Our climate is changing. It's warming at a rate unprecedented in human history, and the best scientific evidence we have says we're the cause of it. Big business knows it. Politicians know it. Even our kids know it – heck, they learn about it in grade school. And they've decided to act on it here and abroad.
But there's still a vocal minority out there represented by climate skeptics like Ken Allred and Joe Prins (both recently featured in these pages) that refuse to accept reality. No matter what evidence is presented, they keep rehashing the same debunked arguments to discourage people from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Problem is, they throw out so many arguments at once that it's a pain to disprove all of them.
Fortunately, there's an app for that.
Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organization that uses properly cited scientific research to disprove the myths spread by climate skeptics. Its examinations of 193 of the most commonly used myths are available through skepticalscience.com (which I am not associated with) and the associated app.
Let's use this app to show how Allred and Prins' claims don't match up with reality.
Debunking by the numbers
Allred and Prins argue that climate science is bunk because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is politicized or agenda-driven.
This is covered under Myth 34, "The IPCC is alarmist." As environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli notes, if the IPCC was intentionally slanting its conclusions, you'd expect their predictions to be overstated.
Instead, we find that past IPCC reports have consistently underestimated the rate of change researchers have actually observed when it comes to rising CO2 levels, melting ice caps, and rising sea levels, and been on target when it comes to warming.
If the IPCC is trying to drive a warmist agenda, they're not doing a great job of it.
Allred claims that the IPCC is suppressing debate, which is covered by several myths listed under the "IPCC Facts" section. Journalist Graham Wayne writes under Myth 129 that the IPCC's reports are compiled by hundreds of scientists, making it very tough for any one or group of them to spin the science. He also notes that nearly every major scientific body has supported the group's findings, which would not likely happen if the science had been somehow twisted.
Climate skeptics also get plenty of attention through the Internet and Fox News. Where they fall down is in the scientific arena, where, as Skeptical Science notes, their studies are found to be riddled with errors.
They're not being "suppressed." They're being ignored because they do bad science.
Allred likens climate skeptics to Galileo. That's Myth 128, which notes how Galileo was oppressed by ideologically motivated individuals (the church) and not scientists (many of whom agreed with him). It also notes that it is climate skeptics dragging climate scientists before courts and senate subcommittees for interrogation today.
Skeptics aren't Galileo.
Allred claims that CO2 is essential to life on Earth, which is a spin on Myth 42, "CO2 is plant food" – an argument that more CO2 is good for crops. As Nuccitelli notes, plants do not live on CO2 alone, and the extreme weather caused by rising CO2 levels mean less reliable water, heat, and nutrient supplies for our crops. The IPCC has predicted significant risks to food supply as a result.
Prins argues that today's warming is not unusual as it's been warmer in the past. That's Myth 191. Global temperatures have not varied by more than a degree since the start of the Holocene period (about 12,000 years ago, when modern civilization arose), and humans have never experienced global temperatures more than 3 C warmer than today since we evolved about 2.5 million years ago.
It's been warmer before, but we weren't around back then.
Prins also makes a related claim by saying that climate science can't explain the Medieval Warm Period. As Myth 27 notes, researchers have determined that this warm spot on the historic record was due to high solar and low volcanic activity, and that it actually wasn't warmer than the early 1900s. A major 2013 study has found that we're now well above the warmth found in that era, meaning that, yes, today's temperatures are unusual.
Prins also claims that the temperature data for climate change is unreliable. That's Myth 7. Nuccitelli notes that the warming trend detected by the climate model criticized by Prins has been replicated and confirmed many times by independent parties using different data sets and methods, and is supported by physical evidence obtained from satellites, thermometers, ice cores, and other sources.
Deniers should be denied
Skepticism is about evaluating all new evidence based on its merits, regardless of whether or not it supports your conclusions.
It's a part of science, but not all of it. Eventually, science reaches a point where, based on the weight of evidence, you determine that certain theories are true enough to act upon.
As Myth 4 notes, multiple independent reviews of the scientific literature have found that 97 per cent of climate experts agree that climate change is happening and caused primarily by people. It's that weight of evidence that has driven the world's leaders to accept climate change as fact and to address it.
Climate skeptics such as Prins and Allred have elected to ignore this evidence and to cling to theories that have been thoroughly debunked.
That's not skepticism. It's denial. And when humanity's future is literally at stake, as is the case with climate change, denial has no place at the policy table.
