“Global warming is a myth” is a dangerous myth

I have to say this about the global-warming-is-a-myth-crowd: They sure are spunky. Able to hold onto their conspiracy theories in the face of all evidence to the contrary — a testament to the power of selective belief to reduce cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, neither the facts nor the overwhelming majority opinion supports them.

The trend of annual mean temperature has continued upward throughout this decade, even allowing for the 1998 spike that was helped by the hottest El Niño on record. Four of the five hottest years on record have occurred since 2003 (1998 was No. 3), and 2010 is on track to break all previous ones. These conclusions are based on consistent, independent data gathered by a number of diverse organizations, e.g., NASA, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and various university researchers.

Not one scientific organization has disputed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states that there is greater than a 90-percent probability that humans have contributed significantly to global warming. Over 50 national and international scientific organizations have publicly signed onto those conclusions, including the American Geophysical Union, which represents over 20,000 climate scientists. Among climate scientists, over 95 percent agree with the IPCC reports. About two-thirds of Americans also accept these conclusions, as do 80 percent of foreign populations. But a few vocal dissenters, propelled more by emotion than logic, continue to get air time out of proportion to their numbers or their arguments. I guess it sells newspapers.

Although the measured warming effects are exceeding even the most pessimistic projections of existing climate models, it seems very unlikely that anything of consequence will be done by governments to address it in time to prevent major consequences. …

But that will be just another thing for our heirs to deal with. Meanwhile, enjoy the music.

— Glen Reese


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

18 thoughts on ““Global warming is a myth” is a dangerous myth

  1. Al Gore

    How is the believer’s conspiracy theory of oil money funding all denier science not just as childish? And isn’t denying all denier science so … unscientific? We fading and evolving believers proved over and over again that it was politics, not science by constantly demonizing and saying science in the same sentence as we fear mongered mistakenly.
    You remaining doomers are spitting environmentalism and dragging progressivism down with it.
    This was our Iraq War everybody. Time to back off before a new generation bites us back for our fear mongering and needless panic.
    Pollution was real, condemning our kids to death on an unstoppable warming planet was a mistake, but a crime if we don’t admit our error soon.

  2. Dionysis

    “global warming is the greatest HOAX!!!!!”

    Prove it. With peer-reviewed facts. Prove the majority of the world’s scientists are someone involved in some secret conspiracy. Prove it.

  3. jim

    come to my house and look at the 20 or so inches of snow packed on the roof, and grab your jumper cables to help me start my car when it is -10 degrees. Then try to tell me about GLOBAL WARMING. Wanna see my heating bill. No lower cost trend there

  4. jose

    Hey Dio, how about YOU prove the ‘majority of the world’s scientists’ support the theory of global warming? Show us some peer-reviewed facts. Prove global warming isn’t junk science. It’s easy to make such statements then demand other people prove theirs. Sorry pal, but you aren’t the source of all truth and knowledge. Has anyone besides me noticed that global warming proponents sound like intolerant radical muslims who can’t handle any opposition to their religious beliefs? So much so that they attack any one who dares disagree with their iron-clad orthodoxy? My proof–read the first 3 letter to the editor in this issue of the mtn xpress.

  5. Dionysis

    “Hey Dio, how about YOU prove the ‘majority of the world’s scientists’ support the theory of global warming? Show us some peer-reviewed facts.”

    I have a much better idea. Instead of the usual diversionary “show me the facts amassed over decades by reputable scientists since I can’t be bothered to look it up myself,” get yourself a search engine (say, Google), type in ‘scientific facts supporting climate change” (which includes a lot more than just global warming, something the previous poster doesn’t understand, as well as it appears you) and take the time to do what the rest of us do…consider the facts, seek out substantiation and then do the same with the Flat Earthers-the “global warming is a hoax perpetrated by scientists all over the world to somehow enrich Al Gore.”

    And I agree that I am “not the source of all truth and knowledge” nor have I claimed to be. However, I know how to access and understand “facts and knowledge”. To cite yet another nonsensical declarative statement “it’s a hoax” as somehow constituting ‘proof’ is asinine, and the worn-out and very facile “it’s cold today and snowing show there is no climate change” shows very shallow thinking, of the junior high school level of critical thinking.

    If I continue to repeat “man never walked on the moon, it was all a hoax” enough times, will it morph into “proof”?

    Lastly, you get an award to cheap shot of the day…when unable to come up with anything civil and convincing, just liken those of us concerned about the demise of our planet to “radical muslims.” We can handle “opposition” based upon facts. If you are anyone else ever decides to take a shot at actually demonstrating any, then they will be considered.

    Fair enough, pal?

  6. jon

    Surely ‘jim’s’ comment above is meant as satire, yes? The conflation of temperature and climate is just TOO hilarious to be taken seriously.

  7. Ken Hanke

    Surely ‘jim’s’ comment above is meant as satire, yes?

    You may underestimate the tenacity of those who work on the basis of “Fox News said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

  8. jose

    I’ve learned in recent years that telling a global warming nazi I don’t believe in global warming is like telling a fundamentalist Christian that I worship satan. Rattling cages of intolerance and elitism once in a while is a good thing.

  9. jon

    Surely ‘jim’s’ comment above is meant as satire, yes? The conflation of temperature and climate is just TOO hilarious to be taken seriously.

  10. Dionysis

    “Surely ‘jim’s’ comment above is meant as satire, yes?

    You may underestimate the tenacity of those who work on the basis of “Fox News said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

    Hot off the press and to that point:

    “The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation’s most viewed “news” network has the effect of dumbing down voters.

    Turns out, they were right.

    A University of Maryland study (PDF) published earlier this month found that people in the survey who had the most exposure to Fox News were more likely to believe falsehoods and rumors about national and world affairs when compared to those who paid attention to other news outlets.”


    Another reason to ignore anyone citing Fox for substantiation for anything.

  11. Dionysis

    “I’ve learned in recent years that telling a global warming nazi I don’t believe in global warming is like telling a fundamentalist Christian that I worship satan. Rattling cages of intolerance and elitism once in a while is a good thing.”

    And what others, who are truly concerned about the deteriorating ecosystems and climate change, have learned is to expect childish insults like “global warming nazis”, that those who continue to deny that which is going on around them do so based upon “belief” (much like a fundamentalist Christian), that wanting to counter the increasing destruction of our environment is a kind of “intolerance” that is defensible, and that any cages being rattled by this group are being done from the inside of the cage, not from the outside. But at least your self-delusion makes you “feel good.”

  12. Raconteur02

    “Hey Dio, how about YOU prove the ‘majority of the world’s scientists’ support the theory of global warming? Show us some peer-reviewed facts.”

    Done, and done: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    As noted in this peer-reviewed study, 97% of active climatologists agree that global warming is real and caused by humans.

    You really shouldn’t ask rhetorical questions that you don’t already know the answer to. Otherwise, you just end up looking foolish.

  13. Naiya

    The actual problem we face is most evident in the debate about climate change. It is the problem of political interference in scientific research.

    Sure, the government-subsidized monopolized-energy conglomerate (oil, coal) is funding some ‘denier’ research. What few realize is that same conglomerate is also funding the environmental movement. Think of any environmental organization, then google the name and find the board members. Then google their names. You’ll find high-profile players in those industries.

    Then, I invite you to try to think rationally about that bizarre contradiction.

    The truth: We are lacking real empirical data (that hasn’t been tampered with) that proves humans are causing climate change. Computer models are insufficient – computer models are not empirical data. Those are guesses, based on wildly fluctuating inputs, and way too many variables.

    Ongoing studies on scientific parameters vital to the climate debate such as the magnitude of the CO2 and water vapour-related feedbacks in atmospheric warming, the role of solar-magnetic and cosmic influences on climate, and the geological-historical records of cyclic climate change are starved of funding. Those influences deserve to be looked at.

    Google the Maunder minimum. Google the Medieval warm period. It’s been much hotter (there used to be vineyards in London, hence ‘Vine St.’… and a few centuries later, people ice skated on the frozen Thames – and drew pictures of it…). The data taken from the ice record (by independent researchers) indicates something quite different than the famous hockey stick graph. There is no hockey stick according to this data. According to this data, it has been much much warmer for most of the timeline, which goes back many thousands of years.

    I see here some people are still quoting Al Gore… the same Al Gore who is trying to make BILLIONS from taxing co2, and who has made billions from the petroleum industry (Occidental). The same Al Gore who for several years after making An Inconvenient Truth lived in a home that cost nearly 2300/month to power. I’d suggest that if you wanted to be seen as contributing any thing of value to discussion on climate change, that you’d refrain from mentioning his name.

    It astonishes me how the climate debate has become a new religion. I guess it’s not that surprising, considering the emotionality of the argument. The scare tactic agenda-props are everywhere, some violent and obscene. Those commercials in the UK in which a teacher pushes a button and children explode into a bloody pulp – are what I’m talking about.

    The stakes of the game are very high. Few will think of the economic and social impact to third world countries. It will be devastating. And the co2 tax will enrich only those bankers and energy industry players who have been raping the world and polluting since the dawn of the industrial era. You here in the comfy first world can just pay a tax (which will be, like all taxes) taken from you with the use of force which we grant exclusively to the state.

    So – in the end, I’d like to see people grow up and use those brains to think about all this. Take emotion out of it – emotions have been manipulated and can’t be trusted. We need empirical method. We need for science to have integrity.

  14. Naiya

    (…and there is the issue of the NSF, which underwrites a large percentage of scientific research. When there is a government-subsidized monopoly on power, how can we so implicitly trust any research – that would affect the monopoly – that is funded by a government agency? or by that industry?…)

    Hint: we cannot trust the government or industry to control science. And it does control science. At best, it is a catch 22.

    The only answer is to support grass-roots efforts at creating Open Source research programs.

  15. some sanity

    “phony Derivative schemes to control energy usage are about control, not stopping climate change ”

    You are referring to Carbon Credit Trading, which was the brainchild of HW Bush-proposed as a ‘free market’ approach to curbing pollution.

    Carbon Credits are nt climate science. Attacking Carbon credits does not discredit climate science. Attacking Al Gore does not refute climate science.

    There is no substantive, science-based refutation of climate science, which is why the deniers have to attack the messengers and obfuscate the debate.

    IF they had anywhere near the body of peer-reviewed data that the actual scientific community has, they would debate the science on it’s own merits. But they don’t. o they engage in grade-school tactics which only exposes their level of scientific illiteracy.

    So they’ll prop-up a relative handful of industry-paid Exxon scientists who say ‘everything is fine’, then call Al Gore fat, then claim that snow in the winter disproves it all.

    Epic. Fail.

  16. NotBasheville

    It is simple, think of the world as a large terrarium. It can only hand a little meddling before things get very ugly, very quick. Is there any trash in Nature’s System? NOPE NONE! We are trashing this planet and like any system it has consequences. Plastic bags are not Nature, Pesticides are not Nature, PVC is not Nature. Think for yourself, you do not really need research if you use your head. Otherwise, bury it in the sand.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.