Gore said it nearly 20 years ago. Dealing with the effects of the carbon dioxide humans are putting into the air is an "Inconvenient Truth." A great many Americans deal with the difficulty of ending our dependance on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy by denying the "truth" and emphasizing the "inconvenience." My blog post a week ago listed eight of the assertions I encounter among climate change deniers. Two climate activists, Alan Journet and Hogan Sherrow, address their arguments by citing evidence that the objections of climate science deniers are factually wrong.
Alan Journet is Co-facilitator, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now. SOCAN is a science-based grassroots volunteer organization. Dr. Alan Journet retired from Southeast Missouri State University in 2010 after a career teaching Biology and Environmental Science.
Hogan Sherrow has a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Anthropology. He has studied the impacts of climate change on human and animal populations on two different continents. He is the Director of the Rural Oregon Climate Political Action Committee.
Guest Post: A response to the arguments of climate science deniers.
Visitors to the blog “Up Close, with Peter Sage” recently encountered an array of claims by climate science skeptics, implying that climate scientists do not agree about the dangers of climate change. Here we explore each of those claims and try to address the embodied misinformation.
Atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases since the 1700s
The first claim accepts the reality of climate change but asserts that it is part of a natural cycle. According to this claim, “Climate-change skeptics note that the earth’s climate fluctuates,” and that there are numerous examples to show that climatic conditions in the past were drastically different than they are today. While this is accurate, it misses the point that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the rate of planetary warming have increased exponentially since the industrial revolution as humans have come to rely on fossil fuels (Figures 1 and 2). In fact, this is one of the most basic and agreed upon results of climate science.
Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentration from 1880 The second point takes a completely contradictory position by claiming that we are not warming. The assertions are that determining what “normal” is when it comes to climate is nearly impossible (true because ‘normal’ has no meaning for a constantly changing condition) and that the earth was warmer during the Roman empire. Climate scientists have been studying and modeling our climate since at least the 1970s (Buis 2020 Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right).
Reconstruction of global temperature since the last Ice Age The claim that the planet isn’t warming is not supported by the evidence. A 2021 reconstructions of global trends (Figure 3) reveals no period over the past 22,000 years warmer than today (Roman or otherwise),. We are experiencing the warmest global temperatures since our emergence from the last ice age.
Point three asserts that, “Nothing Americans might do matters.” This accepts the global nature of the climate crisis but rejects the conclusion that to be successful in tackling greenhouse gas emissions, we need everyone to pull their weight. The assertion that nothing the U.S. does matters because of emissions from China and India is false. The U.S. remains the second largest national emitter of greenhouse gases, while on a per capita basis we substantially exceed both China and India. Not only do our emissions matter on a global scale, if we don’t do what we can do, we have no credibility in urging action upon others.
The fourth claim is that the CO2 warming effect is modest and that water vapor and clouds are far more important than CO2. This misses the contribution of other greenhouse gases together causing at least a third of the warming. It’s also false because water vapor molecules fluctuate in the atmosphere in response to temperature; they are responding to warming and cooling, not causing it. Additionally, water vapor lasts only a few days in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases which last for years or even centuries.
The fifth claim is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not hazardous because indoor CO2 levels are often much higher, especially in crowded spaces. The reference to indoor carbon dioxide concentrations of 1000 parts per million is irrelevant. The impact we are concerned about is how greenhouse gases are causing global warming.
Claim 6 is that “More CO2 is good for plants...” asserting that, “Americans have conflated CO2 with pollution. CO2 isn't smoke. CO2 is good. It is plant food, the building block of life. We pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better. CO2 will make the earth greener so forests will grow better, and farms will be more productive.” While it is true that plants use CO2 during photosynthesis, it is not the limiting resource for plants. We use N/P/K fertilizers and water our gardens because these are the limiting resources for most plants - not CO2. Meanwhile, increasing CO2 results in reduced crop nutritional value and greater consumption by insect pests.
The seventh claim argues that we need more CO2. It brings us back to normal.” There is no ‘normal’ in a constantly changing climate, only averages over some arbitrarily defined historic period. There are no adherents in the climate science arena to this claim – whatever it is.
The last claim refers to the Milankovitch set of Earth orbit and axis cycles. While the Milankovitch cycles suggest that we are moving into another glacial period, our greenhouse gas emissions have compensated so significantly that we are actually in danger of the opposite – moving into another global hothouse phase. The concern is that this would destroy our natural ecosystems globally, including our natural plants and animals and our agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
Climate scientists develop conclusions from objectively collected and analyzed data and use intensely verified models. The result, from over 200 years of this work, is that over 97% of the world’s climate scientists agree that greenhouse gases (not just carbon dioxide) resulting from human behavior (largely fossil fuel use accelerating since the industrial revolution and land management) are causing warming of the atmosphere and planet which, in turn, causes the climate chaos we now experience. Unlike climate scientists, skeptics have no consistent explanation but offer merely an array of mutually contradictory opinions that have not been substantiated.
Not only do the claims presented provide no consensus regarding climate change, but most are ideas promoted by individuals who are not basing their ideas on objective assessment of evidence and data. In fact, most of the claims are long debunked propaganda generated by fossil fuel corporations and their allies to deny the scientific conclusions facing us all.
While, indeed, many of those polled in the U.S. don’t think climate change is real, or that it is a major problem, this is inconsistent with the consensus among climate scientists. The discrepancy results from how the evidence is communicated to the public. Communication challenges and the conflation of climate science consensus with ill-informed public opinion are topics that can be explored more fully in a later contribution. We thank Mr. Sage for providing us the opportunity to respond to the claims presented in his earlier blog entry and look forward to further public discussion about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
12 comments:
If humans hadn't discovered coal and oil under the Earth, we might be living in a cold treeless wasteland, if at all, as dominant species tend to completely deplete the resources in their environment to the point of extinction. This is the balance of nature we see all around us. We are not immune to its effects.
Yet the fossil fuel was there, and we were evolved enough to exploit it, and now we face the consequences. Without it we would likely still be living as mediaeval barbarians, after all it's only been around a few hundred years. It's enabled modern civilization, but we now know it's unsustainable and we must move past it to the next energy source.
It's here, all around us, waiting to be discovered. I'm as certain of this as I am that we risk extinction if we continue as we have.
In November 2019, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, rich capitalist and family man, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R- UT) joined the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus. Of course the cult call him a "Rino," but who cares what they think.
Thank you, Peter, for offering up this reasoned coherent rebuttal of the denials positions. I look forward to seeing the anguished outrage from those readers who continue to keep their heads hidden under their pillows.
It’s mainly Republicans in denial of anthropogenic climate change, but that’s no surprise. These are people who were also in denial of the 2020 election, and the threat posed by COVID-19. They’ve lost their grip on reality, and climate change denial is its most deadly manifestation.
The good news is the party has divided into warring factions: the opportunism of “moderates” willing to sacrifice our future for the good of Big Oil vs. the dystopian delusions of white-wing whackos. At the rate it’s self-destructing, the GOP may eventually become irrelevant, but at the rate climate change is already wreaking havoc, we can’t afford to wait.
The previous blog reminded me of the film "An Inconsistent Truth" (2012) written, produced and featuring former Nashville, Tennessee, syndicated radio talk show host Phil Valentine. Phil was very proud of his film and took great pleasure in mocking Al Gore, also of Tenn.
Valentine also mocked public health officials trying to protect Americans from COVID-19. He died in the ICU from the virus in 2021 at the age of 61. He was unvaccinated and he scorned wearing masks.
He had no scientific background and he dropped out of college to pursue his radio career. Sadly, many of his listeners took whatever "Uncle Phil" said as the gospel truth.
I have received unpublishable comments. I consider the fact that in every case the comments of climate change deniers attack the guest post authors and not the content of their rebuttals to be significant. Climate change deniers who comment here are committed to the status quo either because of partisan loyalty, dislike of Democrats, or mental inertia. They have not been arguing points. They deny. It is a bit like loyalty to election denial by many of the same people. Biden simply could not have won. How could he possibly have gotten more votes that our dear Trump???? With climate it is "How could it possibly be true that our way of life as regards energy is fouling our habitat???"
I welcome fact-based disagreement. I am not going to publish garbage, even if publishing it tends to reveal the immaturity of the commenters.
Peter Sage
Point three asserts that, “Nothing Americans might do matters.” This accepts the global nature of the climate crisis but rejects the conclusion that to be successful in tackling greenhouse gas emissions, we need everyone to pull their weight. The assertion that nothing the U.S. does matters because of emissions from China and India is false. The U.S. remains the second largest national emitter of greenhouse gases, while on a per capita basis we substantially exceed both China and India.
The CO2 we emit on a per capita basis is irrelevant, except perhaps for the purpose of guilt-tripping Americans.
I've read that China is building a new coal-fired power plant every week. India is also building coal-fired power plants rapidly. Their combined new emissions will swamp any reductions the United States is capable of making.
Not only do our emissions matter on a global scale, if we don’t do what we can do, we have no credibility in urging action upon others.
Here's what might give us "credibility": supplying large quantities of modular nuclear reactors (such as the ones built by Corvallis' NuScale) to developing nations at a lower overall cost than they would have to invest in coal-fired power plants. developing nations would go for that in a heartbeat; less cost, more electricity.
All the virtue signaling we do is not going to convince developing nations to slow their development.
The fourth claim is that the CO2 warming effect is modest and that water vapor and clouds are far more important than CO2. This misses the contribution of other greenhouse gases together causing at least a third of the warming. It’s also false because water vapor molecules fluctuate in the atmosphere in response to temperature; they are responding to warming and cooling, not causing it. Additionally, water vapor lasts only a few days in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases which last for years or even centuries.
Much of the justification for claims like this comes from the output of computer models of the climate. The accuracy of those models' predictions is open to significant question, since the equations for a number of the important physical processes underlying the evolution of the climate do not exist. Those equations do not exist because the physics of those processes are still a mystery to science.
Instead, the computer models account for those processes via "parameterizations"; essentially fudge factors that represent scientists' best guess as to the contributions of those processes. it seems to me this is an unacceptably slim basis for decisions which will have major effects on the world's economy and the well-being of its human population.
Thank you Alan Journet and Hogan Sherrow for the clarity and summary of your evidence explaining the variables in the global warming arguments. Thus refuting with facts and observations the contrarian claims to an evolving an intensifying climate crises. That we should be entering a global cooling trend and instead the opposite is occurring is all the more ominous and foreboding.
Quite a warning, Peter. What ever happened to Scientific Method? I’d also tell Alan Journet how disappointed the 30+ people were, who believed you were planning to debate Donald Easterbrook at the Gold Hill home of Dave and Elke Wolf, as we nderstood you were looking forward to it. Remember?
Well it’s too bad we only heard from Don with nobody there to present the other side.
As far as your content today, I’m disappointed you didn’t address the average 800 year delay in CO2 level increase following global temperature rises, which I felt was deliberately misrepresented by Gore in his film. I feel sure you could do a skookums job explaining how the law of cause and effect doesn’t apply in that case. Other than this one issue, I’m burned out on debating with you, after all these years, so won’t address anything else we’ve already beaten to death.
Cheers, Malcolm
One other thought, which I’m hoping won’t be deleted: Global warming aficionados have explained the slowing (reversing?) of rising temperatures that occurred between roughly 1940-1975 as being caused by sulphate aerosol pollution. If this is so, should we not remove or lower the sulphate concentration rules? Yes, I’m sure their are downsides to this idea, but surely the downsides don’t come close to the concerns about global warming's “existential threat”?
The most important thing in my opinion is to eschew sanctimonious, unearned certitude on both extremes of this debate. The famous Gore “documentary” has for years been banned for educational use in e.g. the U.K. because of egregious errors in methodology and conclusion. Broadstroke denialism from the right can be even more dangerous, failing even to distinguish between differences in degree versus differences in kind. The counterpoints of Mr. T and Malcolm are examples of inconvenient inquiries, to some.
Not sure how this happened, but the post that begins “One other thought” was written by Yours, Truly.
Malcolm
Post a Comment