climate change a myth or reality essay

April 8, 2009

Is Global Warming a Myth?

How to respond to people who doubt the human impact on the climate

Dear EarthTalk: I keep meeting people who say that human-induced global warming is only theory, that just as many scientists doubt it as believe it. Can you settle the score? -- J. Proctor, London, UK

So-called “global warming skeptics” are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities.

Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change—sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank—in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.”

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Most skeptics attribute global warming—few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature—to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. “The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential,” says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.

But green leaders maintain that even if some warming is consistent with millennial cycles, something is triggering the current change. According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere.

But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies—many which take advantage of new satellite data—back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

To wit, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements—placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders.

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is “very likely” (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

CONTACTS : Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org ; Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org ; U.S. National Academy of Sciences, www.nas.edu; IPCC , www.ipcc.ch.

EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk , P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; [email protected] . Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php . EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook .

Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

Introduction, works cited.

The Free Online Dictionary defines a problem as “a situation, matter, or person that presents perplexity or difficulty”. A problem is thus a state or situation associated with difficulty and which needs a solution. When a problem does not receive an immediate solution, it creeps into a dilemma; an instance when possible solutions compete for possible consideration. In this essay, the writer identifies the problem of “global warming”.

Its causes, effects and occurrence are discussed as a build up to suggesting its possible solutions. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) describes global warming as “an average increase in the Earth’s temperature, which in turn causes changes in climate”. This implies an unfavorable gradual change in the threshold atmospheric temperature as a result of imposed activities with detrimental effects on the climate of a place, a region and by extension of the globe. Global warming can thus be described as a progressive increase in the earth’s temperature as a result of a trap to greenhouse gases within its atmosphere.

These gases trap the sun’s reflected long wave radiation with a resulting increase on the atmospheric temperature. Causes of global warming are varied but can be grouped into two main categories: natural occurrences and anthropogenic (man-made) activities. Most instances of rise in temperatures across the earth are due to increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

These gases exist in minor proportions within the atmosphere and are responsible for reduction of heat loss into space. They include water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and mixtures of the above. These gases contribute to global temperatures in a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect and are responsible for maintaining the temperature of the earth (Thomas et al, 2003). In excess, however, the gases raise the temperature of the earth to undesirable levels. Natural and human activities combine to produce these gases.

Sources of greenhouse gases in natural circumstances include volcanic activities and spatial variation in solar radiation. These were attributed to little warming effect during pre-industrial era up till around 1950 and a small cooling effect thereafter (Spencer, 2003). The industrial era has seen a tremendous increase in greenhouse effect due to emissions and activities in the industries. Current levels of CO2, for example, are approximately 100 parts per million by volume.

This is much higher than recorded concentrations just before the industrial revolution (Kiehl par 3). Specific effects on global warming by the gases are varied but their combined action is known to cause climate change in magnitudes that are worrying to the sustainability of the earth. Known and foreseeable effects of global warming on the environment and for humans are registered in climate change and also in secondary spatial and temporal regional environmental changes. Climate variations can be characterized by raising sea levels, Arctic shrinkages, glacial retreat and alterations in agricultural patterns.

Global warming is known to cause significant rise in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century. The effect of global warming on oceans and seas has been registered in rising levels. Sea-level rise is through two main processes: thermal expansion of sea water and widespread melting of land ice. Gradual heating up of the sea by the trapped long wave radiation causes the sea water to expand leading to a rise in sea level or ecstatic changes across the globe (Thomas, vol. 302).

The worldwide and rapid retreat of glaciers has been attributed to effects of global warming. This retreat affects the availability of fresh water for domestic, irrigation and recreational activities in mountainous areas. In the longer term, it affects the level of the oceans. Glaciologists have been able to ascertain the relationship between the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat and measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This points to the anthropogenic greenhouse effects on glacial retreat and its effects therein.

Except for few positive effects of global warming in agricultural practices such as enhanced rate of phototropism favorable to plants such as barley, its effects are largely negative. Scientists say that climate change poses threats to food supply. Global yields will be negatively affected since rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades. This has been proved by large experiments on food production all over the world (The Independent, April 27, 2005). Africa is worst affected both because of its geography and the fact that its population (seventy per cent) rely on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihoods (Leroux 87).

In Africa, the combination of drought, overpopulation and desertification has been known to cause conflicts. Secondary and regional effects of global warming include extreme weather events, outbreak of tropical diseases, changes in seasons and ecosystem patterns as well as drastic economic impacts. The US agency in charge of environmental protection (EPA) relates augmented extreme weather events such as tsunamis, El Nino, La Nina and hurricanes to global warming. Studies by Thomas et al. (23) show that the increase in hurricanes is linked to increased temperatures as a direct result of increased greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical diseases have been on the rise thanks to changes in climatic conditions of tropical climates. Global warming extends the favorable zones for vectors conveying tropical disease such as malaria.

This has had great toll in poor countries where such diseases spread unabated due to lack of capacity to control them. In developed countries, the consequences of containing the spread of these diseases through vaccination and other vector control measures are always felt in the health budget. It is reported that in April 2008 that as a result of increased temperatures, malaria is appearing in the highland areas of Papua New Guinea, where the weathers have been too cold enough to check the spread of the disease by mosquitoes (www.irinnews.org).

Associated drastic economic impacts of global warming results from changes in known economic production processes, agriculture and ecological balance being most affected. Water scarcity as a result of drying lakes and rivers has been reported across the globe. This has a potential of shrinking economic production as a result of lack of water for irrigation, industrial use and even hydroelectric power generation. The consequences are so great to contemplate and this causes worries across countries dependent on agricultural production as their economic backbones.

High concentrations of carbon dioxide reduce photorespiration with no compensatory increase in growth after a certain threshold level. This becomes a threat to ecological productivity since plants as primary producers reduce in number. The overall effect of this is an ecological imbalance that is not commensurate to earth’s productivity.

A warmer earth leads to variations in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a range of impacts on plant life, wildlife, and humans. It is important to note that when scientists talk about climate change, their concern is about global warming caused by human activities. That humans cause global warming is in no doubt. The question of what to do about it remains quite controversial. In addressing this problem all disciplines; economics, sociology, and politics are all important factors in planning for the future and stability of the earth. A stop in emission of greenhouse gases today is not an assurance to a less warm earth tomorrow.

However, what happens from today is a means into solving what will happen from tomorrow and will create a big difference in moving towards a better, more productive globe tomorrow. The world leaders and environmental stakeholders are in agreement that stabilizing the greenhouse gases emission at around 450-550 ppm and reducing emission of industrial gases by about twice the current concentration of 380 ppm would prepare a tactical retreat towards a safer earth. Going by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s suggestions, greenhouse gas emissions would have to reduce by 50% to 80% of what they are today to be safely on track by the next century (IPCC, 2007).

Some suggestions towards this end are given below. Using vegetable oil for fuel can greatly reduce the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light industries. The generation of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and methane has usually been associated with the use of fossil fuels and non regulated disposals of solid waste resulting in air pollutions. The use of bio-fuels will thus ensure that production of these gases is kept at its minimal.

The idea of green homes has been muted in global environmental cycles and carries a potential environmental transformation towards lesser greenhouse gas emissions. The correct implementations are essential for the green homes to use none harmful and renewable energy solutions. Clean renewable and affordable energy confines the homeowner to use only renewable energies such as wind, wave and solar power among others. This ensures that no uncontrollable amounts of greenhouse gases get their way into the atmosphere. Individual choices also have an impact on global climate change.

Modern conveniences should not be forgotten when reducing heat trapping emissions; and only makes it smart through using energy-efficient products. This may require an additional investment before hand but often pays up in energy conservation after a very short period of time. This is the time to act or else time may come when mankind will miss all the earthly benefits and nowhere to turn to. Green revolution is also essential in transforming the pattern of climatic changes.

Through planting of indigenous trees and farming on indigenous crops, the original state of climate is sure to return with minimal climatic adjustments thereafter. Overall, the best approach in containing global warming is to return the earth to its original green form. The steps are already laid down; the general ecosystem diversity must be maintained at all costs. The greens of the earth must remain green and efforts put in place to make it even greener. Fossil fuels must be used, if unavoidable, least while environmental policies around the globe should be geared towards cleaner, greener sustainable technologies.

Kiehl, J. T. “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”. American Meteorological Society. 1997.

Leroux, Marcel. Global Warming: Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology. New York: Springer, 2005.

Spencer R. W. The Discovery of Global Warming. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Thomas, R. K. Modern Global Climate Change Science. 2003: Vol 302. No 5651.

UNOCHA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Climate Change Challenge to Combat Malaria: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007 Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability. Contribution of Workgroup II on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, October 21). Global Warming: Myth or Reality? https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/

"Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" StudyCorgi , 21 Oct. 2021, studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Global Warming: Myth or Reality'. 21 October.

1. StudyCorgi . "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Global Warming: Myth or Reality?" October 21, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/global-warming-myth-or-reality/.

This paper, “Global Warming: Myth or Reality?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 22, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• GREAT ENERGY CHALLENGE

Climate Change Myths: Sorting Fact from Fiction

There’s no consensus on global warming. Climate models are inaccurate. Temperature records are unreliable. Earth’s climate has changed before. Oceans are cooling. Human CO2 emissions represent a tiny percentage of overall CO2. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

And so on, and so on. We’ve heard them all.

Climate change is one of the most contentious issues facing society today. The question of how (or whether) we respond to climate change ultimately is a matter for policymakers to decide, but politics cannot (and should not) be separated from good science.

With that in mind, Marc Airhart with the University of Texas at Austin has developed a series of reports that track research conducted by climate scientists’ at the Jackson School of Geosciences on eight of the most common myths about climate change. All told, the reports provide an informed perspective on this important public policy debate.

Myth No. 1: What global warming? Earth has actually been cooling since 1998. Some people skeptical of global warming claim that Earth’s global surface temperatures have been falling or have leveled off since 1998. They point to data now several years out of date from U.K. researchers that put 1998 as the warmest year on record. They also point to an unusually cool summer in North America in 2009 followed by an abnormally cold winter across the northern hemisphere. People who had to shovel record snows from their driveways or live without power during ferocious snowstorms in the northeastern United States began to doubt decades of scientific evidence on global warming. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 2: Increased carbon dioxide (CO2) can’t contribute to global warming: It’s already maxed out as a factor and besides, water vapor is more consequential. Some climate skeptics claim that the carbon dioxide (CO2) currently in the atmosphere is already “saturated” in its ability to absorb longwave radiation from Earth and therefore additional CO2 in the air won’t make a difference — won’t, that is, absorb more heat. They also argue that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and therefore increases in CO2 shouldn’t be a concern. These claims have been made in recent years by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskoczi and other scientists. They were repeated in the Skeptic Handbook, published in 2009 by science writer Joanne Nova. Yet the seed of the argument actually goes back more than a century. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 3: You can’t trust climate models because they do a lousy job representing clouds and aerosols. Climate modelers have traditionally had a hard time incorporating clouds because clouds are very complex. On the one hand, by reflecting sunlight, they tend to cool Earth. On the other, they tend to hold in heat from the surface, which is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights. The models also divide the atmosphere up into blocks much larger than clouds, so it’s difficult to create realistically sized clouds. Continue reading this myth …

FREE BONUS ISSUE

Myth no. 4: there have been big climate changes in the past, such as the little ice age and the medieval warm period, so why can’t recent climate changes just be explained by natural variability.

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 5: Natural forces such as solar variability, cosmic rays or volcanic eruptions can explain the observed warming.

Nearly all of the heat at the surface of Earth comes from radiation from the sun. Perhaps, as one hypothesis goes, that radiation has become more intense in recent decades and is making the planet warmer. A second, more complicated hypothesis involving the sun proposes that higher solar activity tends to suppress the levels of cosmic rays, high energy particles from space, hitting our atmosphere. Cosmic rays help form water droplets and clouds. Clouds are thought to have an overall cooling effect on the planet. Still with us? So in this view, if the sun is more active, then there are fewer cosmic rays, less cloud cover, and a warmer Earth. Continue reading this myth …

Myth 6. The urban heat island effect or other land use changes can explain the observed warming.

The urban heat island effect is a well documented phenomenon caused by roads and buildings absorbing more heat than undeveloped land and vegetation. It causes cities to be warmer than surrounding countryside and can even influence rainfall patterns. Perhaps, the argument goes, ground based weather stations have been systematically measuring a rise in temperature not from a global effect but from local land use changes. Continue reading this myth …

Myth 7. Natural ocean variability can explain the observed warming.

The oceans are the largest single reservoir of heat in the climate system. And they do have internal cycles of variability, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). These cycles have impacts on the sea surface temperature in specific regions that vary from year to year and even from decade to decade. So perhaps, the argument goes, we just happen to be in a warm period that will last a few decades and the oceans will eventually switch back to a cool period. Continue reading this myth …

Myth No. 8: In the past, global temperatures rose first and then carbon dioxide levels rose later. Therefore, rising temperatures cause higher CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Ice cores from Dome C in Antarctica record surface temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 going back over 800,000 years. During that time, several ice ages came and went. After each ice age ended, temperatures rose first and then several centuries later, CO2 concentrations rose. This lag, some skeptics conclude, proves that CO2 increases are caused by global warming, not the other way around. Continue reading this myth …

Related Topics

• CLIMATE CHANGE
• CLIMATOLOGY
• TEMPERATURE
• History & Culture
• Photography
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Climate-Change Myths

By Jay Katsir

Myth: There is nothing you can personally do to stop climate change.

Fact: There is something you can personally do, but you didn’t do it.

Myth: Our children will wander tornado-swept wastes strewn with the shards of a great civilization.

Fact: Typhoon-swept wastes will be more common.

Myth: Earth’s climate has changed naturally in the past, so modern climate change must also be a natural process.

Fact: Modern climate change is caused by human activity. For evidence, look at all that footage of smokestacks spewing methane, which then cuts to a time-lapse of a big traffic jam and over to a lush tree in a field rapidly desiccating as a lonesome elk walks by, and then a polar bear tumbles off a melting ice floe and is surrounded by plastic piranhas from a kids’ game that ended up in a landfill, and the child who owned it is sitting bereft in a sandbox, and the angle widens to show that the sand is actually a desert where an old-growth forest once stood, and we zoom in on a determined ant struggling across sun-baked rocks, and what’s he carrying? A scrap of paper that says “Al Gore.”

Myth: It’s a beautiful day today.

Fact: We’re all gonna die.

Myth: Between heat waves, hurricanes, fires, and floods, every summer will be a deadly reminder of our failed stewardship and darkening future.

Fact: Maybe so, but you can still relax and groove to the Song of the Summer, “(muffled screams).”

Myth: The younger generation will prioritize taking the action necessary to avert climate catastrophe.

Fact: The younger generation’s only priority is getting a bottle of Strawberry Watermelon Prime.

Myth: Wildfire smoke contains natural compounds found in evergreen roots which, when inhaled, can improve the body’s oxygen absorption.

Fact: What? Where did you hear that?

Myth: Online. Maybe Instagram Reels?

Fact: There’s no way that’s true.

Myth: Yeah, it didn’t sound right. Let me see if I can find it again. Hmm . . . no. But look—awww, it’s the Macaw Dad who has six parrot babies that snuggle in his bed.

Fact: I love that guy. But can parrots really be comfortable sleeping like that?

Myth: Sure. Look how cuddly they are.

Myth: As the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere increases, temperatures rise at an even rate across the planet.

Fact: Temperatures rise at different rates in different places. Land has warmed at about twice the rate of the ocean surface, Arctic temperatures are climbing faster than those in equatorial regions, and Ryan Gosling has never been hotter.

Myth: What about carbon capture?

Fact: You mean carbonara. It’s delicious.

Myth: Persephone, daughter of Zeus and Demeter, was gathering flowers when Hades burst from the underworld in his black chariot and abducted her. Demeter, distraught, forbade the trees to bear fruit. Zeus commanded Hades to release Persephone, and he obeyed, but only after tricking her into eating pomegranate seeds, which condemned her to spending half of every year in the underworld. It is Persephone’s annual return, and not anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, that causes global warming.

Fact: Global warming is caused by the lewd, un-Christian practices of witches and conjurers.

Myth: Humanity’s tragic flaw is that it cannot overcome its narrow provincialism to act collectively and save itself.

Fact: Humanity’s only flaw is the weird pinkie toe with the stubby nail.

Myth: Climate change will lead to human extinction.

Fact: A.I. will get us first.

Myth: After decades of resistance, it will soon be simple to transition to an all-electric transportation system.

Fact: No, because each clean-energy breakthrough will be produced by a crypto-fascist billionaire. If you want an emissionless fusion engine, you’ll have to buy it from a company owned by a land-mine heir named Gheaf Trince, who purchased the Houston Texans so he could “re-masculate the N.F.L.”

Myth: The energy it took to publish this article could have been used to plant a thousand trees.

Fact: C’mon, be cool.

Myth: There is no technological solution that can be implemented in time to reverse the effects of climate change.

Fact: We don’t know if this is true, but it can’t hurt to fly a bunch of jets to Gstaad to discuss it over Negronis. ♦

More Humor and Cartoons

Obituaries my mother wrote for me while I was living in San Francisco in my twenties.

Larry David’s notes for his biographer .

“Sleep when the baby sleeps!” and other great parenting advice .

Movie dialogue that nobody has ever actually said in real life .

Things I learned about finance bros by (briefly) dating a finance bro .

Enter the Cartoon Caption Contest for a chance to appear in the magazine.

Follow @newyorkercartoons on Instagram and sign up for the Daily Humor newsletter for more funny stuff.

Daily Humor

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Megan Amram

By Elizabeth Kolbert

By Bill McKibben

By Marie Howe

Advertisement

Essay: Making a myth of climate change

2 March 2005

Jeremy Leggett is chief executive of Solarcentury, the UK’s largest independent solar electric company, and a member of the UK government’s Renewables Advisory Board. State of Fear by Michael Crichton is published by Harper Collins

WHEN I visited America during my time working for Greenpeace International in the 1990s, time and again people would say to me “we really don’t approve of the way your organisation blew up that French ship”, or words to that effect. It happened once at the end of a meeting with a lawyer in Philadelphia. He was defending Lloyds of London against a suit filed…

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers

No commitment, cancel anytime*

Offer ends 2nd of July 2024.

*Cancel anytime within 14 days of payment to receive a refund on unserved issues.

Inclusive of applicable taxes (VAT)

Existing subscribers

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Mathematics

The mathematician who worked out how to time travel.

Subscriber-only

Environment

How mass bleaching has pushed the great barrier reef to the brink, the biology of kindness review: living well and prospering, could an mri scan make prostate cancer screening more accurate, popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?

Many people just refuse to accept the facts that surround them, even if we saw 100 more years of it plain and apparent

Climate change is a myth. We all know this, deep down. Some of you reading this may have been taken in by the fear-mongering governments or corrupt scientists so have been brainwashed into thinking climate change is a real thing that “threatens all of humanity” or some other nonsense, but it’s just that: nonsense. When you look closely at it, the so-called evidence for climate change, or “global warming” or “warmageddon” or “planetary death spiral” or whatever they’re calling it these days, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Take changes in sea level. They keep banging on about how the warming of the atmosphere causes rising sea levels , but if that was happening we’d have seen it by now! It’s been countless decades since they first started predicting this, but here we still are! But they persist in trying to convince us it’s a real threat, citing places that were supposedly “lost to the waves” and we’re supposed to believe that places like Atlantis, Miami or Skegness actually existed? You believe that rubbish and you probably believe we landed on Ganymede ! And you’re an idiot, so there’s no hope for you.

And where does this rise in sea level supposedly come from – melting glacial ice ? Like there was at any point massive blocks of ice just floating around in the ocean? You ever leave an ice cube in your drink last longer than five minutes? It melts, and yet we’re meant to believe these “ice caps” lasted millions of years . They’re not even trying to be convincing any more.

And don’t get me started on this supposed food crisis. Charging £150 for a single loaf of bread? Are we supposed to believe this is due to widespread agricultural collapse brought about by climate change ? Or, as is far more likely, is it a price-fixing conspiracy by the global bakery mega-corporation? When 78% of all food in this country is sold by Greggs , OF COURSE you’re going to see this sort of thing happening. It’s been nearly a century since he took office and I, like many, think Chancellor Farage was a great man, but he dropped the ball on that one.

It’s the same with these hypothetical mass extinctions , as if that’s anything to do with climate change. It’s just opportunistic cherry picking by these cynical and manipulative scientists. Harsh fact is, a lot of species go extinct, but that’s just nature. Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before we humans ever appeared, are we supposed to take the blame for that too? Doesn’t mean I’m happy that we lost the elephants, tigers, pandas, salamanders, cows and poodles, but I don’t feel guilty about it either.

People tell me cows were once bred domestically . Can you imagine? This was supposedly stopped because they caused significant environmental damage due to methane and deforestation , but we all know it was orchestrated by the synthetic meat companies. They obviously got rid of all cattle to ensure their current global dominance. Just think; if they hadn’t killed all the cows, we’d still be slaughtering them today!

Then there’s this “ extreme weather ” nonsense. I’ve not noticed any changes in the weather outside of the norm. Clueless clime change believers keep telling me it’s a global change so that doesn’t mean anything, but I LIVE ON THE GLOBE, so I’d notice any changes wouldn’t I? Duh! But there haven’t been any changes, obviously. There are no more storms now than there was when I was a kid. I barely get struck by lightning more than once a month, maybe every three weeks at most, and it’s never done me any harm and I’ll kill anyone who says otherwise!

But it’s with these weather worries that these manipulative scientists really give the game away. Urging us to use more wind power but complaining about all the hurricanes we keep having ? They got us all to convert to solar power decades ago but keep whining about prolonged sunny spells ? MAKE YOUR MINDS UP!

Some of them even go so far as to say it’s climate change that’s causing forced migration of millions of people . But that’s clearly because everyone has solar cars and jetpacks and matter transporters now, so why would they stay in one place, with or without devastating environmental damage spurring them on.

It’s all a bit convenient, isn’t it, all this palaver over climate change? Weird how 99.9999% of all scientists purportedly agree that it’s definitely happening and our most powerful quantum computers are certain to over a million decimal places that it’s our fault? Weird how they’re saying this now, at exactly the same time when they need all the volunteers they can get for the moon and Mars colonies . What’s more likely; that human industrial activity actually does lead to climate change, or that it’s all a massive meticulous centuries-long ruse to convince people that leaving Earth is a good idea? Obviously, it’s the latter. These scientists have no shame or respect.

I can’t say I’m not tempted to go myself, though. I’d rather live on another planet, than on one where every aspect of your life is subject to rigorous scientific control. Nobody should have to put up with that crap.

Dean Burnett doesn’t actually agree with any of the claims in this piece, but don’t let that stop you commenting or shouting at him on Twitter @garwboy

• Climate crisis
• Brain flapping
• Climate science
• Science and scepticism
• Renewable energy

More on this story

Obama’s climate change envoy: fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

Holiday feasts of the future: how climate change could transform our food – interactive

Climate change in Nicaragua pushes farmers into uncertain world

Climate change is not just about science – it’s about the future we want to create

Political consensus on climate change has frayed, says Ed Miliband

Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

UK pledges £720m to climate change fund for poor countries

Comments (…), most viewed.

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

[Leer en español aquí]

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused is strong. Scientific investigation of global warming began in the 19th century , and by the early 2000s, this research began to coalesce into confidence about the reality, causes, and general range of adverse effects of global warming. This conclusion was drawn from studying air and ocean temperatures, the atmosphere’s composition, satellite records, ice cores, modeling, and more.

In 1988 the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, to provide regular updates on the scientific evidence on global warming. In a 2013 report , the IPCC concluded that scientific evidence of warming is “unequivocal” and that the largest cause is an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of humans burning fossil fuels. The IPCC continues to assess this science, periodically issuing new reports.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

The IPCC is not the only scientific group that has reached a clear consensus on the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming. As this NASA page points out, 200 global scientific organizations, 11 international science academies, and 18 American science associations have released statements in alignment with this consensus.

Amanda Staudt is the senior director for climate, atmospheric and polar sciences at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, where she has worked since 2001. The Academies, she said, first began studying climate change in 1979, researching how much warming would likely happen if the amount of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were doubled.

Four decades later, those findings have held up and have been strengthened based on scores of continued studies and analysis. “The remarkable thing about that study,” she said, “is that they basically got the right answer” from the start. This 1979 study by the National Research Council, Staudt said, led to investment in climate science in the U.S. 

Though this consensus has been thoroughly established, scientific research and new findings continue. Staudt said countless attempted rebuttals of climate science findings have been researched and disproved.

“We did a lot of studies in that time period, looking at those questions,” she said, ”and one by one, putting them to bed and convincing ourselves over and over again, that humans were affecting climate, and that we could document that effect.”

At the National Academies, reaching consensus requires open sessions and dialogue with scientists and agreement from committees, which typically consist of 12-15 experts. Their draft reports go through peer review, and reviewers’ concerns are resolved before publication is approved. The goal is for the complex science of climate change to become as thoroughly researched and substantiated as possible.

“One of the things I think about scientists is that we’re all inherently skeptics at some level,” Staudt said. “That’s what drives us to science, that we have questions about the world around us. And we want to prove that for ourselves.”

Scientists consistently reaffirm evidence that climate change is happening

Climate scientists worldwide go through similar processes before their findings are published. And their research papers, too, show a strong consensus about global warming. As NASA states on its website , “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” (By sound practice, scientists resist saying science is for all times “certain” or that its findings are “final,” and the “extremely likely” language respects that practice.)

One of the studies about the consensus was led by John Cook, a fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Cook and colleagues reviewed nearly 12,000 scientific papers to examine how aligned published research is on major findings on climate change. That study found that 97 percent of scholarly papers that take a position on climate change do endorse the consensus. The papers that rejected the consensus position contained errors, according to subsequent research .

In reviewing the papers, Cook has said he and his colleagues found the consensus to have been so widely accepted by 2013 that many researchers by then no longer felt a need to mention or reaffirm it in their research papers.

Also see: Causes of global warming: How scientists know that humans are responsible

Samantha Harrington

Samantha Harrington, director of audience experience for Yale Climate Connections, is a journalist and graphic designer with a background in digital media and entrepreneurship. Sam is especially interested... More by Samantha Harrington

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted

Dynamic earth.

Earth is a dynamic sphere and, it turns out, so is the planet's climate, otherwise known as the long-term trend of global weather conditions. It's no wonder questions and myths abound about what exactly is going on in the atmosphere, in the oceans and on land. How can we tell our orb is actually warming and whether humans are to blame? Here's a look at what scientists know and don't know about some seemingly murky statements on Earth's climate. [ 50 Amazing Facts About Earth ]

Climate has changed before

Myth: Even before SUVs and other greenhouse-gas spewing technologies, Earth's climate was changing, so humans can't be responsible for today's global warming.

Science: Climate changes in the past suggest that our climate reacts to energy input and output, such that if the planet accumulates more heat than it gives off global temperatures will rise. It's the driver of this heat imbalance that differs.

Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

(Image left: heat given off by Earth's surface and atmosphere; Right: sunlight reflected back out to space.)

... but it's cold outside!

Myth: The planet can't be warming when my front yard is covered in several feet of snow. … This winter has been one of the chilliest, how is that possible in a warming world?

Science: Local temperatures taken as individual data points have nothing to do with the long-term trend of global warming. These local ups and downs in weather and temperature can hide a slower-moving uptick in long-term climate. To get a real bead on global warming, scientists rely on changes in weather over a long period of time. To find climate trends you need to look at how weather is changing over a longer time span. Looking at high and low temperature data from recent decades shows that new record highs occur nearly twice as often as new record lows.

For instance, a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2009, found that daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the prior decade across the continental United States.

Climate is cooling

Myth: Global warming has stopped and the Earth has begun to cool.

Science: The last decade, 2000-2009, was the hottest on record, according to Skeptical Science. Big blizzards and abnormally chilly weather often raise the question: How can global warming be occurring when it's snowing outside? Global warming is compatible with chilled 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," according to Skeptical Science.

The sun is to blame

Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.

Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)

A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm . The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.

Not everyone agrees

Myth: There's no consensus on whether the planet is actually warming.

Science: About 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-made global warming is happening. "In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them," according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant

Myth: Rick Santorum, GOP presidential nominee, summed up this argument in the news when he said: "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he told the Associated Press.

Science: While it is true that plants photosynthesize, and therefore take up carbon dioxide as a way of forming energy with the help of the sun and water, this gas is both a direct pollutant (think acidification of oceans) and more importantly is linked to the greenhouse effect. When heat energy gets released from Earth's surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.

Climate scientists are conspiring to push "global warming"

Myth: Thousands of emails between climate scientists leaked in November 2009 (dubbed Climategate) revealed a cover-up of data that conflicted with research showing the Earth is warming.

Science: Yes, a hacker did access and release emails and documents from the University of East Anglia server. But there was no cover-up; a number of investigations were launched, including two independent reviews set up by the university: the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) and the independent Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP). The investigations cleared the researchers involved with the e-mails of scientific misconduct, and found no evidence of a cover-up.

Don't worry, it's not that bad

Myth: Some have pointed to human history as evidence that warm periods are good for people, while the cold, unstable stints have been catastrophic.

Science: Climate scientists say any positives are far outweighed by the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, human health, the economy and the environment. For instance, according to one 2007 study, a warming planet may mean an increased growing season in Greenland; but it also means water shortages, more frequent and more intense wildfires and expanding deserts.

Antarctica is gaining ice

Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.

Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise .

Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.

Climate models are unreliable

Myth: Models are full of "fudge factors" or assumptions that make them fit with data collected in today's climate; there's no way to know if those same assumption can be made in a world with increased carbon dioxide.

Science: Models have successfully reproduced global temperatures since 1900, by land, in the air and the oceans. "Models are simply a formalization of our best understanding of the processes that govern the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice sheets, etc.," Mann said. He added that certain processes, such as how clouds will respond to changes in the atmosphere and the warming or cooling effect of clouds, are uncertain and different modeling groups make different assumptions about how to represent these processes.

Even so, Mann said, certain predictions are based on physics and chemistry that are so fundamental, such as the atmospheric greenhouse effect, that the resulting predictions — that surface temperatures should warm, ice should melt and sea level should rise — are robust no matter the assumptions.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Jeanna served as editor-in-chief of Live Science. Previously, she was an assistant editor at Scholastic's Science World magazine. Jeanna has an English degree from Salisbury University, a master's degree in biogeochemistry and environmental sciences from the University of Maryland, and a graduate science journalism degree from New York University. She has worked as a biologist in Florida, where she monitored wetlands and did field surveys for endangered species. She also received an ocean sciences journalism fellowship from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

When were sea levels highest?

'Worrisome and even frightening': Ancient ecosystem of Lake Baikal at risk of regime change from warming

Early humans lived on 'Persian plateau' for 20,000 years after leaving Africa, study suggests

Most Popular

By Jamie Carter January 01, 2024

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet December 31, 2023

By Brandon Specktor December 29, 2023

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet December 29, 2023

By Laura Geggel December 28, 2023

By Sascha Pare December 28, 2023

By Annie Corinne Shaink December 27, 2023

By Harry Baker December 27, 2023

By Harry Baker December 26, 2023

By Elise Poore December 25, 2023

By Jennifer Nalewicki December 25, 2023

• 2 Hidden chunk of Earth's crust that seeded birth of 'Scandinavia' discovered through ancient river crystals
• 3 Explosive green 'Mother of Dragons' comet now visible in the Northern Hemisphere
• 4 Nuclear fusion reactor in South Korea runs at 100 million degrees C for a record-breaking 48 seconds
• 5 'It's had 1.1 billion years to accumulate': Helium reservoir in Minnesota has 'mind-bogglingly large' concentrations
• 2 Nuclear fusion reactor in South Korea runs at 100 million degrees C for a record-breaking 48 seconds
• 3 'It's had 1.1 billion years to accumulate': Helium reservoir in Minnesota has 'mind-bogglingly large' concentrations
• 4 Explosive green 'Mother of Dragons' comet now visible in the Northern Hemisphere

Sign up to get the latest WWF news delivered straight to your inbox

10 myths about climate change

With the climate crisis becoming a hot topic in mainstream media - there's a lot of confusion around what climate change actually is and what's causing it. That's why we've tried to clear up some of the most frequently heard myths, so that you can tell fiction from fact!

Myth 1. The Earth’s climate has always changed  

Over the course of Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot, this is true. However, the rapid warming we’re seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades. 

Global temperatures are now at their highest since records began. In fact, the 10 warmest years on Earth, since 1880, have occurred since 2014. [1]       

So, when people talk about climate change today, they mean anthropogenic (human-made) climate change. This is the warming of Earth’s average temperature as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy to fuel our homes and transport, and cutting down trees to produce the food we eat. You can read more about it here: How do we know climate change is real?

Myth 2. Global warming isn't real as it's still cold

Global warming is causing the Earth’s average surface temperature to rise which, in turn, is causing changes in our natural climate systems. These changes are making all sorts of extreme weather events more likely and more severe, including more intense droughts, heatwaves and hurricanes but also, strangely, an increased potential for more severe cold weather events    

There is also an important distinction between weather and climate. Weather refers to short-term changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and represents things such as temperature, rain and cloudiness. Climate refers to longer-term changes in the Earth’s atmosphere over extended periods of time. Short-term changes in the weather will continue and that is why we can still experience cold snaps, despite the fact that the Earth’s temperature is warming. On top of this, we will keep on experiencing natural seasonal variations as the Earth orbits around the sun, so winter will continue to feel cooler than summer, even though the overall temperature is higher than it was 100 years ago.

Due to where we are in the world, the UK and Ireland are likely to get more wind and rain as a result of climate change, while New York could see more snow. The complex interaction between factors in the Earth’s climate makes extreme weather events, both hot and cold, more unpredictable and impactful.

Myth 3. Heatwaves and wildfires have nothing to do with climate change 

Climate change makes extreme weather more frequent and intense, including heatwaves, wildfires and floods.

The evidence shows that extreme heatwaves have increased since the 1950s and human-induced climate change is the main driver; with every additional increment of global warming, these extremes continue to increase.

Because climate change creates warmer and drier conditions, even if a wildfire is started as a result of human activity, there is more fuel available when vegetation is very dry, and the relative humidity of the air will be lower, allowing fires to spread further and faster. In addition, the global wildfire season is getting longer, due to higher temperatures and longer droughts.

Wildfires can pose an immediate threat to the lives of people and animals in the area, as well as causing damage to soil, vegetation and whole ecosystems. Smoke and ash from wildfires pollute air, water and land.

Myth 4. China is mostly responsible for climate change 

Human-induced climate change is something that has been happening for many years and Western countries, like the UK, have played a big role in contributing to carbon emissions over the past 200 years. This means that only looking at who the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are today is an oversimplification of a very nuanced topic.   

A lot of the products we purchase in the UK are manufactured in China, meaning that we are essentially transferring a large portion of our emissions to the countries responsible for creating the products we use. Part of the reason emissions from highly industrialised countries are so high is because of the high demand for products created by them, from countries such as the UK.

Despite being one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases today, in part because it’s such a big country, China’s emissions per person are less than other countries like the United States. 

China is also currently investing heavily in renewable energy. The increase in investment has been in response to the rapid growth of green business, the demand for renewable energy and the need to clean up air pollution in its major cities.  

Climate change is a global issue, and we all have a responsibility to step up to tackle the climate crisis. The problem will not be solved unless all countries put in as much effort as they can and work together. Action on climate change will need serious investment but has the potential to deliver huge benefits for nature and people. We all need to raise our voices and fight for our world!

Myth 5. Plants need carbon dioxide 

Plants do need carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) to live. Plants and forests remove and store away huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year. The problem is, there’s only so much carbon dioxide they can absorb and this amount is getting less, as more and more forests are cut down across the world, largely to produce our food.  

Let’s be clear, CO 2 itself does not cause problems. It's part of the natural global ecosystem. The problem is the quantity of CO 2 that’s being produced by us as humans; there hasn’t been this level of CO 2 in the atmosphere for thee million years. [2]  

Myth 6. Animals will adapt to climate change

This one isn't a complete myth; Darwin got the adaptation part right. However, let’s be clear, some plants and animals will adapt but not all.

To survive, plants, animals and birds confronted with climate change have two options: move or adapt. There are several examples of species that have begun to adapt to climate change already.

But increasingly, it's a different story for many. Given the speed of climate change, it’s becoming impossible for many species to adapt quickly enough to keep up with their changing environment. As habitats are destroyed by roads, cities and dams, moving becomes increasingly difficult. For those that can’t move or adapt, the future doesn’t look so positive.

Myth 7. Polar bear numbers are increasing 

This isn’t the case. Climate change is the biggest threat faced by polar bears. The Arctic is warming roughly four times faster than the rest of the world, causing sea ice to melt earlier and form later each year. This makes it more difficult for female polar bears to get onto land in late autumn to build their dens and more difficult for them to get out onto the sea ice in the spring to feed their cubs. Their main source of prey, seals, are also affected by climate change, as they depend on sea ice to raise their young.  

This means that in some parts of the Arctic, polar bears are having to survive with less food than they did previously. Polar bear populations are predicted to decline by 30% by the middle of this century.

Myth 8. Renewable energy is more expensive 

The  belief that renewable energy is expensive, simply isn’t true! Solar power and wind are the cheapest ways of generating electricity, meaning that the energy they produce is cheaper than nuclear, gas and other fossil fuels. Some estimates show that renewable energy can be up to nine times cheaper than gas! The   cost of renewables has fallen faster than anyone could have predicted, yet the UK Government are still backing dirty fossil fuels. [3]  

Right now, people are facing a huge rise in the price of energy and food. The main drivers of this include the price of fossil fuels, while crops around the world are also failing in the wake of droughts and floods caused by climate change. Tackling climate change and fixing the cost-of-living crisis go hand-in-hand. Both challenges have the same root cause – a reliance on expensive and polluting fossil fuels – meaning that both challenges have the same solution.    

Myth 9. Renewable energy can only work when it's not cloudy or windy 

The energy industry   is developing new methods for storing electricity and managing demand at peak times, meaning that even if the sun isn't shining or it’s not blowing a gale, it’s still possible to rely on renewable energy sources.

The majority of UK homes get their electricity from the National Grid. When you switch to a clean supplier, they guarantee that for every unit of electricity you take out of the grid, they’ll put the same amount of clean energy back in, helping to clean up our energy supply. 

Myth 10. Climate change is a future problem

There is no longer an excuse for inaction on climate change as it pushes the burden of addressing the climate crisis onto future generations.

We’re already seeing the devastating effects of climate change on global food supplies, migration, conflict, disease and global instability, which will only get worse if we don’t act now. Human-made climate change is the biggest crisis of our time. It threatens the future of the planet that we depend on for our survival and we're the last generation that can do something about it.

In 2015, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, uniting in the shared objective of halting global warming to 1.5°C (when compared to how hot the world was before the Industrial Revolution). To help with this, the UK is striving to reduce its carbon emissions by 68% by 2030 and is aiming to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Therefore, in order for us to successfully achieve this goal, we need to act now.

Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge the world has ever faced, but we have the solutions and we know nature can fight back. We need people all over the world to take action and join the fight for our world

[1] Global Temperature: Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov) 

[2] Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: NOAA Climate.gov 

[3] Analysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas - Carbon Brief

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2022

To create serious movement on climate change, we must dispel the myth of indifference

• Cynthia McPherson Frantz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9303-3052 1  

Nature Communications volume  13 , Article number:  4780 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

4079 Accesses

3 Citations

317 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Communication

Public underestimation of support for climate change policy is striking. Social science research tells us this is bad news, but also tells us what to do about it. Climate change communication must hammer home the overwhelming support for action.

Seventy eight percent of Americans—including 66% of Republicans—are concerned about climate change, a number that has increased dramatically in the last 3 years 1 . Climate models and recent anomalous weather events such as a “once in a millennium” heat dome in the Northwest 2 and unprecedented wildfires in California 3 make clear that urgent action is needed. Numerous policy 4 and technological 5 solutions stand waiting to be implemented, yet the United States remains in a state of fragmented and incremental progress, led primarily by NGOs, local governments, and pockets of the private sector. Why?

Gregg Sparkman and colleagues 6 help illuminate this question by providing a crucial and thorough evaluation of public perception of climate policy support. Through an analysis of a large-N representative panel survey of US adults (from Ipsos eNation Omnibus), they demonstrate that virtually all segments of the general public dramatically underestimate the extent to which other people are concerned about climate change, as well as their support for policies to address it. Sparkman et al. explore a number of plausible (and non-mutually exclusive) explanations for this misperception, all of which warrant further study. Regardless of its cause, the magnitude of inaccuracy Sparkman et al. document is staggering: the number of Democrats who support climate policies such as a carbon tax or the Green New Deal is double the number that people estimate, and Republican support is much higher than otherwise thought.

Public misperception matters, because what we think other people think strongly impacts our own behavior 7 . Entertain this thought experiment: Imagine you are in a meeting with nine strangers, and you are quite hot. A window could be opened to let in cool air from outside. You look around the room and it seems that only 3 other people look like they might be warm. The rest seem to be quite comfortable. Would you suggest opening the window? You might, but you might not. Now imagine that instead you estimate that 6 other people look like they may be uncomfortably warm. Does that make you more likely to act? Now imagine that those 6 other people are talking about how warm it is. Suddenly it becomes obvious that you should get up and open the window.

Sparkman et al. discuss one explanation for why others influence us—namely, that social norms (what we believe others are doing and thinking) are important and powerful determinants of behavior 8 . We tend to do what we see others do. Currently, worrying about climate change is something people are largely doing in the privacy of their own minds. Based on this new data and the recent work of others on pluralistic ignorance 9 , it becomes clear that we are locked in a self-fulfilling spiral of silence. People believe that others are not concerned—or that they are even skeptical of climate change—which encourages them to refrain from discussing it with others. The lack of public discussion reinforces the norm that others are not concerned and hampers the likelihood of collective organization to address climate change. Misconceptions take on an even larger significance when we remember that those in positions of power are people too. Any misconceptions on their part influence how they behave, i.e., their willingness to support aggressive policies, make bold statements in their public outreach, or create “balanced” media coverage of climate change.

Another key determinant of human behavior with extensive empirical support is efficacy, or our belief that we can do something. If you believe the window in our thought experiment above is glued shut, you won’t even get out of your chair. Note that the window might not be glued shut! Your erroneous belief will stop you from trying anyway. Because climate change is a collective problem, taking action hinges on not just what we believe we personally can do, but on what we think others will do 7 . This is known as collective efficacy. Sparkman et al.’s data provide a siren call: Americans believe a minority are willing to support climate policies, when in fact a supermajority do. While not addressed directly by their data, the implications are clear: Creating a sense of collective efficacy, that we can respond effectively to climate change, is all but impossible under this level of misperception. The good news is that Sparkman et al. find that support for climate policy is, in fact, overwhelming; social norms can be changed, collective efficacy can be built, and these developments can occur quickly. It simply requires that people be exposed, over and over from sources they trust or identify with, to the fact that they are not alone in their concern and their willingness to take action 10 .

There are many scalable ways that this could happen. Individuals, faith organizations, non-profits, and businesses can make public statements via traditional means (such as letters to the editor) as well as through more modern ones (through the use of online forums such as Twitter and Instagram). Those with the opportunity to speak to wider audiences (celebrities and other public figures; elected officials; directors of parks, zoos and museums; educators) can not only speak directly to many, but can also encourage the wider public to speak up. The empowering truth is that every public statement counts, and the more diverse the voices, the more effective the message will be. Further, when every member of society has the chance to see “someone like them” speaking in favor of action on climate change, powerholders have a stronger mandate from which to work, and activists have a wellspring of concerned citizens from which to organize a movement. As Chenoweth’s 11 research on social movements reveals, when just 3.5 percent of the population is engaged in non-violent protest, change happens. According to Chenoweth, if roughly 3 times the number of people who attended the 2017 Women’s March were well organized and persistent, “things would be totally different” 12 .

As scientists and as citizens, we need to communicate clearly and often—to regular people but especially to powerholders in politics, education, and the media—that the American people want strong and decisive action on climate change. Dispelling misconceptions about climate change policy support is a powerful lever of change. Further research such as that from Sparkman et al is critical for learning how to do this most effectively.

Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: December 2020 (2021).

Berardelli, J. Pacific Northwest bakes under once-in-a-millennium heat dome (2021).

CalFire. 2021 Fire Season (2021).

Citizen’s Climate Lobby. Why put a price on carbon? (2022).

Sky News. Climate Change: Seven technology solutions that could help solve the crisis (2021).

Sparkman, G., Geiger, N. & Weber, E.U. Americans Perceive a False Social Reality as They Underestimate the Popularity of Climate Policy Support and Climate Concern by Nearly Half. Nat. Commun . (in this issue).

Bandura, A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1 , 164–180 (2006).

Article   Google Scholar  

Farrow, K., Grolleau, G. & Ibanez, L. Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol. Econ. 140 , 1–13 (2017).

Geiger, N. & Swim, J. K. Climate of silence: pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion. J. Environ. Psychol. 47 , 79–90 (2016).

Cialdini, R. Influence: Science and Practice , 5 th edn (Collins, 2007).

Chenoweth, E. & Stephan, M. Why civil resistance works: the strategic logic of nonviolent conflict (Columbia University Press, 2011).

Nicholasen, M. Nonviolent resistance proves potent weapon. Harvard Gazette (2019).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departments of Psychology & Environmental Studies, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA

Cynthia McPherson Frantz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Cynthia Frantz was the sole contributor to this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia McPherson Frantz .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Frantz, C.M. To create serious movement on climate change, we must dispel the myth of indifference. Nat Commun 13 , 4780 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32413-x

Download citation

Received : 20 July 2022

Accepted : 27 July 2022

Published : 23 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32413-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Watch CBS News

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

By Jeff Berardelli

February 27, 2020 / 7:00 AM EST / CBS News

If you've ever engaged in a discussion about climate change , in person or online, you've probably encountered some arguments about what the science says. Some of those claims may sound logical but are actually misleading or inaccurate. 

In fact, misconceptions and outright misinformation have gotten so out of hand, just days ago NASA felt the need to publicly address one of the most popular myths: that a decrease in the the sun's output will soon trigger cooling and a mini ice age. 

This and other topics have been studied thoroughly and debunked over and over again by climate scientists. Nevertheless these myths persist, often as a result of an organized disinformation campaign waged by special interests whose goal is to raise doubts among the public and delay action on human-caused climate change.

Here is a look at 10 of the most common myths about climate change that persist in the public sphere and what science has to say about them.

Myth #1: It's the sun.

While it is true that varying intensity of energy from the sun has driven long-term climate changes like ice ages in the distant past, the sun can not explain the recent spike in warming.

Over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth's tilt and orbit around the sun varies in predictable cycles. The way these cycles interact with each other cause gradual increases or decreases in the energy from the sun reaching the Earth. That change in energy can gradually — over thousands of years — ease the Earth into and out of ice age cycles. Over about the past 800,000 years, these ice/melt cycles have occurred about every 100,000 years .

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

In fact, according to NASA , in late 2020 the current solar cycle is headed for its lowest level since 1750, meaning the lowest energy output from the sun in 270 years. Still, that change in output is minor, having varied by only  0.1% since 1750.

Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.

It's true, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, less than a tenth of a percent. But because of CO2's powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference. Currently, CO2 levels keep Earth's temperature at a comfortable average of nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit. As shown in the below animation, if CO2 abruptly dropped to zero, Earth's average temperature would also drop far below freezing, eradicating most life as we know it.

It should be noted: the drop in CO2 doesn’t directly cause the whole drop in temperature. Other feedbacks occur when CO2 is eliminated. Water vapor condenses out as temps fall thus tanking its greenhouse effect & Albedo (reflected sun) increases bec. of ice growth = more cooling. — Jeff Berardelli (@WeatherProf) November 20, 2019

To be clear, a drop in CO2 wouldn't directly cause the whole drop in temperature. The biggest impact comes from the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which condenses out due to the fact that colder air holds less water vapor; this is what tanks the greenhouse effect in the simulation. Positive feedbacks like the growth of ice cover would further precipitate the temperature plunge. But it's CO2 which drives all this change. 

Because small concentrations of carbon dioxide have an outsized impact, scientists are very concerned about the recent unprecedented rate of increase. For the vast majority of the past million years, CO2 levels have been below 280 parts per million. Since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, levels have jumped to 415 parts per million — an astounding 48% increase in 150 years. 

As the below graph shows, that dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels coincides with the rapid warming.

Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists do not disagree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. Various analyses over many years have shown that between 90% and 100% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of our warming climate. Many studies have evaluated the scientific consensus , but the most famous, which as of this summer has been downloaded 1 million times, is this 2013 paper quantifying that agreement at over 97%.

According to NASA, "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

For perspective, NASA Goddard Institute climate scientist Kate Marvel put this consensus into relatable terms, "We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer."

Despite this scientific consensus, only 1 in 5 Americans understand that almost all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. That is called the " Consensus Gap ."

Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.

No scientist will disagree that the climate changes naturally. It always has and it always will. What makes the recent changes stand out is the unprecedented pace of change. 

Because "the present anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years ," as scientists concluded in a 2016 study in Nature Geoscience , the rate of temperature rise is 10 times faster than that of the last mass extinction about 56 million years ago. 

Science has a firm handle on the various reasons why the climate changes naturally. Two examples are long-term fluctuations in sunlight due to changes in Earth's orbit, which modulate ice ages, and shorter-term release of sun-dimming ash from large volcanoes, like Mount Pinatubo , which cooled Earth's surface by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 2001.

None of these natural changes can explain the spike in heating since the 1800s. In contrast, physics calculates that most of the recent warming stems from heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels. According to climate scientist and data analyst Dr. Zeke Hausfather, "Our best estimate is that 100% of the warming the world has experienced is due to human activities. Natural factors — changes in solar output and volcanoes — would have led to slight cooling over the past 50 years."

Here's a brief video showing the different natural and human-caused factors which factor into temperature changes.

Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?

It should be obvious that Earth as a whole can warm up and at the same time certain parts of the Earth can feel cold. Yet cold weather is common cited as evidence against climate change — both sincerely and, by some, disingenuously. Famously, in 2015, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma held up a snowball on the Senate floor on a cold winter day to deny the existence of climate change. 

At issue here is the difference between weather and climate. When scientists use the term global warming, or climate change , it refers to a broad temperature shift across the entire Earth's surface over the course of years and decades. The term weather, on the other hand, is the short-term, sometimes abrupt day-to-day variation in any given location. A good way to think about it is: Weather is your mood; Climate is your personality. Global warming does not prohibit cold, it just makes extreme cold less intense and less likely. Winter is still winter, it's just not as wintery overall.

This is illustrated below. In recent decades, the ratio of record highs compared to record lows in the United States (and globally) is increasing, averaging approximately two record highs to every one record low. The duration of winter cold snaps is also decreasing, but of course cold air still exists.

Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?

If you were of age in the 1970s you might remember a number alarming newspaper headlines warning of an ice age on the way. But a deeper dive reveals those articles were based on a small number of papers very much in the scientific minority.

In the mid 20th century, climate science was very much in its infancy — scientists were just learning to decipher the influence of competing forces regulating climate. In the 1960s and 1970s, the science began to mature as researchers unearthed the most prominent factors such as the cooling influence of aerosols and the warming influence of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — concepts which have stood up to decades of rigorous testing.

Yet even at that early stage, a scientific consensus was emerging on warming, not cooling, in the near future. This was made clear by a 2008 study called "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," which conducted a survey of the peer-reviewed literature from 1965 to 1979. The research team found that of the 71 related research papers, 44 indicated warming while only 7 indicated cooling (20 did not make projections either way). "Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus," the authors write.

So why then was there such an outsized influence in the social consciousness from these few cooling papers?  For one thing, the paper suggests, ice ages make for very compelling and memorable headlines. But those stories often included contradictory evidence as well, and other news coverage at the time did focus on warming theories.

Selecting and highlighting past inaccuracies in science, even if they are the exception and not the rule, is an expedient way for politicians and opponents of climate action to sow doubt about the credibility of climate science.  

In short, while a handful of scientists did predict cooling a half a century ago, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers since then which substantiate that humans are heating the climate.

Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable.

A common talking point among climate change skeptics is either "the temperature record is unreliable" or "the temperature record is rigged." That might be a plausible argument if all of science relied on just one or two records; however, there are many independent temperature records produced by various independent bodies worldwide, and their data are remarkably consistent with each other.

These organizations include NASA, NOAA, the UK Meteorological Service, the Japanese Meteorological Service and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, just to name a few. 

One of the variables they have to account for is a phenomenon called the Urban Heat Island effect. Simply put, large cities — which are expanding — heat up the local atmosphere due to the concentration of dark surfaces, buildings and industries releasing heat. The concern is this extra heat may "contaminate" surface temperature trends. Scientists have studied this phenomena thoroughly and the surprising conclusion is that the warming trend in the temperature record of urban sites, in general, is similar to rural sites. So the urban heat island effect is real but not very substantial.

The temperature records are carefully fine-tuned by data experts to account for factors including the urban heat island effect, instrument sites being relocated, and instrument type changes. While each organization has its own unique methods for data gathering and analysis, the resulting temperature records are largely in sync.

  Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Considering how complex modeling the climate is, most model projections of future temperature, even the rather primitive climate computer models of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, were impressively accurate. This lends extra credibility to the much more advanced climate models of today in predicting future changes.

A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017. The researchers found 14 of the 17 model projections were consistent with observed real-world surface temperatures, when they factored in the actual rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Here's the assessment of the lead scientist on the study, Dr. Zeke Hausfather: "Climate models have by and large gotten things right."

• Climate models have been impressively accurate for decades, study finds

Dr. Gavin Schmitt, the head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, posted an even more recent assessment of the state-of-the-art collection of climate models run in the early 2000s called CMIP3. He concluded, "The CMIP3 simulations continue to be spot on (remarkably), with the trend in the multi-model ensemble mean effectively indistinguishable from the trends in the observations."

In the graph below, the model projection is the black line and the colored lines are the actual temperature datasets from various agencies. As you can see, the magnitude and pace of temperature change consistently match.

To be sure, evaluating global temperature projections are not the only gauge of a model's accuracy. Models can be expected to be accurate on general trends, such as whether global temperatures will warm, overall rainfall increase or hurricanes get stronger. However, when it comes to predicting regional changes and other specific types of events, the climate models are far from perfect. Future projections like whether rainfall will increase or decrease in San Francisco, or whether more or fewer hurricanes will hit Florida, are still uncertain and on the edge of climate models' current ability.

Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.

Many scientists speculate that we are now entering the beginning of a Grand Solar Minimum — a period with decreased solar energy which could last a few decades. There is a general acknowledgement that this speculation may be true, but there is a lack of scientific consensus because of limited understanding of longer-term solar cycles.

If this happens it certainly would not be the first time. The most famous Grand Solar Minimum, called the Maunder Minimum, spanned from 1645 to 1715. The period indeed corresponds with a decrease in temperature, but was embedded in a much longer-term cooling period called the Little Ice Age (from about  the 1300s through the mid 1800s ). While it seems logical to assume the cooling during the Little Ice Age may have been due to a decrease in solar activity, leading theories actually point more so to volcanic activity . 

With that said, a scientific collaboration to reconstruct past temperatures, called PAGES2K , indicates that global average temperatures decreased by no more than a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius during the Maunder Minimum. During that time the solar irradiance decreased by one-quarter of one percent.

Several studies have been conducted on the potential impact of a Grand Solar Minimum in the coming decades. The consensus of these studies finds that global average temperatures would decrease by no more than around half a degree Fahrenheit, but likely less. In contrast, human-caused climate change has already warmed the planet by 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s, and climate scientists forecast we could see about 4 degrees Fahrenheit of additional warming by 2100.

So, while a Grand Solar Minimum is possible, our best science tells us it would do nothing more than make a small dent in the overall warming trend. According to NASA, that amount of cooling would be balanced by just three years of greenhouse gas emissions and the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than a possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum. And any impact of cooling would be short-lived, with temperatures bouncing right back after the minimum ends. 

It's also worth mentioning that during the Maunder Minimum certain regions, like Europe, cooled more than others. If this reoccurs during the next minimum, regional cooling may be slightly more impactful on those given regions, but it would still pale in comparison to the amplitude of warming from human-caused climate change.

Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

Climate scientists are often accused of making alarming assertions about climate change, like "the impacts will be catastrophic by 2030" or "we only have a decade left to save the planet." First and foremost, scientists are not predicting this. However, some politicians and media headlines have used select bits of scientific data to fuel the impression of impending Armageddon.  

This specific myth comes directly from a quote in the 2018 Special Report produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Here's what the quote actually says:

"The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require 'rapid and far-reaching' transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050."

To simplify, the report concludes that if the global community wants to avoid breaching the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, then we need to abruptly cut emissions by rapidly reducing the use of fossil fuels by the end of the decade. At this point the globe has already warmed by slightly more than 1 degree Celsius; the vast majority of scientists agree there is little to no chance that warming will be held below 1.5 degrees. 

Staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is a goal often cited as the limit needed to prevent the most severe consequences from climate change. But 1.5 degrees is not a magical cut-off point. There is no bright line separating "normal" from "catastrophic." Rather, the impacts of global warming get progressively worse as temperatures incrementally rise. Some have already started. 

One lead author of the IPCC report, Hans-Otto Pörtner, said, "Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems."

For people who live near sea level, like on low-lying Pacific islands, 1.5 degrees of warming will in fact be catastrophic, because it can mean the difference between an inhabitable and uninhabitable homeland due to sea-level rise. For others who are less vulnerable or have more resources, 1.5 degrees won't have quite as drastic an impact.

The IPCC report lays out many other examples of the escalating damage produced by warming above 1.5 degrees.  For instance, at that level of warming, it's estimated that coral reefs will decline another 70% to 90%. If we hit 2 degrees Celsius of warming, the  death toll for coral reefs jumps to 99%. This would not only be devastating to the aquatic species which rely directly on reefs, but also to millions of people worldwide who depend on the ecosystem for sustenance and business, as well as the web of life as a whole.

So, no, the world will not end in 10 years due to climate change. But the longer action is delayed, the more dire the consequences will be and the more likely it is that the changes will be irreversible.

The Skeptical Science website has compiled an exhaustive list of common myths and misconceptions about human-caused climate change, each complemented by peer-reviewed scientific research to illuminate the topics.

Jeff Berardelli is a meteorologist and climate specialist for CBS News.

More from CBS News

Why you should open a CD this April

Data show "dramatic reductions" in forest loss in these 2 countries

More than 1 in 8 women feel mistreated during childbirth, study finds

How much debt do you need to qualify for credit card debt forgiveness?

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Scientists Just Gave Humanity an Overdue Reality Check. The World Will Be Better for It.

By Stephen Lezak

Mr. Lezak is a researcher at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford who studies the politics of climate change.

The world’s leading institution on geology declined a proposal on Wednesday to confirm that the planet has entered a new geologic epoch , doubling down on its bombshell announcement earlier this month. The notion that we’re in the “Anthropocene” — the proposed name for a geologic period defined by extensive human disturbance — has become a common theme in environmental circles for the last 15 years. To many proponents, the term is an essential vindication, the planetary equivalent of a long-sought diagnosis of a mysterious illness. But geologists weren’t convinced.

The international geology commission’s decision this week to uphold its vote of 12 to 4 may seem confusing, since by some measures humans have already become the dominant geologic force on the earth’s surface. But setting the science aside for a moment, there’s a reason to celebrate, because the politics behind the Anthropocene label were rotten to begin with.

For starters, the word Anthropocene problematically implies that humans as a species are responsible for the sorry state of the earth’s environments. While technically true, only a fraction of humanity, driven by greed and rapacious capitalism, is responsible for burning through the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate. Billions of humans still lead lives with relatively modest environmental footprints, yet the terminology of the Anthropocene wrongly lays blame at their feet. Responding to the vote, a group of outside scientists wisely noted in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution that “our impacts have less to do with being human and more to do with ways of being human.”

What’s more, inaugurating a new geologic epoch is an unacceptable act of defeatism. Geologic epochs are not fleeting moments. The shortest one, the Holocene — the one we live in — is 11,700 years long and counting. The idea that we are entering a new epoch defined by human-caused environmental disaster implies that we won’t be getting out of this mess anytime soon. In that way, the Anthropocene forecloses on the possibility that the geologic future might be better than the present.

By placing Homo sapiens center stage, the Anthropocene also deepens a stark and inaccurate distinction between humanity and the planet that sustains us. The idea of “nature” as something separate from humankind is a figment of the Western imagination. We should be wary of language that further separates us from the broader constellation of life to which we belong.

Before the recent vote, the Anthropocene epoch had cleared several key hurdles on the path to scientific consensus. The International Commission on Stratigraphy, the global authority on demarcating the planet’s history, established a dedicated working group in 2009. Ten years later, the group formally recommended adopting the new epoch. But the proposal still had to be approved by a matryoshka doll of committees within the commission and its parent body, the International Union of Geological Sciences.

By all accounts, the process leading up to the vote was highly contentious. After the initial vote was held, scientists in the minority called for it to be annulled , citing procedural issues. This week, the committee’s parent authority stepped in to uphold the results.

Ultimately, what scuttled the proposal was disagreement about where to mark the end of the Holocene. The Anthropocene Working Group had settled on 1952, the year that airborne plutonium residue from testing hydrogen bombs fell across broad stretches of the planet. That ash, scientists reasoned, would leave a sedimentary signature akin to the boundaries that mark ancient geologic transitions. But scientists at the stratigraphy commission objected — what about the dawn of agriculture or the Industrial Revolution? After all, the human footprint on the planet long predates the atomic age.

“It’s very obvious to me that human activity started long before 1952,” Phil Gibbard, a founding member of the Anthropocene Working Group who is the secretary-general of the commission, said when we spoke on Thursday. “It just didn’t make sense to draw a rigid boundary within my lifetime.”

In recent years, philosophers have bandied about alternative names: the Capitalocene , the Plantationocene and even the Ravencene , a reference to the raven who figures widely in North Pacific Indigenous mythology as a trickster figure, reminding humans to be humble amid our destructive capacity. For my part, I’m partial to “post-Holocene,” an admission that the world is vastly different than it was 10,000 years ago, but that we can’t possibly predict — or name — what it might look like in another 10,000 years.

In the end, it might be too late to find a better term. The “Anthropocene” has already entered the popular lexicon, from the cover of The Economist to the title of a Grimes album. The scientists who coined the term do not have the power to extinguish it.

Whatever we choose to call these troubled times, what matters most is that we keep an open mind about what the future holds and maintain an appreciation for the complexity of the issues we face. The scars humanity leaves upon the earth are much too fraught to be represented with a single line drawn across time.

Looking ahead, we should follow the geologists’ lead and keep a healthy skepticism of the A-word. After all, nothing is more hubristic than reckless tyrants who names the world after themselves — think Stalingrad, Constantinople or Alexandria.

Geologists will continue to disagree over what to call the present era. The rest of us must continue the difficult politics of caring for a planet that can (still) support a panoply of life.

Stephen Lezak is a researcher at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford who studies the politics of climate change.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .