2. Skeptics 2
Climate Change and Its Skeptics
Numerous studies have been conducted on the changing climate, and the findings
have been troubling to many people. Climate change is a topic in which many people have
many different opinions on. However, what is known for sure, is that humans are at the root
of it. Many scientists and professors at science academies and Universities of Sciences have
already made that fact well known. Despite the evidence that these scientists have shown and
proven, there are still those who refuse to accept that it is ultimately man’s fault that the earth
is having these climate changes. These people try to go around the peer-reviewed journals
and go to the media to try to sway others into believing what they want them to on any given
topic of discussion. These people are the ones who are best known as the skeptics of climate
change.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a skeptic is “One who doubts the
validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry” (2014).
Despite the evidence that scientists have found and proven to be the case of climate change,
these skeptics hold on to what they believe to be true. Simon Donner, an associate professor
in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, primarily focuses on
the delusion that people are not able to influence the weather, which opposes the skeptics’
view that climate change is not happening or that it is a threat (Donner 2007, 2011). And
Richard Norgaard, a professor of Ecological Economics in the Energy and Resources Group
3. Skeptics 3
at the University of California, Berkeley, who is first chair of the Independent Science Board
of CALFED, says that “true believers… manage to convince themselves, against mountains
of counterevidence…” (Norgaard, 2002, pg. 287-292).
Skepticism of climate change arises for multiple reason, however, two specific
reasons for the skepticism are that climate change “does not fit neatly into conventional
academic disciplinary divisions” (Baum, Haqq-Misra, Karmosky, 2012) and that there is
money to be made from having such public skepticism. Some organizations are just fronts
for think tanks that are paid by major oil companies that want to make money. ExxonMobil,
the one of the largest American oil companies, apart from BP Amoco, opposed the Kyoto
Protocol, which would force them to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while their
European counterpart, Shell oil company, has agreed to the Kyoto Protocol and have
invested in producing renewable energy (Skjaerseth & Skodvin, 2001, pg. 43-64). The oil
companies make money from oil, natural gas, and coal, which are primary sources of GHG
(2001). Therefore, if the oil companies cut GHG emissions, and did not invest in renewable
energy they would not make any money.
It has been said by skeptics that climate change is not real, that it is only trying to pull
in more money for funding research (2012). In his film, The Great Global Warming Swindle,
Martin Durkin said that climate change was nothing more than a multibillion dollar industry
comprised of anti-industrial environmentalists (Durkin, 2007). Spier’s skepticisms focuses
on four main points. According to Spier, from the year 1943 to 1975, Spier observed a
decline in temperature (Spier, 2008). He tested that if GHG was increasing, the temperature
should also be inclining, not declining. However, this has been answered by science as well.
4. Skeptics 4
Science says that it is sulfur emissions, which form sulfate aerosols that reflect the additional
solar radiation back to space, thus cooling the earth’s surface (2008). And according to David
Stern, sulfur emissions peaked just after World War II because of the industrialization that
occurred afterwards. And multiple others aided his statement by saying that at that time,
GHG emissions were growing at a slower rate, especially when compared to sulfur
emissions, which allowed a net cooling of the earth’s surface (Ramaswamy, Chanin, Angell,
Barnett, Gaffen, & Gelman, 71-122). Another skepticism Spier had, was that one could read
the Ice Core Data in order to learn about the past climates. According to the ice core data,
temperature rise occurred before CO2 increases. He suggests that it is the increase in
temperature that causes the increase in atmospheric CO2 (Petit, Jouzel, Raynaud, Barkov,
Barnola, & Basile, 429-436). Spier’s next skepticism was cloud formation. He points out that
thick clouds have a cooling effect on Earth’s surface, as opposed to thin cirrus clouds. The
cirrus clouds will cause more water evaporation. And the final skepticism is the claim that
the cosmic rays are the primary driver of global temperature changes (Spier, 2008).
It is important to remember that the study of climate change is difficult because it
does not fit into a lab, or as said before, “does not fit neatly into conventional academic
disciplinary divisions” (Baum, Haqq-Misra, Karmosky, 2012). Due to the immensity and
complexity of studying the climate system it is acceptable for there to be skepticism about
the findings of information. After all, Carl Sagan, an American astronomer, astrophysicist,
and cosmologist once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (2012).
Although skepticism is not able to disprove any evidence, it is welcomed in science because
leads to more accurate beliefs (2012).
5. Skeptics 5
Skeptics are an important portion of science because they allow the science to become
more accurate with their assumptions and disbeliefs (2012). And because the field of climate
change has no ethical guidelines, skeptics, such as Raymond Spier will question this science
on anything they can in the attempts to discredit it. Climate change, and the study of it, has
been called a “worldwide industry” that has been “created by fanatically anti-industrial
environmentalists” and is “supported by scientist” in the attempts “to chase funding”
(Washington Times, 2007). It is with claims like this, that skeptics are able to pull the
attention of their target audience, the everyday person.
6. Skeptics 6
Bibliography
Baum, S., Haqq-Misra, J., & Karmosky, C. (2012). Climate Change: Evidence of Human
Causes and Arguments for Emissions Reduction. Science & Engineering Ethics,
18(2), 393-410. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9270-6
Donner, S. D., 2007: Domain of the gods: an editorial essay. Climatic Change, 85, 231-236
Durkin, M. (2007). The great global warming swindle. Channel 4 (U.K.).
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk. Accessed 19 June 2014.
Norgaard, K. M. (2006, September). “WE DON’T REALLY WANT TO KNOW”:
Environmental Justice and Socially Organized Denial of Global Warming in Norway
[Electronic version]. Organization & Environment, 19(3), 347-370.
Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J. M., Basile, I. (1999). Climate
and Atmospheric History of the Past 420, 000 years from the Vostok ice core,
Antarctica. Nature, 399,429–436
Skjaerseth, J., & Skodvin, T. (2001). Climate Change and the Oil Industry: Common
Problems, Different Strategies. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 43-64. Doi:
10.1162/152638001317146363
Spier, R. E. (2008, March 1). Climate-An Item for the Ethics Agenda. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 1-2. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9054-9
Ramaswamy, V., Chanin, M. L., Angell, J., Barnett, J., Gaffen, D., Gelman, M. (2001).
Stratospheric temperature trends: Observations and model simulations. Reviews of
Geophysics, 39, 71–122.
7. Skeptics 7
Washington Times (2007). Global warming labeled a ‘scam’. March
6.http://www.washtimes.com/news/2007/mar/06/20070306-122226-6282r. Accessed
19 June 2014.
