#1 cleantech news, reviews, & analysis site in the world. Subscribe today. The future is now.

Climate Change best climate science study results

Published on November 3rd, 2011 | by Zachary Shahan


Global Warming Truth — The World is Warming (& We Are Causing It)

November 3rd, 2011 by  

Given the ridiculous strings of comments we receive here on CleanTechnica from time to time regarding global warming (claims that it’s not happening or isn’t caused by humans), I thought I should share some important global warming information with you all (information I hope will help you to find some clarity on this issue and will help you in such discussions when you find yourself in the midst of them). While these commenters are mostly (or probably entirely) just “trolls” (people posting “inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”) who come in from other sites, I think it’s important our readers know some basic facts about global warming (since it is a, if not the, leading driver of cleantech globally). So, below is a repost of a recent article I wrote on sister site Planetsave explaining how we know global warming is caused by humans.

First, though, I’ve got a few other things to share. (Mind you, though, you can often discuss the matter for days with a troll without them budging in the face of scientific facts, so don’t hold your breath…).

Here are some links to other posts that I think are useful ongoing resources:

On common climate science myths promoted by trolls:

  1. 119 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths
  2. Global Warming Videos (Best, Funniest, Most Inspiring)

On the false scandal referred to as “climategate”:

(Short summary: Truthfully, it was a scandal, as emails covering the course of over a decade were stolen and pieces of them were published out of context in an effort to frame the scientists. While at least 7 independent evaluations have determined there was no misconduct in the scientific work of the researchers and their conclusions are as sound as ever (or even more so), many global warming deniers still claim that there was misconduct, and I’m sure many confused citizens who don’t follow the issue still think so, as well.)

  1. Yes, Climategate was Science Denier B.S.
  2. The Real Climategate Crime
  3. Climategate: One More Investigation, Still No Basis for Accusations of Misconduct
  4. Climategate Scientists Vindicated by Inquiry
  5. Mann is Off the Hook, So Let’s Look at the Real Crime (Video of Mann)

Also, it’s worth noting that a recent study by a leading global warming skeptic and professor of physics, Richard Muller, and funded by some major fossil fuel interests (i.e. the Koch brothers) to “check the work” of thousands of climate scientists found essentially the exact same warming trend as the scientists Muller was “skeptical” of. He has acknowledged this and, thankfully, the mass media has reported on it. But global warming deniers who were once in love with Muller and the project have now turned on him. In the graph below, Muller’s study is the one with the black line titled Berkeley:

best climate science study results

More on that:

  1. BEST Study (Climate Science Skeptic Study) Finds Global Warming is Real — Global Warming Deniers Are Pissed (What’s New?)
  2. Curry Lost in Denial (& Global Warming Still = More Snow)

If you want to see who else has supported the conclusions of climate scientists (and who hasn’t) here is a handy chart:

These Groups Say The Danger Of Manmade Global Warming Is A . . .
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
“FACT” organizations from Is There a Scientific Consensus on Global Warming?, SkepticalScience.com.
“FRAUD” organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

And, now, a short piece on global warming and how we know it’s being caused by humans (some of the reasons why all of the scientific bodies above support this climate science “consensus”):

Hopefully that was useful to you, and hopefully you now know where to turn when you get into a discussion with a troll.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Zach is tryin’ to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he’s also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession and Solar Love. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. He has presented about cleantech at conferences in India, the UAE, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, and Canada.

Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in. But he offers no professional investment advice and would rather not be responsible for you losing money, so don’t jump to conclusions.

  • Pingback: Obama Administration Steps on the CO2 Regulations Pedal | CleanTechnica()

  • Anonymous

    Horse pucky! If man caused GW was such a threat, why do many of the ‘big shots’ call for more govt control? Why do they still fly around in big old jet liners & consume much more energy at their homes than the average person. 0bama & Gore come to mind as poster children for this duplicity.

    Turning carbon into the driver of heat is a deception at best. Heat drives carbon, not the other way round.

    Yall can fall for MCGW if you want. But those of us who don’t believe Reefer Madness style fear based propaganda also have not been ‘had’ by Al Gore’s new religion.

    Great spin on climate gate. I don’t buy it.


    • Anonymous

      Have a nice day Sam.

      People just aren’t buying your line of disinformation any longer. Rail on, son. You’ve lost your mojo.

  • Chriswiegard

    Good summary of global warming science, Zach. In the wake of the Richard Muller admission that global warming temperature rise is real, the denial bloggers are switching over to that old bit, sure it’s getting warmer but it has nothing to do with fossil fuel burning.
    Really silly stuff. The real issue is that global warming has found an explanation for temp rise that works, and the denial crew has tried everything from sunspots to magnetic pole shifts and none of it passes peer review. But like the energizer bunny, they keep switching from one form of nonsense to another.

    • Anonymous

      Well said. And completely true.

      I think some of them will go to their deathbed thinking up “possible” explanations other than the obvious.

  • Rob

    There should be no doubt that human activity has made a contribution the the global warming issues we are dealing with today. I question however the statement that the warming is “ONLY” caused by human beings.
    Science has shown that there have been numerous ice ages in the fairly recent past that were initiated by the same exact circumstances we now have.
    These mini ice ages seem to occur on a regular basis and are by no means created by human activity since the time the last one occurred several thousand years ago there were not quite as many beings on the planet.

    • Anonymous

      If nature is contributing to our current warming, please tell us which part of nature is doing the job.

      It’s not the Sun. Solar output has been stable or slightly lower for some time.

      It’s not Earth orbit. Based on orbital changes we should be in a cooling cycle, heading into a new ice age.

      It’s not a lot of volcanic activity, the rise of a new mountain range changing air flow patterns, a movement of continents changing ocean current patterns.

      So, what do you hold to be the natural cause for observed warming?

      And, no, we haven’t had “numerous ice ages in the fairly recent past that were initiated by the same exact circumstances we now have”.

      If you’re talking about the cooling period(s) of a few hundred years ago, which “NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850” that was a modest cooling period restricted mainly to the northern hemisphere, not a global phenomenon.

      And, interestingly, data has emerged which suggests that the “Little Ice
      Age” might have been a human-caused event.

      Prior to 1492, when Columbus sailed the oceans blue, the Americas were
      populated with somewhere between 30 and 60 million people. When Europeans
      arrived they brought with them diseases for which Americans had no
      resistance. Probably 90% of all Americans died. That led to a vast
      reforestation of the Americas and it is estimated that those new trees were
      sufficient to soak up enough CO2 to reduce northern
      hemisphere temperatures. Throw in a lot less black carbon (soot) from all
      the cooking/heating fires which were no longer needed by all those dead

      But, enough diversion, your answer to what natural force is driving global
      temperatures higher. And driven them up at a rate extremely faster than
      has apparently never happened before?

    • Anonymous

      I don’t recall ever writing “Only” definitively regarding this matter. But I think that if it weren’t for human contributions, the Earth might actually be cooling slightly right now. (But from the science I’ve read on the matter that is not certain.) The main point, though, is that it certainly would be warming at a tremendous rate.

    • Anonymous

      “These mini ice ages seem to occur on a regular basis and are by no means created by human activity since the time the last one occurred several thousand years ago there were not quite as many beings on the planet.”

      This is a favorite bogus argument loved by deniers. The failed logic they try to push is that if something happened before for a different reason then it couldn’t be due to a different reason this time around.

      “Wow, how did you get that shiner?”

      “My wife punched me.”

      “No way, man, back when we were in junior high you had a black eye and you weren’t married then. So, tell me, how did it really happen?”

      You’ll often see this argument made along the lines of in previous hot cycles CO2 buildup followed the onset of warming. And because that’s the way things happened before that proves it couldn’t be human-produced CO2 this time.

      Excellent post, Zack. Copied to my denier file for future use.

      • Anonymous

        Haha, good analogies 😀

        It’s true. It’s a completely illogical argument. I don’t know which would be sadder — if they believed what they wrote or if they were paid to spread nonsense

        • Anonymous

          I really wish that there was some way to ‘out’ any paid trolls. But, based on the general quality of the posts one sees from deniers I’d guess most are lower intelligence folks who have grabbed on to a couple of talking points and just regurgitate. Rarely does one encounter a denier who can go any deeper than talking points.

          Of course, it’s highly unlikely that a very intelligent denier could go any deeper. There’s nothing to back up the common talking points, the got no stinkin’ data.

          • Anonymous

            There are also bots — not even real people — programmed to spread such comments.

          • Anonymous

            Are bots identifiable? One might assume a bot when there’s a ‘drop and scoot’ – you get the talking point with no followup. But that could also just be a loyal party member parroting the party line and having no idea about how to defend their position.

          • Anonymous

            yeah, i don’t know how to identify a bot — not sure if there’s a clear way.

          • Anonymous

            We could try the dunking chair method….

          • Anonymous


            we could also see if they can do basic math or science 😀

Back to Top ↑