Global Warming: Are You Still a Believer?

Candice Gaukel Andrews by Candice Gaukel Andrews | August 13th, 2010 | 8 Comments
topic: Eco Travel, Green Living

New Zealand Iceberg

An island of ice more than four times the size of Manhattan broke off from a glacier in Greenland during the first week of August 2010. It’s drifting across the Arctic Ocean as you read this, probably headed to Canada’s east coast.

No one has to tell me that this year is shaping up to be one of the hottest on record — if not the hottest. In southern Wisconsin where I live, the last time the high temperature for the day was less than 70 F was June 14 (when it was 69 F). It feels as if Wisconsin’s weather has suddenly shifted to that typical of Arkansas, a prediction made by climatologists several years ago.

Also in the first week of August 2010 the term “global warming” celebrated its 35th birthday. On August 8, 1975, Wallace Broecker published a paper titled Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? in the journal Science. It’s the first use of the term in scientific literature, according to a search of a database containing more than 10,000 articles.

In the three-and-a-half decades since Broecker’s paper was published, the majority of the public has gone from believing that human activities are causing the planet to warm at an unprecedented rate (thanks in large part to Al Gore and his book and film titled An Inconvenient Truth) back to — just recently — skeptics. Why should that be, especially during what could turn out to be the hottest summer in recorded history? It’s because of some computer hackers.

Same as it ever was

When it comes to key discoveries in the natural world, it seems there will always be initial vociferous skeptics. For example, in 1610 when Galileo had the audacity to publish a paper that argued in favor of Nicolaus Copernicus’s theory that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of the universe, the Roman Catholic Church strongly urged him to recant his belief. Galileo refused, and in 1633 the Inquisition convicted him of heresy. He received a sentence of life imprisonment, although he was allowed to serve it under house arrest.

In 1962 when Rachel Carson tried to warn us in her now famous book Silent Spring that DDT was harming birdlife, she was attacked as an alarmist by chemical industry representatives, DDT manufacturers, and even some in the government. They relentlessly hounded her until her death in 1964.

The Copenhagen controversy

We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that just days before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, an incident dubbed “Climategate” unfolded. Unidentified persons hacked into a computer server at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and stole tens of thousands of e-mails. The hackers picked out phrases and expressions in the e-mails to craft a story that supposedly showed that the scientific facts regarding the alarming rate of global warming and our hand in it were falsified.


NASA announced that the previous decade was the warmest on record. ©John T. Andrews

The contrived story focused on two leading climate scientists: Phil Jones, head of the research unit, and Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, who studies ancient tree ring patterns for climatic conditions. The story suggested that the two researchers deliberately manipulated data to make global warming statistics look more extreme than they actually were.

In a rush to be the first to break the “shocking” news just days before the U.N. conference, many in the media reported the story just as the thieves created it. The hackers accomplished their goal: The Copenhagen conference failed to develop a strong and binding international treaty.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Michael Mann became the focus of an academic investigation. It concluded “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.” Regarding Jones, the results of a British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation stated: “We are content that … colloquial terms used in private e-mails … were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer-review process.”

The American public turns skeptical

As often happens with allegations that later prove wrongful, the outcome didn’t matter. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think tank, says events such as Climategate may be causing “the death of the global warming movement as we know it.” In a May 2010 national poll of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen Reports, just 40 percent of respondents said they believed human activity was primarily responsible for global warming, down from 47 percent in April 2008.

This year the states of Texas and Virginia, among other entities, filed legal challenges to stop the federal government from regulating emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Lately, even President Obama has been modifying his language: In his State of the Union Address in January, the president called for Congress to support climate change legislation for job-creation purposes “even if you doubt the evidence.”

Senate Democrats, including John Kerry of Massachusetts, have set aside legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. factories and other businesses. They are pursuing a new bill that may instead focus on utility companies. And State Department Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern said recently that the nation might now pursue a more narrow strategy.

Sen. James Inhofe’s (R.-Okla.) website currently lists more than 700 scientists who agree that the Earth is warming but argue that other factors, such as ocean temperatures or solar flares, play a bigger role than human activity. And Leighton Steward, a geologist and global warming skeptic, allegedly said “we’ve all been kind of giggling as we watch this thing fall apart.”

Not much to laugh about

Admittedly, some mistakes have been made in reporting global warming statistics. For example, one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report stated that global warming could cause glaciers in the Himalayas to melt by 2035. Later, the IPCC admitted the date was incorrect; the information had been improperly taken from a report issued by an outside environmental group and not subjected to the usual standards of vigorous scientific scrutiny.


An August in Wisconsin now feels like a summer in Arkansas. ©John T. Andrews

But despite such errors, Mann says the core argument — that the Earth is warming, humans are at least partly responsible, and action must be taken to avoid disaster — remains intact. He’s exasperated by the way some politicians use last winter’s East Coast snowstorms as a way to undermine the case for global warming while ignoring a recent NASA announcement that the previous decade was the warmest on record. And Carol Browner, the White House director on climate and energy policy, says there are thousands of scientists whose work provides evidence of global warming from human activities.

Have recent events made you skeptical that our actions on Earth are a major contributor to global warming?

Mann believes there’s a good chance that 2010 will be the hottest year ever. I have to say that judging by my Arkansas-like summer in southern Wisconsin, I do, too.

Happy trails,


Feature photo: Rising global temperatures may be causing more icebergs to break off. ©Candice Gaukel Andrews


  1. It seems to me that climate change “skeptics” could more readily be classified as climate change denialists. Being skeptical means not dismissing ideas out of hand, but demanding proof. Denialists, on the other hand, find the peer-reviewed research of qualified scientists to be unbelievable, yet are infinitely credulous of any hack who tells them that nothing is wrong and they can go on as they have been. And that is the very opposite of skepticism.

    NineQuietLessons | August 16th, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  2. Let ’s think about this global warming debate for a minute. The glaciers are disappearing at a fast rate and the perma frost is melting. The summers are getting hotter and the winters are getting warmer. Certain insects and plant species that live along the equator are on the move to areas were it was previously to cold for them to survive. Yep!! I think something afoot. But I’m certian it’s not use humans that are causing the problems, we have never done anything before to mother earth or her environment to cause a problem.

    John H Gaukel | August 16th, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  3. It seems difficult to ignore the old “where there’s smoke there’s fire” adage in this instance.

    Jack | August 16th, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  4. Your article on global warming is fair and balanced — something both the current crop of newscasters and academics seem to have forgotten. I certainly agree that there is global warming going on and that man is contributing to conditions that exacerbate that to some degree and therein lies the debate. The scientific community is definitely divided on this issue and that is enough for me to be skeptical. But this is more than just an academic argument; our economy hangs in the balance. Cap and Trade is about global warming and could push our debt and, by extension, our economy over the brink. But even if the alarmists are right, despite all the scandalous evidence manipulation that tends to undermine their own argument, without an equal commitment from two of the worst polluters on the planet, China and India, our jeopardizing our economy and burdening our grandchildren with a mountain of debt would have little practical effect on the environment. That said, though, I do agree that we should be working toward alternative sources of energy, which has two practical benefits for our society and the world: 1. we ease whatever contribution we are making to global warming, making us more responsible stewards of our world and 2. less dependence on fossil fuels will make us less dependent on the Middle East leaving them less able to threaten the free world.

    Bud Kuppenheimer | August 19th, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  5. Most scientists, when completely honest questions are posed, do not believe that global warming exists–hence the new term of convenience–climate change.

    My opinion is personal and not the reflection of any association with which I am affiliated.

    (Originally posted on LinkedIn)

    Maralyn | August 23rd, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  6. I would rather call the “skeptics” main line science! It’s becoming increasingly clear that this more than poor research, but rather a fraud committed in the interests of money and power. Two years ago John Coleman (founder of Weather Channel) called it the biggest scam in history. At the time I thought it was hyperbole, but now it seems he was dead on.

    Also, it seems we may be entering a period of cooling rather than warming so the CO2 levels can’t be the cause of both increasing and decreasing temperatures.

    For real scientific info on the subject, I have found this site terrific. No weepy eyed polar bears, but lots of science.

    Good topic, Candice!

    Mark B. | August 23rd, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  7. It seems obvious that man has had a major influence on global warming. Any effort to slow the warming trend down would also have to be a global effort and I don’t see that happening until the situation is much more dire and probably irreversible.

    Art Hardy | August 23rd, 2010 | Comment Permalink
  8. The science is very complicated, and the politics are even more so. I believe that the exploitation of limited and non-renewable natural resources is a huge issue, and that the impact of our current energy exploration, extraction, generation and disposal is having an impact on our environment (how could it be otherwise). I really feel that the conversation needs to change from what we definitively know, and how we can change our investments/incentives to create new renewable forms of energy for an exploding world population.

    Joel Andrews | August 30th, 2010 | Comment Permalink

Post a Comment

If you want to show your picture with your comment, go get a gravatar!