Climate Myths

Due to the controversial nature of climate change, misinformation and misrepresentations abound on the internet and in the media. While it is beyond the scope of this book to address this in serious detail, we wanted to highlight some of the common myths with brief responses which will hopefully assist readers in sourcing more reliable information.

It is important to note that distortions regarding climate change operate in both directions, with some understating the threats involved, with others overstating them. We will seek here to show the perils of both approaches.

• “If we don’t do better in addressing climate change, civilization as a whole is in danger!”

  As we’ve discussed, climate change is expected to greatly increase the frequency and intensity of a range of climate-related impacts. These impacts will threaten different regions to different degrees. In particularly vulnerable regions there are genuine risks of major upheaval. However, this is a far cry from saying that civilization as a whole is in danger.

  Unfortunately, those who are concerned that sufficient action is not being taken to address climate change are grossly overstating the threat involved (whether knowingly or unknowingly) in the hope that fear-mongering will press the world into action. While this tactic may motivate some to become greater advocates for change, it will also alienate many others, who are rightfully skeptical at the suggestion that the world is coming to an end. Instead of encouraging a more united, bi-partisan front to tackle this pressing challenge, it leads to greater polarization and dissent, perhaps doing far more harm to the cause of climate action than good.

  Furthermore, overstating the threat of climate change has been found to have led to a concerning increase in mental health issues, resulting from anxiety and panic associated with the issue, particularly in young people who are concerned that the future is bleak.

  I have argued elsewhere that a Torah-based perspective would encourage us to take climate change very seriously, while acknowledging that the situation we are in is somehow part of Hashem’s plan. The implication of this is that we should take responsible action without succumbing to panic.

• “Climate change is responsible for all the crazy weather we’ve been seeing in recent years, including the huge increase of destructive hurricanes.”

  We have to be careful about not getting carried away and assuming that all extreme weather that we experience can be attributed to climate change. Sometimes it results from what is called natural climate variability, climate and weather patterns that are not humanly caused, but are rather natural features of the climate system.

  Two examples of this which are widely discussed are El Niño and La Niña events, which warm and cool the sea surface temperatures respectively. These have been known to exert far-reaching influence on the climate system, at times being considered responsible for extreme weather events.

  That said, some research indicates that climate change might make El Niño events more powerful, although this is still the subject of ongoing research.

  Additionally, while climate science has advanced in leaps and bounds in recent decades, there is still a huge amount about the climate system that we have yet to unravel. For example, while there is good reason to expect that climate change would increase the number and intensity of hurricanes, such a conclusion has not yet been able to be verified by the available data.

• “The climate has always been changing. There have been warmer periods than this before.”

  It is true that the climate has always been changing, however, it has never been changing at the speed at which it is doing so now. Previous increases of global temperature took place over thousands of years. The rate of temperature increase that is happening today is over 10 times faster.

  As for there being warmer periods in the past, it is true that there have been times, such as the Medieval Warm Period, during which certain regions experienced higher temperatures than today. However, global warming focuses on the global mean temperature, which is higher today than then.

• “If the globe is warming, why are some places experiencing extreme cold spells?”

  When scientists say the globe is warming, they are saying that the global mean temperature is increasing. That doesn’t mean that the temperatures in some locations cannot be going down, just that on average the temperatures around the world are going up.

  Interestingly, global warming can cause some locations to actually get colder. By altering the earth’s consistent wind patterns, cold arctic air can be made to reach places it ordinarily wouldn’t reach.

• “If the truth of climate change is so clear, why are there experts who are skeptics?”

  Before we talk about the skeptics, let’s talk about the scientists who represent the consensus view.

  Climate science is an extremely complex field requiring a detailed working knowledge of advanced physics of either the atmosphere, ocean or land-surface, and often some combination of the three.

  Those who represent the consensus view on climate change:

  1. Have generally studied climate science to at least PhD level and spend many hours of their working week studying the literature, for the course of somewhere between several years to several decades.

  2. Are active researchers in the field who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

  3. Work in some of the highest-calibre scientific bodies worldwide (think NASA, National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society and hundreds more).

  People who don’t have that kind of experience (including myself, to be sure) really have no business expressing their own opinion on climate science, and certainly not if it conflicts with the consensus.

  Brilliant imposters

  Now, it sometimes happens - not just in relation to climate change - that people who are renowned experts in a particular field express mistaken opinions in other fields with which they don’t possess the required expertise. They leverage their reputation acquired for their area of expertise to lend credibility to their ignorant views. Whether they realize it or not, they are actually imposters. Nobel laureates for physics should not automatically be relied upon for their views on religion and Torah. Neither should famous psychologists, philosophers or even geologists, be automatically relied upon for their views on climate change. Although most listeners are often easily swayed by their presentation, due to their articulate expression and reputation for extremely high intelligence, those who have genuine expertise in the field can usually see the flaws in their claims quite easily.

  At the end of the day, high intelligence alone is usually not a sufficient basis to express an educated opinion on complex fields like climate change (or Torah, lehavdil). Intensive engagement in the field is also required of the standard discussed above. These imposters would have done the same in order to develop actual expertise in their own field, but when it comes to climate change, they will generally not have put in the necessary investment. Instead they will often rely on their intuitions, which will often not be sufficiently well-educated to be accurate.

  That is not to say that they will not have anything relevant to say on the matter. Those who look at a different field with fresh eyes may even be able to glean insights that experts have not seen. However, if they seek to undermine the scientific consensus, their views should be looked at with a great deal of suspicion.

  Other imposters

  Many skeptics claim to have the requisite qualifications, but have nothing of the sort. They may have a background in other areas of science, but not in climate science. For example, some boast a background in geology and earth-sciences, which often indicates that they work in the fossil-fuel industry. It might sound good, but this does not mean that they have any expertise regarding climate science.

  Genuine climate scientist skeptics

  There are a small number of bonafide climate scientists who challenge the consensus possessing the required expertise to have a meaningful viewpoint on the matter. Of those, some receive funding by the fossil-fuel industry and have been shown to engage in misleading conduct.

  Some, however, operate independently and still challenge the consensus view. How can that be?

  In virtually every field of science you will find qualified individuals who challenge the consensus. Because climate change is such a complex field with so many variables at play, it is always theoretically possible to present a contrary view. Those who challenge the consensus usually do so in a very nuanced way. They dispute certain conclusions, but not others. Those of us on the outside will not appreciate the nuances. Therefore, unless one wants to really study the area in depth (say, to PhD level) to be able to really understand the nature of the dispute, it would be foolish on this basis to challenge the consensus.

  Even if they are later found to be right and consensus is wrong, it would not be wise to side with them now. Consider, for example, that your cardiologist told you that you need bypass surgery. You shop around and find that 80% of cardiologists agree with that conclusion, while the other 20% tell you: “No, you don’t really need it”. Who would you listen to? (And that’s with 20% skepticism, not the tiny proportion of qualified climate scientists who challenge the consensus.)

• “Climate scientists endorse climate change in order to get their research funded.”

  Actually, there’s a lot more money to be made in denying climate change, as climate denialism is being heavily funded by the fossil-fuel industry. In many countries, demonstrating that climate change is happening is very unpopular with governments and citizens, and climate science departments within scientific bodies that support the consensus might, in some cases even more chance of having their funding cut than secured.

  The reason most cliimate scientists endorse climate change is because it is considered settled science. To deny Anthropogenic Global Warming is considered almost equivalent to saying the earth is flat.

• “Those calling for climate action are tree-hugging liberals with a ‘woke’ political agenda.”

  All member states of the United Nations are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty to combat “dangerous interference with the climate system”.

  There are large numbers of self-identifying conservatives who support climate action:

  • According to a Pew poll 67% of Republicans under the age of 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

  • There are conservative climate scientists, such as Professor Katharine Hayhoe - an evangelical Christian who lectures at Texas Tech University - and Professor Richard Alley, who is a member of the Republican party. (See his comments about politics and climate change.)

  • There are also conservative thinkers, such as Jerry Taylor and the American Conservative Coalition.

• “Compared to China and India’s greenhouse gas emissions, ours are negligible. If those countries don’t do anything, nothing we do will make any difference.”

  There are some important points to make in response to this claim:

  • As far as the United States is concerned, to date, it has released more greenhouse gases than any other country. It is currently the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China.

  • As far as lower emitting nations are concerned, it is important to realize that all nations are involved in negotiations at the COP climate summits to determine what commitments they will make in response to climate change. When nations refuse to do their bit to deal with climate change, this affects the willingness of other nations to act.

  • China is not doing nothing. In 2023 alone, China installed more solar panels than the US had done in its entire history. The result is that it is now estimated that China’s emissions have peaked and are now in decline.

  • For further discussion see this article.

• “The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from natural sources dwarfing those caused by humans. Our emissions make very little difference.”

  The first sentence of this claim is true, while the second is not. The reason it is not true is that although the natural carbon sources are huge, so are natural carbon sinks, mechanisms which absorb all of the natural carbon that is emitted. This is what creates the carbon cycle that ensure that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains balanced. Our emissions, although much smaller than the natural emissions, are not matched by the carbon sinks, leading to a net increase of carbon in the atmosphere.

  For more detailed information, see this article.

• “How much difference could a couple of degrees of warming really make?”

  It takes an incredibly massive amount of energy to heat the entire earth system by a couple of degrees. It should therefore not be surprising that such an injection of energy would have on weather and the climate.

  For details regarding expected impacts of 1.5 degrees of warming, see these articles by NASA - parts 1 and 2.

• “Over the years, climate activists have made many predictions of mass destruction that never took place. Why should we take them seriously?”

  It is true that those speaking in favor of climate action have at times made inaccurate predictions, often embarrassingly so. Generally speaking, climate scientists understand well the limits of scientific knowledge about the climate and would not ever be bold enough to make firm predictions. To do so would be to wander outside the bounds of good science. Those who have made such statements are generally not climate scientists. Unfortunately, their actions can unfairly lead to the discrediting of climate science as a whole.

  That is not to say that good climate scientists do not make mistakes. While the scientific enterprise seeks to minimize the impact of human error, it is not immune to having errors creep in. The scientific method is designed to generally be able to detect and correct these errors with the passage of time.

• “Scientists’ climate predictions are based on computer models, which we see are often hit-and-miss when it comes to weather prediction.”

  It is indeed true that trying to accurately predict the behavior of the climate in the long-term is currently humanly impossible. The physical and chemical laws which are at play are exceedingly complex and cannot always be accurately modeled. Furthermore, the granularity (or resolution) of the data that we can collect and process about the climate around the world is still quite limited. Although data collection methods are always improving, as is the computational power of climate models, there is so much going on that is not able to be captured.

  So then what do climate models do? Rather than trying to accurately predict the behavior of the climate, climate models seek to clarify the range of possibilities of how different climate systems could conceivably behave. Climate scientists might also perform statistical analyses seeking to calculate the relative risks associated with those scenarios. For instance, they might consider that a “business-as-usual” scenario makes an extreme heatwave x times more likely to happen than if global warming was not happening, or y times more likely to happen than if we were to ambitiously reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  Also, predicting the weather is more complicated than predicting the climate in some ways, because you need to not just predict what’s going to happen, but exactly where and when it will happen as well in order to be useful. For example, you might be able to accurately predict that rain will be coming within a certain window of time and over a certain range of location, and that might be sufficient for climate prediction purposes. But if you can’t tell people whether it’s going to fall on their city or a mile out into the ocean, or whether it will fall tonight or tomorrow morning, that’s not going to be a particularly useful prediction for weather purposes.

• “Climate solutions are well-meaning, but end up causing even more damage to the environment overall. Also, the privileged countries push the initiatives, while the biggest burden of paying for them typically falls on the underprivileged.”

  Climate denialists are fond of bringing examples of climate solutions which they argue cause more damage to the environment than the benefit they are supposed to bring. A common example given is the loss of life that wind turbines have been shown to cause to birds and bats.

  With issues like this, it’s very important to source accurate information which does not seek to cherry-pick the data in order to reach a particular conclusion. In the given example, while it is true that some of the earlier wind projects caused significant loss of wildlife, studies have shown that wildlife impacts vary by location. Wind projects which are properly situated negatively impact wildlife and the environment among the least of all types of developments. Ongoing research is constantly seeking to find ways to reduce the negative impact on wildlife even more.

  The second claim, about the privileged and the underprivileged, is also only telling half the story. It is true that many developing countries cannot afford the high upfront cost of changing over to renewables. However, it is also true that these very same countries are the ones most severely affected by climate impacts. As such, the change is one that needs to happen. The question of how they will be able to afford that change is one of the numerous challenges that the world is collectively trying to solve. The fact that it is a challenge is certainly not a reason to not undertake it.