Is climate change real? Is the Earth warming? Are humans the main cause of warming?
If you are like me, you believed all of the headlines. Global warming is mostly caused by humans burning fossil fuels. This heating phenomenon is causing huge changes in the climate. Ice caps are melting, reefs are bleaching and dying, the sea level is rising, the intensity of storms is worse, there are more forest fires, etc.
You would have to be living in a cave not to know this is all happening. It is on the news almost every night.
A few years ago, I started looking at the scientific data. In summary:
There is almost no data to support the catastrophic headlines you see.
However, there is a lot of published data to show that the climate is not changing at alarming rates.
Based on the comments, I think a lot of people did NOT read this last sentence. The Earth is warming. Climate change is happening – it is always happening. But …. climate change is not changing at an alarming rate.
What if all of the information you have been fed is wrong?
It means that most of the government efforts, using your hard-earned tax money, are a waste. It means alternative energy sources won’t solve anything. It means governments and society are doing the wrong things to make our future better.
This is so serious that we all need to start asking questions. We need to demand data to support the news claims.
The purpose of this blog post is to collect and summarize the data we do know. The post will be published shortly, but I will continually add new data as I find it. In some ways, it is a documentation of my journey towards the truth. If you find some data, for or against climate change, please let me know in the comments, and I will add it.
I am not a climate denier. I am a climate realist!
Global Warming vs Climate Change
About 8 years ago, we talked about global warming. The temperature is rising, and that would cause a number of problems. Then, suddenly, everyone was talking about climate change as if the two things were the same. They are not the same.
Global warming means that the Earth and the air above it are getting warmer. It does not mean higher intensity storms or more or less rainfall, although there is some effect on such things. It is simply a measure of the temperature.
Scientists agree that the Earth is warming. But scientists do not agree on the cause of this warming.
Headlines such as “97% of scientists agree humans are causing global warming” are completely wrong. No such survey was ever conducted.
Many top scientists are quite sure humans are not causing global warming.
What about climate change? Scientists agree that the climate is changing. It always changes and has done so for millions of years. It is also clear that we do not understand the effects of various forces on climate change. Most claims about future climate change are at best “estimated guesses” based on limited knowledge.
Here is just one example. We have very little understanding of how clouds affect climate change. More clouds mean less solar radiation reaches the ground. But they also trap heat against the surface of the Earth. More moisture in the air causes more clouds, and water vapor is just as good a greenhouse gas as CO2. Do clouds affect the heating of Earth more than CO2? What effect do more clouds have on climate change? Scientists agree that we don’t know.
Is Climate Change a Real Threat?
The majority of headlines say YES.
Melting Ice Threatens Shoelines
The Climate Crisis – A Race We Can’t Win
How Climate Change Is Causing World Hunger
Climate Change Makes Hurricanes More Destructive
Al Gore, a Nobel prize winner, said this in 2009, “There is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap…during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
It is now 16 years later, and the ice cap has lots of ice even in summer.
Almost none of the predictions from climate activists have come true. Hurricanes and storms have not gotten any worse. The number of forest fires is decreasing. Increased CO2 is making plants grow better and allowing us to grow more food, not less. Sea levels are not significantly rising. Coral reefs are growing in size, not dying.
We need to understand climate change better so that we can adapt and make changes to accommodate it. There is no real evidence that our near-term lives are threatened or that our way of life will suddenly need to change.
The rest of this post will look at specific cases to investigate the reality of Climate Change.
What Does The IPCC Say?
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the global organization tasked with evaluating climate change. It takes data from thousands of scientists and summarizes what we know.
Climate activists, news organizations, politicians, and the majority of the population have the understanding that the IPCC makes the following claims:
- Climate change is an emergency, and we need to act now.
- Extreme weather is bad and getting worse due to greenhouse gases.
What does the IPCC actually say?
You can read the full report for yourself. A summary of the current climate situation can be found in the IPCC AR6 WG1 report, chapter 12, table 12.12, section 12.5.2. You can read the details in the report, or watch a video highlighting them from a lecture given by Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph. The latter is much easier to digest and uses actual quotes.
What the IPCC actually says, in both the AR5 and AR6 reports, is the following.
There is no evidence of climate change, beyond natural variability, for the following:
- River floods
- Heavy precipitation
- Landslides
- Drought of all types
- Severe windstorms
- Tropical cyclones
- Sand and dust storms
- Heavy snowfall and hail
- Ice storms
- Coastal flooding
- Marine heat waves
- Ocean acidification
- Risk of fire
The evidence for climate change, over and above normal variability, does not exist. There is, however, evidence of global warming, which has resulted in glacier ice melt and permafrost melting.
The IPCC is in agreement with most of the points made in this post.
Reality:
- The IPCC report suggests there is no climate change.
- The IPCC confirms the existence of global warming.
Climate-Related Disasters
If the climate were changing rapidly and causing a crisis, you would expect that climate-related disasters would also be on the rise. But …… they that is not happening.
Is the Arctic Melting?
Let’s first look at Al Gore’s prediction: the Arctic is melting.
Pictures do show less ice in the Arctic, but this is just surface ice. Most of the Arctic ice is below sea level. Here is the data from the Canadian Ice Service, Environment Canada.
The graph shows the Historical Total Accumulated Ice Coverage (TAC), which is the total area covered by ice for the indicated time period. The blue line is the measured amount. The gray line is a corrected amount, probably due to better measurement systems like satellites in more recent years.
The data shows either a steady increase in ice or ice that is not changing much.
What about the pictures showing less ice? They are real. Global warming will cause more ice to melt in summer, but this is a very tiny amount of the total ice. The amount of ice can also increase in winter due to an increase in snowfall.
Reality:
- Some ice is melting in the summer.
- Most of the Arctic ice is stable.
- There is no ice melt catastrophe.
Ice loss in Greenland
Ice has been melting at a faster rate since 2000. But if you look at 1930, a time when human activity was much less, the increase in ice melting was just as fast as in 2000. It has continually fluctuated up and down over the last 120 years.
The Earth has been warming during this whole time period, but melting has been going up and down. That indicates the two events are not as connected as many claim, and there is more to the story.
Glaciers Are Melting
Temperatures have been rising, and the mountain glaciers have been melting.
The melting has been attributed to climate warming, not climate change. The melting process does not influence climate change, although it can contribute to sea level rise, which is discussed below.
Melting started about 1850, which is about 100 years before humans started producing CO2 in any significant amount. Clearly, glacier melting can’t be blamed on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.
Reality:
- Glaciers are melting.
- It is not a climate change catastrophe.
Are Forest Fires Increasing?
Early last spring, Western Canada seemed to have a lot of forest fires, and the alarmists and news outlets around here were predicting another terrible year due to “climate change”.
Then there was a brief news article. Alberta had declared that every one of their approximately 150 fires was human-caused. They did not say it, but clearly, these were not due to climate change.
Why would climate change cause forest fires? The logic goes something like this. Climate change causes more severe storms, resulting in more lightning. More lightning means more forest fires because it’s the main cause of natural forest fires.
The above chart shows the historical number of forest fires in Canada, which has been declining since the mid-1990s. The data has been confirmed by the Fraser Institute.
So why does everyone think they are getting worse? This is mostly due to poor news reporting, but there is another underlying reason. The severity and cost of them are increasing. This is due to forest mismanagement as well as the fact that more and more people live in forested regions. But this increase in severity and cost is not due to climate change.
It is the summer of 2025, and based on news reports, Canada is having a lot of forest fires. Most are caused by humans.
Forest Fires in the USA
What about the USA? They seem to have a lot of fires, especially in California.
The number of forest fires is not increasing. There is a slight downward trend since 2010.
What about California? Same trend. The number of forest fires has been decreasing since the 1990s.
What about longer-term trends? Here is the burnt area for the US since 1926.
Global Forest Fires
A review of global fires, published in 2016, found that “the global area burned by forest fires appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. “
What About the Burned Area?
Several of the comments suggested I am cherry-picking the data. Instead of focusing on the number of fires, I should be looking at the area burned. No one gave a reason why this is a better measure of climate change, and it is probably not better. Burned area depends very much on forest management, which in North America is poor, and on an area’s ability to respond to fires. It is difficult to separate these factors from weather factors.
The burnt area in North America is flat, while the global burn area is trending down. The same site also has data for other regions, and they are all flat or trending down.
Reality:
- The number of forest fires is not increasing in Canada, the USA, or globally.
- The burned area from fires is not increasing in North America or globally.
News Changes Its Approach to Scare People About Climate Change
For years, news outlets have been warning about the dire consequences of “Climate Change Caused Forest Fires”. But this year, 2025, has seen a big drop in the number of forest fires, and news outlets have finally checked the facts.
The New York Times has just reported that:
“Costly and Deadly Wildfires Really Are on the Rise, New Research Finds”
Instead of being honest and letting people know that Climate Change is not causing a crisis and that it is not causing an increase in forest fires, they have decided to pivot and focus on “the cost of fire”. Even if their data was right, it only tells us that we are building more structures near forests, and these structures keep getting more expensive every year. That has nothing to do with climate change!
Record Hot Days in the US
It has been a hot summer in North America, and Europe has broken numerous heat records. Are heat waves more common now?
The Heat Wave Index in the US
The Heat Wave Index, more commonly known as the Heat Index or apparent temperature, is a measure of how hot it “feels” to the human body, combining the effects of air temperature and relative humidity. It is used to assess potential health risks during hot weather.
There is no significant change since 1930, and in recent years, the heat index is lower than in the 30’s, before humans produced so much CO2.
Hot Days in the US
The above data shows us how it feels, but it does not show the actual temperature. Does the US have more hot days now than in the past?
This chart shows the average number of hot days per year in the US, with a daily maximum temperature ≥95°, ≥100°, and ≥105°. It is a reconstruction by Chris Martz using official data from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).
There is clearly no upward trend during the period of 1900 and today.
Annual Average Temperatures in the US
Another way to look at temperature is to measure the average annual temperature.
There is a clear trend upwards over the last 100 years, but even in the last 20 years, there are highs and lows, and many of the years are cooler than some years in the 1930s.
Why is the average temperature increasing when the record highs are not? This seems contradictory until you look at nighttime temperatures.
An average temperature is the average between the daily high and low. If the nighttime temperatures (the lows) are trending up and the daytime temperatures remain stationary, the daily average goes up, and that is what is happening. Nighttime lows are getting warmer more quickly than daytime highs.
From a gardener’s perspective, this is a positive trend. Hardiness zones are based on the lows. As they trend higher, cold climates can grow more warm-temperature plants.
Reality:
- Heat waves are not getting worse than in the 1930s.
- Temperatures are steadily going up. Average daily temperatures are increasing mostly due to warmer nights.
- Heat waves and record high temperature days are not as severe as reported in the media.
Are Storms Increasing?
We now have good data about global storms thanks to satellites. We know where they all are and how intense they are.
Tropical storms are not increasing. The number of hurricanes is stable or slightly decreasing. Major hurricanes are stable.
Hurricanes In The US
NOAA has reported on the number of major hurricanes to strike mainland USA for each decade since 1951. The average for the entire time is 5.6. The average since 2011 is only 3.5. The highest number occurred between 1941 and 1950, which had 10. Clearly, the number of major hurricanes in the US is not increasing.
Reality:
- The number and intensity of storms are stable, both in North America and globally.
Is Precipitation Increasing?
A satellite study on this concluded “No overall significant trend is noted in the global precipitation mean value, unlike that for surface temperature and atmospheric water vapor. However, there is a pattern of positive and negative trends across the planet with increases over tropical oceans and decreases over some middle latitude regions”.
Overall, there is no clear trend in a change in precipitation; however, smaller regions can experience a change. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle and volcanic activity also influence local rainfall.
Reality:
- The amount of precipitation falling globally or in the US has not seen a major change.
Are Sea Levels Rising?
Temperatures are rising, which causes the ice caps to melt, which causes the sea to rise. The news has predicted dire consequences from this, with many island nations being underwater in a few years.
Sea levels have been rising from at least the mid-1800s, and the rise has been fairly stable in New York.
Several of the comments below disagree with this assessment. They claim it is rising at an alarming rate. We can ask the people who live in New York what they think:
- Are New Yorkers fleeing the city? Is the population dropping? No.
- Has the government stopped issuing building permits for New York? No.
- Have companies stopped building? No.
- Has the government started building flood prevention systems? No.
Clearly, the residents of New York don’t think this is a crisis. Neither do I.
A study from 2011 looked at tide-gauge data from 57 US locations and found “the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records.”
Sea gauge data does have some issues. Gauges are mounted to land, and we don’t monitor the up or down movement of land very well. If the Earth under a gauge rises, then it will show a smaller sea level rise. And the reverse is also true. For example, New York is sinking, and taking the sea level gauge with it. So the amount of sea level rise in New York is actually less than reported.
Satellite data solves this problem, but it has only been collecting data for 30 years, not enough to determine a long-term trend.
Global Sea Level Rise
An independent analysis of global sea level gauge data was recently done by Roy Spencer, Climatologist and former NSA scientist, who showed that:
- Natural sea-level rise accounts for 1/2″ per decade (5″ per century).
- The human contribution to this is 3/10″ per decade (3″ per century).
A study (2025) that looked at global tide gauge data found that sea level rise is not accelerating in most areas. A few areas are experiencing an acceleration, but this can be explained by land disruptions that have nothing to do with climate change.
This study found that the median sea level rise is 1.5 mm/year, or 6”/ 100 years.
Sea levels are rising, but the rate is low. There is no sign of a short-term problem. The news headline “Melting Ice Threatens Shoelines” is certainly not correct.
Are Islands disappearing?
Islands are not very high, and even small rises in sea level could spell trouble.
You have probably heard of the Maldives? It’s one of the smallest countries in the world and the lowest country on Earth. On average, the ground here is only five feet above sea level. For years, news has warned of a looming catastrophe when sea levels rise.
More than 30 years ago, the AFP international news agency reported that all 1,196 islands that comprise the Maldives could be completely underwater over the next few decades (by 2015).
You would expect the islands to be shrinking as sea levels rise. However, a 2020 study showed that over the past decade, 59.1 % of Maldivian inhabited and resort islands expanded in size. Businesses are increasing the construction of new buildings and resorts. There are potential problems in the future, but for now, there is no looming crisis. All 1,196 islands are still above water.
Another example is the island of Tuvalu, a Polynesian island nation. News has frequently reported that they will sink into the ocean as sea levels rise. However, “a recent peer-reviewed study found eight of Tuvalu’s nine large coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and 75 percent of Tuvalu’s 101 smaller reef islands have increased as well”. The citizens are not worried. The population of Tuvalu has increased by 20 percent over the previous 30 years.
Reality:
- Sea levels are rising at a very slow rate.
- Islands are not sinking into the ocean.
Are Coral Reefs Dying
The oceans are getting warmer and more acidic as they absorb CO2. That is bleaching the coral reefs and killing them, or so it is claimed.
There are some important facts about coral that the news outlets ignore:
- Coral thrives in warm water. That is why it is found mostly in warm regions of the world.
- Almost none of the coral reefs in the world have been studied. The one that has been studied the most is the Great Barrier Reef around Australia, and due in part to its vast size, it has only been superficially studied.
- Coral bleaching can be caused by several factors, and it usually recovers in a few years.
- Coral has existed for 60 million years, surviving temperature and carbon dioxide levels significantly higher than those occurring today.
Coral reefs are very difficult to study. You can fly over them and take pictures, but that only shows you the top of shallow reefs. Most of the coral is found much deeper and requires divers to examine it. That is every expensive and why most coral is not examined.
How is the Great Barrier Reef doing? It is doing just fine. It is not dying. In fact, it is growing at both the northern and southern ends.
Growth at the southern tip may not be a surprise. The water there is warming, and that is what coral likes. So it is growing and doing well.
The surprise is that the northern end is also growing in places with warmer water. Ocean warming is not harming it.
The amount of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has decreased in the last couple of years, but it is at an all-time high since 1985.
How are coral reefs doing? It is estimated that 30% will be destroyed or seriously degraded in the next ten years, but not due to climate change.
The causes of reef degradation are many and man-caused: grounding of ships, improperly placed anchorages, destructive fishing practices, such as dynamiting or cyanide poisoning, overfishing, pollution, and sediment runoff.
Bleaching can be caused by sediment and fertilizer pollution. Even sunscreen oil can harm them. It can also be caused by heat waves and cold snaps. In most cases, they recover in a few years.
If ocean warming becomes extreme, coral will simply migrate towards the poles.
Reality:
- Coral is not impacted very much by global warming.
- Coral reefs are expanding where human activity is low.
The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP)
The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) is the largest body of consistently warm ocean water on Earth. It is often referred to as the “heat engine of the world” or the “steam engine of the world” due to its immense size and its role in generating heat, moisture, and intense atmospheric convection. The defining characteristic of the Warm Pool is that its Sea Surface Temperature (SST) remains consistently above 28 °C (82.4 °F) year-round.
You would expect that such hot water would have very little coral because it is just too hot for it.
The area is known as the Coral Triangle because it contains the overwhelming majority of the Earth’s coral species and coral reefs. It is home to 76% of the world’s reef-building coral species and makes up approximately 91% of the world’s total coral reef areas.
Coral likes growing in warm water!
Are There More Floods?
A devastating flash flood impacted the Texas Hill Country, particularly along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County, on July 4, 2025, resulting in numerous fatalities and widespread destruction. It was documented by all the news outlets, who blamed it all on climate change.
Was it climate change?
The area is called “Flash Flood Alley“ for a reason. The topography lends itself to such events. For our discussion, the key question is, was this an unusual event? Are floods in his region increasing? A single event is not proof of climate change. We need to see a longer-term trend to blame climate change.
Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NSA scientist, has done a good job analysing this. The rainfall data shows that this was not an unusual event. Flood events have been trending down since the 1978 flood.
Maybe the news outlets should have reported that climate change is reducing flood events?
The Department of Energy’s report entitled, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, reported that “when one looks at rainfall statistics across the U.S. extending back to the mid- to late-1800s, there is little evidence for anything that might be considered related to human-caused climate change”.
Using floods to determine climate change is tricky. A lot of the data shows financial losses, but it should be no surprise that this is going up. More people are living in more floodplains and building expensive buildings. There is also the issue that humans have moved earth to redirect flooding, which in many cases makes flooding worse in one area while protecting another. We can’t blame any of this on climate change.
Reality:
- Flood data does not show an increase in floods in the US
- Floods are largely influenced by human activity on the ground that has nothing to do with CO2 or global warming.
Is Climate Change a Threat
Climate change happens and will continue to happen. The important question is, is climate change a threat to our lives?
Based on the above data, it’s not. The data does not warrant the views of climate alarmists.
The truth is that global warming has been good for humanity. The following shows the impact since 1900. A reduction in deaths due to weather, longer life expectancy, higher GDP, and less poverty. On a global scale, it is hard to find a negative.
Several people commented that the above information is wrong, without providing evidence that it’s wrong. So I checked the data for the weather-related death rate.
It is very clear that global warming is saving lives:
As mentioned in the introduction, I am making this post public before it is complete. I will be adding many other topics in the coming weeks, months, and years.
It is important that all of us understand this topic better, so that we can influence government leaders to act more responsibly. Trying to solve a problem that does not exist costs dearly.
Number of People Killed by Climate-related Disasters
If climate-related disasters are increasing, you would expect more people to die from them. The general public and the news media certainly think so.
The reality is that the number of deaths from floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures has dropped dramatically. Most of this is due to human advancement in technology, but there is certainly no evidence of an increase.
Cost of Disasters
An increase in the number of disasters or the severity of disasters should result in an increase in cost.
The trend between 1990 and 2017 is down, not up. The opposite if disasters are on the rise.
There are charts that show an increase in actual costs for this time period, but they don’t take into account the increasing value of human-made structures. For NOAA’s charts, they say, “A major driver of increased costs of extreme weather is the increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades”. The above chart, based on GDP, more correctly reflects those costs.
Thanks for posting this! It lets me know that if you actually believe this oil-funded propaganda you’ve faithfully parroted here, your other gardening tips are probably garbage, too!
You are calling yourself a real climate scientist, but your common clearly shows you don’t even believe in science.
“oil-funded propaganda”? Those are words used by activists who know very little
A belief in one fact – and all my beliefs are wrong – how stupid!
The American Meteorological Society’s response to the DoE climate report:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/
This is a good example of how Climate activists try to deflect legitimate data.
“Lack of breadth across scientific fields. The science of climate change spans dozens of fields and sub-fields within the physical, natural, and social sciences relating to the Earth and environment. These include (but are not limited to): atmospheric physics; atmospheric chemistry; oceanography (physical, chemical, and biological); cryology; glaciology; biology; physiology; biogeography; biogeochemistry; health; and economics; among others. Each of these disciplines has hundreds of practicing scientists—tens of thousands of scientists overall. No group of five scientists can possess the disciplinary breadth encompassed by all who study climate change[2]. To be credible, scientific assessments must include authors who can characterize the full breadth of scientific evidence.”
They don’t have any actual, factual mistakes to discuss. So they claim that the authors don’t know enough.
Why not get their experts to actually look at the information presented in the report and critically analyze just one point, and show a flaw. That would have merit. Making generalizations about a group of people has no value to the discussion.
These 5 people did not do all the science research. They are reporting data and information produced by thousands of scientists.
To dismiss the American Meteorological Society as “climate activists” is going somewhere I cannot follow. Is there any evidence you would be willing to accept? I’ve asked you to describe how you would falsify your position and you dont answer.
1) the American Meteorological Society is not mentioned in this post.
2) I do mention it in the post called Are Humans Causing Global Warming? https://www.gardenmyths.com/are-humans-causing-global-warming/
In it I never said they are “climate activists”
What I said was:
A real survey was done in 2012 by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). It received 1,862 responses from 7,000 members. Only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made. The remaining 48% either think it happened, but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know.
Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question. Clearly not a 97% majority!
I made no judgement about the group.
“Study finds sea-level projections from the 1990s were spot on”
https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-sea-level-projections-1990s-were-spot
“Global sea-level change has now been measured by satellites for more than 30 years, and a comparison with climate projections from the mid-1990s shows that they were remarkably accurate, according to two Tulane University researchers whose findings appear in Earth’s Future, an open-access journal published by the American Geophysical Union.
“The ultimate test of climate projections is to compare them with what has played out since they were made, but this requires patience. It takes decades of observations,” said lead author Torbjörn Törnqvist, Vokes Geology Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences.
“We were quite amazed how good those early projections were, especially when you think about how crude the models were back then, compared to what is available now,” Törnqvist said. “For anyone who questions the role of humans in changing our climate, here is some of the best proof that we have understood for decades what is really happening, and that we can make credible projections.”
Study:
“With an acceleration of global sea-level rise during the satellite altimetry era (since 1993) firmly established, it is now appropriate to examine sea-level projections made around the onset of this time period. Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm. Projections of contributions from individual components were more variable, with a notable underestimation of dynamic mass loss from ice sheets. Nevertheless—and in view of the comparatively limited process understanding, modeling capabilities, and computational resources available three decades ago—these early attempts should inspire confidence in presently available global sea-level projections. Such multidecadal evaluations of past climate projections, as presented here for sea-level change, offer useful tests of past climate forecasts, and highlight the essential importance of continued climate monitoring.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533
Great News! The US Government Just Signed the Death Warrant for Eco-Catastrophism. You can read the official report here –
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf
Commenters who want to deny human caused climate change frequently say things like ‘the climate is always changing, this is no big deal’. And yes, the climate is always changing, but we have good scientific knowledge about how and why. Much of the variation in climate for the last millions of years is caused by ‘Milankovitch cycles’, which are cyclical changes in the tilt of earth relative to the sun, the circular vs oblong shape of its orbit, etc. We know how these cycles work and how they generally affect climate. They explain the climate pattern of the last period, where we’ve tended to have repeated ice ages of about 40,000 years, followed by warm periods of about 10,000 years. We are currently about 10,000 years into such a warm period. Based on the history of climate variation, and our understanding of the Milankovitch cycles, we should now, if anything, be cooling. The commenter who said greenhouse gases saved us from an ice age had at least a possibility of being correct. And if we had stopped emitting greenhouse gases in about 1970, that would have been great. But the fact that we are now warming instead of, as expected, cooling just shows how strong the effect of human emitted greenhouse gases is.
“Based on the comments, I think a lot of people did NOT read this last sentence. The earth is warming. Climate change is happening – it is always happening. But …. climate change is not changing at alarming rates.”
The climate definitely always changes. Climatologist have offered plenty of evidence. Alarming rates is subjective. The thing you need to embrace but are denying is that humans are increasing the rate of change (warming).
Here is the sentence I take the most exception to:
“Many top scientists are quite sure humans are not causing global warming.”
“Many” is subjective. The vast majority of climatologists agree humans burning fossil fuels has increased the rate of warming beyond natural levels. We have predicted it. We have measured it.
You can make the points that its no big deal and we should ignore it without denying it exists.
I think John does a very good analysis. He points to the centrality of Pavli’s argument: to use technically correct, but misleading, claims to create doubt about what the vast majority of scientists actually agree on. By focusing on the “rate of change” and the fact that it is measurable, he effectively responds to arguments based on guesses and vague formulations.
But “guesses and vague formulations” are the basis of climate models.
Why are you so certain that “humans are increasing the rate of change (warming)”? Could it be that you have heard that so much from sources you consider reliably knowledgeable that you don’t question the claim? There is a fundamental two-part flaw in the “human caused warming” theory, namely that some carbon dioxide emissions result from human activity, specifically hydrocarbon combustion, and any increase in atmospheric CO2 results in atmospheric warming. This theory ignores several important factors in observed warming.
First, the actual warming is tiny in comparison to daily temperature changes.
Second, paleoclimatology has revealed CO2 rise following warming as well as preceding it. In traditional science, this would be recognized as demonstrating the independence of CO2 level and temperature. But model-based claims insist that CO2 level is a “thermostat” (to use James Hansen’s term). This requires a novel view of science.
Third, not only is thermometer coverage very uneven around the world, but maximum and minimum readings are the standard way of reporting. Considering that weather stations are often sited at airports, well known as heat sources, and that any readings in an urban area are affected by the urban heat island (UHI) effect, it’s natural for readings to rise with increasing human activity and development, regardless of CO2 level.
Fourth, the amount of CO2 is tiny, despite being essential to life on the planet.
Fifth, the idea that a trace gas in a constantly moving atmosphere can trap heat like a greenhouse covering contains warmed air is so absurd that only someone ignorant of greenhouses could take it seriously. But that hasn’t deterred Hansen and other modellers from insisting they can mathematically model the atmosphere.
There are many other reasons to challenge the propaganda, but those five are solid ones.
I feel you are approaching the topic of climate change in an uncharacteristically unscientific way. Imagine someone presented you with graphs comparing the growth of plants in different plots with and with the addition of fertilizer. The plants all grew the same amount, and they claimed this shows that nitrogen is irrelevant to plant growth. You would use your knowledge of plant science to examine this claim, and question the type of fertilizer added, the prior state of the soil, etc. You would start with your knowledge of the science, and proceed to analysis of the claims and charts.
On the other hand, with your climate change post, you seem not to have studied the science. Instead, you start with various charts and claims, and proceed to them to judge the validity of the science. I feel you would be more successful if you used the same methodology you use for garden questions to understand the climate; understand the science first, then examine the charts and other data presented based on that science.
And the basic science is actually relatively simple and settled. Already 150 years ago scientists understood how CO2 can absorb certain wavelengths of light and re-emit them toward earth. They new releasing too much CO2 would cause earth to warm (since this was before the industrial revolution, they weren’t too concerned). Rejecting this characteristic of CO2 would require much of modern physics to be rejected, a very high bar indeed. We have good measurements of how much the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased (e.g. Mauna Loa direct measurements for the last 60+ yrs, captured gas bubbles etc before that). Fossil fuels come from plants, and plants absorb less of the carbon 13 isotope than is in the atmosphere in general. Measuring the decreased proportion of carbon 13 in the atmosphere shows that much of that increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. We also have information on the amound of fossil fuels we have burned, and know the resulting CO2 must be in the atmosphere (or absorbed by the ocean etc).
Knowing how CO2 works, knowing how much it has increased, and knowing most of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere has come from humans, makes any conclusion other than human caused climate change very difficult to support. There is a huge amount of scientific study on the details – feedback mechanisms like clouds and loss of reflectivity with melting ice, changing ocean currents etc. But the basics are fully based on well established science and easily measured data. I have no doubt that a person with your scientific mind and analytic abilities will be able to learn all this, and use it in the future to write better posts on the climate than this one.
I disagree with your example.
My comparison, using the plant analogy would be something like this:
People are claiming that adding compost tea to plants makes them grow super fast. Then we look at the data showing plant growth and we see no increase in growth as compost tea is being added to the plants.
Or if we use the climate example: “People are claiming that climate change is making storms more intense. Then we look at the data showing storm intensity and we see no increase in intensity, even though the climate is changing and CO2 is being increased.”
If I seen that, I would conclude that the claim about compost tea is wrong. Compost tea does not make plants grow faster. And I would conclude that climate change is not having a dramatic impact of storm intensity.
It is true that with plants, I can then go on and investigate it more, and “You would use your knowledge of plant science to examine this claim, and question the type of fertilizer added, the prior state of the soil, etc. ”
But I did not try to do that with climate change or this post. I am simply asking the question, what is the evidence to show that climate change is creating a catastrophic situation on earth?
Ah, If you had put up a post ‘simply asking the question’, maybe saying “I don’t know a lot about climate change, can anyone who knows more give me some evidence and explanations”, that would have been quite commendable. Of course, that isn’t what you did. You instead posted that climate isn’t changing at an alarming rate and there is no evidence it is (mostly) caused by humans. And when I, and others, give evidence, you ignore it. As I said above, we know by well established science how CO2 affects earth’s temperature, we know by direct measurement and other means how much the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, and we have clear evidence that most of the CO2 comes from human activities. When you say climate change is always happening (go study Milonkovitch cycles to understand how this is and is not relevant to our current situation), and it is not caused by humans, you do not give any scientific argument to refute any of these facts, and you do not offer any other reasonable explanations for the increase in CO2, increase in temperature etc. You include charts, like the one you say shows that ice cover in the arctic has not decreased, when with just a few minutes of thought and examination it is clear that chart shows no such thing – it shows ice cover in the Canadian Archipelago in winter, when no climate scientist would claim that area is not ice covered (though the volume of ice there even in winter has decreased…). (The arctic sea ice forum I reference, and you dismissed as a ‘discussion group’, has daily charts on arctic, and antarctic, sea ice area and extent, with easy comparisons with averages for those values from decades past, charts on ice volume, ice mass changes in Greenland, wind and sea currents affecting the ice, along with much discussion of the various forces affecting the ice and the probable feedback effects of ice loss).
The post does not sound like you are ‘simply asking the question’, and sincerely hope for answers. Maybe that is not your intent, and you are actually as interested in correct scientific answers to questions as I always thought you were from your other posts. If that is actually true, you should go study. I gave a couple off hand suggestions, and I’m sure many readers who know even more than I do could offer other and better resources.
I have 5 young grandchildren. Well established scientific consensus is that by the time they are my age, earth will be warmer then it has ever been during the existence of the human species. That is alarming, and is good reason for anyone with a scientific mind and an audience to put in the work to actually understand the situation before putting up a post like this one.
“I don’t know a lot about climate change, can anyone who knows more give me some evidence and explanations” “I don’t know a lot about climate change, can anyone who knows more give me some evidence and explanations” – NEVER SAID THAT.
I can see you’re trying to use an analogy, Robert, but it doesn’t work. Your analogy of storm intensity is a gross oversimplification based on a false assumption: that climate change can only be measured by a single factor. If you saw global average temperatures rising, sea levels rising, and ice caps melting, but no increase in storm intensity, you would still have enough evidence to draw a conclusion about climate change.
But the most telling part of your comment is that you admit that you ‘haven’t tried to do that’ – that is, to dig deeper into the climate science. Your question is no longer ‘what is the evidence?’, but rather ‘I don’t accept the evidence, so show me the evidence again.’
This is not scientific skepticism, but an unwillingness to accept evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. Trying to avoid responsibility for what you write by referring to yourself as “just asking questions” is a classic cowardly type of defense of denialism.
Michael, your comment is one of the most apt I have read in this discussion, and that out of many really great ones. Your analogy with a gardener’s methodology is absolutely perfect. You really put your finger on the problem: starting from a preconceived conclusion and then looking for data to confirm it is not science, whether it is a lack of nitrogen in soil or the climate.
Your description of the basic physics behind CO2 and your explanation of the isotope footprint of fossil fuels is crucial. Thank you for taking the time to present such a clear and scientifically accurate summary of what the evidence actually looks like.
I’m afraid you’re starting with a preconceived conclusion: The world is warming dangerously because of an increase in CO2. Unfortunately, that’s being presented as scientific fact, despite being no such thing and finding no support in climate data (not models), as Robert discovered and clearly presented. A common misconception is a misconception, no matter how widely held.
There is plenty of “support in climate data” and measurements. Spoon fed nicely here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lApLD5g1Nrs
I watched the greenhouse explanation and he does a very poor job in explaining that, and ignored the well established physics we know about saturation.
It is an under mentioned fact that the sun is presently in a maximum period. The climate junkies claimed the maximum was reached in 2014 but it is reappearing now with an increase in solar storms and emissions. In other words the sun is probably creating any change in earth climate as it has done for millenia. Both higher and lower energy output, as evidenced by geological evidence. By the way, human CO2 output is totally eclipsed by the periodic effects of volcanos.
Volcanos can cool the planet short term by releasing aerosols and ash particles. They also release CO2 which will warm the planet, but they release far less than humans produce by burning fossil fuels. Humans release on average 60 times the amount of CO2 as do volcanos.
Cite: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Solar variability does influence Earth’s climate, it is not the primary driver of the current global warming trend. If the Sun were the main driver of current warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere. However, observations show warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere, which is consistent with greenhouse gas warming. The warming from greenhouse gases is estimated to be over 270 times greater than the slight warming from the Sun since 1750.
Cite: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
CITE:
I can see that you mention two old arguments in the climate debate, but both have been disproved by science. If the sun’s activity were the cause of the warming, we would see a warming of the entire atmosphere, but we see a warming in the lower part of the atmosphere and a cooling in the upper part, which is a clear sign of a greenhouse effect.”
“In addition, scientists have shown that volcanoes emit far less than one percent of the amount of carbon dioxide that humans emit each year. It is a myth that volcanoes contribute more than human emissions.
Using special equipment scientists are extracting ice cores that allow them the best chance to see what CO2 levels on earth were over a million years ago. The results so far show today’s CO2 levels have been seen before.
https://youtu.be/IZhZgF3inAM?si=Bhx0Qe4cdqJHyw_E
We have seen these levels before, but during the Pliocene and the rate of increase (going to 280 to 400+ in 100 years) has never been observed. During the Pliocene the arctic was forested and sea levels were 20 meters higher than today. Homo sapiens did not exist.
Yes, current levels have been seen before. The last time CO2 levels were as high as today was about 16 million years ago. This was before our human species evolved. So it is likely life on earth will survive (but with many extinctions), it is less sure humans will. (And the fact that those historical CO2 level mostly correlate with global temperatures is another validation of the basics of climate science)
You use NASA as one of your climate change information resources. Here is what NASA actually says:
Science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence