This document discusses climate change skepticism. It notes that while there is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and human-caused, some politicians and citizens in the US deny it. Skeptics argue that climate science is uncertain or that humans do not impact the climate. The document examines some of the reasons for skepticism, such as politicians not wanting to hurt jobs or the economy by reducing emissions. It also looks at scientists funded by groups with interests in denying climate change. Overall, the document argues that understanding the perspectives and motivations behind skepticism is important to have an informed discussion about climate change.

1. Dozier 1
Jeff Dozier
FYS100
June 20, 2014
Harold Blanco
Climate Change and the Skepticism that Ensues
We all know that climate change is affecting us all and is an immediate harm to life on Earth as
we know it, right? Well wrong, there happen to be many skeptics in the United State of America that say
either climate science is not happening or that humans are not causing it. Either way, we need to look
into these reasons and give the people a chance in sharing their opinion. Yes, there may be a scientific
consensus that climate change is manmade, but according to some of our politicians and fellow citizens
that means nothing.
Firstly, someone studying the deniers need to look at not only the people the denying it and
their backgrounds, but why someone is claiming it does not exist in the first place. If you take a peek
into the book “Climate Confusion” by Roy Spencer, you may find claims that “Science isn’t Truth” or that
climate change does not affect the human population on earth. However, when looking into why one
might say these things you start to empathize with the people who support the skepticism on climate
change. If we look at politicians, the majority of the reason for them denying anything to do with climate
change is that it hurts jobs and the economy to reduce emissions; they want to keep their constituents
happy, who actually refuse to believe in climate change at all and so they vote this way to keep their
seat. If you look into scientists, such as Roy Spencer, who has a PhD in meteorology, you find that he
believes climate change has been happening forever and that man has nothing to do with it. He seems
credible, correct? Well he is fair in his skepticism, however when you look into what he does and where
his funding is coming from, you start to understand why he might be trying to persuade someone
against believing in climate change.

2. Dozier 2
A large part of skepticism comes from the fact that there is a correlation between the terms
“global warming” and “climate change”. Skeptics like to point out the term “global warming” whenever
a supporter of climate change initiatives takes to the press expressing concern when we have extremely
cold weather events. However also appears that the term “climate change” is perceived to be a natural
occurrence (Schuldt, 2). Basically, anytime it conveniences someone, most notable political figures, they
will be used in a way that may be scientifically inconclusive by nonetheless have an effect on the minds
of the people listening to said politician.
Most skeptics may hold the opinion that climate change is real, however they believe it not to
be manmade, but a naturally occurring process over long periods of time: “Many see warmer
temperatures as part of the normal fluctuations that occur over long periods of time. They also cite the
ability of naturally-occurring volcanic eruptions to cause temporary changes in weather patterns and
levels of gases in the atmosphere.” (Driscoll). From hearing reasonably explained arguments it is easy to
see how someone unmotivated by money may be skeptic, these things seem as though they make
sense, and in a lot of ways they do, there just isn’t any scientific evidence showing that that is how it is.
If anything, climate change initiative supporters need to understand this side of things and empathize
with the people who are generalizing this subject: it is either easy to believe it is natural and we cannot
do anything about it, and for others opposition puts food on the table. This is something everyone needs
to understand.
People are going to hear what they want to hear, and they are going to believe what they want.
There have always been skeptics and there always will be. The only thing you can do is wait for the good
information to rise to the top and then once proven we will know what is and what isn’t scientific fact.
The biggest thing to take from climate change and other polarizing topics is that we are all human;
nobody in support or denial of climate change should undergo any scrutiny for what they believe, it just
needs to be explained a little better in some cases, and in others just need a better understanding.

3. Dozier 3
Works Cited
"Climate Change." CQ Researcher 15 June 2013. Web. 20 June 2014.
Driscoll, SallyFlynn. "Global Warming: An Overview." Points Of View: Global Warming (2014): 1. Points of View
Reference Center. Web. 20 June 2014.
POWLEDGE, FRED. "Scientists, Policymakers, and a Climate of Uncertainty." Bioscience 62.1 (2012): 8-
13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 June 2014.
Schuldt, Jonathon P., Sara H. Konrath, and Norbert Schwarz. "“Global Warming” Or “Climate
Change”?." Public Opinion Quarterly 75.1 (2011): 115-124. Business Source Premier. Web. 20
June 2014.