https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v35n3.1044

Original Articles

Global Climate: Much more complex than
measuring Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Footprints

Clima mundial:
Mucho más complejo que medir gases de efecto invernadero y la huella de carbono

Wellington E. Wonsang1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3936-9705

1LifeWork Adapter., LLC., Killeen, TX, USA

[email-masked]

Sent:       2023/07/03

Accepted:       2023/08/22

Published:       2023/12/30

Abstract

This article analyzes the assertion that 97%
of climate scientists concur that humans are the primary driver of global
warming and climate change, significantly contributing to rising temperatures.
The study examines common myths about climate change, the standard arguments
against it, and the perspective and solutions offered by representatives from
all sides of the debate. While researching this topic, primary and secondary
sources are examined by analyzing their content, including interviews and arguments
from credible experts within a wide range of sources, from climate change
advocates to deniers and "climate doomers."
While most climate scientists agree that human activities contribute somewhat
to global warming, many highly reputable scientists and groups rightfully
challenge this consensus and the proposed data. This includes prominent
academics, corporate figures, and respected Nobel Peace Prize laureates and
their works. In conclusion, all perspectives are driven by their concern for
the future and survival of humanity and our planet.

Keywords: climate
change, global warming, deniers, consensus, climatology, energy.

Resumen

Summary: Introduction,
Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion and Conclusions.

How to cite: Wonsang, W. (2023). Global Climate: Much
more complex than measuring Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Footprints. Revista
Tecnológica - Espol, 35(3), 111-125. http://www.rte.espol.edu.ec/index.php/tecnologica/article/view/1044

Este artículo analiza la afirmación de que el 97% de los
científicos climatólogos coinciden en que el ser humano es el principal
impulsor del calentamiento global y el cambio climático con un importante
contribuyente al aumento de las temperaturas. El estudio examina mitos comunes
sobre el cambio climático, los argumentos estándar contra el cambio climático,
y la perspectiva y soluciones ofrecidas por representantes de todos los lados
del debate. Durante la investigación de este tema, se examinan fuentes primarias
y secundarias analizando su contenido, incluyendo entrevistas y argumentos de
profesionales encontrados dentro  de un amplio
rango de fuentes que van desde defensores del cambio climático, negacionistas y
catastrofistas del clima. Aunque la mayoría de los científicos del clima
coinciden en que las actividades humanas contribuyen en algo al calentamiento
global, muchos científicos y grupos de gran reputación cuestionan con razón
este consenso y los datos propuestos. Entre estos prestigiosos profesionales se
encuentran destacados académicos y personalidades empresariales, así como
respetados Premios Nobel de la Paz y sus obras. La conclusión es que todas las
perspectivas están apasionadas por su preocupación por el futuro y la
supervivencia de la humanidad y de nuestro planeta.

Palabras
clave: cambio climático, calentamiento global,
negacionistas, consensos, climatología, energía.

Introduction

I have always found it disingenuous and worrisome when the Mainstream
Media (MSM) and high-profile individuals start echoing scripted talking points
like "This is extremely dangerous to our democracy." and "If you
have been vaccinated and taken the recommended booster shots, you are not going
to get infected or become a carrier." So, when I hear these same people saying
that "about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are
changing the climate" (Molina et al., 2014, p.2), my level of concern
tends to increase, and my mind understandably goes into high alert mode.

The materials used to develop this article varied widely, including academic
writings, governmental and NGO documents, and reputable peer-reviewed journals.
The keywords used to generate much of the information encompassed a myriad of
combinations, using terms such as climate change, global warming, climate
change deniers, conspiracists, consensus, and majority. In addition to
traditional sources, content from expert interviews representing both sides of
the debate was incorporated. The material also encompassed several impressive
collections of reasons why humans are the leading cause of climate change,
debunking common myths about global warming, an extensive list of highly
respected climate change deniers, and even common arguments against the "consensus."
This emotionally charged, thought-provoking, and occasionally uncomfortable
article is intended to prompt you into researching some of the sensitive topics
it brings to light.

Materials and
Methods

This study
aims to present an analytical perspective of the key sides of the climate
change debate. Content analysis is conducted using primary and secondary
sources. The research examines the content of various academic works and media content,
including interviews and arguments from recognized experts found through
prestigious sources, including climate change proponents, skeptics, and
doomsayers.

The main
search keywords were: "climate change" OR "global warming"
AND ({climate change deniers} OR conspiracists) AND (consensus OR majority). In
addition, this comprehensive content analysis also incorporated media materials
featuring interviews with experts from both perspectives of the debate.

Voices from both sides of the climate change debate are presented with
the inclusion of currently overlooked perspectives, such as those of the
deniers. The author relies on academic databases, journals, and media sources
for this analysis. With a content-driven and critical analysis approach, tables
and figures are used to guide the readers to consider what is beyond the common
and standard discourse on climate change, also known as global warming.
Finally, this article concludes with the author's reflective stance.

Results and Discussion

The first source search was conducted through
an academically accepted search engine, Scopus Elsevier. After applying the
search keywords, the search yielded 145 documents from 2009 to 2023. Most
contributions were from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Document results by country

Source:
Scopus SciVal Publication Set Trends Report

The list
of prominent authors that resulted from this search included M.J. Hornsey, K.S.
Fielding, S. Lewandowsky, A. Godwin, and E.A. Harris, among others. However, it
is notable that none of the known climatologists were included, like M. Ghil,
J. Curry, A. Jenkins, T. Harris, J. Christy, W. Harper, S. Manabe, K.
Hasselmann, or G. Parisi.  Figure 2 offers a view of the area of
knowledge of the publications, which sheds light on this observation: most of
the publications were in Social Sciences, Environmental Science, and
Psychology, with fewer numbers on Earth and Planetary Science and none on the
area of Climatology per se.

Upon reviewing the content of those sources, we
can start by suggesting that stances on climate change have followed a
political agenda. Studies have shown a pronounced gap between those who
identify with right-wing politics and those who align with left-wing politics
regarding climate change beliefs and policy support. In two experimental
investigations with 126 and 646 participants, respectively, the effect of the
politics of climate change on the movement around these inequalities was
explored (Unsworth & Fielding, 2014). Results indicate that individuals who
openly express their political identity are less likely to believe in an
anthropogenic origin of climate change and less likely to support
government-driven climate change actions compared to those who do not overtly
reveal their political affiliations. The findings highlight the significance of
one's political identification in shaping attitudes and ideas, even regarding
climate change.

Figure 2

Document results by Area

Source: Scopus SciVal Publication Set Trends Report

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) is the United Nations body for evaluating the science related to climate
change. Their assessments arm governments with scientific insights they can use
to create climate policies based on data points provided by "reputable
scientists." IPCC assessments are key talking points at international
negotiations addressing climate change initiatives and a foundation for
creating climate policies and regulations. The IPCC reports are drafted and reviewed
in several stages. This guarantees objectivity, transparency, and credibility
(IPCC, 2023). Therefore, the IPCC stands as one of the most consulted
authorities for information on climate change.

Similarly, studies examining climate change beliefs present challenges for
academics, practitioners, and policymakers. A meta-analysis of the factors
associated with climate change denial combined data from 25 polls and 171
academic research from 56 different countries to study 27 variables (Hornsey et
al., 2016). The study concluded that beliefs, ideologies, worldviews, and
political orientation proved to be more robust predictors of outcomes compared
to numerous intuitively appealing variables, such as education, sex, subjective
knowledge, and experience with extreme weather events. Furthermore, those
beliefs about climate change demonstrated a mild to moderate influence on
people's willingness to take climate-friendly actions.

Studies asserting that conspiracy theories and
conservative ideology play a role in fostering skepticism
about human impact on climate change are largely based on data gathered in the
United States. Therefore, rather than being a global occurrence, it is claimed
that the ideological basis of climate change views is unique to the United
States (Hornsey et al., 2018), as the United States exhibited stronger and more
consistent positive correlations between ideological indices and climate skepticism than the other 24 studied countries. This
suggests that Americans are particularly influenced to evaluate climate
research through the lens of their American political culture rather than those
of other countries.

Furthermore, the disparity between the
consensus among scientists and the public is alarmingly wide. A study shows
that more than one-third of polled Americans doubt that humans are mostly to
blame for rising temperatures leading to climate change. Hornsey and Fielding
(2017) suggest that opposition to a message supported by evidence stems from
illiteracy or a lack of understanding of the evidence, which mirrors the
"deficit model" of scientific communication and introduces the idea
of "attitude roots," which are the underlying anxieties, ideologies,
worldviews, and identity needs that sustain and motivate particular
"surface" attitudes like creationism and climate skepticism.
The study proposes a "jiu-jitsu" model of persuasion, which employs
those attitude roots instead of combating them to effect change.

Therefore, communication strategies play an
important role in shaping people's thinking toward climate change. For
scientists, policymakers, and communication strategists, engaging the public in
reducing or adapting to the hazards posed by climate change presents
considerable obstacles. In light of these challenges, audience segmentation
emerges as a potential approach to create more persuasive communications that
are personalized and targeted to subsets of the public who share comparable
values, beliefs, habits, and/or policy preferences regarding climate change
(Hine et al., 2014). The conclusion of this study indicates that audience
segmentation and focused messaging are generally useful methods that could
improve climate change communication, thus suggesting careful attention to
conceptual and methodological challenges when conducting and analyzing the findings of segmentation studies. Finally,
the study advocates the need for further research on tailoring and targeting
messaging to certain demographics.

Top Five Reasons Why Humans Are the
Leading Cause of Climate Change

As found in the European Commission's website on Climate Change (n.d.),
these are the top five leading reasons for human-driven CO2
emissions, according to the European Commission General Directorate for Climate
Action (Table 1).

Table 1

European Commission's List of
Greenhouse Gas Producers

a)
Burning coal, oil, and gas

These
products produce greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and
Nitrous Oxide (N2O).

b)
Cutting down forests or
deforestation

Deforestation
and elimination of other plant life build up Greenhouse gases, reducing the
environment's capacity to regulate the climate by absorbing CO2
from the atmosphere. When trees and other plant life are cut down, the
beneficial effect of releasing Oxygen (O) back into the atmosphere is lost,
and the carbon stored in the plants is released into the atmosphere, adding
to the greenhouse effect.

c)
Increasing livestock farming

Cows
and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest food. N2O
emissions increase the production of greenhouse gases primarily by body gases
released when the livestock eructate. Eructation is when animals release air
or gas from the stomach or esophagus through the
mouth.

d)
Fertilizers containing Nitrogen (N)

Using
these fertilizers increases the production of N2O emissions, increasing the
production of greenhouse gases.

e)
Fluorinated gases include N2O
and Methane (CH4)

These
gases are emitted from equipment and other products that use these gases.
Such emissions have a strong warming effect on our atmosphere, up to 23,000
times greater than CO2, another standard greenhouse gas.

Source: Own elaboration

Debunking Common
Myths About Global Warming

Climate scientists Dr. Deepti Singh and Dr. Benjamin Cook debunked
thirteen myths about Global Warming (Insider Science, 2021). With all the
disinformation being shared for political reasons, manipulating public opinion
to shape policy, and advancing the agenda of lobbyists and special interest
groups, it is worthwhile to explore a few of these "myths" that have
been discredited.

Myth #1 – The sun is responsible for Global Warming.

Even though energy given off by the sun affects Earth's climate, the
amount of energy we get from the sun has not changed significantly over the
past 150 years. The following graph, elaborated and provided by NASA satellites
(Figure 3), shows no correlation between the sun's solar
activity, which has remained largely consistent over time, and the increasing
global temperature of the Earth.

Figure 3

NASA's Correlation Graph: Temperature vs Solar Activity

Source: NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies

Myth #2 – Scientists disagree on what causes climate change.

An extensive review of published literature in reputable journals by esteemed
scientists reveals unanimous agreement that human activity impacts Earth's
temperature. The matter of just how much is where much of the debate occurs.
However, all research and data indicate that human activity does affect global
warming.

Myth #3 – Global Warming is caused by cow farts.

First of all, cows burping, not flatulence, causes Greenhouse Gases. Agriculture,
forestry, and other land use represent 24% of the United States' carbon
footprint, as reported by the IPCC (2014), slightly below Electricity and
heat production with the highest percentage (25%). In comparison, Buildings
account for the smallest share at 6% (IPCC2014; Newsham, 2018).

Myth #4 Plants and Animals will adapt.

A century ago, this assertion may have been true. Today, other factors
make it more challenging for plants and animals, such as the pace of change,
habitat fragmentation, environmental pollution, and other stressors.

Myth # 5 Social Media Myths – Global Warming is Natural

Although the climate and the temperature have indeed been changing
throughout history, there have been other eras marked by diverse climates, such
as the age of the dinosaurs and the last Ice Age.

Myth #6 Carbon Dioxide is the problem.

CO2 in itself is not the primary
concern; rather, the issue arises from its increased concentration in the
atmosphere. The pockets of concentrated CO2 have caused a rapid rise
in temperature over the last 100 years. It began to increase during the first
Industrial Revolution, which transitioned from creating goods by hand to using
machines. Scholars widely debate its start and end, but the period generally
spanned between 1760 to 1840 (Wilkinson, 2022). Preceding this era, CO2
levels were around 208 parts per million. Then, the second Industrial
Revolution followed from 1867 to around 1914 (Longley, 2021).

Myth #7 A few degrees difference is not a big deal.

Bakers and doctors understand what difference a few degrees can make in
preparing a meal or a patient's well-being. In the context of human health, the
ideal body temperature is 98.6o Fahrenheit (37o Celsius).
If the body is one or two degrees warmer, it is classified as a low-grade
fever, while an increase of three to four degrees can signify a serious
illness. Most of the Earth's population does not have air conditioning and
would not manage well without air conditioning or a good fan. Even a shift of
two or three degrees, and the body feels it. The same happens with the Earth's
ecosystem.

Myth #8 Global Warming will destroy the Earth by the year 2030.

As disruptive and dangerous as many presume climate change deniers to be
because they challenge the 'consensus", climate doomists are equally, and
some may say excessively more, perilous. Climate doomists like Greta Thunberg,
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Leonardo DiCaprio, Justin Trudeau, and Mark Ruffalo
exemplify the other extreme of the spectrum. They fervently proclaim
predictions of Earth's destruction by 2030, creating anxiety and panic. Since
climate doomists are more vocal and often have celebrity status, they are more
adept at swaying public opinion and applying immense pressure to convince
politicians and policy setters to spend billions on implausible hypotheses
based on their popularity instead of certifiable scientific evidence.

Myth #9 Global Warming is China's fault.

Given that Greenhouse gases can linger in the atmosphere for many years,
if not centuries, the existing carbon footprint results from the residual
impact of America and Europe's Industrial Revolutions. China's emissions are
parallel to those of the United States, but the predominant portion of the
atmospheric content is presumed to be from the U.S. and Europe. It is important
to remember that when the weather was considerably colder, the CO2
in the atmosphere was 1300% higher than its present level today (Butos & McQuade, 2015).

Myth #10 Renewable energy is too expensive to be realistic.

While it is true that renewable energy is becoming cheaper, when people
begin to delve deeper, they discover that taxpayer-funded subsidies facilitate
these cost reductions. Nevertheless, increased competition in that market
space, better quality of production, and more proficient logistics have also
contributed to lowering prices. However, the more significant issue remains:
the industry, as a whole, is still being heavily subsidized by taxpayer
dollars. Whether individuals participate in the shift to renewable energy or
not, all share this financial burden. Another issue is that mining raw
materials and manufacturing processes still require electricity, fossil fuels,
and transportation via truck and train. It also requires manufacturing, which
adds to the carbon footprint.

Myth #11 Extreme weather is not caused by Global Warming.

Since some regions of the planet, like the United States, have
historically experienced extreme weather, this assertion needs to be revised.
However, it must be acknowledged that the effects of these extreme weather
events are affected by the warming trend, much of which, but not exclusively,
was caused by human activities. Even though human beings cannot dictate the
cessation of such events through legislation or payments, we can still use
common sense and practice good stewardship over the Earth's resources.

Myth #12 The temperature record is unreliable.

Scientists have been collecting and documenting weather data for nearly
two centuries, and today nearly half a dozen independent groups worldwide have
been collecting temperature readings from thousands of thermometers worldwide.
For nearly two centuries, the estimated changes in global temperatures have
exhibited consistency across various sources. The collected data are publicly
available for anyone to review and study.

Myth# 13 It is too late to do anything about it.

While ant climate change-related catastrophes might take centuries to
occur, there are plenty of protective measures we can take to avoid these
potentially "imminent" scenarios. These include avoiding the purchase
of energy-intensive meat products, with government policies minimizing
electricity and fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and transportation, and
allocating funding for universities to create new and innovative alternatives
to fossil fuels.

Climate Change
Deniers

The label
"climate change denier" is given to anyone who rejects or expresses
skepticism toward the general scientific consensus on climate change, global
warming, and its causes. While most climate scientists agree that human
activities contribute to global warming, many highly reputable scientists,
including highly respected Nobel Prize laureates and groups, rightfully
challenge this consensus and the proposed data.

Dr. Simon Clark and his documentary Global
Warming: An Inconvenient History

Dr. Clark made a
documentary detailing the birth, misinformation, and scientific propaganda of
the origins of Climate Change (Clark, 2022). In his documentary, he mentions
how many people were under the assumption that in 2006, former Vice President
Al Gore introduced the topic of Climate Change. Vice President Gore made a
documentary called, The Inconvenient Truth and introduced it into
mainstream consciousness, making it a household discussion topic, birthing many
concerns, and giving rise to many radical activists.

Dr. Clark's academic
journey led him to Harvard University in 1965. In his senior year, he studied
under a professor named Dr. Roger Ravel, a doctoral candidate at the University
of California Berkley. Dr. Ravel was instrumental in writing and creating a
book titled, The International Geophysical Year of 1957. Additionally,
he was the project lead on the study of nuclear detonations on Bikini Atoll and
developed the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, where he studied how the oceans
absorbed CO2 and eventually was
able to amass a fleet of research vessels that exceeded the size of many
navies. He studied how the oceans absorbed CO2, which determined how
much CO2 was present in the Earth's atmosphere.

Dr. Clark extended
his exploration by producing a follow-up documentary called, The Many Errors
of An Inconvenient Truth (Clark, 2023). Coinciding with Vice President
Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize for his documentary, The
Inconvenient Truth, the governments of England, Scotland, and Wales started
a project to distribute information about climate change to secondary schools.
This initiative gave rise to a group, led by Stewart Dimmock, that filed a case
in the U.K.'s High Court of Justice in England and Whales related to the
appropriateness of the government's distribution of Al Gore's climate change
documentary along with his accompanying manual, "Guidance Note" to
English state schools as educational material (Stuart
Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 2007). The claim
stated that the government-funded project was an attempt to "politically
indoctrinate children." (Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education and
Skills, 2007). While acknowledging that The Inconvenient Truth was "substantially
founded upon scientific research and fact, "Justice Michael Burton also
recognized that "even if the science was used, in the hands of a gifted
politician and communicator, it is to make a political statement and to support
a political program." He also determined that the movie advances four
primary scientific hypotheses, each of which is backed up by substantial
evidence from studies that have been published in respectable, peer-reviewed
publications and are consistent with the most recent IPCC conclusions.
Nevertheless, the justice did identify nine errors in the film. Dr. Clark broke
categorized them into three categories and identified an additional error the
judge could not have known about; therefore, it was not included in the court case.
See Table 2

Table 2

Justice Michael Burton Categories of
Errors

CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

Category
One – Sensationalism

•     Greenland melting: Sea levels could reach a seven-foot sea
level rise. Gore fails to mention that this catastrophe would take centuries
to occur.

•     Polar Bears drowning: The Polar Bears found drowned were
killed by an exceptional event created by a storm.

•     The Evacuation of the Pacific Islands: Unfounded as the sea
level raising 30 cm since 1950. No actual evidence was found for evacuations
at this time.

Category
Two – Attribution

•    Hurricane Katrina: The hurricane may have
happened despite Global warming trends. No evidence was available that it
did.

•    The Drying of Lake Chad: Climate change
can lead to a lake drying up, but there was no direct evidence that it was
the cause.

•    The Snow Melting on Mount Kilimanjaro: One
is highly unlikely to assign climate change as the reason for the snow
melting on Mount Kilimanjaro.

Category
Three – Insufficient Evidence

•    CO2 and Temperature
Correlation: Dr. Thom Harris shared proof from Carlton University that the
historical geologic evidence he and others had been finding. The evidence had
proven no consistent correlation between CO2 and Earth's
Temperature. He had also shown that when the weather was considerably colder,
they discovered that CO2 was 1300% of what it is today.

•    Coral Reef Bleaching: No substantial
evidence was available at the time.

•    Gulfstream Shutting Down: The evidence at
the time did not support Gore's claim.

Source: Own elaboration from the Dimmock v. Secretary of State for Education
and Skills 2007 Case

Dr. Tom Harris – President of the International
Climate Science Coalition and former Climate Alarmist

As an Aerospace
Engineer, Dr. Harris used to give speeches and write articles that drew
parallels between the environmental conditions on Venus and potential scenarios
on Earth unless significant changes were made (Fox News, 2022). One day, a
Geology Professor from Carlton University reached out to him and said that he
was impressed with his work but that his statement about Venus was wrong. He
told Dr. Harris that what happened on Venus could not physically happen on
Earth and even invited Dr. Harris to his campus lab for a detailed explanation.
The Geology Professor shared historical geologic evidence that undermined the
notion of a consistent correlation between CO2 and Earth's
Temperature. He showed that when the weather was considerably colder, CO2
was 1300% of what it is today. Subsequently, Dr. Harris was exposed to many
people who supported this alternative perspective. He learned that thousands of
scientists had come to the same conclusion, exemplified by the report titled Climate
Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC) (Singer & Idso, 2009). Consequently, Dr. Harris
transitioned from a climate alarmist to a denier of climate change.

Dr. John Christy - an American scientist at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Dr. Christy acknowledges the evidence that extreme weather events have been more
frequent in recent years and admits that human activities have left trace
evidence of temperature increases. However, his data indicate that the impact
is negligible. He says, "It is a small fingerprint, not a large
footprint." (NASA Goddard, 2013). The weather history of the United States
has consistently indicated that extreme weather has been a part of the nation's
climate fabric. However, there has not been a steady uprising. Turbulent
weather, such as floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, and forest fires, have
persisted throughout history. Dr. Christy further
acknowledges that shifting weather patterns have led to the melting of sea ice,
rising sea levels, and an increased risk profile for those residing in the
United States.

Furthermore, Dr.
Christy recognizes that our world is warming and that humans do contribute to
this phenomenon. However, while acknowledging humans' impact on the planet's
warming trend and that human activity affects the planet's temperature, he also
underscores our role in the overall warming trajectory since it is just not
significant enough to cause alarm.

Dr. Judith Curry – Current CEO of the Climate
Forecast Application Sector

Dr. Curry, an American climatologist and former Chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology (BizNewsTv, 2022), has been instrumental in revealing how
much of the warming trend can be directly attributed to humans and why
motivating the scientific community to reach a "consensus" around
"climate change" in such a relatively short period was crucial.
However, much of the urgency and importance around creating a consensus was
being politically driven to initiate policy change, financial gain, and
influence wielded by lobbyists and special interest groups. Terminology also
takes on a new level of importance as the labels for the consensus transitioned
from global warming to climate change and global heating. With each rebranding
event, the names become more ominous and foreboding. Dr.
Curry also warns about the dangers of transition risk, which is the risk of
rapidly getting rid of fossil fuel while rushing headlong into relying solely
on solar and wind too quickly. She also underscores the challenges associated
with solutions such as Hydrogen Backup, creating a workable
infrastructure, and developing innovative alternatives, all of which lie
decades away. She strongly advocates that "between today and 2050, we must
focus our efforts on technological development and experimentation." Dr. Curry also encourages us to work collaboratively with
different countries and states and experiment with different things to identify
what works effectively. She suggests that our transition must be economically
sound, well-planned, executed, and responsibly done. Thus, transitioning will
require more electricity, mining, and drilling. She adds that wind and solar
are "a near-term solution and niche solution for some places, is not a
long-term global solution."

Dr. William Happer –
a Physics Professor at Princeton University specialized in the study of Atomic Physics, Optics, and Spectroscopy

Dr. Happer was interviewed on Climate Physics (Ammous, 2022), where he
claimed that there is "no overwhelming consensus.". He added that
about half of meteorologists are still unconcerned about global warming despite
years of propaganda and even employment-related pressures. Furthermore, he
stated that the alignment of theoretical predictions with observable data serves as a
more robust measure of the validity of scientific theories than mere consensus.
He highlights that the "pause" or "hiatus" in warming that
has been noticed since around the year 2000 was not predicted by nearly any
climate models. He also mentioned that in conventional science, scientists
would attempt to identify the mistakes and correct the incorrect models. Dr. Happer pointed out that many alarmists are working hard
to manipulate the observational data to make it coincide with the models'
inaccurate forecasts.

In the same interview, Dr.
Happer made an assertion about "scientists with a more objective
approach." Despite a substantial annual federal spending of around $20
billion on climate change, their accomplishments remain relatively modest. He
reckoned some climate scientists are producing commendable results, such as
accurate measurements of the atmosphere and oceans. However, he highlights the
challenge they face due to the intensity of backlash anticipated for those who
dare to deviate from the established narrative. Finally, he concluded that most
people who have doubts about climate concerns should keep them private.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

In addition, some recipients of the Nobel Peace
Prize have also challenged the prevailing consensus, for example, Albert
Einstein, Marie Salomea Skłodowska–Curie, and
Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen. Furthermore, Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi, the
first in Climatology to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021, are among
the climate scientists against the consensus. This recognition was attributed
to their groundbreaking work in physically modelling Earth's climate,
quantifying variability, and reliably predicting global warming. Their
prominence helped attain prestige and legitimacy in the Climate Sciences and
discipline.

Common Arguments that Contradict the Consensus

Hand-in-hand with their groundbreaking
achievements also emerged opposing viewpoints that brought forth sound
arguments against their positions. Given the plethora of negative comments,
here are the five most common arguments, points, and counterpoints.  These debates between Climate Change Deniers
and the larger Climate Scientific Community, which challenges the consensus,
are summarized in Table 3.

It is important to acknowledge that the IPCC
and numerous scientific bodies worldwide support the arguments presented by
climate change deniers. The consensus asserts that human activities drive
global warming and emphasizes the need to take measures to mitigate its
impacts. However, it is not often mentioned the actual impact of other factors.

Also, it is essential to highlight that
equilibrium theories have been crucial for understanding climate change's
economic and climate aspects. However, recent developments in macroeconomic
literature emphasize the need to consider natural climate variability. One is
the CoCEB-S model, a coupled
climate-economy-biosphere model that highlights the effectiveness of mitigation
strategies like low-carbon technologies, deforestation reduction, and carbon
capture and storage (Ogutu et al., 2022).

Table 3

Common Arguments of the Consensus Debate

Argument

Point

Counterpoint

Natural Climate Variability

Some skeptics argue that
natural processes primarily drive climate change and that human activities
play a minor role. They suggest that Earth's climate has always undergone
natural fluctuations, and the current warming trend is within the range of
historical variability.

Scientific studies
have shown that the current rate of warming is unprecedented and cannot be
explained by natural factors alone. The influence of human activities,
particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, has already been demonstrated
(Ghil, 2002; IPCC, 2023).

Temperature
Plateau or Cooling Trends

Skeptics often point to short-term temperature fluctuations
or cherry-pick data to argue that global warming has stopped or that cooling
trends exist.

Climate scientists
look at long-term trends and global averages, consistently showing a warming
climate. Short-term variations, such as natural climate oscillations or
volcanic eruptions, can temporarily affect temperatures but do not negate the
overall warming trend (Jenkins, 2009).

Climate Models' Inaccuracy

Some Skeptics
claim that climate models used to project future climate scenarios are flawed
or inaccurate.

While models are
imperfect, they have proven valuable tools for understanding the climate
system and have successfully replicated past climate changes. In addition,
they provide projections based on different emission scenarios and help
inform policymakers about potential future impacts (Cho, 2023).

Natural Causes of
Climate Change

Skeptics may emphasize natural factors, such as solar
activity or cosmic rays, as the main drivers of climate change.

However, extensive
research has shown that these factors cannot account for the observed warming
trends over the past century. Multiple lines of evidence consistently
attribute the most recent global warming to human activities (Turrentine,
2022, IPCC, 2023).

Data Manipulation
or Conspiracy Claims

Some skeptics
argue that climate scientists manipulate data or engage in a global
conspiracy to promote a particular agenda.

These claims are
not supported by evidence and are often based on misinterpretations or
misrepresentations of scientific practices. The scientific process involves
peer review, transparency, and rigorous scrutiny to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of research findings (Michaels & Burnett, 2019).

Source: Own elaboration

The history and effects of scientific
consensus-building efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) about perilous anthropogenic climate change were examined by Curry and
Webster (2013). They claim that the philosophy of science and the social and
psychological problems that contribute to prejudice are used to create a broad
view of consensus that influences policymaking. They suggest a stand based on
scientific research would be the best way to improve decision-making and
enhance the interface between climate research and policy. In the same vein, Butos and McQuade (2015) provide evidence of a biased
approach toward the consensus and state there is no denial of the effect of
human action on the environment but its arguably significant effect on climate
variations.

Conclusions

While human
activities certainly contribute to temperature increases in certain regions of the
planet, it is important to acknowledge that many highly reputable scientists
and groups rightfully challenge the extent of human impact, especially compared
to other natural contributing factors. The existence of a consensus can also
often create resistance or prejudices to the ideas or positions of the
minority. Within the dissenting group, one can find reputable professionals,
prominent academics, including Nobel Peace Prize laureates, and famous
personalities such as celebrities and policymakers. Given the rising popularity
of social media, influencers, celebrities, politicians, and activist groups wield
considerable influence over their followers and the general public. Social
media also affects how people think, spend money, and vote. The Internet
provides them with a robust platform where almost any information posted gains
instant credibility and interest, often leading to ignorance, false
presuppositions, and the misguidance of individuals who do not often do their
own research. Historically, being in the majority has not guaranteed to be
right or the optimal preparation for a better future. The dominance of a
consensus often results in the neglect of innovations and advancements of the
minority, whose ideas are discredited or labeled as conspiratorial. In the case
of climate change, this tendency can impact the future and survival of humanity
and our planet.

Acknowledgments

The author
would like to thank the reviewers for their comments which helped improve the
quality and purpose of this article.

References

Ammous, S. (2022,
October 29). 138. Climate physics w/ Professor William
Happer [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uf_AbyG6ho

BizNewsTv. (2022, November
22). "There's no emergency" – dissident climatologist Dr. Judith
Curry on climate change [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBdmppcfixM

Butos, W. N., & McQuade, T. J. (2015). Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science
Boom. The Independent Review, 20(2), 165-196.
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/causes-consequences-climate-science-boom/docview/1715694104/se-2

Cho, R. (2023).
What Uncertainties Remain in Climate Science? State of the Planet. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/12/what-uncertainties-remain-in-climate-science/#:~:text=The%20uncertainties%20are%20due%20to,errors%20from%20imprecise%20observational%20instruments

Clark, S. (2022).
Global Warming: An Inconvenient History. YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved June 28,
2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGtAilkWTtI.

Clark, S. (2023).
The many errors of an inconvenient truth. YouTube. Retrieved June 28, 2023,
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxiHzjH-uIo.

Curry, J. A., &
Webster, P. J. (2013). Climate change: No consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews:
Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural
Resources, 8 doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20138001

European Commission General Directorate for Climate Action.
(n.d.). Causes of climate change. Climate Action. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/causes-climate-change_en

Fox News. (2022,
October 12). There is no climate crisis: Tom Harris [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdg4uQW8Dlg

Ghil, M. (2002).
Natural climate variability. Encyclopedia of global
environmental change, 1, 544-549. https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/MGEGEC.pdf

Hine, D. W., Reser,
J. P., Morrison, M., Phillips, W. J., Nunn, P., & Cooksey, R. (2014).
Audience segmentation and climate change communication: Conceptual and
methodological considerations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 5(4), 441-459. doi:10.1002/wcc.279

Hornsey, M. J.,
Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the
determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate
Change, 6(6), 622-626. doi:10.1038/nclimate2943

Hornsey, M. J.,
& Fielding, K. S. (2017). Attitude roots and jiu-jitsu persuasion:
Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American
Psychologist, 72(5), 459-473. doi:10.1037/a0040437

Hornsey, M. J.,
Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). Relationships among conspiratorial
beliefs, conservatism and climate skepticism across
nations. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 614-620.
doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2

Insider Science.
(2021, April 25). Climate Scientists Debunk 13 Myths About Global Warming
| Debunked [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ssM2O0qkRk

IPCC. (2014).
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [C.B. Field et al.
(eds)], Cambridge, UK and New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2023).
Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J.
Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34, doi:
10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001

Jenkins, A. (2009,
September 23). NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

Longley, R. (2021). Overview of the Second
Industrial Revolution. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/second-industrial-revolution-overview-5180514

Michaels, P., & Burnett, S. (2019, December 5). Climate Data Is
Being Misused and Manipulated, Says Award-Winning Scientist – The Heartland
Institute. The Heartland Institute. https://heartland.org/opinion/it-takes-courage-to-stand-up-for-a-rational-discussion-of-climate-science-and-policy-says-award-winning-scientist/

Molina, M., McCarthy, J., Wall, D., Alley, R., Cobb,
K., Cole, J., ... & Shepherd, M. (2014, July). What we know: The reality,
risks and response to climate change. In American Association for the
Advancement of Science (pp. 1-11).

NASA Goddard. (2013, November 8). NASA | Ask A
Climate Scientist - Extreme Weather and Global Warming [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY6XSsF4CCo

Newsham, A., Kohnstamm,
S., Naess, L. O., & Atela, J. (2018).
Agricultural Commercialisation Pathways: Climate Change and Agriculture.

Ogutu, K. B. Z.,
D’andrea, F., Groth, A., & Ghil, M. (2022).
Coupled climate-economy-ecology-biosphere modeling: A
dynamic and stochastic approach. Handbook of climate change mitigation and
adaptation: Third edition (pp. 225-288) doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72579-2_103

Singer, S. F., & Idso, C. (2009). Climate change reconsidered:
the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
(NIPCC). Chicago: The Heartland Institute.

Stuart Dimmock v.
Secretary of State for Education and Skills EWHC 2288 (Admin) (Inconvenient
Truth case), ELAW (Hight Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division October 10,
2007). Retrieved from https://elaw.org/content/uk-stuart-dimmock-v-secretary-state-education-and-skills-2007-ewhc-2288-admin-inconvenient-t.

Turrentine, J.
(2022, September 13). What Are the Causes of Climate Change? NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-are-causes-climate-change#:~:text=Natural%20Causes%20of%20Climate%20Change,-Some%20amount%20of&text=Over%20the%20course%20of%20Earth's,planetary%20warming%20and%20cooling%20patterns

Unsworth, K. L.,
& Fielding, K. S. (2014). It's political: How the salience of one's
political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental
Change, 27(1), 131-137. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002

Wilkinson, F. (2022, June 2). Industrial Revolution and Technology. National
Geographic Education. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrial-revolution-and-technology/