Wisconsin Joins States Banning Science

Wisconsin has joined the list of states thinking they can deal with climate change with censorship. The state Board of Commissioners of Public Lands now prohibits its members from discussing climate change. Staffers must get approval before answering any emails on global warming or climate change. The move is the result of a vendetta by State Treasurer and Republican Tea Party member Matt Adamczyk who is upset with the way the board executive secretary Tia Nelson has worked to promote climate change awareness. He previously attempted to get her fired for 'time theft' for work she did six years ago on the issue. That effort failed. Now, he's managed to get her censored, and everyone else in the board. I guess that's a consolation prize for someone who hates science.

This once again brings up the burning question - If there is no climate change, why are you so afraid of it you have to resort to censorship?

Willie Soon and the Petition Project

Of course, Willie Soon has been in the news lately after he was caught falsifying his research in order to produce 'deliverables' for his fossil fuel clients. But, I was doing a little work last night and came across something interesting. It turns out he was a player with the Global Warming Petition Project. He was a coauthor on a paper about it and the founder of the project is the lead author. You can read it here.

Why is this significant? Because of something the Petition Project states on its webpage:

The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources.

So, they don't receive financing from industrial sources, except for funds from the fossil fuel industry, as it turns out. I have already shown how the Petition Project is a fraud when it was submitted as proof global warming isn't real to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge, so it isn't anything new to find out they are lying.  That has already been established. This project has been debunked many times by many people besides myself. But, it is interesting to get one more confirmation of how they are funded by the fossil fuel industry.

That shouldn't be a surprise any more than the news they are lying about it.

Identity and Denialism

One of the issues I spend the most time on is trying to understand just why people deny the findings of science and adhere to a falsifiable belief. Of course, I'm not the only one. This is a topic of widespread concern and study. The amazing thing is to see how far people will go to support their beliefs.

As a scientist, it's a slam-dunk to realize what is happening with climate change. Read the science and there is only one, inescapable conclusion - manmade emissions are changing the world's climate. Yes, the science is most definitely settled. So, why is it some people go to incredible lengths to deny this? If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. Some of them go beyond bizarre. Without paraphrasing, I had people tell me if the science disagreed with their conclusion then the science had to be thrown out. They were right and any science to the contrary had to be wrong. Wow!

Of course, climate change is not the only issue where people deny the science. Just take a look at this article here about the anti-vaxxers.  (I find it interesting how he describes bloodletting as something from the past. I have a genetic condition (hemochromatosis) that requires me to go in for bloodletting on occasion, except we call it phlebotomy nowadays.)

So, what makes someone think like that? If I knew the answer I would probably be in line for an award of some kind, a Nobel at the very least. Many people have, and are, working to solve this problem and it isn't likely to be me that finds it. But, that won't stop me from thinking about it and I think a book I read recently gives me a clue.

I read Ken Follet's book, Fall of Giants, this winter. I'm a fan of his writing and thought Pillars of the Earth and World Without End were magnificent. I've been waiting to read the first book in this new series until it was all out in print, which happened last fall. (I read a very good book twenty years ago that left me anxious for the rest of the series. I'm still waiting for the rest of the Game of Thrones series. Yes, twenty years. I just put new volumes on the shelf and will read them all once it's done.) If you're not familiar with Fall of Giants, it is a historical fiction set in Europe and the U.S. and concerns World War I. One of the amazing things about the Great War that others have discussed, and Follet brings out very well, is how the people followed the royalty almost without question. The empirical leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia made unbelievably bad decisions and they were implemented. Not just because followers were afraid to stand up to the royals (there was some of that), but also because they believed in their respective leaders so much they would do anything asked of them.

These people identified with their leaders so strongly their identities became those of their leaders. By following a great leader they themselves became great. In their minds, they became more privileged, more royal, because of who they identified with. They were better than those people over in that other country who followed some other royalty. When their leader made a great decision the followers were also great because that was their identity. Consequently, any criticism of their leaders became criticism of themselves. Thus, when the leaders made bad decisions, they were incapable of seeing that and blindly implemented the commands. Even joyfully. Let's all sing as we march off to war.

Now, we have a similar situation with science denialism. The fact we don't have battlefields covered with dead bodies doesn't mean the number of casualties and the overall cost will not be the same given enough time. It is odd and disturbing to see how people obediently follow entities such as the Heartland Institute, WUWT!, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton and all the rest. People still blindly follow them, even when it is shown that these entities are lying and are being paid to lie. It is the same blind loyalty seen with sports teams. "It is my team and I'm going to support them, no matter what!"

I remember having a conversation (all right, it was an argument) with a guy in 1987 about the dangers of cigarette smoking. I claimed science showed smoking was hazardous and the other guy claimed it was harmless. It was a short discussion because the guy got so angry with me I thought he was going to physically attack me. The interesting thing is he wasn't even a smoker. Of course, we know how the smoking issue turned out. I don't know what ever happened to that guy, but I wonder what his reaction was when it finally came out the tobacco companies knew all along and were lying to us.

So, where am I going with this thought?

I think many people have come to identify with the denier industry and will follow it, not because they think they are right, but because the identity of the industry has become their own. If the denier industry is wrong, then they are weak and vulnerable, at least in their own eyes. Likewise, if the industry is right, then they are strong and somehow superior. What could give someone a bigger feeling of superiority than to be able to say they can prove all of the scientists in the world wrong? Oh, and all of you people in that other group that doubt me are inferior. Sucks for you.

What that means is the only way to break the climate change gridlock is to discredit the industry. You have to make people believe that following the industry gives them a poor identity and following the science gives them a good identity.

Now, how do you go about doing that? Beats me.

Florida Threatened by That Which Cannot Be Mentioned

Florida Governor Rick Scott is such a intense science-denier that he has instructed government employees they are not permitted to use the phrases 'climate change,' 'global warming,' and sea-level rise. One employee who failed to follow this rule was forced to take a leave of absence and was not permitted to return to work until he underwent a mental health evaluation to determine his 'fitness for duty.'

For the record, I contacted Governor Scott's office and asked for comments. They did not respond.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics don't really care what Rick Scott thinks - nature will do it's thing anyway. The sea level has risen about 6 inches since the 1960s and that is enough to swamp coastal areas during storms and even during high tide in some areas. The freshwater aquifers are experiencing sea water intrusion due to overuse and rising sea levels. Beaches are eroding and require expensive maintenance. Storms are becoming more frequent and more severe. Additionally, rising sea levels will make Florida more vulnerable. Climate change has come to Florida and is hitting it hard. That is what is going on right now, not what will be coming in the future. And, for some reason, Governor Scott would rather see his state and his constituents suffer from the effects of climate change than to even use the words.

Oh, and FEMA will not provide federal funds unless a state disaster preparedness plans address climate change. Oops. He may not be a scientists, but the money issue has been settled.

I'm wondering, is stupidity an impeachable offense?

He may not be a scientist, but that hasn't stopped him from proving he's a jackass. Now, Floridians are paying the price.  Which is kind of appropriate, since they're the ones who voted him into office.

Question to Deniers: Why Aren't You as Smart as a Six-Year Old?

Deniers love to use that ridiculous line - I'm not a scientist..., and then they proceed to demonstrate what a jackass they are by claiming to be smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined.

Well, here's a video by a six-year old on climate change. If he can figure it out, why can't you?

Guest Submission: Making A Scam Work

A Guest submission for Dialogues on Global Warming

RE: Making a scam work;

Considering the clever subterfuge being employed by man-made climate change deniers we need to consider the supposed legitimacy of those who deny man's culpability. And since we are apparently having more and more, intense, and extreme weather around the world, it is particularly interesting that Global Warming deniers have been ramping up their game in an effort to deny any significant dangers caused by the vast release of Co2 into our worldwide environment.

One article about a “peer-reviewed” study that was published in the 2-14-13 issue of Forbes claimed that a peer reviewed, (survey) determined that a majority of scientists remain skeptical about the proposition that global warming posses a huge threat to mankind, and, also that, valid research about this threat, fails to affirm a need for urgency regarding climate change. But interestingly, the study was done by the APEGA, or the Association of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists ofAlberta, and wouldn't you know—the professionals in that survey were heavily representative of Geologists, which are the least likely scientists to affirm the dangers of man's role in climate change. 

In scientific terms, a survey is really nothing more than a glorified poll lacking real controls and objective methodology. Furthermore a genuine Study, found that 97 percent of actively publishing earth scientists agreed that human activities are changing global temperatures. But apparently, since the study cited in Forbes was authored by Lianne M. Lefsrud at the University of Canada, and, Renate E. Meyer, a professor of economics from The University of economicsin Austria, who also studied at The Copenhagen Businesses School in Denmark, the Forbes study was heavily representative of Geologists working in the oil industry categorized as “economic geologists,” who study geology primarily to examine its role in commercial applications—you guessed it—this last group tends to be the most skeptical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. So how objective is a survey that's conclusion highlights scientists who already doubt man's role in global warming? And how strange that scientists working for the advancement of oil interests in Canada, might be biased—Ya think?

The long study citing their opinions is also full of largely unintelligible ten dollar words, that are confusing to even the most intelligent among us. And the APEGA sponsored study itself, admitted that its methodology represented “a convenience, (non-probability) sample, of self-selected respondents, similar to the general APEGA membership.” Furthermore although the survey was sent to 40,000 members of the APEGA, only 1077 completed surveys were received—just 2.69% of the total!

Here is one paragraph from page nine of that lengthy (30 plus page) “study,” which illustrates the convoluted language and terminology used:

Data analysis

“From our research question, we developed theoretically informed coding categories based upon a review of the identity, framing, professional competency, and legitimation literatures to heuristically circumscribe the discursive construction of expertise. As we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0 in an iterative manner.”

Wikipedia's Online dictionary defines some of these words including;

1. Heuristically: A heuristic method such as one using a mathematical algorithm that solves a problem more quickly, but is not as certain to arrive at an optimal solution. 2.Discursive: (A) to digress from the main point; rambling. (B) A philosophy using reason and argument rather than intuition. 3.Iterative: Of a procedure that involves repetition of steps to achieve the desired outcome. In computing this may involve a mechanism such as a loop.

So, aside from the fact that conventional climate scientists, as well as all other kinds of scientists have (always) relied on reason and logic more than intuition, and that the words “legitimation,” and, “literatures,” are not really used very commonly—If we included the definitions of all of these questionable terms, including those of the more common words, “circumscribe,” and, “theoretically,” we might end up with a paragraph which reads something like this:

“From our research question, we develop coding based on categorical guesses, reviewing identity, framing, professional competency, (I.E. the ability of professionals to determine results based on accuracy and legitimate knowledge) and (literatures?) which legitimizes such research and then uses mathematical methods to arrive at a quick solution that is not certain to be the best answer. Our methodology which circles around in a rambling digression from the main point in order to establish the self proclaimed expertise used in our survey, is based on facts, not intuition. And, as we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0. in a procedure including repetitive steps to achieve the desired outcome by using a computing loop.”

If you ask me this is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual application of jargon to justify studies which are rife with vagueness and which lack real credibility due to institutional bias!

The fact remains that without giving undue credit to (fox guarding the hen house surveys), that commonly advance the special interests of big oil and other Co2 producing companies, 97% of actively publishing climate scientists remain convinced about man's primary role in global warming.

And, getting back to that article about this study in Forbes, posted by “James Taylor,” (a contributor), is it any wonder that Forbes includes a disclaimer written in extremely fine print, stating that: “Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own?”

Peter W. Johnson

Superior, WI

Texas Water Wars

I live in Mason County, far in the western part of the Llano Uplift of the Edwards Plateau. Austin and San Antonio are two hours away. There are 2000 people in the town of Mason and 4000 in the entire county of about 1000 square miles, about 30 times the size of Manhattan Island. The skies are dark here and city people are astounded when they see the stars for the first time. We are more concerned with hitting deer with our cars than with city crime. It's a 60-year drive to Mason from the big cities.

Yesterday, March 13, I drove out to the Eckert James River Bat Cave, one of the largest bat nurseries in the world, and did some volunteer work. We were so far out in the wilderness it looked like a scene from a movie on Africa, including fording streams. There is no cell phone service out there.

Jame River, Mason County, TX

You would think a place this remote would be unconcerned with the events in the cities. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. When you talk about Texas one word always comes up when discussing the future - water. There isn't enough of it and there is a fight about it. As it it turns out, Mason has a very high quality aquifer - the Hickory. This water is superb for agriculture and vineyards are springing up all over the county. We are in the heart of the Texas wine country (a multi-billion dollar industry), but we rely on irrigation. Mason averages about 24 inches of rain a year, but I think 20 of those inches fall in three or four storms.

Now, Austin, two hours away, wants our water. Metropolitan Austin has in excess of 1 million people. Versus our 4000. The odds are not in our favor.

So, why the water wars? Two reasons - climbing population and drought.

Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the union. When I was born in 1957 there were about 4 million people in the state. Today, there are nearly 26 million. The farm we lived on is now a neighborhood of multi-million dollar homes surrounded by a large city. And, it keeps increasing.

More people, more demands for water.

At the same time, we have been experiencing drought for years. Depending on the region and the source of information, the drought has been going for anywhere from 5 to 15 years. I can personally attest to how rivers that used to flow with adequate water are now completely dry - and have been for several years.

On top of this is a cause so many people don't want to acknowledge - climate change. Drought in this region is simply something you learn to deal with. But, they are getting more frequent and more severe because of climate change. I find it interesting how people will get all riled up about the water wars and, at the same time, deny that climate change is making the situation worse. Here is a perfect example of a community not far from where I live:

The Southwestern Water Wars: How Drought Is Producing Tensions in Texas

 If you want to solve the problem, you have to first understand what the cause is. It's an uphill fight.

Climate Change and the California Drought

There has been a great deal of debate about the topic of what is causing the massive drought in California. Has manmade climate change caused the drought, made it worse or had no effect on something that would have happened anyway? This question is compounded by climate scientists that have taken the tack of saying you can't tell for certain if climate change has caused a particular event or not. To this last I say, 'Bunk!'

These are the facts:

• The climate has more energy now than it has at any time in at least 800,000 years. This is indisputable. (Please, if you want to deny the science go away right now.)
• Weather is dependent on energy in the atmosphere. No energy, no weather. 
• The more energy there is, the more energetic weather will be.

Quite simply, everything today is the result of climate change. It is no longer an issue of determining what is impacted by climate change, the problem is determining what isn't. It is not possible to say anymore that you 'cannot tell if an event is effected by climate change' because they all are. Literally.

So, the question about the California drought and climate change is no longer about if it was made worse, or even caused, by AGW. It was. And, we all have to pay the more than $2 billion in damages it is causing. That comes out to about another $7 per year for every person in the country. Add that to the hundreds, or thousands, of dollars you are already spending because of climate change. The question has become what, and when, are we going to have what it takes to do something about it.

Oh, did I mention the Koch brothers are laughing their asses off at you?

Well, now a new study confirms what I've been saying. Sorry - they didn't confirm the Koch brothers no longer have asses. But, they did confirm the California drought is due to manmade emissions.

Basically, what they found is a drought doesn't just happen in a period of low precipitation. It is more likely to occur when there is also elevated temperatures. Well, with global warming, every year has elevated temperatures, meaning any period with reduced precipitation is at risk of leading to a drought.

I find it particularly interesting to note their statistics. According to their research, there have been six drought in the last 20 years and 14 droughts in the 98 years before that. That comes out to .3 droughts per year over the last 20 years and .14 droughts per year for the 98 years before that. That means California droughts are twice as likely today as they were previously.

At what point do people stop looking at the statistics like this and say, 'Yes, I understand the climate is seriously changing right now.'

At what point do people stop denying the science and say, 'Yes, the billionaires are the only ones benefiting from this?'

The Senator With The Snowball

Senator James Inhofe is one of the biggest disgraces of the United States. This is a leading member of the U.S. Senate and he uses that platform to repeatedly demonstrate just how ignorant he is. I shudder to think what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. education system every time this man opens his mouth.

If you aren't familiar with him, he's the man that claims "manmade global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." He's the guy that says climate science is a conspiracy by Barbara Streisand and the Weather Channel. "It's all about money. I mean, what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"

What's funny about that statement is Inhofe has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, making him one of the top recipients of oil money. Hmmm. Do you think there's a link between all the money he gets from the fossil fuel industry and his fight to protect their interests at the expense of his constituents?

Inhofe is also famous for coming out every time there's a cold day in the winter (when its supposed to be cold) and make some statement about how it proves climate change isn't real. Then, he disappears on those winter days when the temperature hits a new record high. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever. The rest of the world knows he's an idiot.

Now, he's done it again. He brought a snowball into the Senate and claimed it was proof climate change isn't real. But, it backfired. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took him to task about it. Whitehouse cited numerous authoritative sources saying climate change is real and then repeatedly asks, who are you going to believe, these excellent sources? Or, "the Senator with the snowball." Watch the video.

There's nothing we can do about Inhofe. We're stuck with him. But, we can be thankful to Senator Whitehouse for the new catch phrase for all of the people that reject science and think they're clever: they are another Senator with a snowball.

Judith Curry - Climate Change Denier

A reader brought my attention an article written by Judith Curry. She has become the darling of the AGW denier community due to her credentials. Ms Curry is a climate scientist and is the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

Her credentials are real. She also accepts funds from the fossil fuel industry.

In regards to accepting funds from the fossil fuel industry, she stated:

I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.

We have heard a very similar statement from Willie Soon:

No amount of money can influence what I say or do or research or write.

Now, of course, we all know that, in fact, Mr. Soon really is influenced by the amount of money and who it is coming from. So, we have to wonder about Ms. Curry as well. Why has Ms. Curry become the darling of the Wall Street Journal (a leader in the anti-science effort)? See her article The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown: Mountingevidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: Thenumbers don’t add up. Why has she become the darling of Congressional Republicans who work so hard to block any legislation addressing climate change?

Too bad she has chosen to reject the very science she has worked on for so long.

Officially, Ms. Curry states she supports the scientific opinion on climate change. Then, she spends all of her time undermining climate science. This article is a perfect example. Let's look at a few of her claims.

A big part of her complaint is how the AR4 in 2007 had a 90% certainty that human emissions are responsible for climate change and then it became 95% certainty in the AR5 in 2013. What I find interesting is that it has already been reported the reason AR4 stated 'only' 90% certainty is because China and India refused to sign the report if it went any higher. The scientific consensus was there to go higher, it was the politics that prevented it. The change was not because of new science, it was due to a breakthrough in politics (small as it is). And, Ms. Curry was in a position to know this!

Why didn't she report on the reality? What was her agenda?

She then lists a number of reasons she is opposed to the idea of the increase in certainty:

• Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
• Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
• Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
• Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent

The problem with this list is that every one of them is a false objection and she, as a climate scientist and chair of the department, was in a position to know better. So, why did she make these false statements?

The issue of lack of warming is both a false statement and a false argument. Warming has not only occurred, but the only way you can get this statement is to cherry pick the data and falsify your results. And, she knows this! Take a look here. This is, literally, only one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples showing warming has not stopped. And, of course, Ms. Curry is doing nothing more than repeating the often quoted false argument that surface warming equates to global warming while leaving out the 93% of the warming going on in the oceans.

Please explain to me why someone with the education, training and experience of Ms. Curry would do that?

Well, how about decreased sensitivity to CO2? Read this here and tell me what you think. I think it doesn't look good for Ms. Curry's credibility.

She then says her proof is the sea-level rise during a 30-year period early in the century is the same as a 20-year period late in the century. That argument is pretty ridiculous all by itself. To say the sea level is rising as much in 20 years as it used to rise in 30 years is pretty conclusive. But, there's more. Reports show current sea level rise is actually twice as much as it was early in the 20th century.

Looking worse for Ms. Curry's credibility.

Continuing. Increasing Antarctica sea ice extent. Again, one of the favorite false arguments of the denier crowd, so why is she using it?

The sea ice around Antarctica really is growing in extent. But, there is so much more to the story you have to wonder why someone in Ms. Curry's position didn't include it in her statement. Why didn't she mention how Antarctica is losing land ice at an alarming rate? In fact, it is now thought so much ice is melting on the continent the fresh water has diluted the surrounding sea water to the point it is easier for it to freeze. Why didn't she include any of that in her statement?

We can already conclude Ms. Curry is intentionally working to deceive. If she doesn't like me saying that about her she knows where to find me. I'm not worried.

So, what we see about Ms. Curry is a definite pattern of deceit that works to support the claims of deniers. And, she did this after accepting money from the fossil fuel industry.

In summary, we can see Ms. Curry is accepting money and using her position of authority to mislead and deceive the public. Her claims and statements have been thoroughly debunked and refuted. She should have been well aware of all of this and I am certain she is.

And, yet, she continues to make these statements anyways.

I guess she can respond to her employers about having made the appropriate 'deliverables' now.

Denier Willie Soon Facing Investigation

It isn't often I get to pass on good news on the climate change front, but this is one of those times. Well-known professional denier Willie Soon is facing investigation for failure to report financial conflicts when submitting papers for publication.

Mr. Soon is normally advertised as an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, but is actually an aerospace engineer, not a physicist and certainly not a climate scientist.

Mr. Soon is well known in the denier community as a champion and is frequently cited as a 'scientist' that rejects AGW in an attempt to give credibility to claims AGW isn't real. One of his claims is that any climate change we may be experiencing is due to solar variability. His scientific claims are routinely debunked.

He is also well known in the scientific community as someone that has rejected science and is closely associated with the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded by the fossil fuel industry and is engaged in the effort to "confuse" the issue on climate change, providing funds to individuals to undermine climate science. Anyone associated with Heartland is suspect and certainly anyone associated with them has sacrificed any scientific credibility they may have ever had. Soon is a shining example of that.

Mr. Soon was also part of a team that made a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. I rejected their 'proof' on the basis that they only claimed they didn't like future forecasts of damage due to climate change. Somehow, they thought this proved AGW isn't real.

When asked about his funding sources, Mr. Soon has stated no amount of money would affect his research. Well, if that is the case, why has he been so reluctant to reveal his funding source? Now, we know why.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace has obtained documents showing Mr. Soon has received at least $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry. In his documents, he has described his anti-climate science papers as 'deliverables.' This, it turns out, is an ethics violation. He, and anyone else, is free to obtain their funding from where ever they can get it, but they have to reveal that when there is a potential conflict of interest when submitting scientific papers. Mr. Soon failed to do that.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center has launched an investigation into Mr. Soon's actions.

This is just the latest example of how the deniers work. We have already heard this same story with Richard Lindzen, another scientist (this time with MIT) that denied ever receiving fossil fuel money, but was eventually caught lying about it.

Why do we see this pattern? If AGW isn't real, why do deniers have to align with organizations that are well-known for falsifying research? Why are they continually lying about their funding? Why are they always providing false arguments and false statements as 'evidence'? Why, if the science is valid, are they not providing valid science?

Maybe because there is no valid science to support their claims?

Minds Cannot Be Changed

I have had discussions with some people in the climate science business and there have been mixed feelings about my global warming skeptic challenge. Some have been enthusiastic supporters and think it was great. Some are of the opinion that it was a bad idea because it only makes deniers dig in their heels that much harder. I actually agree with this in part.

There is no doubt it made deniers dig in their heels, but I contend it doesn't matter because there is no possible way to prove to deniers that AGW is real. No amount of science or data or logic will ever make them change their minds. People will frequently try to get me in a 'debate' over global warming, which I just refuse to do. I ask them one simple question, 'Is there anything I can do or say that will convince you global warming is real?' If they say 'no', I then suggest we save ourselves the time and trouble and move on to something else. I have never had any one say 'yes' to that question. Pretty amazing, when you think about it. To say I shouldn't have done the challenge because it causes deniers to dig in their heels is irrelevant. They will dig in their heels no matter what.

I have always said the purpose of the challenge was not to change the minds of people that have already decided. The purpose was to reach out to people that have not yet made up their minds on the issue. There is no saving someone that rejects science, but maybe we can save someone that hasn't yet done so.

On that note, I found it interesting when I came across an article today in Scientific American today on this very topic. The article initially discussed how people are refusing to vaccinate their children because of a paper linking autism to vaccinations. These people still believe in that claim, even though the lead researcher, Andrew Wakefield, was found guilty of fraud and dozens of other charges. Apparently, he had a financial stake in the findings. The paper was retracted and declared to be "utterly false." Wakefield was eventually disbarred from practicing medicine. And, yet, people still believe in his claim and put their children (and other people's children) at risk by refusing to have them vaccinated.

The article sites a study reported in the New York Times and states,

Nearly 2000 parents were shown one of four pro-vaccination campaigns, each adopting a different persuasive strategy (facts, science, emotions or stories) plus one control group, to see which was most effective in changing minds. The punchline: none of the above. Nothing changed people’s minds, and in fact, the strategies often backfired.

And, that is the point. If someone has decided to reject science, there is no scientific argument that will get them to change their minds. It is not possible, in my experience. I have never had anyone come to me and say, "You know, I didn't believe in that but you changed my mind." It doesn't happen. I hope other people have had better success than I have.

Again, the article states,

Now we know this can backfire: presenting hardline denialists with the facts just makes them dig their heels in deeper.

But, as the article states, people really do change their minds on things. It happens all the time. How does that happen? The author suggests it is because opinions are connected to a person's self-identity. If you can change that self-identity, you change their opinions. People's self-identity changes all through life, so their opinions do too. If we can change their self-identity, we can change their opinions.

She may be right on that, but that seems like an incredibly difficult, even impossible, solution. Think about it, she is suggesting we solve the problem of science rejection by somehow convincing deniers of any form to have a different view of themselves. How do you go about doing that? And, do we really want some mechanism that can cause millions of people to alter their self-image? That sounds way too much like mind-control to me. If not initially, something like that would eventually be misused (think political elections and marketing strategies).

I wish I could come up with something better, but I can't. I don't even try to change their minds. Like I said above, the only hope I see is to reach people before they reject the science. If you have a better suggestion I would love to hear it.

Emotions Rule Climate Debate?

I saw an article today, Emotions, not science, rule U.S. climate change debate: study.
If you're at all familiar with the ongoing debate you probably don't need to read any further than that. Yes, it is all about emotions. Science has most certainly taken a back seat on this issue. Hell, science is on the side of the road trying to hitch a ride. Rejecting science is the rule of the day.

You know how you can tell this is true? Just ask someone what they think of Al Gore. WARNING: Don't stand too close when you do. Al Gore is not a scientist and his stand on climate change is irrelevant. What is important is what the science says. But, try convincing a denier. It is amazing to see how quickly they will froth at the mouth (sometimes literally and I'm not exaggerating) at the mere mention of the man.

Why is that? Really. Why do deniers go crazy when you mention Al Gore? Why do they hate him so much? Is it because of his movie? Is it because he won the Nobel Prize? I don't think so. That doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Like I said, Gore is not a scientist and he is irrelevant to the question about AGW being real or not. But, I don't think there is a single topic that gets a stronger reaction than Al Gore. I wish I could tell you how many people have told me AGW isn't real because Al Gore ...... (fill in your sin/crime of choice). The fact is, there have been so many I can't tell you how many there have been. The worst part? These people really do think it proves AGW isn't real. Al Gore has become the focus of everything they want to vent about when it comes to climate change.

So, how do we get past this and address the problem? I don't really know and I don't think the authors of the paper do either. Here is what they say:

"Strategies for building support for (climate) mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public's understanding of science," Ana-Maria Bliuc, a professor at Australia's Monash University who co-wrote the study, said in a statement.

So, the science isn't the issue. I'll agree with that. The science is conclusive and anyone that believes AGW isn't real is simply rejecting science. There is nothing you can do to convince them the science is real. Read some of the submissions to my global warming challenge. I had people state any science that disagrees with them must be rejected. No amount of science will convince those people they are wrong. Consequently, you have to find another way to get through to them. What could that way be?

Then, they say,

Instead, scientists who want action on global warming should try to change the relationship between believers and deniers, said Bliuc, a social and political psychologist.

This sounds a little simplistic. Yes, the relationship needs to change. Any suggestions? Unfortunately, they also say,

Both groups generally agree that climate change is real, according to the study based on an Internet survey of U.S. residents. But the two camps differ on whether human activity is causing warming.

I can say from my own personal experience, this is not a true statement. I have met few deniers that say global warming and climate change are real. In fact, most of the deniers I have met insist it is not happening and any statement about 'the climate has always changed' is meant to divert the conversation. It is their way of avoiding the question. The truth is, based on my experience, most people saying that do not believe the climate is changing, naturally or otherwise.

But, the authors do say something that of merit,

In the United States, the two camps are divided largely along political party lines. More than 70 percent of Democrats say the earth is warming mainly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, according to polling data released by the Pew Research Center in January.

In contrast, among Republicans just 27 percent hold this view; more than 40 percent say there is no solid evidence that the planet is getting hotter, and 30 percent say climate change is due mostly to natural environmental patterns.

Ah, there we go. No, we do not need to convince the public, we need to convince the Republicans. That is what it all boils down to. We need to get the Republican leaders on board if we want to address this problem (Disclaimer: I am a devoted, life-long independent and do not belong to any political party). There is some indication of progress on this front. However, I do not believe the problem is going away anytime soon. Republican leaders are ensconced in the the position that AGW is not real and they will not do anything to address it.

In conclusion, I do not agree with the authors of the paper. I do not see how it is possible to convince the deniers to take action and I do not see any way the relationship can be changed. As long as they are attacking climate scientists and engaging in character assassination, there will be no civil discourse. The best I can hope for is to educate anyone that has not made up their minds, yet.

Not a very hopeful assessment, but I think it is realistic. I would be interested in hearing any suggestions, though.

Lindzen Continues Deceptions

Sometimes I read something that is so ridiculous I just know people are going to believe it merely because they figure no one would say something that stupid if it wasn't true. Well, yes there are people that would say something stupid and Richard Lindzen is just such a person. Take a look at the latest example of this:

Top MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Senate’s Climate Change Vote Is Ludicrous’

Just a quick note before we start - According to the MIT webpage, Lindzen is an emeritus professor, meaning he is no longer an active professor there. He is, in fact, working at the Cato Institute, a well-known front for the fossil fuel industry and one of the organizations I refer to as The Three Stooges. That means we are being subjected to deception right from the beginning of this article.

One quick question: If the denier position is so scientifically sound, why do they have to resort to deception so often? Just asking.

So, what did this "top MIT climate scientist" have to say about it?

Lindzen said Sanders’s amendment to a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline an “attempt to hijack science for political purposes.”

“Climate change is of course real; change being the normal state of affairs in climate,” Lindzen told Climate Depot. “Climate change has caused catastrophic problems on occasion throughout the earth’s history. While man may have contributed somewhat to climate change in recent years, his contribution to the above is highly questionable, and continues to be debated.”

“In the case of Bernie Sanders, a socialist, he is undoubtedly dreaming about nationalizing the energy industry,” Lindzen said. “For the U.S. Senate to accept guidance from Sanders’ bizarre dreams is ludicrous.”

As you probably know, the U.S. Senate voted on three amendments to the Keystone pipeline bill. These amendments addressed the issue of climate change and humanity's role in causing it. The amendments were, in fact, completely political, but were certainly not ludicrous. They were much more productive than the Republican's "I'm not a scientist but I'm going to proceed to prove I'm a jackass anyway," statement. For one thing, it got even the fossil fuel king, Inhofe from Oklahoma, to admit climate change is not a hoax. Yes, he tried to weasel his way out of that statement, but it is now on record that climate change is not a hoax.

The purpose of the amendments was to put it right out there, once and for all, just which senators support the science and which ones reject it. That is not a ludicrous thing to do and, in my opinion, was very successful. That is my opinion. Here is another.

Lindzen is also wrong in his statement this was done to hijack science for political purposes. Lindzen knows all about hijacking science and has been guilty of it for years, including lying about the funding he has received from the fossil fuel industry for decades until he was caught red-handed. You would think someone like that would know all about hijacking science, but apparently not. This Senate vote was an attempt to make the science the whole issue and to subvert the whims of Mr. Lindzen's employers. The same ones that provide Inhofe's political funding.

Why does fossil fuel industry want to keep the science out of government decision-making? Simple. It will cost them money. Instead, they want the rest of us to carry the expense. Lindzen has been a major player in this effort with his research into finding feedback mechanisms. Strangely, all of his research only finds negative feedback mechanisms with the claim that this will cancel out any manmade effects. Not so strangely, all of his research has been found to be invalid. That is what happens when you go in to find a preconceived conclusion. Of course, it helps to get paid for it all by the people that benefit from the bad research.

So, this was not a case of hijacking science for political purposes - it was an attempt to put valid science into the political decision making process and to exclude the pseudoscience of people like Lindzen.

But, that wasn't enough for him. He had to state this was all a part of a plot for the government to nationalize the energy industry. Where is the evidence for such a claim (and, I don't mean the tin-hat bloggers). Where is the real evidence to show the government wants to nationalize anything at all, not to mention something as massive as the energy industry, the third largest industry in the U.S. Talking about alarmist claims. Why is it alarmist for scientists to warn about the effects of real climate change, but it isn't alarmist for Mr. Lindzen to accuse the government of conspiring to take over such a massive industry? It was not only alarmist on Mr. Lindzen's behalf, but irresponsible as well. But, that is what he gets paid to do.

At the same time, this article failed to mention a statement made by a reputable scientist, Nobel Prize winning Mario Molina. It wouldn't look very good for Lindzen if Dr. Molina's statement was included. For instance, Lindzen states the issue is still in debate. It isn't. Dr. Molina states,

There has been a very well financed public relations campaign by some interest groups to question climate change science. And they have succeeded quite well—in response to these efforts the media very often still communicates the idea that there are two sides to this question, that there are some scientists who think that it’s a serious problem but other scientists think that it’s still debatable whether society has to do anything about it. And it’s a myth: There are surveys that show 97 percent consensus among informed scientists who have published on climate change issues.

The basic science is very well established; it is well understood that global warming is due to greenhouse gases. What is uncertain is projections about specifics in the next few decades, by how much will the climate change. And that’s why we focus on communicating the concept of risk: It is not necessary to have absolute certainty about the dangers that society will face in order to take action.

You wear seatbelts in your car not because you’re certain that you’re going to have a crash but because there’s a possibility. You build houses likely to withstand an earthquake not because you’re certain that there will be an earthquake but because there might be one. These examples involve probabilities that are much smaller than the probabilities that climate change will have very serious impacts. So it’s totally unacceptable for society not to act.

Oops. Mr. Lindzen got even another claim wrong.

Like I said, Lindzen's statement is so ridiculous I'm afraid there are people that will actually believe it. More the pity.

George Will Shows His Ignorance

An article by George Will was recently brought to my attention. The article, Climate change's instructive past, is a graphic demonstration of what happens when people write about complex topics they know nothing about - they get it wrong.

Boy, did George Will get it wrong, too. And, he didn't take long to do it. In just the second paragraph, he states,

And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity?

Here is one of the biggest false arguments deniers make: There was naturally occurring climate change in the past, therefore all climate change is natural.

False argument. Tell us, Mr. Will, why is it not possible to have naturally occurring climate change AND manmade climate change? By the very nature of your statement, you refuse to consider that possibility. I have covered this topic many times, but it obviously needs to be covered some more.

This is the argument Mr. Will is making:

There was climate change in the past;
There is climate change today;
Climate change in the past was naturally occurring;
Therefore, climate change today is naturally occurring.

Let's put this same argument another way to show just have false it is.

Pneumonia kills people;
Gunshot wounds kill people;
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring virus;
Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring virus.

The real problem I have with his statement is that I know George Will is an intelligent, well-educated person with considerable resources. I am very highly confident Mr. Will knows this is a false argument, but said it anyway. If he knows it is a false argument (and I can't believe otherwise), why did he go through with it? And, in the extremely unlikely event he didn't recognize how false it is, why didn't he? This is not some guy sitting in a bar babbling about things he doesn't know about over his beer. Like I said, George Will has considerable resources. So, why did he get this so wrong? You don't get things this wrong by accident, there has to be a reason. And, that makes me wonder, what was his motivation?

That should have been enough for him, but it wasn't. He then made one of the most frequently stated of all denier whoppers:

In the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from the end of the ninth century to the beginning of the 14th, the Northern Hemisphere was warmer than at any time in the last 8,000 years

Both false and a false argument. Tell us Mr. Will, why does it matter what the temperature 1000 years ago was? You said it yourself, this was before the industrial revolution. Things have changed and you want to take something completely unrelated to today and try to make it relevant. That, sir, is a false argument and you know it. You never even attempted to show how it is in any way feasible to compare the two highly different situations and reach the conclusion you wanted. Again, I have to wonder, what is Mr. Will's motive here?

But, besides that, it simply isn't true. Take a look at the temperature profile below for the last 2000 years. The Roman Warm Period is the bump on the left at about A.D. 300. The Medieval Warm Period is the bump that occurs in the middle at about A.D. 1000. The big red spike on the right is today. (The two troughs are cold periods, including the Little Ice Age on the right.)

Source: Ljungqvist, 2010 (via Skeptical Science)

This is only one such reconstruction, there are many others that show the same thing - today's temperature is the highest in the last 2000 years. In fact, others show it is the highest in at least 8000 years. Why did Mr. Will make a statement that is so obviously false? Once again, what was his motivation?

He then finishes with an incredibly ignorant statement,

With the hands that today's climate Cassandras are not using to pat themselves on the back for their virtuous empiricism, they should pick up such books.

Mr. Will, tell us one thing, please. Who do you think discovered all of this information about past climate change? You? The deniers? No, Mr. Will, this information was discovered by climate scientists, the same climate scientists you dismiss in your article with your lies and deceptions. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call them lies and deceptions because the alternative is much worse:

You're just plain ignorant.

State Leaders Hiding Climate Change Science

A number of state elected officials have come out as deniers. That is fine and is their right. But, what some of them are doing is to work on hiding any climate science that shows it is real. This is not only wrong, but I find it very interesting after reading statements from them, such as this one from Georgia congressman Rick Allen:

“Limiting debate to one side is not the same as being conclusive.”

If limiting debate to one side is wrong, then why are so many deniers doing just that? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (the source of that quote) interviewed a dozen state leaders and reported the results in a front-page article. It was bad news. In particular were the politicians that used the "I'm not a scientist, but...," line. What they are really saying anytime someone uses that line is, "I'm not a scientist, but I'll go ahead and demonstrate what a jackass I am anyway." While it was nice the paper reported on this problem, they still contributed to it with the way they wrote the article, apparently giving credence to the claims of deniers in order to appear 'balanced.' Including ignorance and science denial is not being balanced. It only helps to energize elected officials that would rather see their constituents hurt than to take a look at the science.

In Nebraska, state Senator Beau McCoy amended an authorization for a state-funded study to determine the effects of climate change on the state. His amendment would only allow scientists to report on naturally occurring climate change and prohibited any reporting of manmade climate change. In response, scientists refused to use the money and found independent funds. Their report was released last fall and was pretty grim. They found manmade climate change would result in severe storms, floods, warmer nights, scorching summers and drought for the state. Not good news for a state that depends so strongly on agriculture. You would think the state leaders would want to know this kind of information so they could plan for the future.

All of this raises a question, why would Beau McCoy, and everyone that voted for his amendment, want to hide this information? Why would they be willing to sacrifice the best interests of their constituents by hiding climate science?

But, he isn't the only one. Take a look at what happened in South Carolina. That state funded a similar report and it was finished on 2011. It wasn't released until 2013 after it sat on the shelf for about a year and a half. It wasn't released until a newspaper requested to see a copy. The problem with the report is that, like the one in Nebraska, it showed the state would suffer from the effects of manmade climate change. Once again, why would state leaders sacrifice the well being of their constituents?

North Carolina leads the charge into ignorance, though. This is the home of the NC-20 political action group that claims it is representing the best interests of the 20 counties along the Atlantic coast. They are climate change deniers of the highest order and actually brag about getting a bill passed that prohibits the state from taking action on sea level rise using any data except historical data. In other words, these people have prevented the state from taking any action to prepare for any sea level rise that results from manmade climate change. They call this a 'huge win' and list it on their 'Successes' page. 

Think about that. They are bragging about how they guaranteed the coastal counties will be unprepared for sea level rise while claiming they are there to represent the best interests of those counties. Why would they do that? What would they have to lose by being aware of what climate scientists have to say?

One last question. If climate change is so good for us, as the deniers claim, why are so many state elected officials working so hard to hide it?

"Don't Call Us Deniers"

I commonly receive comments such as these three below:

Earthling

What's a "climate denier?"
Does anyone deny climate?
Is it a person who denies that
climate exists?
Do they deny that climate changes?
I'm not a climate denier, climate
change denier, or even an anthropogenic climate change denier,
I'm sceptical that climate change will be a catastrophe and so are many
scientists who work in climate science and related fields.
Who denies that climate changes?
It's possible I could be accused of denying
the C in CAGW.
What are CAGW sceptics "denying,"
exactly?
1. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"climate,
therefore cannot be "climate deniers."
2. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that climate changes, therefore cannot be "climate change
deniers."
3. CAGW sceptics don't "deny" that
Earth has warmed by almost 0.8º C over the last 162 years, therefore cannot be "global
warming deniers."
4. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that climate science exists, therefore cannot be "climate science
deniers."
5. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
that CO2 can cause a small amount of warming, therefore cannot be "anthropogenic
global warming deniers."
6. CAGW sceptics don't "deny"
anything, we're sceptical of the inaccurate figures bandied about by alarmists
and very sceptical of the scary catastrophe stories about everything and
anything to do with climate.
We are justifiably sceptical of computer models.

Alan Fitzgerald

The word "Denier" should not be taken too seriously it is simply a term of abuse. In the school yard you would probably been called a "geek". The word denier is simply used to prevent any debate on the CAGWA issue. If the science was solid there would be no reason to resort to this underhand derogation. It isnt a coincidence that it was invented to label those who questioned the holocaust and the emotion links associated with that part of history.

Earthling

Thanks for your thoughts, Alan. It upset me quite a lot to begin with, because I remember seeing the newsreels at the cinema of concentration camps in 1945, when I was young. I've been called a denier in emails I received from a couple of well known climatologists who should know better, so it now amuses me in some ways. I wouldn't compare it to geek at all, that's a compliment by comparison.


Response:

The argument here is global warming isn't real because big, bad scientists are calling climate change deniers 'deniers.' I guess I shouldn't be surprised because that is about as valid as any argument I have heard from that camp.

Let's discuss the term 'denier.' I first heard this term from deniers. They were using it to brag about how they 'denied there is any global warming.' I still here may deniers calling themselves 'deniers' and they still use it to brag about their claims. Based on this fact alone, I have no qualms about calling this group of people 'deniers.' It is what they call themselves. And, please note, it is 'climate change' or 'global warming' deniers, not 'climate' deniers.

Now, some deniers have started the tactic of associating the term 'denier' with Holocaust deniers. This is where they attempt to make scientists look like the bad guys. As typical, this is a false argument, which seems to be the only kind of argument deniers can make. There is nothing associated with the term linking them to Holocaust deniers. But, even if there was, so what? Why do you object? Holocaust deniers are sick-minded people that deny the facts, but aren't accused of participating in the genocide. Likewise, climate change deniers are sick-minded people that deny we are destroying our environment, lowering the standard of living worldwide and causing injury, sickness and death with out our manmade emissions, but aren't participating in the offense any more than the rest of us. Not all that much difference.

I will say, while it is not the intent of the term, I do equate climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers, Moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 conspiracy people, people who believe there is a face on Mars, that Elvis Presley is alive, the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, we have an alien in a hangar somewhere and any other of the lunatic fringe beliefs.

Here is a true story about deniers. I frequently meet people that attempt to draw me into a debate. I used to succumb to temptation, but no longer. Instead, I ask them one simple question, "Is there anything I can do or say that will convince you global warming is real?" I have never had even a single person tell me, "Yes." Amazingly, they aren't afraid to say, "No." I tell them there is no reason for us to proceed and move on.

These people freely admit there is no amount of scientific evidence or logic that can change their minds. And, they object when I call them 'deniers'?

The term 'skeptic' does not apply to them. As one commenter noted recently, a skeptic is someone that is trying to learn and grow. Deniers are not trying to do that. Take a look at submissions to my challenges and read the comments. There is no attempt to learn or to grow.

For the record, I, and other people I know of, use the term 'denier' to refer to people that deny climate change and global warming. That is all there is to the term. Yes, I also group these people with all of the other groups that reject science and reality, but that is not the purpose of the term.

In the end, if you feel offended by the use of the term 'denier,' I suggest you stop denying global warming and accept the science. In that regard, you are much better off than I am. I am deeply offended every time I come across someone that rejects science, but there is nothing I can do about them.

NoTricksZone Review - Too Many Tricks in Denier Article

Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming. I agreed and did a review this morning. Basically, it was light work over my morning hot tea. You would think a website named 'No tricks zone' would avoid using any tricks. Sadly, that was not the case.

This article starts out with one of the most tired of all denier claims – if manmade global warming is real, how can you explain periods in the past that experienced global warming? The false argument here is the assumption there is only one way to cause global warming. I’ve discussed this false argument many times and you can read a posting about it here. But, let me summarize the argument and illustrate how it is a false one:

There was global warming in the past;

There is global warming today;

Global warming in the past was a naturally occurring cycle;

Therefore, global warming today is a naturally occurring cycle.

Let’s put this same argument another way to see how false it is:

Pneumonia kills people;

Gun shot wounds kill people;

Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;

Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases. The same way, there are more ways to cause global warming than naturally occurring cycles.

The biggest problem with this claim is that, yes, there are naturally occurring cycles and those cycles are continuing today (in addition to manmade effects), but today’s naturally occurring cycle is a cooling cycle. If it were not for this naturally occurring cooling cycle, we would be in even worse shape than we are. I find it very interesting that every time someone pulls this argument out, they never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up.

Also, the graphic showing the warming/cooling cycles is in error. Here is a more scientifically valid temperature plot for the last 11,000 years. The blue arrows get in the way, but you can still clearly see the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and can compare them to today’s temperature trend. It is a really different story when the facts are presented correctly.

Source: Climate Snapshots

The author of the NoTrickZone article then makes the case that manmade global warming can’t be real because the world is too big for us to change the temperature. Really? We can’t change the world? Take a look here:

Source: SIO

This is the Keeling curve and shows atmospheric levels of CO₂. The ziggy part to the right shows the measurements taken since the late-1950s on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The line-graph prior to that shows the CO₂ levels as they have been reconstructed from proxy data. Wow! I would say we have managed to change the world. What’s that you said? You’re not convinced? Then, try this one. This is the data for the last 800,000 years. We’re the spike on the far right.

Source: SIO

At no time in the last 800,000 years has the CO₂level been anywhere near today’s level. The cause of that incredible spike? Manmade emissions.

So, yes, we can most certainly change the environment.

Also, the claim works against itself because we are not the ones warming the planet. The author claims the Sun and Earth are so large we cannot change the temperature. Well, it is the Sun that is heating the planet and causing it to warm, not us. We are merely causing it to cool down less rapidly. The Sun warms the planet’s surface and that heat is then radiated out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb this heat, in the form of infrared radiation, and slow the process down. As we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the cooling process gets slower. All the while, the Sun keeps warming the planet even more. So, you see, the author is actually making the case for manmade global warming.

Then, there is a bunch of false statements in the form of “Fun Facts about Carbon Dioxide.”

First false statement. “Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO₂ that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.” Notice the author is trying to fool you by discussing the amount of carbon, instead of the carbon dioxide. This is an attempt to try and make it look less serious and is a deception. We are not concerned with carbon, per se. We are concerned with carbon dioxide. Why didn’t he address that issue? After all, this part of the article is titled, ‘fun fact about carbon dioxide.”

In addition, his numbers are still wrong. Try these numbers on for something more credible.

Source: Yale Climate Connections

Today, we are emitting in excess of 35 billion tons of CO₂per year. That is a lot more significant than saying we are emitting 6 billion tons of carbon. But, do the math. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 units (16 units for each of two oxygen atoms and 12 units for one carbon atom). Therefore, carbon makes up 27.3% of the mass of carbon dioxide. Apply that percentage to 35 billion tons of emissions and you get over 9.5 billion tons of carbon – that is more than 50% larger than the number the author states. By the way, we have other products that have carbon in them that are not included in this figure. Incorrect figures and deceptive practices, that is not a good start.

Next false statement: “At 380 parts per million CO₂is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂-impoverished” See the Keeling curves above to see how today’s levels compare to historic levels. There is no comparison at all. Today’s levels have not been seen within the last 800,000 years, at least. Were there periods further back in history that had higher levels? Yes, there were. The Cambrian Period 500 million years ago had levels in the thousands of parts per million.  But, no one alive today would want to live during those times. Simply because some time hundreds of millions or billions of years ago had higher CO₂levels does not mean it would be hospitable to modern human life. And, it is not relevant to the discussion of today’s climate.

And, please explain to me how he justifies saying today's levels are 'minor.' Is he saying they are minor because they are .04% of the atmosphere? If so, then he is being deceptive because that .04% has a very significant impact. Take a look at this one example of the impact from those levels. An over-the-counter pain killer is a lot smaller percentage of your body weight than .04%, but it also has a big effect. So does alcohol at levels far below .04% of body weight. The claim that it is minor simply because it is 'only' .04% of the atmosphere has no scientific validity. 

Another false argument: “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it.” Raw sewage is a nutrient, also and has been used in some countries for thousands of years to fertilize farm fields. Do you want it in your drinking water and do you want to breathe fumes from it? So, why does this argument not apply to CO₂? Once you get too much of something, it becomes a pollutant. We now have so much CO₂ that the environment cannot deal with it. CO₂ has become a pollutant.

Next false argument: “CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.” No. Again, take a look at the Keeling curve above. The vast majority of CO₂ produced is produced by natural processes. The vast majority of CO₂ produced, by both natural and manmade sources, is absorbed. But, about 50% of manmade CO₂ remains in the air (see the Keeling curve again). By the way, that CO₂ that is being absorbed by the oceans is causing them to become more acidic. And, that’s also bad news

Finishing up with one last false statement: “If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate” 

So, this person’s argument is that manmade global warming isn’t real because it would take too much money to fix it. That is not a scientifically valid argument. And, it is incorrect, too. Also note that he makes this argument after saying, earlier in the article, we are too small to be changing the planet. Wait a minute! If our emissions are so small, why can’t we do something about them? And, if they are so big we are unable to do anything about them, how is it they are so small they can’t change the environment? He’s playing two sides of his own argument. And neither one of them is valid.

We can, in fact, do something about global warming. The first thing we need to do is get people to stop making false arguments like this article.