Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7 Establishing the Scientific Consensus on Climate

Change
Intended Learning Outcomes for Lecture 7
By the end of this lecture, you should be able to:

(1) Explain why and how doubt about climate change permeated both political and public spheres;
(2) Discuss the relationship between neoliberal thinking and lack of regulation to support mitigating
climate change;
(3) Apply the Baloney Detection Toolkit to articles written about climate change;
(4) Describe both the key indicators of global warming and the human fingerprints of climate change;
and,
(5) Reflect on your susceptibility to cognitive bias so as to better combat climate change denial.

7.1 The Art of Doubt

In the past two lectures, I have discussed the science of climate change and how the
scientific consensus on climate change was achieved. In this lecture, we will look at
how the scientific community was side-lined by governments and fossil fuel
companies, and how and why the public began to doubt the scientific consensus.
Much of this lecture is based on the research by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway,
the authors of the book, Merchants of Doubt.
7.1.1 Affirmation without Action
In the last lecture, we noted the affirmation of the scientific consensus on
human-induced climate change by President Lyndon Johnson in his special
message to the US Congress in 1965. This affirmation of the scientific
consensus by U.S. Presidents became a tradition. President George H. W.
Bush affirmed this consensus when he signed the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. In his address to the conference, President Bush spoke of
the need to take “concrete action to protect the planet”.
However, even as the ink was drying on this landmark international
Figure 1: President Bush giving an address environmental treaty it was clear that the treaty was absent of binding
to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in targets and timetables for emissions reductions. There was a strong
1992 (fair use).
disconnect between the political rhetoric and commitment to action. Why?
Well, in the words of President Bush himself,

“The American way of life is not up for negotiations.

Period.”
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

This disconnect is perhaps best illustrated in the role played by the Bush Chief of Staff,
John Sununu. Sununu has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT and despite having
no training in climate science, Sununu felt that he was qualified to pass judgement on
the work of James Hansen, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
who had famously testified to the US Congress in the summer of 1988 just prior to Bush
being elected President. Sununu described Hansen’s work as “technical poppycock”.
Sununu believed that the science underlying the link
between global warming and the combustion of fossil fuels
Figure 2: Photograph of
was insufficient to warrant government action or societal John Sununu Ph.D.
expense. (fair use).

Hansen was due to testify once again in April 1989 at a new hearing called by
Senator Al Gore. Hansen wanted to clarify that global warming would not just
cause more heat waves, but also other extreme events such as floods. As was
protocol for a government scientist, Hansen submitted his prepared remarks to
the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. This alerted Sununu who
then had the testimony heavily edited. Hansen described these edits as leaving his
Figure 3: Photograph of James
testimony “meaningless”. Although this effort at censorship was exposed and
Hansen, climate scientist, giving ultimately proved embarrassing for the Bush administration, Sununu’s efforts to
testimony to the U.S. Congress oppose climate change policy and any regulations limiting carbon dioxide
(fair use).
emissions that he thought would stifle economic growth continued.1
To this end, Sununu was instrumental in sabotaging the
first attempt by the international community to produce
a global treaty to limit carbon emissions. In November
1989, 400 officials from 65 countries met in Noordwijk in
the Netherlands to discuss a framework for a global
treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the
delegations were prepared to endorse the Dutch
proposal to freeze emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, and
a reduction of 20% by 2005. Sununu had a climate
change sceptic appointed to the US negotiating team. His
Figure 4: Report on Noordwijk Declaration in World Meteorology
appointee was given orders to prevent any U.S. Organization (1990). The WMO achievement : 40 years in the service
commitment to limits. No agreement was forged. of international meteorology and hydrology. Geneva: WMO. p. 3.

1
This censorship was reported in The New York Times as follows, “The White House's Office of Management and Budget
has changed the text of testimony scheduled to be delivered to Congress by a top Government scientist, over his protests,
making his conclusions about the effects of global warming seem less serious and certain than he intended. … In his
original testimony, he said that computer projections of climatic changes caused by carbon dioxide and other gases
released into the atmosphere would cause substantial temperature increases, drought, severe storms and other stresses
that will affect the earth's biological systems. The text of his testimony was edited by the budget office to soften the
conclusions and make the prospects of change in climate appear more uncertain”. Shabecoff, P. (1989, May 8). Scientist
says budget office altered his testimony. The New York Times, 1.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

In a 2018 interview for his article Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped
Climate Change, Nathaniel Rich asked Sununu whether he felt responsible for killing
the attempt at a global climate accord. His answer was both cynical and accurate.
He told Rich,

“It couldn’t have happened, because frankly, the leaders of the

world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking
at how to seem like they were supporting the policy without
having to make hard commitments that would cost their
nations serious resources.”

Sununu’s next sentence in that interview is chilling:

“Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”

The rest of the Bush presidency, as indicated by the failure of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio to commit to
binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions, continued this doctrine and the rest of the world followed suit.
To say that this story was a failure to listen to the science and the climate science experts, and the hubris of
the powerful to believe they are right because they have a Ph.D., would be to simplify and ignore the other
socio-economic and geopolitical considerations at play, but it is a story that needs to be heard and understood.
It further illustrates the importance of questioning the authority of a source. To ask yourself, what are the
qualifications and expertise of the source?
In the last lecture, I spoke about scientific consensus and authority. Climate change deniers have argued that
stating that climate change is happening and that it is human caused is the scientific consensus is a logically
flawed statement that relies on argument from authority. We showed why this is not the case, but noted that
our understanding of consensus in this context is different from how the term is used colloquially.
Climate change deniers will use authority to promote their own agenda. Sununu attempted to undermine the
work of climate scientists and ultimately the international community in fighting climate change. He argued
that global warming was “poppycock”. However, the authority upon which he relied in this argument was his
education of a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. He is not a climate science expert, but used his authority as a
retired associate professor (in mechanical engineering) to argue his case. The fact that he isn't an expert in
climate science was a distinction lost on the general public. This distinction goes towards how much we should
weigh the seriousness of the proposition under the first element of the Baloney Detection Toolkit—How
reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

So, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a growing disconnect between rhetoric and action. But the
rhetoric was still there, even if it was cynical. At the time, it was believed that it was “not beneficial to discuss
whether there is or is not warming.” This changed.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7.1.2 Rise of the Doubt Mongers

In the last lecture, we identified the emergent
consensus in the climate science community that
human-induced climate change is happening.
However, as we have just seen, doubt was being cast
on this consensus, even if at the time this doubt was
not being voiced publicly.
Why and how did this doubt, present in the opinions
and beliefs of politicians and officials at the highest
levels of government, permeate into the public arena?
These are the questions that Naomi Oreskes and Erik Figure 5: Photograph of Naomi Figure 6: Photograph of Erik
Conway sought to answer in their book. Oreskes (CC by 3.0). Conway (fair use).

Oreskes and Conway are quick to identify the role of a non-profit conservative think tank, the George C.
Marshall Institute. This institute was established in 1984 with a focus on science and public policy. The
founders of this institute were an interesting bunch. They were all physicists who made their names in the
Cold War working on U.S. rocketry and weapons programmes.

Figure 9: Photograph of Robert Figure 7: Photograph of Frederick Figure 8: Photograph of William

Jastrow (fair use). Seitz (fair use). Nierenberg (fair use).

The first man, they were all men, was Robert Jastrow who had been appointed as the founding Director of
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which made him, in a strange twist of fate, James Hansen’s boss.
The second man was William Nierenberg who had been a nuclear physicist working on the Manhattan Project
as a young man, but who later took up the Directorship of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in 1965, which
again ironically would have made him Charles Keeling’s boss. The final man was Frederick Seitz, who was the
17th President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and later the 4th President of the Rockefeller
University. These three men were all scientists, and brilliant scientists at that.
Having worked together on an advisory panel to the Reagan administration on the
Strategic Defense Initiative, colloquially referred to as the Star Wars initiative, they
decided to create the Marshall Institute to continue this work to defend the
Strategic Defense Initiative in the face of what they believed was Soviet strength
and U.S. weakness. The Star Wars initiative was certainly controversial and
garnered a great deal of opposition, not least in the scientific community in which
opposition was led by Carl Sagan and the Nobel Laureate, Hans Bethe. The
opposition saw the Star Wars initiative as politically destabilising because it
Figure 10: Strategic Defense
Initiative logo (public domain).
implied a winnable nuclear war. In fact, over 6500 scientists and engineers signed
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

a petition pledging not to work on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Sagan speaks a little about this in his book
The Demon-haunted World in the chapter When Scientists Know Sin.2
An interesting quirk of the work of the Marshall Institute in
supporting the Star Wars initiative was that they insisted on equal
airtime on news media to confront the opposition of Sagan and
Bethe. If they weren’t given equal airtime to Sagan and Bethe, who
remember were leading a coalition of over 6500 scientists and
engineers whereas the Marshall Institute was representing 3
scientists, they threatened to sue under the Fairness Doctrine. This
threat worked and they were given the airtime they desired. This, of
Figure 13: Photograph of Figure 14: Photograph of
course, gave the appearance that the debate around the Star Wars Hans Bethe
Carl Sagan (fair use).
initiative was being waged by sides of similar size. This proved (public domain).
important later when the debate turned to climate change.

Figure 12: East German police sprayed water on West Germans as they broke through the Figure 11: Two fragments of the Berlin Wall at
wall at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on 11 November 1989 (fair use). Tembusu College (fair use).

When the Berlin Wall began to crumble in 1989, an early indicator of the end of the Soviet Union, it became
clear that the concerns about Soviet strength were unfounded. The Marshall Institute needed a new enemy.
The new enemy identified by Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz was what they called “environmental extremism”.
But why? They viewed environmentalism to be socialism. This seems a bit of a stretch, so what was their
thinking. Oreskes and Conway argue that the reason this association was made was because the issues of
concern to environmentalists at the time, including acid rain, the ozone hole, the pesticide DDT, and indeed
climate change, required government intervention.
Government intervention is the antithesis of the free market, of the political school of thought that is neo-
liberalism. Modern neo-liberalism focussed on deregulation and releasing the magic of the free market. The
downfall of the Soviet Union only strengthened the political consensus that neo-liberalism was correct. Indeed,
although it came to prominence in the U.S. under Republican President Ronald Reagan and in the U.K. under

2
“American scientists and engineers publicly pledged that they would not work on Star Wars or accept money from the
SDI organization. This provides an example of widespread and courageous non-cooperation by scientists … with a
democratic government.” Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York:
Ballantine Books. p. 288.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, this consensus was continued in the U.S.
under Democratic President Bill Clinton and in the U.K. under Labour Prime Minister
Tony Blair. There was a true bipartisan consensus on the virtues of deregulation and
neo-liberal thinking.
For the Marshall Institute, a return to the regulation required to combat
environmental concerns, like climate change, was an anathema to their neo-liberal
political ideology. For them, regulation was about a loss of freedom; if you give up
your economic freedom by allowing the government to regulate the market place,
then it is only a matter of time before you lose your other freedoms as well. In the
words of Milton Friedman,

“Civic freedom and free markets are inextricably linked: to

control markets, states have to control people. Without free
markets, we’re on slippery slope to tyranny…”3

However, it wasn’t just environmental causes that galvanised their opposition to regulation. Another concern
that was receiving national attention was that of ‘second-hand smoke’. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry had
launched a strategy that refuted and ridiculed the science that linked smoking to health issues, including lung
cancer. In an infamous tobacco industry memo, this strategy was identified in the following excerpt:

“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that
exists in the minds of the general public.”4

In 1979, Seitz had been hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to head their Medical Research
Committee and had learnt many of the tricks of the trade, especially around doubt-mongering. These would
prove useful in his contrarian efforts to cast doubt on the science of climate change.
Seitz and the Marshall Institute were joined in their battle against regulating second-
hand smoke, by another scientist, Fred Singer. Singer was an environmental physicist,
and had been the first Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service. In 1994,
together with Kent Jeffreys, Singer wrote a report for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute
that criticised the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1993 study about the cancer risks
of second-hand smoke. In that report, Singer called the EPA’s study, “junk science”.
You might wonder why an environmental physicist was writing reports criticising the
work of the EPA on second-hand smoke. Fortunately, Singer answers this question. On Figure 15: Photograph of
the second page of the report, Singer writes, Fred Singer (fair use).

“…if we do not carefully delineate the government’s role in regulating…dangers there is

essentially no limit to how much government can ultimately control our lives.”5

This again confirms the assertion of Oreskes and Conway that the anti-environmental contrarianism of Singer,
Seitz, Nierenberg, and Jastrow, was driven by a political agenda to thwart government regulation. Seitz,
Nierenberg, Jastrow, and Singer, applied the tobacco industry playbook to the environmental issues of the
time. They cast doubt on the science behind many of these environmental issues. They argued that
chlorofluorocarbons were not responsible for ozone loss in the stratosphere:

3
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4
Smoking and Health Proposal (1969). Brown & Williamson Records; Master Settlement Agreement. Unknown.
5
Singer F., and Jeffreys, K. (1993). The EPA and the Science of Environmental Smoke. Alexis de Tocqueville Institute. p. 2.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

“Nor is it certain that continued use of CFCs will have much of an impact on atmospheric
ozone in the next 50 years or so.”6

Indeed, they also wrote papers questioning the link between UV-B and skin melanoma. They argued that the
sulphur dioxide being released by coal-fired power plants was not responsible for the acid rain that was
destroying forests:

“While the study suggests a causal connection between sulfur emissions and acidified
lakes, the published data do not support any quantitative relation that would allow us to
specify the consequence of further pollution control actions.”7

Instead, they argued that this was due to volcanic emissions. For climate change, they argued that global
warming was caused by natural variations in solar radiation; that any warming caused by greenhouse
emissions is swamped by natural climate variations:

“…it is the sun that affects climate. … human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite
insignificant to climate change.”8

They further claimed that there was no scientific consensus, and indeed that there were benefits to increased
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through higher agricultural productivity.
Our merchants of doubt recognised that peddling doubt in the science and the scientific consensus was
essential. Fred Singer was able to use his credentials as an environmental physicist to promote the contrarian
view about climate change and to argue that no consensus existed with regard to human-induced climate
change. In 2003, in a letter to the Financial Times, Singer wrote that “there is no convincing evidence that the
global climate is actually warming.”9
In the U.K. in 2007, promoters of the contrarian position were able to have a polemical documentary film,
entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle, released on a national television network. Singer appeared in this
film denying the scientific consensus about the reality and causes of climate change. The film's critics argued
that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and
misrepresented the position of the IPCC. Although the U.K. broadcasting regulatory agency upheld complaints
of misrepresentation, the damage was done.
While the public trust in the science and the scientific consensus around climate change was being damaged,
the political rhetoric was changing. The political and communications consultant, Frank Luntz, wrote a memo
that in 2002 found its way to the White House of President George W. Bush. This memo, entitled The
Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America, included a damning statement:

“The scientific debate is closing [against us] ... but not yet closed. There is still a window
of opportunity to challenge the science. ... Voters believe that there is no consensus about
global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that
the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in
the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”10

6
Singer, F. (1987, June 5). Ozone and Hype. The Washington Post, A26.
7
Singer, S. F. (1986). NAS Acid Rain Study. Science, 232(4750): 563.
8
Singer, F. (2008, June 5). Global Warming: Man-made or Natural?. USA Today, 16–18.
9
Singer, F. (2003, November 26). Climate Concern is Just a Tax Ruse. Financial Times, 14.
10
Luntz, F. (2003). The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America [Memorandum]. The Luntz Research Companies.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

The approach outlined in the leaked Luntz memo encapsulates the

history and continuing approach of those peddling the contrarian
position both inside and outside of politics. A significant fraction of
the public accepts the deniers’ allegations as true, or at least are
confused by them, and therefore do not know what to think or whom
to trust. Science has been effectively undermined, which has eroded
public support for the decisive action needed to avoid the worst
effects of global warming.
I have attempted to establish the evidence of intent to confound and
mislead the public about climate change. Political lobbyists were able
to mainstream their contrarian positions using techniques they had
picked up in their fight to limit regulation in the tobacco industry. In
particular, they exploited uncertainty. Their success in mongering
doubt in the well-established causal links between lung cancer and
cigarette smoking prompted these same people to monger doubt about the links between CFC emissions and
the stratospheric ozone hole, UV-B radiation and skin cancer, and SO₂ emissions from coal burning power
plants producing acid rain that in turn destroys forests (note a causal mechanism here), before finally attacking
climate change.
The evidence that this doubt mongering was malicious rather than a genuine attempt to critically review an
issue of “controversy” is found in the memo by Frank Luntz. There, Luntz clearly states that their position
against the scientific consensus on climate change is closing. Luntz directly said that,

“you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the
debate.”

This historical investigation reveals the source's perspective, that is, it answers the second element of the
BDTK—What is the source's perspective?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

7.1.3 A Public Confounded

Before finishing the first part of this lecture, I want to connect back to Professor Bettens’ second lecture. You
will remember that he spoke about misinformation, falsehoods and lies being used to confound the public
regarding the reality of climate change. What I find so disturbing about this recount of the history of climate
change denial was the influence of political lobbyists and how this influence permeated the political discourse.
We understand the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry, but doubt mongering by political lobbyists and
contrarian scientists deeply damaged the prospects of action. The advent of the internet in the 1990s and
more recently the 24/7 news cycle, and the pervasiveness of social media have deeply divided opinion on a
topic in which there is no serious debate in the scientific community. With these new technologies and forums,
political lobbyists were able to mainstream their contrarian positions using techniques they had picked up in
the fight to limit regulation of the tobacco industry.

7.2 Narratives of the Sceptic (I)

An important learning goal of this course is to provide you with the skill to be able to critically evaluate the
quality and reliability of information. To this end, Professor Bettens introduced the Baloney Detection Toolkit
in his second lecture. I have referred to various elements of the BDTK over the course of my lectures. In the
next two parts of this lecture, I want to apply the BDTK to a variety of the more popular claims proffered by
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

climate change deniers. In using the BDTK, I will attempt to put myself in the shoes of a non-expert. The BDTK
only has value if it can be used by a non-expert.
7.2.1 “Climate's Changed Before”
The first claim I would like to address is that of “climate has
changed before”.
In the publication, Quadrant, in July 2009, Richard Lindzen
authored an article entitled Resisting Climate Hysteria. In that
article, Lindzen wrote,

“Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages

and warmer periods when alligators were found in
Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred
thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years,
and there have been previous periods that appear to
have been warmer than the present despite CO2
levels being lower than they are now. More recently,
we have had the medieval warm period and the little
ice age.”

How does the BDTK deal with this? Let’s go through each question prompted by the BDTK one by one.

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

Professor Bettens taught us to employ lateral reading. He also said that Wikipedia is a useful starting point
with reliable and well cited information. I will follow this direction.
The claimant is Richard Lindzen. An examination of his Wikipedia page reveals his credentials. It states, that
prior to his retirement in 2013, Richard Lindzen was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was also a lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC's Third Assessment
Report. Richard Lindzen is clearly a credible claimant with highly valued expertise in climate science.
This argues that we should pay close attention to what he has to say.

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

A close reading of Lindzen's Wikipedia page characterises him as a contrarian, in particular, for his views on
climate change, but also on the issue of second-hand smoke. However, in addition to his contrarian views, he
also has a long-standing relationship with the Cato Institute. A quick look at the Cato Institute’s Wikipedia
page reveals that this organisation was founded by the Koch brothers whose wealth is derived largely from oil
and natural gas, and who have actively sought to limit climate change legislation. This relationship is at the
very least a conflict of interest.

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

In the article, Lindzen relies on the primary literature to tell his story. The literature cited comes from peer-
reviewed journals, including the journals Science and Nature. The quality of the journals cited do vary in quality.
How can we determine this? An imperfect measure of quality is the journal’s Impact Factor. We can check a
journal’s Impact Factor with a Google search. This reveals that the 2007 article by Lindzen is published in a
more obscure journal with the relatively low Impact Factor of 3.154 (in 2023). However, the journal is not one
of the predatory journals discussed by Professor Bettens in his third lecture. This is more a check, though, on
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

whether the evidence that underpins his argument is both reliable and relevant. Reading the article, we see
that Lindzen references articles that back his claim. That he is providing positive evidence. In particular, he
references an article by Tsonis et al. from 2007 in claiming that the variability seen in the Earth system is
“enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century”. Without specialist knowledge, it would be
difficult to query the science coordinated in this article.

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

This can be a challenging question for the non-expert. Particularly, in this case where we have a claim from a
climate scientist. If we asked Google, would we know if we were being directed to an authoritative website
that represented the scientific consensus? We could dive into the IPCC reports, but these are 1000s of pages
long and frequently require expert knowledge to understand the arguments. Perhaps generative AI could help,
but we’ve heard that ChatGPT can hallucinate and give out misinformation. Perhaps Wikipedia can save us?
Following a google search using the key phrase ‘Wikipedia climate has always changed’, we can follow the first
search result to Wikipedia’s page on Climate variability and change. It highlights that climate has indeed always
changed, but that recent climate change cannot be explained by natural variation. Under Causes, there is a
link to a further page entitled Attribution of recent climate change. This goes into further depth. It is clear that
the scientific consensus is at odds with the claim made by Richard Lindzen. Previous climates can be explained
by natural causes, while current climate change can only be explained by an excess of CO2 released by burning
fossil fuels. Records of past climates indicate that change happened on time scales of thousands to millions of
years. As we saw in the last lecture, the global rise in temperature that has occurred over the past 170 years
is unprecedented and has our fingerprints all over it.

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

In the history of science, there is often an experiment undertaken that is described as a critical experiment.
The, probably apocryphal, story of Galileo dropping balls of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa
to show that the time of descent was independent of mass is an example. Another famous example is that of
the confirmation of the theory of general relativity by the measurement of the deflection of starlight during
the 1919 solar eclipse by Arthur Eddington. These experiments made critical tests of theory. The observations
would determine the validity of the theories.

Figure 16: Cartoon of the Galileo experiment of Figure 17: Photographic plate of the 1919 solar eclipse from which
dropping objects of different mass from the Leaning Eddington confirmed the prediction of Einstein’s Theory of General
Tower of Pisa (CC by 3.0). Relativity (CC by 4.0).

Lindzen’s article identifies a set of observations that cast doubt on the validity of the science of climate change.
Theory predicts that the upper tropospheric temperatures should increase more rapidly than surface
temperatures in the tropics. This is a robust result of theory. Lindzen identifies two papers that suggest that
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

this is not happening. This is a critical experiment. If

true, the theory around global warming is either wrong
or missing something. Lindzen argues that the lack of
observational confirmation indicates that the
observed warming at the surface is not due to
increased greenhouse gases.
Let's look at the two papers. The first paper is by Lindzen himself and the second is by David Douglass. One of
the co-authors on the second paper is someone we discussed in the first part of this week's lecture, Fred Singer.
We need to verify the conclusions of these papers. It is perhaps best to focus on the second paper. The paper
by Lindzen has an inherent bias having been written by the author himself. If we go online and find the second
paper on the journal’s website, there is helpful information.

Notice that below the abstract, the journal lists the 60 papers that have cited the Douglass paper. Perhaps
these papers will verify Douglass' work. If we look at the first paper that cites the Douglass paper, the Allen
and Sherwood paper from 2008, we see that a different conclusion is reached. In their abstract, Allen and
Sherwood explain that,

“non-climatic biases have been found in [direct temperature observations from

radiosonde and satellite data]”.

Their analysis using thermal wind shear calculations reproduce the expected warming trend in the upper
troposphere. Note that this article was published a year before the article we are discussing. It appears that
Lindzen may be selecting only papers that support his position. This is an example of cherry picking.

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The claimant does appear to cherry pick only articles that confirm his position and does not share with
the reader that there was a great deal of concern within the climate science community about the
reliability of direct measurements in the upper troposphere. This lack of candour is an example of a
straw man. That is when a claimant misrepresents a position that is more easily argued against. In this
case, it was disingenuous to suggest that there was no uncertainty in the temperature measurements
in the tropical troposphere.
There is a further flaw. The argument that current climate change is natural because past climate changed
naturally makes an implicit, and incorrect, assumption. It assumes that because the climate has
changed from natural causes before, it can only be changing from natural causes now. This is
committing what is known as the single cause fallacy. As the name suggests, this is when a
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

phenomenon is falsely attributed to a single cause, even though other causes are possible. It would be similar
to saying that smoking cannot cause cancer because people were getting cancer before cigarettes were
invented.

Baloney Detection Toolkit

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

Overall, the use of the Baloney Detection Toolkit highlights some red flags, especially around the source's
perspective, verification, and reasoning. These at the very least suggest caution, that we ought to discount
excepting the conclusions in the article before investigating further.

Before moving on, let’s take a closer look at naturally occurring climate change that happened in the past and
was referred to by Lindzen. In the last lecture, we discussed the glacial–interglacial cycles revealed in the
Vostok Station ice-core temperature record. We attributed this to regular changes in the Earth’s orbit known
as Milankovitch cycles.

Lower irradiation

Lower
temperatures

Ice caps growing Oceans absorb CO2

Less greenhouse
Increased albedo
gases

We can understand the influence on temperature using our single-layer atmosphere model. Orbital changes
that result in less radiation from the Sun will result in a smaller solar constant and therefore lower
temperatures. This will result in the polar ice caps growing and that will increase the reflectivity of the planet.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

In our model, we know that this results in an increased albedo that will further reduce the Earth’s surface
temperature. As the oceans cool, they absorb more CO2. Less greenhouse gases result in even cooler
temperatures, and which ultimately leads to ice ages. The process is reversed when changes in the Earth’s
orbit results in more radiation from the Sun.
7.2.2 “It's the Sun”
The second climate change myth that I want us to look at is the
myth that it is all due to the Sun.
By way of example, let’s look at an article published on the BBC
News website in 2004, entitled Sunspots Reaching 1000-year
High, written by their online science editor, David Whitehouse.
Let’s assume we were looking for information on the effect of the
Sun on climate.
In a key section, the article reports,

“Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar
activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer.”

How does the BDTK deal with this? Once again, let’s go through each question prompted by the BDTK one by
one.

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

We need to search for the author, David Whitehouse. The website, desmog.com, has a page that profiles
Whitehouse, but is this website itself reliable? Let’s set that aside for the time-being. We can return to this
question if we fear that reliability might be an issue. The desmog.com profile identifies Whitehouse as having
a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Although this is a higher degree in science, it is not in climate science and Whitehouse
cannot be considered an expert. However, in the article, Whitehouse is not claiming to be writing the article
as a climate scientist, but as a science correspondent. As a science correspondent, it is his responsibility to
report faithfully the science behind the article.
As far as the article is concerned, he does appear to faithfully report the science. The science comes from a
paper published in the journal Nature by Sami Solanki. This paper, like most science research papers, is
technical, but there does not appear to be any significant misrepresentation on the part of Whitehouse.
However, there is a caveat. There are elements that appear to be opinions that Whitehouse has drawn from
his read of the paper that are not found in the research paper. I will touch on this when we consider whether
the claimant is providing positive evidence.

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

The profile at desmog.com details many of the articles by Whitehouse that have taken contrarian positions on
climate change. It notes that Whitehouse holds a position on the Academic Advisory Council of the contrarian
Global Warming Policy Foundation. I think that no matter whether the editor at BBC News was exerting
editorial rigour over the articles of its science correspondent, Whitehouse would have had the autonomy to
report the stories he wanted to. His career since the BBC suggest that we should have concerns about whether
this selection of stories was the result of acknowledged importance in the science world or whether it was due
to personal bias to confirm the correspondent’s opinions.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

The correspondent is reporting the evidence presented in the work published by Sami Solanki. The article
reports that,

“Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth
has been getting warmer.”

It further states in the next paragraph, repeating the claim made towards the beginning of the article, that

“changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to
get warmer.”

The first statement is acknowledging a correlation, but implies a causation given the context within which it is
written. The second statement explicitly makes the case for causation even if it does not explain how. This is
not how science works. To make a claim of causation you need a theory—an explanation. Preferably
this theory should make predictions that can be tested. These statements are arguing that
correlation is causation—this is the false cause fallacy. There is also evidence that these statements
are the opinion of Whitehead and not that of Solanki. In the Nature paper, Solanki explicitly writes in the
abstract,

“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate
that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century,
we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades.”

Solanki clearly believes that the current work is not sufficient to make the statements made in the BBC News
article. So, although Whitehouse is providing evidence in support of the claim that the Sun is responsible for
climate change, there is reason to believe that this evidence is not being faithfully reported. This stretching of
the claims made by scientists by purveyors of pseudoscience is a common technique.

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

The claim that the sun is responsible for global warming

is wrong. A Google search for ‘solar activity vs
temperature’ takes us to NASA’s climate change website
that shows the figure here. In the last 40 years of global
warming, the Sun has shown a slight cooling trend. The
correlation that was evident from 1880–1980 has
evaporated. This is also stated in the Executive
Summaries of the last few IPCC Reports, such as the
Summary for Policymakers in the 2021 AR6 Report, that
articulate the scientific consensus on this issue. I am
highlighting the Executive Summaries as these are
intended to be read and understood by the non-expert.
Figure 18: NASA graphic showing temperature vs. solar activity
(public domain). Using the BDTK should not and does not require
expertise to be used.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

The article does not coordinate any other work that argues for the conclusions made in the article and, as
stated above, the conclusion is not consistent with the scientific consensus of the influence of the sun on
climate as stated in the IPCC Reports.

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

Given the inconsistency between the conclusions made in the article and that made in the underlying
research paper, I think it is fair to argue that Whitehouse is engaging in some cherry picking. It seems
that this paper was being used to argue for the opinion of Whitehouse. Whitehouse does attempt to
cover himself by acknowledging the consensus opinion that the observed temperature rise is due to rising
concentrations of greenhouse gases. But, this point is only made in the penultimate paragraph. Many readers
will have taken the statements made earlier as the conclusions, and perhaps as the current state of scientific
knowledge, and will have not read the article to the end. In journalism, this is known as burying the lede and
although not a logical fallacy per se, there is reason to believe that the author is using it for pernicious effect.
In addition, there are two further notable examples of flawed reasoning. First, Whitehouse argues that
correlation is causation. Remember that the single-layer atmosphere model that I introduced in my
first lecture does show that increased solar output can be a cause for increased surface temperature.
Whitehouse does not refer to this causal mechanism, perhaps because he knows that the measured
changes in solar output cannot explain the magnitude of temperature increases. Second, there is also issues
of cherry picking with regard to ignoring data from the last 40 years that shows that the correlation present in
the previous century's worth of data is now absent. This is also known as the fallacy of incomplete
data. Climate change deniers only show data from periods when solar and climate data track together.
They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite
result.

Baloney Detection Toolkit

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The Baloney Detection Toolkit enables me, I believe in the absence of expert knowledge, to be highly sceptical
of the conclusions drawn in this article. Notice it requires the reader to not take the article at face value, but
to access the underlying research and to laterally read reports that present the scientific consensus. Quite
frankly, you do not need to read the IPCC Reports, Executive Summaries or otherwise. Wikipedia discusses the
role of solar activity in climate change. Wikipedia is again a great tool for uncovering pseudoscientific nonsense.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7.2.3 “Animals and Plants Can Adapt”

The third claim we are investigating is that given in the article
found on The Heartland Institute website entitled Challenge to
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming published in
September 2007. 11 It is an article written by The Hudson
Institute. The article highlights six challenges to the scientific
consensus, but for our purpose I want to focus on one
associated with a particularly pernicious climate change myth
that animals and plants can adapt to climate change. In the
article, the Hudson Institute write that,

“corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are

adapting well to the routine reality of changing
climate.”

Let’s see how the BDTK deals with this…

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

The Hudson Institute does not discuss climate change specifically in its areas of interest and there are no
fellows on staff who are experts in climate science. It is not clear who within The Hudson Institute authored
the article, but the article does name Dennis Avery, who was a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute. It also
names Fred Singer as a source of the claims made.

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

Both Avery and Singer were avowed climate change deniers. The article appears to be a puff piece to promote
the book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. The fact that
Avery's book was being reviewed by the institute of which he was a Fellow, at the very least, suggests a conflict
of interest.

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

The claimant does not identify the evidence upon which they base their claims, but instead claim that the
evidence exists and is published in journals such as Science and Nature. Requiring the reader to find the
evidence rather than providing the evidence is a big red flag.

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

As I mentioned before, this is always a challenging question, but we have resources. One that I haven’t
mentioned yet is Google Scholar. This allows us to query the research literature. Even a cursory search reveals
a wealth of scientific evidence that is counter to the position made in the article. A research paper published
in Science estimates that plants and animals are currently dying off at a rate that is 100 to 1000 times faster

11
As of 2023, the article has been scrubbed from The Heartland Institute website. However, it can be found on a Global
Research website page. This website is not authoritative and has peddled in conspiracy theories. However, we are using
it here as it has archived the article of interest.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

than the average rate of extinction over geological timescales.12 Work published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences identifies the specific climatic changes that cause extinction and the processes
that may help species to survive.13 We also have research that explains why climate change causes extinctions
such as that published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.14 It is clear that the majority of evidence
points to the conclusion that human-caused climate change is occurring too rapidly for plant and animal
species to be able to adapt.

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

There is a quote from Fred Singer that states,

“The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans
have quietly adapted.”

I couldn't find any reputable sources that agreed with this statement. Certainly, there is a wealth of research
that shows that animal and plant life is adapting, but that is a far cry from arguing that animal and plant life is
adapting well.

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

Throughout the article, there is wholesale misrepresentation of what the scientific consensus is. The
article makes straw man arguments. They misrepresent the scientific consensus as the
misrepresentation is far easier to counter. For example, they state that 70% of global warming
occurred between 1850 and 1940. This is not supported by the global temperature record that shows that 70%
of global warming has occurred since 1940. (To be fair, in 2007 when this article was published, this was
probably closer to 60%.) Elsewhere, they suggest that the so-called Medieval Warm Period was a global
phenomenon rather than a regional affair. This makes it easier for them to argue that current temperature
rises will not lead to widespread extinction because no such extinctions were seen in the earlier warming.
Again, a little lateral reading and consultation of reliable websites, such as Wikipedia, quickly highlight the
misrepresentations being made.

12
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., and Sexton,
J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187):
1246752.
13
Román-Palacios, C., and Wiens, J. J. (2020). Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction
and survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(8): 4211–4217.
14
Cahill, A. E., Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Fisher-Reid, M. C., Hua, X., Karanewsky, C. J., Yeong Ryu, H., Sbeglia, G. C., Spagnolo,
F., Waldron, J. B., Warsi, O., and Wiens, J. J. (2013). How does climate change cause extinction? Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1750): 20121890.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

Baloney Detection Toolkit

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The Baloney Detection Toolkit guides us nicely to view the article as being absolute nonsense. Every tool in
the BDTK raises red flags. Time to move on.

Figure 19: Graphic showing global warming stripes and the biodiversity stripes exhibiting a stark
negative correlation (CC by 4.0).

This climate change myth focussed on the ability of flora and fauna to adapt to climate change. What the
science says about the dangers posed by climate change to biodiversity will be discussed more deeply by
Professor Sivasothi in the final block of this course. A challenge for scientists can be in getting their message
across to the public. Graphical representations can be a powerful medium. The global warming stripes, created
by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading, and biodiversity stripes, created by Miles Richardson at the
University of Derby, are stunning examples of this.15 Side-by-side, as in figure 19, they tell a compelling story.
The 69% drop in the global living planet index since 1970 finds a dramatic negative correlation with global
average temperatures.

7.3 Narratives of the Sceptic (II)

Let’s continue our discussion of climate change myths and our use of the Baloney Detection Toolkit to identify
them as such.

15
Further details can be found at https://biodiversitystripes.info/globalbiowarming/.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7.3.1 “The Earth's Cooling”

The fourth climate change myth we can look at is the claim
that is sometimes proffered that global warming is no longer
happening and that, in fact, the Earth is cooling.
An example of this opinion can be found published in 2009 on
the website, Watts Up With That?, entitled While the Sun
Sleeps. This example is in fact a translation of a piece written
by Henrik Svensmark that was published in the Danish
newspaper, Jyllands Posten. Importantly, the website reports
that the translation has been approved by Svensmark.
The piece opens with the following statement:

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling

is beginning. No climate model has predicted a
cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this
means that the projections of future climate are
unreliable.”

Let’s turn again to the BDTK.

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

Given the fact that the article states that the translation was approved by Svensmark, let’s look at his
credentials. A quick Google search identifies Svensmark as a physicist at the Centre for Sun-Climate research
with the Danish National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark. He has been working and
publishing his research in the area of climate change throughout his career. Svensmark’s credentials are such
that he should be considered an expert on the subject of which he writes.

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

There are two elements that concern me here. First, the perspective of the author, and second, the perspective
of the forum in which it is reported. There is little evidence that Svensmark is a climate-change denier or that
he has disputed the role that greenhouse gases play in global warming. That said, he is sceptical of the extent
to which increases in greenhouse gases have influenced the observed increases in surface temperatures.
However, the website, Watts Up With That?, is unabashedly sceptical of climate change.

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

The claimant is stating that “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning”. The article further states
that, “No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the
projections of future climate are unreliable.” The author argues that the cooling is because the sun is going
through a quiescent phase with the implication that the sun is playing a significant, if not dominant, role in
determining Earth surface temperatures. The author points to his own published and peer-reviewed research
that indicates the importance of cosmic rays on nucleating cloud droplet formation. A little digging around
identifies the publications he is referring to, such as his publications in Physical Review Letters and Proceedings
of the Royal Society A. These are positive evidence for his claim.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

Evidence for climate change is not limited to surface temperatures. There are many indicators of global
warming. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive
as possible: snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves.
Cherry picking just one indicator and exclaiming that that indicator no longer shows warming while
ignoring all the other indicators that continue to show the trends consistent with a warming planet is,
at best, disingenuous. The key indicators of global warming are all moving in the direction expected
of a warming globe. I will go into further detail with regard to the key indicators of global warming shortly.
Note that in the years since publication, Earth surface temperatures have increased while solar activity has
continued its slight decline.

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

The author does not point to the research of others and does little to counter any arguments opposed to his
position. There is a claim in the article that the cooling they identify will “continue through the next 10 to 20
years”. Looking back on this it is clear that this claim did not withstand the scrutiny of the following 5 years
since publication, let alone a decade. From our future viewpoint, we have all of us found the claim to be
wanting.

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

It is not surprising that the website made the decision to report this article given the website's climate
change denial perspective. In this act of publication, it is cherry picking an article that confirms its
climate change denial bias. As for the author, it is a concern when little to no attempt is made to
explain why the voluminous research that counters your position is
wrong. The author seems to state that he is right and everyone else is
wrong. He does point to his research as evidence, but the lack of
support for his position in the science community is telling. In terms
of flawed reasoning, I would argue that the author is engaging in black
or white thinking. He sets up a false dichotomy. He makes
the case that temperature rise is either due to greenhouse
gas emissions or solar activity. He wants to make the case that it is
mainly due to solar activity. He argues that there is a causal
mechanism for solar activity leading to changes in surface
temperature. He notes that carbon dioxide concentrations have
continued to increase in the decade before publication, but that
Figure 20: Cartoon by xkcd (CC by 2.5).
temperatures have not. He argues that because solar activity has
declined during this period of declining temperatures it must be solar activity that has the controlling effect
on temperature and not greenhouse gas concentrations. It ignores other possible sources of temperature
decline. It makes the implicit assumption that the period during which temperature has declined
amounts to a real trend and not internal variability. This is again an example of cherry picking, which
will discuss further in just a moment.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

Baloney Detection Toolkit

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The Baloney Detection Toolkit has helped me conclude that the claims made are wrong. The first red flag was
the perspective of the forum in which the article was reported. However, the reasoning used in the article was
concerning and a cursory check on the claims revealed that significant counterpoints were being ignored.
7.3.2 Indicators of Global Warming
This climate change myth is a recurring theme. The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the
light of a recent weather event—a big snowfall or drought-breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible
with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long-term trends that are
important; measured over decades or more, and those long-term trends show that the globe is still,
unfortunately, warming.

The animation above shows how short time periods of monthly global average temperatures can be selected
to argue that surface temperatures have stopped increasing, or even, started declining.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

When we look at the entire temperature dataset, we see that there has been no abatement of the upward
trend. Cherry picking the time window allows you to find contrarian trends. Isn’t it strange how nine periods
of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend in the last fifty years? I think the British Prime Minister,
Benjamin Disraeli, put it best,

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Before moving on to the last climate change myth, let’s look at the key indicators of global warming. Any
alternative explanation needs to address not only the increasing surface temperatures, but each of these
observations.

Indicators of a Warming World

Humidity

Glaciers

Temperature Over Land Temperature Over Oceans

Snow Cover Air Temperature Near Surface (troposphere)

Tree-lines shifting poleward and upward Sea Surface Temperature

Sea Level

Spring coming earlier

Ice Sheets
Sea Ice

Species migrating poleward and upward Ocean Heat Content

Figure 21: Key indicators of global warming (CC by 3.0).

The key indicators of global warming shown in figure 21 are all moving in the direction expected of a warming
globe:
1. Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations is increasing. Climate change deniers
argue that the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather
stations, weather stations dropped from use in the temperature record, etc. This is the only indicator
shown here that can possibly suffer from these biases, but focussing on this one indicator ignores the
others. It is the convergence of evidence from the expected indicators that is particularly persuasive.
2. Sea surface temperature is increasing. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to
1850 and the last decade is warmest.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

3. Air temperature over the oceans is increasing.

4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years is increasing. By any of
these measures, the 2010s was the warmest decade and each of the last four decades has been much
warmer than the previous one.
5. Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century, is increasing. More than 90% of
the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans. This contributes to sea level rise.
6. Sea level is rising. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
7. Specific humidity has risen in tandem with temperatures.
8. Glaciers are retreating. Alaska’s melt rates are among the highest on the planet, with the Columbia
glacier retreating at about 35 metres per year. Further, glaciers are melting faster, losing 31 percent
more snow and ice per year than they did 15 years ago.
9. Northern Hemisphere snow cover has also decreased in recent decades.
10. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are
available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk
by 35% since 1979.
All of these indicators of global warming were predicted. Climate scientists do not rely on any one indicator in
order to claim that global warming is happening, they rely on the preponderance of evidence from many
different indicators.
7.3.3 “It's Not Us”
A final climate change myth that we can look at is the one that
argues that even if climate change is happening, it’s not due to
humans.
This is, again, quite a popular myth. Let’s look at an article
published in the Houston Chronicle in 2010, entitled Climategate:
You Should Be Steamed, written by Neil Frank. In that article,
Frank writes in a rather polemical style,

“What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with

the believers that the Earth has been warming since the
end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this
warming is the question. Believers think the warming is
man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is
natural and contributions from man are minimal and
certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.”

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

A Google search of the author reveals that Neil Frank has his own Wikipedia page. This webpage details that
Frank is a meteorologist with a Ph.D. in meteorology from Florida State University and was the Director of the
U.S. National Hurricane Center between 1974 and 1987. This does give him the expertise to write on the
subject of climate change.

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

I think it is fair to say that Frank is a climate change sceptic. This scepticism is based on his religious belief that
the Earth and its ecosystems are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Change is an anathema
to this belief. This assertion is based on his being a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

This information is again found on his Wikipedia page. A hyperlink on the Wikipedia page allows us to check
that he is indeed a signatory to the declaration.

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

The article makes three claims. First, the article claims, without evidence, that the cause of global warming
since 1850 is natural with minimal contributions from humans. Second, the article states that CO₂ is “not a
pollutant but vital for plant life”. In its second claim, it also argues that the contribution to global warming
from carbon dioxide is minor compared to that of water. In this, the claimant is arguing, without evidence,
that CO₂ is good and any attempts on reducing temperatures should focus on water and not carbon dioxide.
Third, the article claims, without evidence, that “climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming
from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide”. The claimant is not providing positive evidence.

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

The preponderance of evidence amply supports the position that not only is global warming happening, but
that it is human caused. Of the other claims, no one argues that CO₂ isn't vital for plant life, however, climate
change sceptics use the carbon fertilisation effect to argue that increased carbon dioxide is a good thing.
Scientists, however, have found that in reality climate change will have a complicated effect on plant growth.
Many studies have identified that the increased temperatures, the reduced moisture content in soils, and
water stress in general, lead to reduced plant growth despite increased levels of carbon dioxide. Examples of
such research can be found in studies published in Nature, 16 Science 17 and Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.18 Although we can use Google Scholar or other resources to check the primary literature,
we can find this evidence on Wikipedia that itself links to the primary literature. There is little barrier for the
non-expert to check the claims made.

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

The claimant does not provide any citations to support his assertions. I believe that the onus is on the claimant
to provide this evidence. I don't think that it is for us to find the evidence. The fact that the claimant doesn't
even provide breadcrumbs to point to potential sources of evidence is a big red flag. I think this by itself argues
that we can ignore this article.

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The polemical style of the article is revealing. It calls the climate scientists that are identifying the dangers of
climate change as being “alarmists”. It argues that emails reveal a conspiracy between U.S. and U.K.
climate scientists to adjust the data to make it look as if global warming is real. This language is a red
flag. In the absence of evidence, this is an ad hominem attack. There is a straw man argument
that CO₂ is vital to plant growth. There is a false equivalence fallacy made in conflating the difficulty
in getting accurate 10-day weather forecasts with predicting global climate change over the course of

16
Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S., Lawrence, D. M., and Gentine, P. (2019). Large
influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake. Nature, 565: 476–479.
17
Zhao, M., and Running, S. W. (2010). Drought-Induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000
through 2009. Science, 329(5994): 940–943.
18
Schimel, D., Stephens, B. B., and Fisher, J. B. (2014). Effect of increasing CO2 on the terrestrial carbon cycle. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2): 436–441.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

a century. There is also the appeal to inappropriate authority when they identify the thousands of
Ph.D.s and the hundreds of scientists who have signed petitions doubting human-caused climate
change.

Baloney Detection Toolkit

BDTK1: How reliable is the source of the claim?

BDTK2: What is the source’s perspective?

BDTK3: Is the claimant providing positive evidence?

BDTK4: Where does the majority of evidence point?

BDTK5: Have the claims been verified by someone else?

BDTK6: Does the claimant use flawed reasoning?

The Baloney Detection Toolkit guides us to ignore this article despite the expertise of the author. This article
comes across as more of an ad hominem attack on the climate scientists than as a reasoned argument that
global warming is natural. Before moving on though, I want to briefly discuss the human fingerprints that
identify global warming as human caused.
7.3.4 Human Fingerprints on Climate Change

Figure 22: Indicators of human fingerprints on climate change (CC by 3.0).

Figure 22 identifies 10 human fingerprints on climate change.

There are four pieces of evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels.
First, we know that humans are currently emitting some 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each
year. Second, oxygen levels are falling because carbon is being oxidised to form carbon dioxide. Third, we
know that this carbon is fossil fuels—this is the Suess effect we discussed in the last lecture. And fourth, corals
have also been absorbing this fossil carbon more recently.
There are two observations that show that CO2 is absorbing more infra-red radiation.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

First, satellites are measuring less infra-red radiation escaping to space at the precise wavelengths at which
CO2 absorbs. And second, surface measurements reveal that this radiation is returning to Earth to warm the
surface.
There are also four observations that show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is
predicted to occur during global warming.
First, an increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been
observed. Second, if the warming was due to solar activity, then the stratosphere should warm along with the
rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool
because of the infra-red radiation being trapped in the troposphere. Satellite measurements show that the
stratosphere is cooling. Third, this combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should
cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed. And finally, it was predicted
that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.
The attribution of climate change to human activity is not based solely on computer modelling. The series of
empirical measurements we have just discussed point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet
to warm.

7.4 Bias and Denial

We have discussed why and how doubt about the science and the scientific consensus concerning human-
induced climate change became part of political rhetoric and how that permeated the public consciousness.
We have looked at a few examples of climate change myths that are used to cast doubt. As individuals though,
why do we deny climate change?
The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media, and individuals have spent some 30 years casting doubt on
the reality of climate change. The world’s five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies alone spend about
US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay, or block binding climate policy.
7.4.1 The Five Horsemen of Denial

So, what forms of denial are being used to convince the public to delay action on climate change?
First, there is the science denial. That the science of climate change is not settled. That there is no consensus.
That climate change is just part of the natural cycle.
Second, there is the economic denial. That climate change is too expensive to fix. This is a form of self-fulfilling
prophecy. Economists estimate that we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. However,
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

if we delay to 2050, it could cost over 20% of world GDP. This denial recognises the need for intergenerational
equity.
Third, there is humanitarian denial. That climate change is good for us. That longer, warmer summers make
farming more productive. That plants need carbon dioxide and so more of it acts as a fertiliser. That warmer
winters will lead to fewer deaths. This denial is particularly pernicious as it solely considers the effect on people
living in temperate climates, and not those living in tropical climates. Further, it’s not even true, but points to
the need for international equity.
Fourth, there is political denial. That we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. This
denial ignores the historical legacy of greenhouse gas emissions. It further highlights the need to recognise
the ethical responsibility of developed nations to take action first.
Finally, there is crisis denial. That we shouldn’t rush into committing to binding international agreements,
given the uncertainty raised by the previous areas of denial.
But why might we as individuals accept these forms of denial? The answer is our susceptibility to cognitive
bias. We are all susceptible to cognitive bias. Recognising this is key to being able to think critically.
7.4.2 The Three Faces of Bias
There are many cognitive biases to which we might be susceptible in the context of climate change. However,
we can highlight three that pose a cognitive barrier impeding us from making sound decisions with regard to
behaviour affecting the environment.

First, despite claiming that we want to leave the world in good condition for future generations, people
intuitively discount the future to a greater degree than can be rationally defended.19 Over-discounting the
future can contribute to a broad array of environmental problems, ranging from overharvesting of the oceans
and forests to the failure to invest in new technologies to
address climate change. We are most likely to discount the
future when the future is uncertain, distant, and when
intergenerational distribution of resources is involved.
Specifically, when people espouse the view that the earth’s
resources should be preserved, they tend to think about their
descendants. But when consumptive opportunities arise today
that would inflict environmental costs on future generations,
they begin to view ‘descendants’ as a vague group of people

19
Loewenstein, G., and Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: Intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4):
181–193.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

living in a distant time. From a societal perspective, overweighting present concerns can be viewed as both
foolish and immoral, as it robs future generations of opportunities and resources.
Second, positive illusions lead us to conclude that energy problems
do not exist or are not severe enough to merit action.20 We tend to
see ourselves, our environment, and the future in a more positive
light than is objectively the case. We all hold a wide variety of positive
illusions, yet two are particularly relevant to inattention of energy and
climate change: unrealistic optimism and the illusion of control.
Unrealistic optimism leads us to believe and act as if the repercussions
of climate change will be far less severe than the scientific community
predicts. The illusion of control leads us to believe that scientists will
invent new technologies to solve the problem. As a result, the unrealistic illusion that a new technology will
emerge serves as an ongoing excuse for the failure to act today.
And third, we interpret events in a self-serving manner, a tendency to
expect others to do more than we do.21 Different parties are likely to
have different assessments of their proportionate blame and
responsibility for a problem. Egocentrism leads all parties involved to
believe that it is honestly fair for them to bear less responsibility for
reversing climate change than an independent party would judge as
fair. The problem is worsened not by a desire to be unfair but by an
inability to view information objectively.

These three biases—the tendency to discount the future, positive illusions, and egocentrism—can have an
interactive effect. After insisting for decades that the scientists are flat-out wrong, many of those who have
strongly opposed efforts to reduce climate change for self-interested reasons have changed their tune. No
longer arguing that climate change does not exist, that humans do not contribute to climate change, or that
others are to blame for the problem, they now argue that it would be too costly to respond to the problem.
This transition in argument—from “There is no problem” to “We aren’t responsible” to “It’s too expensive to
fix”—allows the current generation to receive small benefits in exchange for high costs to future generations.

20
Taylor, S. E., and Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(2): 193–210.
21
Messick, D. M., and Sentis, K. P. (1983). Fairness, Preference, and Fairness Biases. In D. M. Messick and K. S. Cook (Eds.),
Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives (pp. 61–64). New York: Praeger.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7.4.3 Recognising Our Own Biases

We need to be conscious of our susceptibility to cognitive bias. This is something that affects all of us.
Recognising that we are susceptible is key. Such recognition can help you identify your own cognitive biases
or help you avoid falling into new cognitive biases. We discussed several types of cognitive bias that are
particularly prevalent in the climate change denying community. However, recognising cognitive bias in others
is far easier than recognising it in ourselves.
When I read an article, view a video, or listen to a podcast, I am more likely to agree with it if it proposes a
position I already hold. It confirms my bias. This can be dangerous. I might not have good reasons for holding
such a position, or have strongly considered why I hold such a position. I am sure that I have opinions that are
not well considered, but the tension necessary to reflect on why I hold such a position has not yet been
aroused. When such tension does arise, the challenge is that rather than holding fast to your position, that
you have the humility to step back, reflect, and activate your critical thinking skills.
In the next lecture, we will discuss the predictions for climate change and the reliability of those predictions.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

7.5 What Have You Learnt?

We set ourselves five learning outcomes at the beginning of the lecture. These were that by the end of the
lecture, you should be able to:
(1) Explain why and how doubt about climate change permeated both political and public spheres;
(2) Discuss the relationship between neoliberal thinking and lack of regulation to support mitigating climate
change;
(3) Apply the Baloney Detection Toolkit to articles written about climate change;
(4) Describe both the key indicators of global warming and the human fingerprints of climate change; and,
(5) Reflect on your susceptibility to cognitive bias so as to better combat climate change denial.
Take out the notes you made at the beginning of the lecture.

Has your understanding changed?

What new ideas or concepts have you learnt?
How does what you have learnt connect with earlier material?
Again jot down your thoughts. Finally, do you remain unsure about your ability to meet any of the learning
outcomes? Below I direct you to which section you will need to revisit to find the material you need to meet
the learning outcomes.
To achieve ILO1, you should be able to explain why climate change is doubted by a significant minority of the
public. You should be able to describe why political ideology influenced the views of a minority of scientists,
and how these contrarian scientists influenced politicians and officials at the highest levels of government.
Important in your explanation is the role of the promotion of doubt. You should be able to discuss how tricks
learnt from the tobacco industry were used to foster mistrust in climate science. You should be able to offer
an answer to the question of why, some 30 years after the scientific consensus on climate change was reached,
there are no binding targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. If you are unsure, you
should review Section 7.1.1.
To achieve ILO2, you should be able to discuss the influence of neoliberal thinking on the reluctance of
governments to intervene in the climate change problem. You should be able to argue how the current state
of the climate represents not just an abrogation of responsibility by political leadership, but as an example of
market failure. If you are unsure, you should review Section 7.1.2.
To achieve ILO3, you should be able to identify and apply the six elements of the Baloney Detection Toolkit to
climate change articles. If you are unsure, you should review Sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.3.1, and 7.3.3.
To achieve ILO4, you should be able to describe what is expected to happen on a warming planet given our
understanding of the Earth system. You should also be able to describe how we know that climate change is
due to humans again given our understanding of climate science. If you are unsure, you should review Sections
7.3.2 and 7.3.4.
To achieve ILO5, you should be able to explain what is meant by cognitive bias and to describe the different
forms of climate change denial. Further, you should be able to reflect on your relationship with the
environment, and identify which cognitive biases may be limiting your leadership as a constructive and
responsible member of the global community. Reflection should prompt action; you should be conscious of
the impact of your activities and commit to ensure that that impact is limited. If you are unsure, you should
review Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.2, and 7.4.3.
Lecture 7 HSI1000: How Science Works, Why Science Works

If you feel comfortable with your ability to meet the learning outcomes, then you are ready to try the quiz.
Good luck!