Taking on Climate Change Myths and Skeptics

Stefan Rahmstorf is one of the world's best known climate scientists and one of the most outspoken critics of climate change skeptics. Here he tackles the most common and pervasive climate change myths promoted by climate change deniers.

Return to article

Readers' Comments (11)

Blair Giles 2009-11-02 02:15:56

Double Standards
I always enjoy the double standards on display from the faithful. "You can't trust geologists, because they're not climate scientists (but ignore the fact that all our historical data is determined by digging up stuff buried deep underground)." Or maybe the claim that you need at least 25 years to develop a trend (but don't let that stop me stating that one record-breaking hurricane season in 2005 is proof!). I also enjoy the way you have misstated the arguments against AGW, so that you can dismiss them (albeit without actually providing evidence of this disproof). Maybe you should open your eyes for a few minutes and read a couple of papers by Richard Lindzen...

See all Replies (1)

Michael O'Hara 2009-10-22 00:05:42

Moving on beyond denial
Mr. Rahmstorf clearly points out the deniers' typical patterns and I thank him for that. When I deal with persons who have rational questions (skeptics) about the nature of climate change, I usually refer them to the extensive material available on

See all Replies (0)

Paul Cackett 2009-08-04 02:08:16

The Sun is still shinning
This article by Stefan Rahmstorf - Taking on Climate Change Myths and Skeptics - is almost as convincing as watching a movie star tell you to reduce your carbon foot print to save the polar bears. We know that in the earths recent past that temperatures were higher than today. Wine was produced in northern England and Greenland was green and supported agriculture and domestic animals. How is it then that relatively high temperatures today are any different to the relatively high temperatures, which started about 1000 and extended to 1350? I think that what we are seeing today is climate change; we see climate change from day to night from summer to winter and longer term we see cold periods and warm periods. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, not caused by humans, I think we need to raise our eyes and look to the heavens for the main reason for climate change, during the day of course, don’t look too long though.

See all Replies (0)

John Jorgensen 2009-07-28 00:03:17

re:Taking on Climate Change Myths
A skeptic, in the real sense, asks for evidences that both substantiate or refudiate any claim. A 'cherry picker'looks only at the evidence that supports his/her claim. The "climate skeptics" fall largely into the later category.

See all Replies (0)

Herbert von Snack 2009-06-30 17:12:08

We don't know how much is human-caused
There is a 4th kind of "denier": the "realist." He accepts that climate has risen and humans played a role, but is uncertain HOW MUCH of a role humans played and HOW MUCH of a role that anthropogenic carbon dioxide played (i.e. contrasted to humanity's land use changes). He knows that the climate predictions offered by the IPCC are not in line with observations, and talk of disaster/catastrophe seems a bit far-fetched given present data. He knows that the relationship between the feedback effect of higher levels of carbon dioxide and cloud cover is currently unknown, but ASSUMED to be positive in every single climate model. New research suggests it could be negative, and the effect of carbon dioxide could be minimal.

See all Replies (0)

John Harbinger 2009-06-21 18:59:25

Rahmstorf
He presents no evidence for his claims but makes generalised statements. He is stretching the truth when he says opponents are not climate scientists. In fact his own colleagues in the main are not climate scientists but modellers and economists. His boss at Potsdam is a physicist and Potsdam seems to have become a proxy home for Greenpeace, with activists Hare and Meinshausen both stationed there.

See all Replies (0)

Dean Turner 2009-06-13 02:36:54

Proving Global Warming is caused by humans
It is interesting to note that there is no actual evidence linking human activity to global warming.

The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims, not the skeptics.

Instead of labelling people who do not agree with your claims as skeptics, provide evidence that humans are indeed responsible for climate change. You can't.

Even the IPCC reports are deliberately vague with their claims about Anthropogenic Climate Change.

See all Replies (0)

Chris Schoneveld 2009-06-12 19:27:32

Lindzen-Rahmstorf exchange
For those who think Rahmstorf is on the "winning" side of the climate debate, it may be wise to read the scientific exchange between him and Prof Richard Lindzen from MIT. After I read that I became more sympathetic to the arguments of the skeptics.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/L_R-Exchange.pdf

See all Replies (0)

Jack Saporito 2009-06-11 19:22:16

Faulty conclusions
The IPCC admits they do not know a lot about aviation dynamics and there are viable studies out there using real data vs IPCC theoretical data that demonstrate that aircraft are the major cause of climate change since the beginning of the jet age (pr-1950's).

It is not necessarily the CO or even other emissions or especially the amounts of pollution when comparing aviation emissions to other sources; there are a lot of other aircraft dynamics in play.

Let me give a couple of examples out of the many:
1) Direct deposits: Most of the emissions from trains and road sources either fall to the ground or are absorbed within 750 feet of the source; whereas, all the various emissions from aircraft are spent above the inversion layer, directly where they do the most harm.

Thus, much of the damaging emissions from ground sources never make it that high (they just poison our breathing air and drinking water).

2) There are many other aircraft dynamics in play: (i.e., contrails, wing emission formation, masking and literally dozens of aircraft emissions that have never been studied, many because they are not naturally occurring on the ground.

Thus, when looking at climate issues, look to the closest source polluter first and look at it very closely, aircraft.

More information: http://areco.org/studies.htm#climate

See all Replies (0)

Lee Borden 2009-06-10 13:52:10

Thank you!
I appreciate your thoughtful and even-handed style in acknowledging the skeptics' arguments and pointing out their fallacy. I have bookmarked this page so I can share it with others when they repeat these arguments.

See all Replies (0)

Mike Mike 2009-06-11 09:47:27

Let's stick to the science.
Let's stick to the science. The IPCC predicted warming since when it has cooled. What does the scientific method force us to conclude? Not only is the theory not proven to be valid, on balance the evidence is that it is invalid.

And I'm sick to the back teach of these global warming moaners, because they keep telling the world:

See all Replies (1)

Return to article

Write a Comment

Do you have something interesting to add? Write a comment and discuss this topic with other readers. Comments should be on-topic, non-commercial, and not contain abuse of any kind.

Comment Policy