Global Warming – Invalidating Sceptics

The German newspaper “Die Zeit” helps to invalidate some of the more common misbeliefs of climate warming deniers:


1. Global warming has stopped since 1998:

That’s only true if you look at the last 10-15 years because of an exceptionally warm 1998. But this period is just too short to make out a trend. If you look at the more relevant last 30 years, the trend has not stopped at all.


2. The sun causes global warming (so there’s nothing we can do or need to change)

If anything the sun gets weaker and according to a broad consensus of scientists it contributes at most 10% to global warming.


3. Cosmic background radiation would influence cloud cover and finally temperature

An interesting theory. The thing is, cosmic background radiation does not have a clear trend since the 60s and the theory is poorly understood. Preliminary experiments do not confirm it and thus it offers no serious help in understanding global warming.


4. The sun gets weaker and will compensate man-made global warming

This belongs to the realm of hopes and beliefs. According to serious scientists the sun does grow weaker but can only make a dent in man-made climate change (-0.3C compared to about 4C raising global temperatures) And even if reduced solar activity would compensate for increasing levels of greenhouse gases, a typical sun cycle is much shorter than the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Hence, we would still need to act now in order to avoid disaster through the combination of a warmer sun and high level of greenhouse gases later on.


ON-green-policy: Climate change skeptics are much more recognised in some media outlets than in the scientific community. Common sense tells us that media-hyped people and opinions cannot offer a better policy advice than scientific consensus even among conservative and Republican scientists. In other terms, would you rather trust Saudi financed Fox News or the Koch brothers with a clear political agenda or the best brains in climate science with no political interests whatsoever? I think the answer is rather obvious, all the more because acting against climate change also promises tangible and much more sustainable and long term economic benefits.

Source: Die Zeit


Sorry, comments are closed for this post.