The Climate Crisis

Refuting Climate Crisis Deniers

It could be a full -time job, but apart from those who "oppose" recognition of climate crisis science for ideological and partisan political purposes, and those paid by fossil fuel corporations to be deniers, maybe it's still worth doing for those who have been confused by the supposed contrary science. Today, one of the scientists (Peter Doran) who deniers sometimes cite as providing data contradicting global heating has refuted the misuse of his data on Antarctica in this oped in the New York Times.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

Doran's data has been misused by Michael Crichton and Ann Coulter. Another scientist refuted the misuse of her data by the Wall Street Journal in a Los Angeles Times oped reprinted here. This was a study of studies by Naomi Oreskes:

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Of actual skeptics, one in Virginia, it was revealed today, is on the payroll of coal-burning utilities. A secret coal industry memo calling for more financing of deniers admits that most deniers have "no involvement in climatology."

Most "scientific" skeptics have been financed, directly or indirectly, by the oil giants. With Exxon-Mobil enjoying profit of $10 billion+ in the last three months, skepticism may be a lonely business, but it can be quite lucrative.