The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
Super fact 52 : Climate change, including increased heat, extended drought, and a thirsty atmosphere, has been a key driver in increasing the risk and extent of wildfires in the United States, particularly the western United States during the last two decades. The number of Wildfire acres burned in the United States has significantly increased even though the number of wildfires has not. Another important factor is forest management.
Wildfire acres burned in the United States. Number of acres of wildfire burned in a given year in the United States. This is shown from 1983 onwards, when consistent reporting began. Data source : National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). Presented by OurWorldinData/natural disasters.
To some people this does not come as a surprise. However, due to the complexity of the issue combined with political spin, this is a surprise to me, or even something they refuse to believe. I’ve come across many people who are surprised to hear that there really is a connection between climate change and wildfires in regions of the world which are getting dryer and hotter due to climate change. There are also others who are surprised to hear about the complex picture and the importance of good forest management. In any case, since it is a surprising fact to many, and an important fact, I consider it a super fact.
In general, you can’t look at wildfire statistics and draw conclusions without considering the context. Below are some considerations.
Wildfires are not started by climate change or poor forest management. They are started by lighting, falling powerlines, campfires that are not properly put out, and sometimes by arson. That doesn’t mean that climate change and poor forest management does not increase the risk and extent of wildfires.
Research organizations such as NOAA recognize that wildfire is a natural part of the western US ecosystem. However, climate change is significantly exacerbating the problem by creating conditions more conducive to intense and widespread wildfires.
Suppression of fire in certain ecosystems may in fact increase the likelihood that a wildfire will occur.
In the past, forests evolved with frequent, low-intensity fires that helped clear out underbrush. They can have ecological benefits. Therefore, the number of wildfires may not have increased over the last 100 years.
Local conditions and forest management have evolved through time complicating the wildfire statistics around the world.
Highly skilled hotshot firemen crew working in a challenging remote area with flames reaching the treetops. Shutter stock asset id: 2258645599 by Gorodenkoff
Fix Our Forest Act
Climate change is a huge problem that is going to take decades to tackle and the whole world needs to be involved in that effort. However, we can quickly address wildfires here in the US, especially the American West by addressing the other half of the problem, forest management. There is currently a bill in congress called the Fix Our Forest Act that does that. It streamlines and enhances forest management based on the science. In the house of representatives, it has the number H.R.471 and in the Senate it is S.1642.
I was recently in Washington DC to do volunteer lobbying for these bills. You can read about it here.
I recently read a very interesting book on the history of climate change politics; Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the EcoRight movement, basically Republicans who care about the environment and climate change. She is a former senior advisor to Senator John Warner (Republican) and have held other positions in the US Congress. Her book is non-partisan. However, naturally she is accepting the reality of human caused global warming.
I should mention that the second last sentence of the seventh paragraph of my rather long review says this “As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed.” Those few days ago have not yet happened. I thought Amazon would take longer to publish my review and I was predicting that the vote today/tomorrow on the Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill (the Big Beautiful Bill) would allow it to pass. So those few days ago have not yet happened because Amazon was faster than I thought. Basically, the Budget Reconciliation Bill will roll back or phase out the clean energy tax credits enacted in 2022. For those who don’t know what a Budget Reconciliation Bill is, it is a bill that allows you to bypass the filibuster, and it is therefore typically a highly partisan bill.
Glacial The Book Formats
Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson comes in four formats. I bought the hardback format.
Hardcover – Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429579, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429578, 432 pages, item weight : 1.45 pounds, dimensions : 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches, it costs $ 23.11 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429587, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429585, 432 pages, item weight : 1.34 pounds, dimensions : 6 x 0.96 x 9 inches, it costs $13.10 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ASIN : B0CBQKTM46, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429592, 460 pages, it costs $12.44 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Audio– Publisher : Tantor Audio (August 13, 2024), Listening Length : 9 hours and 50 minutes, ASIN : B0DCCWRMJS, it costs $0.00 with membership on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of Glacial
It took nearly sixty years for a meaningful climate change bill to run the political gauntlet from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office. Why?
From mavericks to party standard-bearers, U.S. Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and presidential candidates have campaigned for four decades espousing their intentions to address the impacts of climate change.
Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics is the first Inside-the-Beltway account to lay bare the machinations of what went wrong in Washington—how and why our leaders failed to act on climate change as mounting scientific evidence underscored the urgency to do so. Glacial tells a story of behind-the-scenes infighting and power struggles that blocked or derailed federal legislative progress on climate change, even in times of bipartisanship and with polls showing most Americans favored action.
The good news today is that public opinion is at its highest level of support for climate action, from corporate boardrooms embracing sustainability for business reasons to movements led by passionate younger generations who can’t afford to stand mute because it is they who will inherit the worst environmental catastrophes. If the missed opportunities in Washington are instructive, the path to doing so is clear. Our elected officials must use their offices not solely for the power and prestige it bestows upon them personally, but for the public good—and they must do so while there is still time.
This book recounts the history of the politics around climate change starting with the LBJ administration and ending with the Biden administration. LBJ was the first commander in chief to warn his fellow Americans of a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
The author, Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the Eco-Right movement, basically Republicans for the Environment. Some well-known names in this movement are former secretary of state James Baker (under H.W. Bush), and the former secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, the late George Shultz, Bob Ingliss former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, the founders of RepublicEN, the Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo who founded the Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress together with Ted Deutch, Republican Utah Senator John Curtis, and George Mankiw a notable conservative economist.
It may come as a surprise to some that once upon a time the environment was not a divisive left versus right issue. Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act, and founded the Environmental Protection Agency. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher led the ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 – 1989 to phase out the global use of CFCs due to their detrimental effect on the ozone layer. As a result, emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 percent, and it saves an estimated 2 million lives from skin cancer every year. This was one of Ronald Reagans greatest successes and yet it has been mocked by some subsequent Republican Presidents.
The book also talks about the history of acid rain and our fight against that. Margaret Thatcher, a chemist, was very concerned about the greenhouse effect, or global warming, and so was George H.W. Bush and Reagan to some degree. Unfortunately, the words climate change has grown to be deeply polarizing due to decades long disinformation campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies and far right think tanks and talk show hosts.
Another factoid that might surprise readers is that in 1957, scientists working for Humble Oil, later known as ExxonMobil, sounded the alarm on the greenhouse effect / global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. However, the executive leadership decided to deride the type of work its own scientists had done. The same thing happened on later occasions and Exxon funneled a lot of money into anti-climate change think tanks.
As the evidence that carbon dioxide was causing the greenhouse effect (or global warming or climate change) became increasingly indisputable in the 1990’s the fossil fuel industry and far right think tanks, and conservative talk show hosts, started to push back on the science very hard, by spreading misinformation, insulting and attacking scientists, environmentalists, and politicians taking a stand they did not like. Koch industries, the American Petroleum Institute and the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which contrary to what the name seems to imply, opposed climate action, teamed up to fight climate action.
However, it was not only people on the right doing this. Democrat politicians from coal districts also opposed measures on global warming. Clinton and Gore tried make progress on the issue, but it became politically unworkable. The book explains what happened during the Contract with America episode, the Kyoto protocol, etc.
However, the issue of climate change was not purely a right versus left. Some Republican leaders such as Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney championed climate action (perhaps on and off and on again) and the George W. Bush administration contained both pro-fossil advocates such as Dick Cheney and those favoring action on climate change such as Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Condoleezza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, and Colin Powell.
Later during the Obama administration there was a climate change bill that was very close to passing, the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill passed the house but when it was going to be voted on in the Senate, Barbara Boxer (democrat) used her role as a committee chairman to change it and take it so far left that it became unpassable. She wasn’t against climate action, on the contrary, but she thought it would work.
I can add that the Tea Party, which had started out to oppose the national debt, but later focused on the culture war and opposed climate action made climate action more difficult. Well, it did not help that the oil and gas industry spent 175 million dollars lobbying against the bill in less than a year whilst environmental advocates spent only 22.4 million dollars lobbying for it, despite that being a record effort for environmental advocates.
The end of the book focuses on the Biden administration and the Clean Energy Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. This part of the book reads like a thriller because it was held up by one man, Joe Manchin, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia, who was pressured from all sides and kept changing his mind, until he finally decided to support it. As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed. The history of action on climate change marches on.
By reading this book you will learn about a lot of people and their stories, politicians and scientists, who became embroiled in the climate change issue, for or against, George E. Brown, Dr. Roger Revelle, Dr. James Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Rafe Pomerance, Speth, Shimberg, Senator John Chafee, John McCain, Mathew Stembridge, Rick Boucher, John Warner, Alex Bozmoski, Bob Ingliss, Lindsey Graham, John Sununu, Rahm Emmanuel, Congressman Joe Barton, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Scott Pruitt, Lee Iacocca, Senator Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Myron Ebell, and many others. You will also learn about terms that relates to the American form of Democracy, the filibuster, budget reconciliation, appropriation, the parliamentarian, the various senate and house committees and caucuses, how bills are created and passed, an Omnibus bill, etc.
If you are interested in political history, the history of climate change politics, and the stories of the people involved, then this book is for you. The author explains all the terms used and it is not a complicated book. The book reads like a journey through political history, and you will learn thousands of facts and anecdotes. If you are a somewhat older reader, like me, you will be reminded of the events from the past and you will recognize people, and what they said, and the chaos, and the complexities, and all the hoopla, and you will think to yourself, what a crazy world politics is.
I also think that the book gives you a perspective of where the politics have been and where it might be going. Despite the many setbacks in the past, this book will give you reason for optimism. The younger generation both on the left and the right are more willing to accept the science and are more willing to embrace action on climate. Well, I guess it is their future. The world is moving forward, and it is decarbonizing, no matter what we do. Overall, I think the book is entertaining and fascinating and I highly recommend it.
Back cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.
Other Posts Related to Climate Change, Environment or Clean Energy
An update : The Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill passed today (7/1 – 2025). The phase out of the clean energy tax credits stayed, as I predicted, but the excise tax on renewables that the Senate previously added to the bill was removed in the last minute, which is good news for those who care about the environment.
Super fact 34: Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming or if you call it Climate Change is happening, and that it is caused by us primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Typically, studies show an agreement of at least 97% or 98% among climate scientists.
This is a super fact because surveys show that this is not what the public believes and yet it is true. The public incorrectly believes that there is a large disagreement among scientists on this topic. A note, to understand why the evidence is conclusive as to why global warming is happening and is caused by us click here.
Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.
The Scientific Consensus
This extensive survey from 2013 of 12,000 climate papers (papers published over two decades) by Dana Nuccitelli and Cook, etc., concluded that 97.1% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
They also did a science author self-rating which concluded that 97.2% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Another conclusion from the survey was that the consensus had increased from around 90%, perhaps less, in the early 1990’s.
A later review of six independent, peer-reviewed studies examining the scientific consensus about global warming have concluded that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists are convinced human-caused global warming is happening. A more recent study (2021) found that as many as 98% of climate scientists are convinced global warming is happening and is human-caused. Numerous other surveys have concluded the same thing.
People’s Beliefs About Global Warming
This 2024 survey from Yale University show that most Americans (61%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused. By contrast, 28% think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. Most Americans (58%) <<Link-6>> understand that most scientists think global warming is happening. This percentage has trended generally upward since this survey began in 2008. By contrast, about one in five (22%) think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.
The green graph corresponds to “most scientists think global warming is happening (%).” The black graph corresponds to “there is a lot of disagreement among scientists (%)”. The yellow graph corresponds to “Most scientists think global warming is NOT happening (%)”. Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
However, only one in five Americans (20%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) think that human-caused global warming is happening. The aforementioned Dana Nuccitelli refers to this in his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience as the consensus gap. Again, this large discrepancy between public perception and reality makes the consensus gap a super fact. Research has shown that this discrepancy has a large impact on people’s other beliefs regarding global warming.
The question was, To the best of your knowledge what percentage of climate scientists think that human-caused global warming is happening? Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Why is there a Consensus Gap?
In his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience Dana Nuccitelli explains that a relatively small group of so-called climate skeptics, or more accurately called climate contrarians have received a lot of attention from media. Even though their science is bad, and they’ve published their error ridden papers in obscure or discredited journals, and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked.
It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and that he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. Journalist should not feel that they must give equal time to evidence-based science and nonsense, but that is often the case. To read my review of this book click here.
The Oregon Petition
I am mentioning the Oregon petition because I fell for it myself. The Oregon petition was an official looking petition circulated by climate contrarians, claiming that there is no evidence that human-caused global warming will cause catastrophic heating of earth’s atmosphere and disruption of earth’s climate, and that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would even be beneficial for plants and animals. It got an impressive number of signatures, 32,000 after some years.
However, it turned out that the signatories rarely had climate expertise, and were not scientists, and the survey listed many falsified names such as the names of the Spice Girls and several fictional characters. Less than 200 of the signatories were climate researchers.
It was a con, but it was touted in a lot of media as the truth. I saw it over and over and I believed it. I was later surprised to learn that it was a con and that a scientific consensus existed on global warming / climate change. Learning that I had been bamboozled on this matter was one of the red flags that prompted me to start doing some fact checking on the issue global warming.
Super fact 33: Actions such as eating locally, buying organic produce, using paper straws, and recycling can be good for the environment but can also be worse for the environment and these actions often have a much smaller positive impact than alternative rarely considered actions. What are popular actions for the environment is often different from what is effective.
I consider this a super fact because the beliefs regarding what is good for the environment and what is bad for the environment and what has a significant impact and what has not, are often based on popular trends and culture rather than knowledge. We need to educate ourselves. Following trends is not the answer to good stewardship of the planet.
This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331
Is Locally Grown Food Really Better for the Environment?
As I explained in this post eating locally is not necessarily ecological. Agricultural products that are grown off season or in non-native environments are often grown in greenhouses, which require a lot of energy and generate significantly more emissions than shipping the produce across oceans would. This is especially true for crops like tomatoes, cucumbers, mangoes and bananas, that require warmer climates to be grown in open fields.
From pexels.com by Julia Nagy.
In some cases, the crop requires significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive and may not be suitable for warmer climates, for example, apples. Some crops, like avocados or almonds require a lot of water but despite that they are grown in dry places like California (80% of California’s freshwater is used for agriculture). From an environmental perspective it would be better to grow these crops in a suitable environment and then transport them.
Is Eating Organic Really Good for the Environment?
As explained in this post eating organic is not necessarily ecological. Despite strong public perception of organic agriculture producing better environmental outcomes, conventional agriculture often performs better on environmental measures including land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of water bodies. There are, however, some contexts where organic agriculture may be better for the environment.
The graph below gives an overview of the environmental impact of various types of crops grown organically and conventionally. As you can see organic crop often require double as much land compared to conventionally grown crops. It is complicated.
Shown is the relative environmental impact of organic and conventional agriculture across various ecological and resource indicators based on a meta-analysis of 164 published life-cycle analyses (LCAs) across 742 agricultural systems. Roughly, lower in the graph means organic is better and higher up in the graph means conventional farming is better. Data source: Clark & Tilman (2017) – Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. In Environmental Research Letters. The data visualization is available at OurWorldinData.org<<Link-10>>. There you can find research and more visualizations on this topic. Licensed under CC BY-SA by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.
What really matters though is the type of food you eat, not whether it is organic or not. For example, beef (from beef herd) causes emissions 188 times larger than nuts do for the same amount of protein provided. Another thing to note is that if you eat 300 steaks per year you will have a 100 times larger environmental impact from your meat eating compared to someone who eats 3 steaks per year. You don’t have to become a vegetarian to have a smaller environmental impact but quantity matters.
Is Recycling Important?
The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is not correct. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive. If you throw a greasy pizza box in the recycling, you can ruin the entire batch.
Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions among twelve that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). As it turns out, those two saved the least greenhouse gases among the twelve options. The option saving the most greenhouse gases among the 12 was giving up an SUV, which saved 18 times as much greenhouse gases as recycling. 17% of respondents picked that one.
According to Our World in Data (and the book Not the End of the World page 114<<Link-6>>), which is based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5% of the carbon emissions for the average American. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Recycling comes in at a savings of 0.2 metric tons according to the same data. EPAs estimates are slightly higher but still low in comparison.
Plastic straws versus paper straws
Producing a plastic straw requires 39 kilojoules of energy and produces 1.5 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. However, producing a paper straw requires 96 kilojoules of energy and produces 4.1 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. So, plastic straws are better for the environment from that perspective. However, this could be compared to a typical passenger vehicle, which emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year according to EPA. That corresponds to more than 3 million plastic straws and more than one million paper straws.
According to the same article the average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile. So, driving just one mile corresponds to hundreds of plastic straws and paper straws.
One advantage of paper straws is that they are easier to recycle, at least under ideal circumstances. Unfortunately, they often get soggy, and recycling plants don’t want that so they often throw them out. Another advantage is that paper straws decompose and don’t end up in our ocean.
However, not only are straws very small items, most of the plastic pollution in the ocean does not come from north America(1%) or Europe (1%). Paper straws versus plastic straws seem like a complex riddle but it may not be an important one. Whether you drive more or drive less is probably a lot more important.
Plastic bags versus paper bags
As with plastic straws versus paper straws plastic bags versus paper bags is a complicated question. From an environmental perspective they both have advantages and disadvantages. Plastic bags are less carbon intensive to produce, are easier to reuse several times, and the production of plastic bags require on average four times less energy than the production of paper bags.
On the other hand, paper bags are decomposable and easier to recycle. However, the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment. It is a complicated question.
Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey
Having a Significant and Positive Impact on the Environment
Some of the allegedly sustainable practices and actions mentioned above are counter productive and others have a very small effect, for example, carbon emissions savings that are a few grams. According to the “Our World Data” and the book “Not the End of the World” page 114, a compilation of data research, some actions that you can take that will significantly reduce carbon emissions are (savings in metric tons per year, for flight it is per trip):
Giving up an SUV 3.6 tons
Go car free (average car) 2.4 tons
Switch to plant-based diet 2.2 tons
Avoid transatlantic flights 1.6 tons
Buy green energy 1.5 tons
Switch to electric car (from average sedan) 1.2 tons
Switch from electric car to none 1.2 tons
Avoid medium flight 0.6 tons (1,700 miles each way going and returning)
Laundry in cold water 0.25 tons
Hand-dry clothing 0.2 tons
Recycle 0.2 tons
Upgrade light bulbs 0.1 tons
As you can see in the graphs below, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World and in the United States is electricity and heat. Unfortunately, the composition of the electric grid is something we as consumers have very little control over. We can save energy, get solar panels for our roof, or buy our electricity from green energy companies, but we cannot easily change the composition of the grid. Energy companies and politicians must do that.
However, we can make our voices heard by calling and writing to our representatives. This might be the single most impactful action that you as an individual can take. Your congressman, senator, or state legislator will probably not read your letter. They have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents and get lots of letters every day. What is likely to happen is that a staff member will skim the letter and note the concern in a database.
Just make sure that your letter is politely written so it does not go in the wastebasket. Also make sure that you are a constituent. Writing to Ted Cruz when you live in Florida is not going to have an impact. They are interested in finding out what the concerns of their constituents are and according to staff members and other information I have come across, this really has an impact.
Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BYData source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY
Conclusion
The survey mentioned above showed that among the twelve environmental actions an individual could take, the one with the second to smallest positive impact was the one that the majority thought had the biggest positive impact, despite it having a relatively tiny impact. The actions that could really make a huge difference were hardly considered.
We, the public, are very bad at determining what is good or bad for the environment and what has a significant and positive impact or not, even though the data is out there and we easily can look it up. Maybe the biggest positive impact one could have on the environment is to look up the facts and get better educated.
The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Important facts that we know to be true and yet they are surprising, shocking or disputed among non-experts. It is a type of myth busting. However, I also create posts that are not super facts but other interesting information, such as this book review and book recommendation.
Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics by Dana Nuccitelli
Climatology versus Pseudoscience by Dana Nuccitelli is a book about human-caused Climate Change, or global warming, and how we know that is happening and how we know that we are the cause of it. If you want to see more about why we know this click here.
The book pays a lot of attention to so called climate skeptics; more accurately called climate contrarians. They are not true skeptics but agenda driven contrarians. Even though their science is bad, and their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked. Large segments of the population in the United States, and to some extents elsewhere, have been bamboozled by the pseudo-science.
The good news is that people are waking up to the reality that they have been bamboozled. We know that global warming, or if you call it climate change, is not only real, but we also know that the current rapid warming is caused by us, primarily via our carbon emissions. I was bamboozled by the pseudo scientists myself, but then I took a serious look at the science, and I realized that that I had been bamboozled. This book will walk you through the faulty arguments of the climate contrarians, and it does so in a logical and convincing manner. It features hundreds of references. I bought the hardback version of this book.
Hardcover – Publisher – Praeger; Illustrated edition (March 3, 2015), ISBN-10 : 1440832013, ISBN-13 : 978-1440832017, 232 pages, item weight : 1.3 pounds, dimensions : 6.14 x 0.56 x 9.21 inches, it costs $11.96 – $53.00 on US Amazon. A new copy is $53.00. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher – Praeger; Illustrated edition (March 3, 2015), ASIN : B0C71FFTQT, 230 pages, it costs $50.35on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.
Amazon’s Description of Climatology versus Pseudoscience
This book explains the science of climate change in plain language and shows that the 2 to 4 percent of climate scientists who are skeptical that humans are the main cause of global warming are a fringe minority—and have a well-established history of being wrong.
Although some politicians, pundits, and members of the public do not believe it, global warming predictions by mainstream climate scientists have been remarkably accurate while those made by climate deniers have not. And if mainstream global warming predictions continue to prove correct, the window of opportunity to prevent a climate catastrophe is quickly closing. This book is the first to illustrate the accuracy—and inaccuracy—of global warming predictions made by mainstream climate scientists and by climate contrarians from the 1970s to the present day. Written in simple, non-technical language that provides an accessible explanation of key climate science concepts, the book will appeal to general audiences without previous knowledge about climate science.
A Journey into Climate Science and a Debunking of Climate Contrarianism
The author starts out by giving us an overview of climate science starting with the discovery of the greenhouse effect by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1820’s. He explains that the planet would be much colder than it is if it wasn’t for the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect acts like a blanket. He also explains why we know that the global warming that we have seen in recent decades is a greenhouse effect chiefly caused by our burning of fossil fuels, and not natural causes.
The warming is leaving behind various fingerprints, such as the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming (like a blanket would), which wouldn’t happen if it was the sun or an orbital cycle causing the warming. The conclusion is that we know that global warming is real, and we know that we are the ones causing it.
Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.
The author also discusses climate models, and he notes the astounding accuracy of the early climate models. He takes us on a journey through the development of modern climate science into the 1950’s, and the rapid growth of climate science in the 1960’s and 1970’s and then into the 1980’s, 1990’s and the 2000’s. He describes the increasingly advanced and increasingly accurate climate models. In addition, he discusses sulfate aerosols and global warmings forgotten evil twin ocean acidification.
This is all very interesting to any science nerd and it makes you understand why we know that we are causing the global warming we are seeing. It also makes it obvious why there is a consensus on the topic. Several studies have shown that at least 97% of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and that we are the cause of it.
However, despite the scientific rigor of peer reviewed mainstream climate science, despite the impressive success of climate models, and despite the scientific consensus, the public is very confused about the topic. Enter a small group of so-called global warming skeptics, or more accurately, global warming contrarians. They are not true skeptics but agenda driven contrarians. Even though their science is bad (pseudoscience) and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have an outsized presence in the media and often a large enthusiastic following.
It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. As a journalist you should not feel that you must give equal time to evidence based science and nonsense.
The author also discusses various myths and false claims spread by climate science contrarians. He mentions that unfortunately most Republican congressmen stand with the contrarian pseudoscientists rather than with the science. Well, with the exception for a few brave souls. On average the American public believe that 55% of scientists agree that we are the cause behind the global warming while the consensus is more than 97% and growing stronger. The author refers to this as the consensus gap.
It is easy to be confused. I have a degree in physics and a PhD in electrical engineering / robotics and yet I was bamboozled by the climate science contrarians. I read books by the contrarians including some of the ones the author discusses, and I believed them. I also followed pretty much only rightwing media at the time and as a result I became misinformed. It was not until I took a deep dive into the subject and read what the actual science said that I realized that I had been bamboozled. Some of the science articles that initiated my change of heart were written by the author. That was back in 2012 and 2013.
This book is a great start if you want to take a serious look at climate science. The book is well organized, and the author is an expert on the subject, as well as a great communicator. Even though many of the things he discussed in the book were not new to me, I very much enjoyed reading the book and I learned some new things. If you don’t know much about climate science but are interested in science, then this book is a must read.
Back cover of Climatology versus Pseudoscience. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the Kindle version of the book.
About the Author of Climatology versus Pseudoscience
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist and climate blogger for The Guardian and SkepticalScience.com. He’s been researching and writing about climate science since 2006. He has a bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley in astrophysics, and a master’s degree from UC Davis in physics.
Super Facts 