Con Arguments

Con 1: Many scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.

A report found more than 1,000 scientists who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change. [55] The claim that 97% of scientists agree on the cause of global warming is inaccurate. The research on 11,944 studies actually found that only 3,974 even expressed a view on the issue. Of those, just 64 (1.6%) said humans are the main cause. [54]

A Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%). [173]

Con 2: Earth’s climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years.

Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4°F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. [114] A study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found that “many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” [115]

A study published in Nature found that “high temperatures – similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 – occurred around AD 1000 to 1100” in the Northern Hemisphere. [116] A study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were “consistently higher” than temperatures during the 20th century. [59]

Con 3: Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 do not necessarily cause global warming.

Earth’s climate record shows that warming has preceded, not followed, a rise in CO2. According to a study published in Science, measurements of ice core samples showed that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. [117] The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study of the earth’s climate 460-445 million years ago which found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today. [4] According to ecologist and former Director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore, PhD, “there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.” [60]

Con 4: Human-produced CO2 is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other “carbon sinks,” negating any climate changes.

A paper published in Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences found that some climate models overstated how much warming would occur from additional C02 emissions. [75] About 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities has already been re-absorbed by the earth’s carbon sinks. [118] From 2002-2011, 26% of human-caused CO2 emissions were absorbed specifically by the world’s oceans. [61] A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found evidence that forests are increasing their growth rates in response to elevated levels of CO2, [62] which will in turn, lower atmospheric CO2 levels.

Con 5: CO2 is so saturated in earth’s atmosphere that more CO2, manmade or natural, will have little impact on the climate.

As CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the amount of additional warming caused by the increased concentration becomes less and less pronounced. [65] According to Senate testimony by William Happer, PhD, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, “[a]dditional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. The technical jargon for this is that the CO2 absorption band is nearly ‘saturated’ at current CO2 levels.” [66]

According to the Heartland Institute’s 2013 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, “it is likely rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have little impact on future climate.” [67]

Con 6: Global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun’s heat (solar forcing), not by human activity.

According to a study published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 50-70% of warming throughout the 20th century could be associated with an increased amount of solar activity. [71] Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased 0.19%, and correlated with the rise in US surface temperatures over the 20th century. [114]

A study published in Energy & Environment wrote, “variations in solar activity and not the burning of fossil fuels are the direct cause of the observed multiyear variations in climatic responses.” [69] In a study by Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years was identified. [70]

Con 7: The rate of global warming has slowed over the last decade even though atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.

The Heartland Institute’s 2013 NIPCC report stated that the earth “has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2.” [67] According to Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Lindzen, PhD, the IPCC’s “excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the [climate] models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans” [73]

Con 8: Sea levels have been steadily rising for thousands of years, and the increase has nothing to do with humans.

A report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that a slow global sea level rise has been ongoing for the last 10,000 years. [79] When the earth began coming out of the Pleistocene Ice Age 18,000 years ago, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today and have been steadily rising ever since. [60]

According to Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD, “it is clear that natural variability has dominated sea level rise during the 20th century, with changes in ocean heat content and changes in precipitation patterns.” [80]

Con 9: The acidity levels of the oceans are within past natural levels and the current rise in acidity is a natural fluctuation.

[120]The pH of average ocean surface water is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH 7). [121] Science published a study of ocean acidity levels over the past 15 million years, finding that the “samples record surface seawater pH values that are within the range observed in the oceans today.” [82]

Increased atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the oceans results in higher rates of photosynthesis and faster growth of ocean plants and phytoplankton, which increases pH levels keeping the water alkaline, not acidic. [60] According to the Science and Public Policy Institute, “our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans.” [63]

Con 10: A lot of climate change fears are based on predictions and inadequate or flawed computer climate models.

Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes. [58] A Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that “the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity” and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase. [75]

Two other studies using observational data found that IPCC projections of future global warming are too high. [76][97] Climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD, concluded that 95% of climate models have “over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.” [77] According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball, PhD, “IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception… [T]hey create the results they are designed to produce.” [78]

Con 11: Glaciers have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes, not human activity.

The IPCC predicted that Himalayan glaciers would likely melt away by 2035, a prediction they disavowed in 2010. [83] In 2014 a study of study of 2,181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. [84]

A study of ice cores published in Nature Geoscience said the current melting of glaciers in Western Antarctica was due to “atmospheric circulation changes” that have “caused rapid warming over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” and cannot be directly attributed to human caused climate change. [85] According to one of the study authors, “[i]f we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today.” [86] According to Christian Schlüchter, Professor of Geology at the University of Bern, the retreat of glaciers in the Alps began in the mid-19th century, before large amounts of human caused CO2 had entered the atmosphere. [87]

Con 12: Deep ocean currents, not human activity, are a primary driver of natural climate warming and cooling cycles.

Over the 20th century there have been two Arctic warming periods with a cooling period (1940-1970) in between. According to a study in Geophysical Research Letters, natural shifts in the ocean currents are the major cause of these climate changes, not human-generated greenhouse gases. [124] William Gray, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, said most of the climate changes over the last century are natural and “due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents.” [122]

Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) – a naturally occurring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. [123] According to Don Easterbrook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, the “PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977.” [88]

Con 13: Increased hurricane activity and other extreme weather events are a result of natural weather patterns, not human-caused climate change.

According to a report from the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, the increase in human-produced CO2 over the past century has had “little or no significant effect” on global tropical cyclone activity. The report stated that specific hurricanes, including Sandy, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Ike, were not a direct consequence of human-caused global warming. [89] Between 1995-2015, increased hurricane activity (including Katrina) was recorded; however, according to the NOAA, this was the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns driven primarily by natural ocean currents. [125]

Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Judith Curry, PhD, stated that she was “unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events” to human-caused climate change. [90] Experts have noted that many factors beyond climate change are to blame for events such as wildfires, including failed policies on clearing brush, too much population density, and people who set the fires either deliberately or through carelessness. [204]