Climate change skeptics
Climate change skeptics are individuals who question various aspects of anthropogenic climate change, a term that reflects the belief that human activities significantly contribute to climate alteration. This skepticism exists along a spectrum, ranging from reasonable scientific inquiries regarding data and modeling to outright denial of climate change itself. While some skeptics acknowledge certain elements of human impact on the climate, others express doubts about the reliability of climate models, data measurement, or the historical context of climate change. Skeptical views can also encompass beliefs that climate change might yield beneficial effects or that the economic and political costs of mitigation efforts outweigh the potential benefits.
The significance of these skeptical perspectives is rooted in the complexity of climate science, which involves vast data collection and the use of intricate models to predict future climate scenarios. This debate is not only scientific but also has profound implications for policy, economics, and national security. Furthermore, the discourse around climate change is often influenced by external interests, with some skeptics affiliated with organizations that oppose greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. While many questions remain about the extent and implications of climate change, there is a growing consensus on certain established facts, such as the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since the Industrial Revolution and its correlation with global warming. Understanding the range of skepticism is crucial for navigating the contentious climate change dialogue.
Climate change skeptics
Definition
In the climate change debate, the term "skeptic" is a generic term widely used to denote people who question some or all notions of anthropogenic climate change. The term "denier" was previously used but is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, many skeptics accept some aspects of anthropogenic climate change. Also, the term "denier" implies arbitrary or unreasonable doubt about anthropogenic climate change, whereas many doubters believe they have sound reason for being skeptical. The term "skeptic" has emerged as a general label used by both sides in the debate because it is reasonably neutral. There remain people on both sides who use more polemic and less neutral terms to describe the opposition.
The range of skeptical opinion on anthropogenic climate change spans a spectrum from relatively mild and reasonable concerns about data gathering or interpretation, on one hand, to outright denial that climate is changing at all, on the other hand. In roughly increasing order of dissent, skeptical positions include:
(1) Concerns about features not adequately modeled by climate studies, such as cloud cover
(2) Concerns about the need to program many assumptions into climate models
(3) Doubts about the validity of computer climate modeling in general
(4) Doubts about how data are measured
(5) Doubts about how to link recent quantitative measurements with older historical and prehistoric climate indicators
(6) Doubts about whether present climate changes are anthropogenic or are merely part of long-term natural climate changes
(7) Claims that warming of the climate might actually be beneficial
(8) Claims that climate change is too far along to reverse or mitigate
(9) Claims that attempts to halt or reverse climate change would impose unacceptable economic or political costs
(10) Claims that human activities have no effect on climate change
(11) Claims that no long-term climate changes are occurring at all
(12) Claims that the earth is actually cooling, or has begun to cool after a warming period
The first five of these positions are not skeptical per se. All scientists engaged in climate studies are well aware of the problems and uncertainties in climate modeling and other forms of climate prediction and projection. In many cases, scientists who are described in the media as skeptics are merely describing problems that are common knowledge in the scientific community. The polarity of the debate and, some argue, the desire of the media to maintain that polarity leads many scientists to be described as skeptics who are not skeptics at all; they may be fully convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change in general but critical of a particular study or hypothesis regarding that change.
Defenders of the sixth position argue that long-term climate cycles and solar variability are more important than anthropogenic changes. They are not necessarily skeptical of the existence of minor anthropogenic factors, but they doubt that such factors are the primary cause or that changes to those factors are capable of preventing global warming.
The seventh through ninth positions are policy positions rather than scientific ideas. Some people who take those positions agree that humans have modified the climate but believe the costs of trying to reverse the effects outweigh the benefits. They are not necessarily skeptics, but strong advocates of these policy positions are often either skeptics or are categorized as such within the context of climate policy debates. The last three positions amount to outright denial of anthropogenic climate change.
Significance for Climate Change
Confirming anthropogenic climate change involves collecting and interpreting vast amounts of data on a global scale and correctly understanding the physical mechanisms that store heat on Earth. Also, attempting to predict what climate will do in the future requires the use of extremely complex computer models that are still imperfect. Climate change is not merely a scientific question, but also one that has enormous implications for economics, public policy, and national security. If governments act to reduce climate change and the predictions of danger are wrong, trillions of dollars may be wasted and enormous harm done to freedom and the economy. If governments do not act to prevent climate change, the consequences may include coastal flooding, droughts, famine, and vast refugee movements. Anthropogenic climate change presents the frightening prospect of unavoidable risk where every course of action, including doing nothing at all, poses danger.
Some aspects of anthropogenic climate change are settled beyond debate. It is proven that the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased since the start of the Industrial Revolution (roughly since 1750), there is little debate over whether the increase is due to human activity, and it is well established that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Although there are dissenters, more and more people on both sides of the debate agree that Earth's climate is getting warmer. Any legitimate debate over anthropogenic climate change revolves around how much of the warming is due to human activity, how certain scientists can be of details regarding the human role, and whether it is possible or desirable to intervene.
Unfortunately, in addition to people who question elements of climate change theories for responsible scientific reasons or who debate whether attempts to affect climate change will be useful, there are skeptic people who exploit legitimate questions as a pretext for outright denial of climate change. For example, many prominent skeptics have ties to front organizations run by business and political interests opposed to attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as fossil fuel companies. Some skeptics distort or misinterpret credentials. A common example is for media weather reporters to comment on climate change, even though many do not have scientific credentials relevant to climate research (and local weather is often independent of global climate trends). In another example, Republican US senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma published a webpage in 2007 claiming that 650 prominent scientists rejected climate change, but detailed examination of the list shows that over half of those listed have no qualifications at all to comment on climate change.
Political and Public Trends in Climate Change Skepticism
Climate change skepticism has been most prominent in the United States, where many prominent political figures have expressed some level of doubt regarding climate science. Skepticism has been much more common among conservatives than among liberals. Conservative Republicans tend to favor free-market policies and limited government influence, positions that align with resistance to the climate change mitigation strategies advanced by many scientists and liberal politicians. In the mid-2010s, various media outlets revealed that oil companies had been aware of the contributions of fossil fuels to climate change since the 1970s, yet had supported skeptical politicians and organizations for decades in a misinformation campaign. Such efforts co-opted legitimate scientific skepticism and successfully directed public and media attention to overall climate change skepticism, undermining scientific consensus on the basic facts of climate change.
The politically partisan nature of climate change skepticism has been reflected in the policies of different presidential administrations. For example, the Republican administration of President George W. Bush took little action against climate change, rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and supporting practices that most scientists suggested would promote global warming, such as oil drilling in the Arctic. By comparison, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama publicly supported efforts to limit global warming, and enacted policies such as regulations on power plant emissions.
Climate change skepticism received a considerable boost, however, with the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, who had previously suggested climate change was a hoax perpetrated by China. While Trump was more ambiguous in his stated views on climate change on the campaign trail and after entering office, he sent a message by appointing noted climate change skeptics to his cabinet. For example, Trump's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, had previously sought to dismantle the agency and was on record as questioning even the established facts of climate change, such as the role of carbon dioxide. Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke were other administration members to have voiced some level of climate change skepticism, bringing otherwise fringe views into political power. Many observers worried that the mainstreaming of skepticism would have a chilling effect on government-funded climate change research, which could cause further misinformation and unfounded skepticism. The administration indeed moved away from action against climate change, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, omitting climate change from the EPA's strategic plan, and overturning Obama-era emissions regulations.
In 2020, Joe Biden was elected president, running on a platform that highlighted climate change initiatives, stating the importance of the state of the climate for the American economy. By 2022, the Biden Administration had implemented the country's most progressive domestic climate initiative. Additionally, at the twenty-seventh UN Climate Conference (COP27), Biden announced new initiatives to improve climate change prevention. However, following Trump's reelection to the presidency in 2024, the tides turned once again regarding American policy toward climate change. Similar to his first administration, Trump quickly withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, removed incentives for electric vehicles and clean energy projects, and rolled back several environmental regulations, among other policy reversals.
Despite these influences, public consciousness continued to progress toward awareness of anthropogenic climate change as a major issue. A September 2017 poll found that 67 percent of registered voters in the United States were concerned about climate change to some degree. Conducted in the aftermath of the destructive hurricanes Irma and Harvey, the poll suggested that a majority of Americans believe climate change has contributed to the frequency and severity of such storms. However, prominent skeptics continued to voice their beliefs. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Irma, Pruitt argued it was "insensitive" to even discuss climate change in the context of the storm. In 2022, Forbes reported that Democrats running for political office tended to prioritize global warming, while Republicans, on average, placed this concern at or near the bottom of their priority list. While this trend indicated a difference in opinion on how climate change correlates with political affiliation, according to Yale's 2022 Program on Climate Change Communications, 64 percent of Americans reported climate change concerns.
Bibliography
Dessler, Andrew E., and Edward A. Parson. The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate. Cambridge U P, 2006.
"Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces New Initiatives at COP27 to Strengthen U.S. Leadership in Tackling Climate Change." The White House, The United States Government, 11 Nov. 2022, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/11/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-initiatives-at-cop27-to-strengthen-u-s-leadership-in-tackling-climate-change/. Accessed 9 Feb. 2023.
Henry, Devin. "Trump Stacks Administration with Climate Change Skeptics." The Hill, 9 Sept. 2017, thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/349877-climate-skeptics-on-the-rise-in-trumps-epa. Accessed 8 Nov. 2017.
"Know the Facts: A Skeptic's Guide to Climate Change." Berkeley Earth. Berkeley Earth, 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
Marcin, Tim. "Donald Trump's Administration Denies Climate Change Exists, but Americans are Concerned." Newsweek, 13 Sept. 2017, www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-administration-denies-climate-change-exists-americans-concerned-664222. Accessed 8 Nov. 2017.
Nuccitelli, Dana. "The Top Ten Global Warming 'Skeptic' Arguments Answered." Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 6 May 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
Pearce, Fred. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. Beacon, 2007.
Perez, Nate, and Rachel Waldholz. "Trump Is Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (Again), Reversing U.S. Climate Policy." NPR, 21 Jan. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/01/21/nx-s1-5266207/trump-paris-agreement-biden-climate-change. Accessed 30 Jan. 2025.
Pittock, A. Barrie. Climate Change: Turning Up the Heat. Earthscan, 2005.