Here are highlights on climate contrarians or deniers, sometimes called climate skeptics (or "faux skeptics").Generally the contrarian/denier arguments are scientifically invalid or irrelevant. Right-wing media and politicians use contrarian arguments as weapons to promote the libertarian/fossil fuel agenda to oppose sensible climate risk management action.For the full version with more details click HERE.
The "contrarians" or "climate-change deniers" are a loud vocal minority. They include some scientists, who however mostly are not professional practicing climatologists; there are a few contrarian climatologists. HERE is evidence that contrarians in general have far less expertise in climate science than mainstream climatologists. The conservative MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel labels contrarians as "mavericks" and "charlatans", see HERE. Some contrarians are politically or financially motivated.Contrarian media and (mostly right-wing) politicians regularly push contrarian information to further their agenda; see next.
The agenda for at least some contrarians is to derail meaningful discussion and action on global warming by sowing confusion and influencing public opinion. Right-wing media using contrarian material have succeeded in blocking substantial climate risk management action using this tactic. Some contrarians do not have an overt political agenda but rather have an incomplete understanding of the relevant science.
Various contrarians hold mutually inconsistent beliefs and positions. There are four basic categories. Each illustrates a separate contrarian fallacy.
#1. "No Global Warming": Some contrarians deny that recent global warming exists (they distort the meaning of global warming, which is a globally-averaged upward temperature trend seen in the data since 1975, and instead invoke irrelevant short-term fluctuations).
#2. "Little or no human influence": Other contrarians do admit that recent global warming exists but claim it is not largely caused by humans (they ignore or distort the attribution provided by climate models, and they emphasize irrelevant data).
#3. "No harmful impacts": Still other contrarians admit both that recent global warming exists and that it is largely caused by humans, but deny harmful impacts now or in the future (they ignore expert reports).
#4. "Too expensive to act": Some contrarians admit that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and indeed has harmful effects, but assert that it is too expensive to mitigate global warming (they ignore the principle of risk management, use economic scenarios that ignore benefits of new technologies, assume a high "discount rate", and ignore devastating future economic costs of unbridled global warming).
Variations exist for contrarians in all these categories.
Common contrarian end goals are opposing climate risk management and stopping effective climate action.
References: #1. "No Global Warming":HERE and HERE. #2. "Little or no human influence": HERE. #3. "No harmful impacts":HERE,HERE, and HERE. #4. "Too expensive to act":HERE.
Scientists, by nature, are skeptics. It takes a long time, with evidence from many sources, and with peer-reviewed journals as a filter, for scientists to become convinced. However, once a scientific result becomes established, contrary claims are treated with with the same skepticism. Contrarians misinterpret this fundamental aspect of science. Some of them misrepresent scientific standards by complaining that their ideas are suppressed by a "scientific establishment".
What are some Contrarian Tactics and Logical Fallacies?
The contrarian pseudo-scientific product often resembles Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science". Sometimes this is because of an incomplete understanding of the relevant science. Indeed, some contrarians seem to misunderstand the very nature of science, which consists of a web of facts and theory, different from a mathematical "proof". Also, science is not equivalent to legal argument. This false, deliberate confusion of science vs. mathematics or science vs. legal argument is a prime contrarian tactic and fallacy.
Many contrarians and contrarian media routinely engage in various distortions of science, data, and logic. Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry-picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red-herring arguments, demanding unachievable "precision" from mainstream science with the motif “if you don’t understand this detail you don’t understand anything”, overemphasizing or mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor-lawyer Swift-Boat-like attacks on science - and even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as "no consensus", and overemphasizing details of little significance.
Contrarians generally will not admit they are wrong or that they could be wrong, even when presented with evidence that they are wrong. Real scientists will change their minds when presented with scientifically convincing evidence. Contrarians routinely present "evidence" in non-scientific ways, taken out of context, falsely generalizing, that is not scientifically convincing.
Some contrarians are skilled debaters and love publicity of debating in front of audiences. Generating doubt and confusion is the tactical goal of contrarians in wanting debate, because confused people will not act on climate, and a main end goal of contrarians is to prevent responsible climate action.
Contrarian fallacies can be in any of the four categories (#1. "No Global Warming", #2. "Little or no human influence", #3. "No harmful impacts", #4. "Too expensive to act").
Fringe contrarian ideas constitute a difficult and potentially confusing topic. A fringe idea is generally off the established science track but not a-priori obviously wrong. Fringe ideas can a-priori turn out to be true or false. For an introduction to fringe science, see HERE.
We first need to keep separate the originators of contrarian fringe ideas from the (mostly right-wing) media and politics using contrarian fringe ideas as a weapon to push a mainly pro-libertarian/fossil fuel agenda and oppose climate risk management. A few contrarians constructing fringe ideas have real climate science credentials. More details are HERE.
There is a big difference between a "basic" fringe climate idea with the intent to displace or minimize the well-established dominant greenhouse gas cause of recent global warming, and a "detail" fringe idea regarding some detail of climate science, keeping the dominant greenhouse gas warming mechanism in place.
Some contrarian claims (usually made by people with few or zero climate science credentials) are so grossly wrong with flagrant errors that they cannot be said to achieve even the status of fringe ideas; these ideas simply constitute pseudo-science. For an introduction to pseudo-science, click HERE.
BOTTOM LINE: The problem is not really with climate contrarian fringe ideas. The real problem is that contrarian media/politics distort the scientific process for climate by regularly trumpeting contrarian fringe ideas and pseudoscience with the tactic of attacking established climate science. The underlying contrarian media/political strategy is to push a right-wing pro-libertarian/fossil fuel agenda goal and fuel opposition to climate risk management action.
What are "Appropriate Climate Credentials"? There are some - actually only a few - contrarians with appropriate climate credentials. Appropriate climate credentials means holding a position in climate science at a respected university or lab and having done substantial research published in respected peer-reviewed climate journals. For example, weather reporters do not generally have expertise in climate science. Most physicists, most engineers, most geologists, and most mathematicians do not have appropriate climate credentials. Some contrarians (like C. Monckton, pictured above) have no scientific credentials at all.
NOT "disproving" mainstream climate science: First, science is not mathematics and cannot be either "proved" or "disproved". Second, the arguments made by those few contrarians with appropriate credentials do not actually attempt to attack the main fundamentals of climate science. What they do is to search for arguments minimizing the amount of future global warming/climate change and/or minimizing the amount of past global warming/climate change attributable to humans. These contrarian arguments have been singularly unsuccessful, e.g. containing major flaws or unsupported claims or being in contradiction with data.
Essentially the contrarian arguments constitute "fringe science", discussed above.
Bottom Line: Any field of science has its mavericks arguing against the prevailing scientific paradigms. The scientific process and data weed out the arguments. The real problem here is not the contrarian arguments per se. The problem is that right-wing media and politicians use contrarian arguments as weapons to argue against acting responsibly for risk management of climate change.
We have seen the tactics of climate contrarians before with cigarette propaganda tactics, as noted HERE: "An identical strategy succeeded in delaying government action against tobacco companies for years despite overwhelming evidence of the hazards of cigarettes". HERE is a University of California paper using the words of the tobacco industry, including this on page 9: "A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay". The same tactic is used by climate contrarians. Convincing evidence documenting the ties between the tobacco attack on medical science and the climate contrarian attack on climate science is in the second half of the video "The American Denial of Global Warming" by Naomi Orestes.
Climate Risk Management deals with mitigation and adaptation as procedures to ameliorate the risks of future impacts of global warming / climate change. To do risk management in any setting, risk estimation must first be carried out. This requires the best available input, including models, scenarios, and statistical analysis. By definition, risk includes uncertainties. The 2007 IPCC reports and other expert reports summarize the best available information for a sensible climate risk-management framework.
Contrarians misunderstand (either by omission or deliberately) all aspects of climate risk management. First they mischaracterize expert information for input to risk management. Instead they propagate the message "there is no climate risk". Contrarians have absolutely no evidence for this statement. Also notice that "no risk" has "no uncertainty", so contrarians essentially oppose risk management for uncertainty. This is inconsistent. Risk management is largely about coping with uncertainty.
Contrarians and their media outlets routinely denigrate scientific forecasts of harmful effects of global warming as "alarmist". Above all they oppose any sensible proposals of risk management of harmful climate impacts.
Naturally, risk management comes with a price tag. Ignoring risk management comes with a price tag also. Contrarians overemphasize the price of risk management, and under-emphasize the price of ignoring risk management.
What are some Disturbing Elements regarding Contrarians?
HERE is a professor who says: "At the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings last month in San Diego, I was amazed at the number of my mild-mannered scientific colleagues who admitted, in private conversations, the pressures and/or threats they've received."
The hacked email "climate-gate" incident, without content scientifically, was persistently distorted by right-wing media in a destructive frontal attack on climate science and climate scientists.
The definitive rebuke to the attempt by right-wing media to exploit this incident was provided in the exhaustive Sir Muir Russell report, which emerged after six months of inquiry, clearing scientists in the "climate-gate" affair. HERE is the full report. The professional climate website RealClimate has a description.
HERE is a report from the Guardian UK, which says in part:
"The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher."
The MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel wrote a very hard-hitting essay: "Climategate": A Different Perspective. Emanuel castigates the right-wing attack on climate science that uses the pretext of the hacked emails and minor IPCC report errors.
The IPCC is described HERE. The IPCC reports consist of accounts of the best up-to-date scientific and economic research on climate change and global warming. The 2007 IPCC reports contain 3000 pages in 3 volumes. These are excellent reference sources.
A few isolated minor mistakes however exist, notably one paragraph on glaciers in the Impacts 2007 report (not the science report). This was used as a pretext by right-wing contrarian media to manufacture a destructive attack on the entire IPCC structure. Actually, the IPCC has been under attack for many years by right-wing contrarians. It should be noted that no human endeavor is guaranteed 100% error-free; nitpicking was used as a lawyer-prosecutor tactic exploiting minor mistakes to attack the IPCC and climate science in general.
While the history of science is littered with discarded or crank ideas, contrarians producing such ideas today have the unprecedented advantage of being supported notably by powerful energy and right-wing libertarian interests. The media, in order to "present both sides", gives the contrarians unwarranted coverage. In addition there are contrarian Internet bloggers, right-wing politicians, and some influential newspaper editors and TV “news” shows that present only contrarian arguments.
HERE is the way one professor put it: "What really bothers me is the stunning lack of balance in U.S. media reports on climate science. In Europe, newspaper coverage gives a pretty accurate reflection of what the leading scientists are saying. In the U.S., the scientific findings are “balanced” against the views of people who know how to spin juicy quotes but can’t even spell “climatology.” When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases a major report, its main conclusions get a few stories, while most of the attention goes to small errors that don’t affect its substance – and that show up about once every 1000 pages."
The right-wing media chronically and blatantly distort climate science. Moreover, media inaccuracy on climate has been moving into the mainstream. Here is a RealClimate article discussing a recent example of misleading media, through incompetence or intent or both; see also "Whatevergate".
Part (although not most) of the problem is the chronic inability of scientists to communicate in a simple effective fashion with the media and the public, as discussed HERE.
Prof. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at U. Victoria, filed a lawsuit against the right-wing newspaper The National Post, over a series of libels based on falsehoods went viral on the Internet.
Coverage is not all bad; here is one positive story. RealClimate reportedthat the Sunday Times (UK) retracted a story by Jonathan Leake on a supposed ‘Amazongate’ and published an apology. This is in response (see HERE) to an official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission by Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, over the above "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" newspaper story; the story falsely reported a supposed mistake made by the IPCC .
Yes. HERE is an extraordinary letter published in the journal Science, signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates. It says: "Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly,on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typicallydriven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effortto provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies theevidence."
Further, "We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminalprosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guiltby association, the harassment of scientists by politiciansseeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outrightlies being spread about them."
The Union of Concerned Scientists UCS has announced a program to organize scientists from around the country to beat back misinformation and educate decision makers and the public about the real facts on global warming.
Fallacious tactics used by contrarians constitute a deliberate psychological agenda to influence the public. HERE is an excellent essay that says: "People are only too happy to accept a message of denial: you do not need to change, it will all be fine".
Documentation for right-wing and fossil fuel opposition to climate science and climate risk management can be found at Greenpeace’s website ExxonSecrets, which documents “Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change.”
A Greenpeace report "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine" is described HERE, and the report can be downloaded HERE.
HERE is a smoking-gun 1998 document from the American Petroleum Institute detailing a plan to influence public opinion by sowing doubt about the science, complete with multi-million dollar budget figures.
Jeremy Grantham, whose firm GMO manages over $100 B, writes Everything You Need to know about Global Warming in 5 minutes: ...right-leaning think tanks...have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science... I have a...plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results...”
HERE is an editorial in Nature Magazine entitled:Science Scorned: The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge. HERE are the results of a Gallup poll showing most conservatives doubt that global warming is even occurring.
To give an idea of the rampant distortion of climate science by contrarian media, HERE is a popular right-wing blog that states: "Another global warming myth comes crashing down. No warming since at least 1995, no melting glaciers and now no rising sea levels. Basically this leaves the warmers with no credibility..." All these assertions are simply wrong.
HERE is a list of contrarians and what they say. HERE is a list of contrarian links, organized by topics. HERE is background information on contrarians. HERE is a list of contrarians with reference links.
Bottom Line: Quacks, Tobacco, Right-Wing Think Tanks, and Contrarians
Various contrarians, mostly without professional climate science credentials, assume the role of a climate scientist and mangle the science. As emphasized by the climatologist Kerry Emanuel HERE, "a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists" now exists. Think of medical quacks. Sometimes the contrarian is a scientist paid by the fossil-fuel industry (see HERE) - think of tobacco scientists who claimed tobacco wasn't dangerous. Right-wing think tanks fund some contrarians (see HERE).A few contrarians with credentials promote fringe ideas that either do not have convincing evidence or are flawed outright.
Layered with distorted commentary and op-eds, contrarian pseudo-science and fringe science is broadcast in lockstep on the powerful right-wing media machine: TV, radio, newspapers, and blogs.
The contrarian goals are to sow confusion and doubt, hamper mitigation efforts, attack legislative attempts for climate change risk management, oppose greenhouse gas regulation, and fight a climate treaty.
Humor? SeeStephen Colbert's video of Fox News (at 2:43) saying winter snowstorms "disprove Al Gore's theory of global warming". Colbert uses the same cherry-picking "logic" to "prove" - because it is nighttime - thatthe sun has been destroyed.
This talk covers the science of climate change and global warming, impacts and mitigation, emissions, carbon politics, carbon finance, and contrarians. It was given at Fordham...
The Contrarians? Full article with referencesLast Updated on 2014-06-15 07:53:39
AKA climate science deniers or climate "faux" skeptics spread disinformation about climate and try to prevent responsible climate risk management. Information for this rather comprehensive article is drawn from the many sources and links in the text.
Who are the contrarians?
What is the contrarian Agenda?
What do contrarians Say about global warming? [The "Four Fallacy Trenches"]
What about Real Scientific Skepticism and contrarians?
What are some Contrarian Tactics and Fallacies?
What about "fringe" contrarian ideas?
Aren't there some contrarians with credentials who disproved mainstream climate science?
ANSWER = NO
The Tobacco Analogy
What do contrarians misunderstand about climate Risk Management?
or WHY CONTRARIANS ARE CLIMATE RISK... More »
Climate Ethics Last Updated on 2014-06-07 16:38:33Here is the Climate Ethics RSS feed. This is from the Rock Ethics Institute of Penn State specializing in Ethical Analysis of Climate Science and Policy. The head of the Institute is Prof. Donald Brown. From their website
"Climate Ethics is a commentary site on climate change science and policymaking by those working on climate change ethics. The site is intended for policymakers, interested public, and journalists... "
HERE is a great video of Dr. Brown speaking on climate ethics at a Bahá’í side event of the UN's CSD 15 conference.
Go to top
Health Threat of Climate ChangeLast Updated on 2014-05-21 22:32:54
This major Lancet article says:
"Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.
Effects of climate change on health will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk."
Ref: "Managing the health effects of climate change" , Anthony Costello et. al; Vol373 May16,2009
Here are three other Lancet articles on health and climate change:
Harben Lecture: Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation
A Haines, R S Kovats, D Campbell-Lendrum, C Corvalan; Vol367 June 24,2006
...Climate change may affect health through a range of pathways— eg, as a result of increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, reduction in cold-related deaths, increased floods and droughts, changes in the distribution of... More »
The Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia ULast Updated on 2014-04-27 05:19:55
The Center for Climate Change Law (CCCL)
The CCCL at Columbia Law School develops new legal techniques to fight climate change and trains people in their use. It does so in conjunction with the renowned scientists of Columbia University, and in close cooperation with the governmental and nongovernmental organizations that are grappling with the legal and policy issues raised by climate change.
Here is the CCCL blog.
HERE is the link to an extensive document detailing CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION IN THE U.S.
Climate Regulation Tracking Service
"Coal-Fired Powerplants Dominate Climate Change Litigation"
Go to top
From Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law:
Climate Blog items
Tar Sands, Global Warming, Protests, and the Keystone XL PipelineLast Updated on 2014-04-05 03:27:37Tar Sands, Global Warming, Protests, and the Keystone XL Pipeline
Introduction - What Are Tar Sands?
The Keystone XL Pipeline
Global Warming and Environmental Concerns
US Government Environmental Analyses
Protests Against the Keystone XL Pipeline at the White House
The Economics of Tar Sands
The Politics of Tar Sands
What's the picture? It's some tar sand.
Introduction - What are Tar Sands?
Bituminous sands, colloquially known as oil sands or tar sands, are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit. The sands contain naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and a dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen (or colloquially "tar" due to its similar appearance, odour, and colour). Oil sands are found in large amounts in many countries throughout the world, but are found... More »
Drag and drop the content to change the order of featured content. The top nine will be displayed.