Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
Posted on 29 May 2015 by Guest Author
The possibility that a warming Arctic could be influencing extreme weather elsewhere in the world seemed to receive a boost this week. A new paper presented further evidence linking diminishing Arctic sea ice to extreme cold winters elsewhere in the northern hemisphere.
Lead author, Prof Jennifer Francis from Rutgers University, tells us: "Our new results, together with other new studies in this field of research, are adding substantial evidence in support of the connection."
But not everyone is so sure. We asked a few scientists in the field how strong they consider the evidence linking Arctic sea ice and extreme weather to be. Here's what they told us.
The US, Canada, Japan and UK have all experienced very cold and snowy winters in recent years. In 2012, a paper by Francis and Dr Stephen Vavrus suggested that this extreme weather was a result of rapid warming in the Arctic.
Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing around twice as fast as the global average. As Arctic sea-ice diminishes, energy from the sun that would have been reflected away by sea-ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.
Posted on 28 May 2015 by Guest Author
Many observations have shown that sea level rose steadily over the 20th century – and at a faster rate than over the previous centuries. It is also clear from both satellite and coastal observations that seas have risen faster over the past two decades than they did for the bulk of the 20th century.
More recently, several studies have shown that the flow of ice and water into the oceans from Greenland and West Antarctica has increased since 1993. This raises an interesting question: has the rate of sea-level rise changed since 1993, when satellite observations began to give us a more complete picture of the global oceans?
Our new research tackles this question by comparing satellite observations of sea level with those measured at the coast by tide gauges. We use this comparison to determine small biases in the satellite data that have changed over time. Understanding how the land supporting the tide gauges is moving becomes an important part of these comparisons. We found three important results.
First, the seas really have risen faster since 1993, relative to the slower rate over previous decades as evident in the tide gauge data.
Second, comparison of the coastal and satellite measurements reveal small differences in the early part of the satellite record from 1993 to 1999. After allowing for land motion at the tide gauges, the first six years of the satellite record marginally overestimates the sea-level trend. Our revised estimate of global mean sea-level rise for the satellite era (1993 to mid-2014) is about 2.6-2.9 mm per year (the exact value depends on how we estimate land motion) – slightly less than the previous estimate of 3.2 mm per year.
Posted on 27 May 2015 by John Hartz
- America’s future has wind in its sails
- China's CO2 emissions have been plummeting lately. What's going on?
- Climate change denial is a threat to national security
- Climate impacts leave rainforests on edge of destruction
- Global schemes to price CO2 emissions worth almost $50 bln – World Bank
- Heat wave kills more than 1,100 in India
- How fossil fuel burning nearly wiped out life on Earth – 250m years ago
- Jeb Bush fumbles for "moderate" stance on climate, falls on face
- Leading health charities should divest from fossil fuels, say climate scientists
- Nature faces off against politics in North Carolina
- Paris can't be another Copenhagen
- Stern: Shell is asking us to bet against the world on climate change
- The glaciers of Mount Everest could shrink dramatically due to global warming
- U.S., Mexico, Canada to collaborate on climate adaptation
- World has no choice but to decarbonise - UN climate chief
America’s future has wind in its sails
Wind turbines have only a tenuous link to most Americans’ daily lives because wind farms generate less than 5 percent of all of the electricity produced today.
As reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow a changing climate becomes more urgent, though, wind is expected to become one of the country’s largest sources of energy by mid-century. The U.S. Department of Energy has published two new maps that put that future in more concrete terms.
America’s Future Has Wind in its Sails by Bobby Magill, Climate Central, May 26, 2015
Posted on 27 May 2015 by dana1981
Look, first of all, the climate is changing. I don’t think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you. It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t even have a conversation about it.
Unfortunately, denial of human-caused global warming may be a prerequisite for any viable Republican presidential candidate. Conservative and Tea Party Republicans are the one group of American voters among whom Stage 2 climate denial is the majority position, but they’re also the group that most reliably votes in GOP primary elections.
In American politics, a candidate first has to win a primary election before reaching the national ballot. For Republicans, that means appealing to conservatives. It’s not clear that a Republican presidential candidate can accept climate science and run a viable primary campaign.
Nevertheless, the scientific evidence supporting human-caused global warming is just as strong as the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer. Last year, the IPCC stated with 95% confidence that humans are the main cause of the global warming that’s occurred since 1950. Their best estimate is that we’re responsible for about 100% of the warming during the past six decades.
Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, put together this graph showing what’s known as the probability density function of the human contribution to global warming since 1950, based on the IPCC report.
Posted on 26 May 2015 by Kevin C
The slowdown in global warming is a subject of intense study. Is it a real physical effect, or a few chance cool years, or something more complex? Could it have been predicted? Can we understand it in retrospect? The following lecture and commentary from the Denial101x course attempt to summarize recent work on the subject. However it is a very fast-moving field, so this summary can only cover a small fraction of the material and will quickly become out-of-date (if it is not already so).
Making Sense of the Slowdown: Commentary
The term 'hiatus' is often applied to describe a slowdown in the rate of global warming since the late 1990s or the early 2000s. However there are two separate questions which are often confused in discussion of the hiatus. The first is whether there has been a change in the rate of warming, while the second concerns whether the rate of warming is in line with model projections.
When looking at the rate of warming, the year-to-year variability makes it hard to draw conclusions from short periods, especially if we are allowed to cherry-pick a start date. Separating a change in the rate of warming from a few chance cool years is hard, however careful analysis of climate models suggest that recent changes in the rate of warming can occur naturally, but are uncommon (Roberts et al 2015).
Posted on 25 May 2015 by John Mason
It's a funny thing. One of the most viral news items concerning the UK General Election on May 7th 2015 came from my constituency of Montgomeryshire. Apparently, someone took the time and trouble to draw a remarkably detailed sketch of a penis in the box that they would have otherwise crossed had they been voting for the incumbent Conservative MP, Glyn Davies. In other headlines, three high-profile party leaders resigned within an hour of one another the following morning but everybody turned over and went back to sleep on that one.
I hasten to add that the artwork had nothing to do with me. I voted for one of the other guys – tactically, which in the context of Glyn's significantly increased majority turned out to be a wasted vote. I should have voted with my heart – for the Greens or Plaid Cymru. Unlike the other parties, at least I can state that I have met the leaders of the latter two in person and have found them to be – well, real, passionate and principled people, as opposed to the used car salesmen stuffed into suits to look “respectable”, that tends to be the norm over here.
So, what has this to do with climate change, readers may well be asking? Quite a lot in fact. What troubles me about the outcome of Election '15 is that voters, like turkeys vaguely approving the advent of Christmas, seem to have voted for more Business As Usual. But they have done so in a political atmosphere so clouded with media-served misinformation that it is hard to know where to start with the debunking. So let's put UK politics to one side now and stick to our speciality: dealing with another channel of misinformation, that related to global warming. Take a look at this letter, from the latest issue of the County Times, a weekly newspaper that covers Powys, the larger local authority area of which Montgomeryshire is a part:
Posted on 24 May 2015 by John Hartz
Why the 97 per cent consensus on climate change still gets challenged by Andy Skuce garnered the highest number of comments of the artilces posted on SkS during the past week. Dana's Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing attracted the second highest number of comments.
El Niño Watch
El Niño could bring drought and famine in west Africa, scientists warn by Karl Mathiesen, The Guardian, May 21, 2015
May Climate Briefing: El Niño Heating Up by Elisabeth Gawthrop, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, May 22, 2015
El Niño 2015 considered rare, aims to rewrite heat records by Scott Sutherland, The Weather Network, May 23, 2015
Toon of the Week
Hat tip to I Heart Climate Scientists
Posted on 23 May 2015 by John Hartz
- 25 newspapers team up to bring attention to climate change
- Bad news keeps flowing from Antarctica
- Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
- Cutting warming to 1.5°C could endanger food supply
- France's Hollande concerned about slow progress in climate talks
- Limiting global warming to 1.5C is still possible, say scientists
- Seeds of Time - preserving food resources in a hot future climate
- Shell boss warns that unchecked fossil fuel burning will cause global warming
- The surprising links between faith and evolution and climate denial — charted
- We need real consensus, not Bjorn Lomborg’s illusion of it
25 newspapers team up to bring attention to climate change
The Guardian's Keep It In The Ground campaign has centered around publishing climate stories aggressive enough to alienate major oil companies.
Now, it's convinced 25 other global newspapers to gang up together on Big Oil.
The Guardian's partners include the world's influential daily papers including Le Monde, El País, China Daily, the Sydney Morning Herald, India Today, and the Seattle Times.
The newspapers will share each other's articles on climate coverage in an effort to pressure diplomats to craft a stricter new global agreement to reduce emissions at the UN's global summit on climate change on December 11. the Guardian's coverage, already the most activist in its approach, will begin appearing in 25 major newspapers around the world as part of a new content sharing agreement, coordinated by the Global Editors Network.
25 newspapers team up to bring attention to climate change by Jason Abbruzzese, Mashable, May 23, 2015
Posted on 22 May 2015 by John Abraham
So often, we talk about “proving” climate change is happening, or articulating changes we expect in the future from increased extreme weather. We should also talk about adaptation - how can we adapt to a future climate?
A recent film, being shown in theaters in New York City now and Los Angeles next Friday is a great success story about adaptation; decisions we can make now that may influence the fortunes of future generations. The movie, called Seeds of Time, is directed by Oscar-nominee Sandy McLeod. It is narrated by Dr. Cary Fowler who identifies the challenges agriculture will face with climate change and other potential disasters. Cary was former Executive Director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Their goal was to put together an international plan to preserve global genetic diversity.
Why is it important to preserve our future food resources? Well in today’s climate, food production is susceptible to extreme weather swings, particularly droughts and floods. Here in the United States, we are suffering through the third major drought since 2011. The costs to this country are billions of dollars. The current California drought is the worst in over 1,200 years.
Posted on 21 May 2015 by dana1981
US Congress periodically holds hearings on issues related to climate change. Because the subject has become a partisan one in America, they generally follow a predictable pattern – Democrats invite science and policy expert witnesses who agree with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming and the need to address it, and Republicans invite witnesses who disagree.
John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is one of the fewer than 3% of climate scientists who publishes research suggesting that humans aren’t the primary cause of the current global warming. He’s thus become one of Republicans’ favorite expert witnesses.
Last week, the Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing to discuss draft guidance by the the President’s Council on Environmental Quality to include carbon pollution and the effects of climate change in the consideration of environmental impacts of federal projects, as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. Needless to say, the Republicans on the committee don’t like the idea, as is clear from the hearing highlights and lowlights in the video below.
Christy Manufactures Doubt on Model Accuracy
Given that the hearing was ostensibly about environmental policy, most of the witnesses were policy experts. John Christy was the lone climate scientist invited to testify. His testimony focused on manufacturing doubt about the accuracy of climate models, climate change impacts, and about individual American projects’ contributions to global warming. On the accuracy of climate models, Christy played rather fast and loose with the facts, saying in his written testimony (emphasis added),
Posted on 20 May 2015 by Rob Painting
Why should there be a 'hotspot' in the atmosphere above the tropics?
Because most of Earth's incoming energy from the sun is received in the tropics, strong evaporation there removes a lot of heat from the ocean surface. This heat is hidden (latent) as it is used to convert water from a liquid to a gaseous form. Readers are probably familiar with this process as it is the same one in which we are cooled when sweat evaporates off our bodies during strenuous exercise. Our skin cools as heat is used up in the act of evaporating away the sweat.
Strong evaporative uplift occurs near the equator due to the intense solar heating of the ocean there, and this forces the evaporated water (water vapour) to ascend up through the atmosphere. Because the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with increasing height (known as the lapse rate), this has the effect of cooling water vapor until it reaches a point where it condenses back into a liquid form (forming clouds and rainfall) - liberating the hidden (latent) heat into the upper atmosphere. With the great bulk of atmospheric moisture being concentrated in the tropics, this ongoing process should lead to greater warming in the tropical troposphere than at the surface.
Posted on 19 May 2015 by John Hartz
- California joins other states, provinces in climate change agreement
- Climate change threatens electric power supply in California, report warns
- FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human CO₂ emissions and global warming in error?
- Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF
- Heat is piling up in the depths of the Indian Ocean
- How conservatives lost the plot over the rejection of Bjorn Lomborg
- May’s torrential rainstorms super-charged by strengthening climate patterns
- New evidence that climate change is altering Hurricane season as we know it
- Past 12 months tied for warmest on record
- Shell accused of strategy risking catastrophic climate change
- Shellfish species shrinking as rising carbon emissions hit marine life
- Shell Oil’s cold calculations for a warming world
- What is equitable for planet Earth? India and climate change: our record, role and responsibility
- We are ignoring the new machine age at our peril
California joins other states, provinces in climate change agreement
Gov. Jerry Brown signed an agreement Tuesday with leaders from 11 other states and countries pledging cooperation to battle climate change.
“This global challenge requires bold action on the part of governments everywhere,” Brown said in a statement. “It’s time to be decisive. It’s time to act.”
The agreement includes the states of Oregon, Washington and Vermont, as well as the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario in Canada, the states of Baja California and Jalisco in Mexico, and the British country of Wales. Also involved are states and provinces in Brazil, Germany, and Spain.
California joins other states, provinces in climate change agreement by Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2015
Posted on 19 May 2015 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from ClimateSight
Almost four years ago I took a job as a summer student of Dr. Steve Easterbrook, in the software engineering lab of the University of Toronto. This was my first time taking part in research, but also my first time living away from home and my first time using a Unix terminal (both of which are challenging, but immensely rewarding, life skills).
While working with Steve I discovered that climate model output is really pretty (an opinion which hasn’t changed in the four years since) and that climate models are really hard to install (that hasn’t changed either).
At Steve’s suggestion I got a hold of the code for various climate models and started to pick it apart. By the end of the summer I had created a series of standardised diagrams showing the software architecture of each model.
These diagrams proved to be really useful communication tools: we presented our work at AGU the following December, and at NCAR about a year after that, to very positive feedback. Many climate modellers we met at these conferences were pleased to have a software diagram of the model they used (which is very useful to show during presentations), but they were generally more interested in the diagrams for other models, to see how other research groups used different software structures to solve the same problems. “I had no idea they did it like that,” was a remark I heard more than a few times.
Between my undergrad and PhD, I went back to Toronto for a month where I analysed the model code more rigorously. We made a new set of diagrams which was more accurate: the code was sorted into components based on dependency structure, and the area of each component in a given diagram was exactly proportional to the line count of its source code.
Here is the diagram we made for the GFDL-ESM2M model, which is developed at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton:
Posted on 18 May 2015 by Andy Skuce
Here are some excerpts from an article I wrote for the magazine Corporate Knights, published on May 14, 2015. Some references and links have been added at the end.
In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes published a short paper in the journal Science concluding there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature that global warming was caused by humans.
After the paper’s release, there was some unexpectedly hostile reaction. This prompted Oreskes and her colleague Erik Conway to go even deeper with their research, leading to the publication of the book Merchants of Doubt. It documents how a small group of scientists with links to industry were able to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and delay effective policy on DDT, tobacco, acid rain and, now, global warming.
Fast forward to two years ago: a team of volunteer researchers (myself included) associated with the website Skeptical Science decide to update and extend Oreskes’ research. Led by University of Queensland researcher John Cook, we analyzed the abstracts of about 12,000 scientific papers extracted from a large database of articles, using the search terms “global warming” and “global climate change.” The articles had been published over a 21-year period, from 1991 to 2011.
As an independent check on our results, we also sent emails to the more than 8,500 scientist authors of these articles. (These were the scientists whose e-mail addresses we were able to track down). We asked them to rate their own papers for endorsement or rejection of man-made global warming.
Both approaches yielded a very similar result: 97 per cent of the scientific literature that expresses an opinion on climate change endorses the expert consensus view that it is man-made. The results were published in May 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
We were astonished by the positive reception. Mention of the paper was tweeted by U.S. President Barack Obama, Al Gore and Elon Musk, among others. Obama later referenced it in a speech at the University of Queensland, while U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has referred to the 97 per cent consensus in recent speeches. John Oliver based an episode of his HBO comedy show Last Week Tonight around it, a clip viewed online more than five million times.
Posted on 17 May 2015 by John Hartz
Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes by Dana generated the highest number of comments among the articles posted on SkS this past week. John Abraham's New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere garnered the second highest number of comments.
El Niño Watch
The rise and rise of the 2015 El Niño by Agus Santoso, Andréa S. Taschetto, Matthew England, and Shayne McGregor, The Conversation, May 12, 2015
Toon of the Week
Hat tip to I Heart Climate Scientists
Posted on 16 May 2015 by John Hartz
- Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus approach is blind to inequality
- Clean energy access, a major sustainable development goal
- Geoengineering is fast and cheap, but not the key to stopping climate change
- How rivers bury carbon at sea
- India, China commit to work together on climate change
- New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere
- One magical politician won't stop climate change. It's up to all of us
- The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit
- The Carbon Brief interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE
- What is the ‘warm blob’ in the Pacific and what can it tell us about our future climate?
Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus approach is blind to inequality
Bjorn Lomborg is, undoubtedly, seriously concerned with poverty and inequality. Both in the work of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) and in his popular writings, this is a common theme. He has championed some very progressive ideas, including eradicating barriers to international migration. Unfortunately, he has also used rather distorted arguments and evidence about inequality to attack some of his favourite bugbears, such as subsidies for renewable energy.
The problem is that the central methodology of Lomborg and the CCC is at best blind to inequality and, in its application, could actually increase it. Moreover, there are good arguments to suggest that if we take a broader view of inequality to include intergenerational equality, the CCC methodology is not even equality-blind; it is equality-averse.
Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus approach is blind to inequality by Graham K Brown, The Conversation AU, May 14, 205
Posted on 15 May 2015 by John Abraham
A new study, just published in Environmental Research Letters by Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nashant, has answered a number of questions about the rate at which the Earth is warming. Once again, the mainstream science regarding warming of the atmosphere is shown to be correct. This new study also helps to answer a debate amongst a number of scientists about temperature variations throughout different parts of the atmosphere.
When someone says “The Earth is warming”, the first questions to ask are (1) what parts of the Earth? and (2) over what time period? The Earth’s climate system is large; it includes oceans, the atmosphere, land surface, ice areas, etc.
When scientists use the phrase “global warming” they are often talking about increases to the amount of energy stored in oceans or increases to the temperature of the atmosphere closest to the ground. By either of these measures, climate change has led to a progressive increase in temperatures over the past four decades. But what about other parts of the climate system? What is happening to them?
One important area to consider is the troposphere. It is the bottom portion of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. Tropospheric temperatures can be taken by satellites, by weather balloons, or other instruments. In the past, both satellites and weather balloons reported no warming or even a cooling.
However, that original work was shown to be faulty and now even the most strident sceptics admit that the troposphere is warming. But obtaining an accurate estimate of the rate of warming is difficult. Changes to instruments, errors in measurements, short term fluctuations all can conspire to hide the “real” temperature.
This is where the new study comes in. The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement. They make three conclusions.
Posted on 14 May 2015 by John Hartz
- A climate-modeling strategy that won’t hurt the climate
- Antarctic Larsen-C ice shelf at risk of collapse, study warns
- Bureau of Meteorology declares El Nino event in Australia
- Ice loss in west Antarctica is speeding up
- Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes
- Sea level rise is on the up and up
- The arguments that convinced a libertarian to support aggressive action on climate
- The key climate and clean energy problem of 2015: Doing a lot isn’t the same as doing enough
- The rise and rise of the 2015 El Niño
- Troubling new research says global warming will cut wheat yields
A climate-modeling strategy that won’t hurt the climate
It is perhaps the most daunting challenge facing experts in both the fields of climate and computer science — creating a supercomputer that can accurately model the future of the planet in a set of equations and how the forces ofclimate change will affect it. It is a task that would require running an immense set of calculations for several weeks and then recalculating them hundreds of times with different variables.
Such machines will need to be more than 100 times faster than today’s most powerful supercomputers, and ironically, such an effort to better understand the threat of climate change could actually contribute to global warming. If such a computer were built using today’s technologies, a so-called exascale computer would consume electricity equivalent to 200,000 homes and might cost $20 million or more annually to operate.
For that reason, scientists planning the construction of these ultrafast machines have been stalled while they wait for yet-to-emerge low-power computing techniques capable of significantly reducing the power requirements for an exascale computer.
A Climate-Modeling Strategy That Won’t Hurt the Climate by John Markoff, New York Times, May 11, 2015
Posted on 14 May 2015 by Guest Author
This is a guest post by Heiðar Guðnason.
Whenever a hot topic or current events are discussed, especially in the comment section of social media newspapers there seems to be a tendency to make blatant and uncritical remarks. Some people even go so far as claiming that they have their own private opinions, not realizing they also act on them. This kind of mindset and the statements that follow are all too common in today´s social media. The “Hrakningahandbók” (Debunkers Handbook) serves as a guide not only to help debunk such statements but also to make one aware of his or her innate prejudices.
It helps applying a critical mindset whenever reviewing or making statements – not to accept them without proper arguments. However, this process or critical mindset is not always easy. Take for example when there is no scientific consensus or certain views go against one's worldview. It is when confronted with these kinds of threats that critical thinking is at its most importance, not jumping on the cherry picking bandwagon just because the arguments go against what you already believe.
The “true” debunkers' agenda is not to undermine or dispute opinions whenever they see fit, but to keep an open mind – including innate beliefs – weighing in the evidence and making an informed decision. If you cannot make a judgement on proper grounds, postpone it – that’s what being a skeptic is all about. Follow the arguments wherever they may lead, and realizing that scientific criticism is not a negative thing but a truth seeking protocol that ensures that better ideas come out on top. This critical mindset not only applies on other people´s ideas but also your own; sometimes you have to debunk yourself and this handbook can provide the tools.
There may come a time when opinions, statements or arguments need to be debunked, whether they be your own or someone else’s. Some opinions are of such nature that they are simply dangerous, e.g. those regarding vaccinations. In such cases, when people’s health literally depend on people making an informed decision the “Hrakningahandbók” may indeed save lives. When confronted with such cases, in order to succeed you need all the tools at your disposal, which makes the handbook valuable.
Posted on 13 May 2015 by dana1981
It’s the hottest trend in climate denial. Long gone are the days when people can publicly deny that the planet is warming or that humans are responsible without facing widespread mockery. Those who oppose taking serious action to curb global warming have mostly shifted to Stage 3 in the 5 stages of climate denial.
- Stage 1: Deny the problem exists
- Stage 2: Deny we’re the cause
- Stage 3: Deny it’s a problem
- Stage 4: Deny we can solve it
- Stage 5: It’s too late
Each of the 5 stages shares one main characteristic – all can be used to argue against efforts and policies to slow global warming. If the planet isn’t warming, or if we’re not causing it, or if it’s not a problem, or if we can’t solve it, or if it’s too late, in each case there’s no reason to implement climate policies.
People who favor the status quo will often bounce back and forth between the various stages of climate denial. However, as Stages 1 and 2 have become increasingly untenable, Stage 3 has become more popular.
As a result, so-called “Lukewarmers” have emerged. This group believes that the climate is relatively insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, and hence that climate change will proceed slowly enough as to not be a serious concern in the near future. This group has also become known as “Luckwarmers,” because they essentially want to gamble our future on the small chance that the best possible case scenario will come to fruition.