Nelson 1

Jared Nelson
Professor Jason Zeh
ENGL 102
26 November 2013

Defense Against Climate-Deniers
Climate change can be a touchy subject as it is often the center of many heated partisan
debates that range from the halls of Congress to the water coolers of offices across the nation.
For years, science and reason have often fallen along the wayside in favor of ad hominem attacks
and a prolonged stance of ignorance and simple disinterest by the American public. Climate
deniers often confound pure statistical data in order to confuse the general public to adopt a
stance of apathy which often leads to uneducated and ultimately ineffective responses to global
warming. Given the dire consequences global warming can have on all people across the globe,
the lethargy that plagues current environmental policy must be countered by a fundamental
change in the way the federal government and the general public understands climate change.
Despite several interesting claims by climate-deniers it is clear global warming presents a real
and omnipresent threat to human existence. With the knowledge that global warming is real, it is
imperative that the federal government substantially increase funding for pro-climate change
policies
The first and foremost issue that currently confronts pro-climate change policies is an a
better understanding of climate change is an ignorant and subsequently misinformed public. As
John Cook, who possesses a Ph.D. in Chemistry at Michigan Tech put it, there is a significant
gap between public perception and reality that often stems from campaigns designed to
Nelson 2

confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists (Cook). As Cook put
it, The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point
of collapse' (Cook). These campaigns are often very well-funded (often by large, fossil-fuel
based companies) and tend to be published in very public manners (Cook). In August of 2012,
the Wall Street Journal published an article by several climate scientists that attempted to
disprove the correlation between human activities and perceived increases in global temperatures
(Nuccitelli). Initially, this report could have been dangerous to the growing tide of the American
public who in recent years began to change positions on the veracity of global warming claims
(Nucitelli). However, a brief review of these so called climate scientists and their credentials
seems to disprove their conclusions. According to Dana Nuccitelli, a climate scientists at a
private firm in Sacramento, these climate-deniers echo the warnings of Cook as Roger Cohen,
William Happer, and Richard Lindzenwere signatories on that letter and that neither Happer
nor Cohen has a single climate science publication to his name, while Happer is a member of two
fossil fuel-funded climate denialist think tanksand Cohen has previously worked for
ExxonMobil. These statements provide a very frightening example of how biased or even
unqualified climate deniers often are. However, despite some biases their arguments should still
be viewed as a scientific inquiry and should be treated as such. However, the problem occurs
when the scientific community seeks to verify the research and statistics these scientists use as
they continue to publish their opinions in the conservative mainstream media rather than
subjecting their arguments to the scientific peer-review process (Nuccitelli). Simply put, these
claims cannot be verified because the methods climate deniers use to verify their claims are not
subject to peer-review by the scientific community (Nuccitelli). Conversely, the peer-reviewed
scientific consensus is that global warming is both real and human induced. The assertion, like
Nelson 3

the one made in the wall street journal, that a majority of climate scientists disagree with
anthropogenic climate change is disproven by a review of the past 20 years of climate papers
published in the United States. According to Cook, A systematic, comprehensive review of the
literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers
rejecting AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a miniscule proportion of the published
research (Cook). In fact, the percentage of climate papers published that provide support for
anthropogenic global warming is astonishing. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an
overwhelming percentage (97.2%) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW (Cook). From
this data it is clear that a majority of scientists support the notion that the earths temperatures are
increasing due to human activities.
However, there are some other, extremely specific (often statistically backed) arguments
climate-deniers use to justify their positions. One interesting argument proposed by climate
deniers is that the earth has recently entered a period of cooling. According to Alan Carlin who
has a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT and was previously the Director of the EPA, Earth is
currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the glacial
periods that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years and that there does not appear
to be instability towards much warmer temperatures during interglacial periods. There is rather
instability towards much colder temperatures (Carlin). The argument that the earth is
statistically cooling currently may hold some scientific truth. Laurence Hecht, the editor of 21st
Century Science and Technology journal attributed this global cooling Carlin observed to the
fact that solar activity is declining; the current solar cycle is likely to be a weak one. The
following cycle, beginning around 2018 to 2020, may be so weak as to bring on a extremely
cold climate, like that in the period known as the Little Ice Age (Hecht). This is a potentially
Nelson 4

frightening scenario to many, as crop failure and disease was rampant during the little ice age
(Hecht). However, these are assumptions based on past data and do not assume the future impact
of large CO2 emissions. In fact, Richard Somerville who is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of
Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego even concedes that solar variability can
impact current climate models. In his 2011 testimony to the United States House Committee on
Energy and Commerce he said natural events can lead to slight temporary cooling. Solar
output was also at its lowest level of the satellite era and subsequently the global average near-
surface atmospheric temperature in 2008 was only about 0.1 deg C less than in the years
immediately preceding it (United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce).
However, it would be imprudent to base future climate models on this information because
Such a small difference over such a short time is not statistically significant in evaluating
trends (United States House Committee on Energy). Somerville completed his testimony in
congress by concluding the most recent ten-year period is still warmer than the previous ten-
year period. The long-term trend is clearly still a warming trend. So while the notion that the
earth is cooling due to solar variability is an accurate statement, it can be quite misleading
because even after accounting for a decrease in solar activity, the earth is continuing to warm.
However, there are several observable ways to prove climate change is an ever-threatening
problem.
Separate from predictive climate models, the evidence of global warming can be seen and
measured in plenty of distinct places, but none more noticeable than the polar ice caps.
According to Andrew Freedman, an author for the Climate Science Journal, Arctic sea ice cover
is likely to reach a new record low in the coming months and that it is one of the most visible
signs of manmade global warming (Freedman). Even while the overall temperature of the earth
Nelson 5

decreases, the rate at which the arctic has decreased has nearly doubled since the 1980s
(Freedman). With all of this in mind it is clear that a change in environmental policy is crucial to
maintaining a stable environment. Thus, physical changes observable in the environment in
conjunction with future climate models that account for decreases in solar variability prove with
near certainty that global warming is continuing to rapidly increase and alter the environment.
Alone this evidence seems very convincing however scientific studies have confirmed other
physical changes that point to global warming.
One physical change that the earth has recently undergone is a measurable increase in
ocean temperature. In fact, a report published by The World Bank prepared by the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics said The observed warming of the
worlds oceans can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. (Turn
Down The Heat). Scott Johnson, who possesses a Masters in Hydrogeology from the University
of Wisconson-Madison said in early 2012 reliable records of ocean temperatures found that the
anthropogenic fingerprint was apparent in the observed temperature record at the 99 percent
confidence level (Johnson). These results can be particularly convincing however as Spencer
Roy, a former NASA scientist pointed out Early measurements of ocean temperatures were
taken from buckets dipped in the ocean from the decks of ships while later, temperatures would
be taken well below a ships water line, in the intake ports for water that cooled the ship's engine
(Roy). This is a valid criticism but even Roy concedes that estimates of ocean warming over the
last hundred years are, at best, uncertain (Roy). Thus it is clear that non-biased physical changes
clearly show that the earth is statistically warming.
While global warming often incites heated partisan debates, scientific consensus is clear
global warming is both real and anthropogenic, and the disadvantages of continuing a lethargic
Nelson 6

environmental policy are simply too great to continue to allow climate-deniers to propagate the
myth that global warming is neither real or a threat to human existence.






Nelson 7

Works Cited
Carlin, Alan. "A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate
Change." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1 (2011):
1008. Web.
Cook, John. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific 5-6
literature. Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing Ltd, 15 May 2013. Web. 10
Nov. 2013
Davis, Lucas. "Estimating the Effect of a Gas Tax." National Bureau of Economic Research.
N.p., 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.
Eckersley, Robyn. "Introduction." The green state rethinking democracy and sovereignty.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004. 3. Print.
Freedman, Andrew. "Arctic Sea Ice Record Now Could Be Set in August." Climate Central
Science Journal. N.p., 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Hecht, Laurence. "Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age." EIR Science 1 (2011):
48. 21st Century Science Technology. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
Nuccitelli, Dana. "The Wall Street Journal Does It Again: Another Whopper Of A Lie On
Climate Science." ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Johnson , Scott. "ArsTechnica." Ars Technica. N.p., 18 June 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Spencer, Roy. Great global warming blunder how mother nature fooled the world's top climate
scientists. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2012. Print.
"Turn Down the Heat." The World Bank. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and
Climate Analytics, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.
Nelson 8

United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Hearing on Climate Science and
EPAs Greenhouse Gas Regulations. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
March 8 2011. 112th Congress. Web. 10 November 2013.