global warming debate essay

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

An image taken on 18 June 2019 of the Kangersuneq glacial ice fields in Kapissisillit, Greenland.

'Both sides' of the climate change debate? How bad we think it is, and how bad it really is

It’s time to stop being mealy-mouthed about this. No more silent passes to climate science deniers

O ver the past couple of weeks things have been happening on the climate change front but, unfortunately, little is changing in parliament, where the government’s direct action policy has continued to be an utter failure and a Queensland LNP MP suggested in his first speech in the House of Representatives that schools should teach both sides of the climate change debate in school – to prevent them being “brainwashed with extreme left or right ideologies”.

Last week came news that BHP was going to spend US$400m over five years on a “climate investment program to develop technologies to reduce emissions from its own operations as well as those generated from the use of its resources”.

Its CEO, Andrew Mackenzie, stated in a speech in London, “Society’s combustion of fossil fuels and industrial processes like steelmaking and agriculture have released greenhouse gases at rates much faster than at any other time in the geological past.”

To ram the message home he concluded: “The evidence is abundant: global warming is indisputable. The planet will survive. Many species may not.”

Just ponder that: many species will not survive.

Thus it was not particularly surprising really to hear this week that the NSW HSC was going to include climate change in geography classes. The surprising element was that it doesn’t already.

Neither was it surprising to see conservatives across the media come out against it, arguing that if they are to teach climate change then they need to teach “both sides”. The IPA’s “director of the foundations of western civilisation program” Bella d’Abrera (yeah, I know) suggested on Sky News that “they’re going to hear hopefully that climate change is not necessary manmade”.

Or in other words, students should hear that conspiracy theories are real.

This is the type of guff that you expect to hear from the libertarian romper room that Sky News is now. It’s a station that gives a voice to the likes of Andrew Bolt, who this week devoted a column to calling 16-year-old climate-change activist Greta Thunberg “deeply disturbed” and mocking her autism diagnosis.

She responded by flicking him away with ease – which to be honest was not wholly difficult given I’ve had cases of tinea that have contributed more to our national intelligence than has Bolt’s entire media career. But she did it with class.

In parliament you would hope for better than the dredge we get on Sky News. But no.

On Wednesday, newly elected Queensland MP Terry Young gave his first speech, in which he stated “we want our children and grandchildren to hear the theories of evolution and creation, different religions, climate change advocates and climate change sceptics. I can say what we don’t want for us and our kids is to be brainwashed with extreme left or right ideologies.”

“Theories of creation”? Religion is a theory now?

He continued arguing, “When I hear a school principal stand up at school assembly and say ‘if this government doesn’t do anything about climate change, the world will end in 2030’ I get angry, because we should not indoctrinate our kids with fear mongering.”

Now, firstly, I’d like to know where that happened because I can find no record of it. It sort of happened in the TV show Big Little Lies, so maybe that was it.

But here’s the thing, he should get angry if he hears that – not because it is brainwashing but because his government is not doing anything about climate change.

The world is not going to end in 2030, but if we have not taken massive steps by then, our ability to prevent massive global degradation and harm due to climate change will be beyond us.

This is not extremist, it is science – science that was announced in October by the UN IPCC . Its co-chair said at the time: “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”

But no, it didn’t.

Young went on to suggest personal responsibility was more important and the fact his family own a hybrid car and have solar panels was a sign of how conservatives go about things the right way.

It is much the same line we have heard by so many conservatives – a variant of if we all plant a tree and recycle then that’s all we can do.

It won’t be anywhere near enough, and it might seem like “common sense” to Young but it is not. Just how lacking the LNP’s climate change policy is in anything approaching substance was revealed this week when its latest auction under the “emissions reduction fund” bought cuts equivalent to only 0.01% of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas pollution.

The government is utterly failing to achieve even its own pathetically low emissions reduction targets.

And time is running out fast.

This week in the Monthly , ANU climate scientist Dr Joëlle Gergis wrote that, while in 2013 scientists had estimated that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels (which we’re on track to do by 2060) would lead to a temperature increase of between 1.5C to 4.5C, now as scientists continue to get more data, their models suggest the temperature increase is more likely to be between 2.8C and 5.8C.

That’s scary because all efforts at the moment are assuming if we reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 we can limit warming to 1.5C. That might now be rather too optimistic.

Add into the mix came further news this week that glaciers appear to be melting 10 to 100 times faster than expected .

It’s time to stop being mealy-mouthed about this and to give silent passes to those peddling climate-change denialism either explicitly or implicitly by demanding we listen to both sides.

But OK, here’s both sides of the debate – for well over 40 years scientists have been researching and testing evidence that climate change is occurring due to CO2 emissions. They have found conclusive evidence that there is a link and that on the current path by 2100 global temperatures will likely reach 3C above pre-industrial levels.

The other side is that they have kept researching and testing the data, and sorry, they were wrong – it’s even worse than they thought.

Climate crisis
Grogonomics
Climate science
Australian politics

Most viewed

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Global Warming

Updated on
Apr 27, 2024

Being able to write an essay is an integral part of mastering any language. Essays form an integral part of many academic and scholastic exams like the SAT , and UPSC amongst many others. It is a crucial evaluative part of English proficiency tests as well like IELTS , TOEFL , etc. Major essays are meant to emphasize public issues of concern that can have significant consequences on the world. To understand the concept of Global Warming and its causes and effects, we must first examine the many factors that influence the planet’s temperature and what this implies for the world’s future. Here’s an unbiased look at the essay on Global Warming and other essential related topics.

Short Essay on Global Warming and Climate Change?

Since the industrial and scientific revolutions, Earth’s resources have been gradually depleted. Furthermore, the start of the world’s population’s exponential expansion is particularly hard on the environment. Simply put, as the population’s need for consumption grows, so does the use of natural resources , as well as the waste generated by that consumption.

Climate change has been one of the most significant long-term consequences of this. Climate change is more than just the rise or fall of global temperatures; it also affects rain cycles, wind patterns, cyclone frequencies, sea levels, and other factors. It has an impact on all major life groupings on the planet.

What is Global Warming?

Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century, primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels . The greenhouse gases consist of methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, carbon dioxide, water vapour, and chlorofluorocarbons. The weather prediction has been becoming more complex with every passing year, with seasons more indistinguishable, and the general temperatures hotter.

The number of hurricanes, cyclones, droughts, floods, etc., has risen steadily since the onset of the 21st century. The supervillain behind all these changes is Global Warming. The name is quite self-explanatory; it means the rise in the temperature of the Earth.

What are the Causes of Global Warming?

According to recent studies, many scientists believe the following are the primary four causes of global warming:

Deforestation
Greenhouse emissions
Carbon emissions per capita

Extreme global warming is causing natural disasters , which can be seen all around us. One of the causes of global warming is the extreme release of greenhouse gases that become trapped on the earth’s surface, causing the temperature to rise. Similarly, volcanoes contribute to global warming by spewing excessive CO2 into the atmosphere.

The increase in population is one of the major causes of Global Warming. This increase in population also leads to increased air pollution . Automobiles emit a lot of CO2, which remains in the atmosphere. This increase in population is also causing deforestation, which contributes to global warming.

The earth’s surface emits energy into the atmosphere in the form of heat, keeping the balance with the incoming energy. Global warming depletes the ozone layer, bringing about the end of the world. There is a clear indication that increased global warming will result in the extinction of all life on Earth’s surface.

Also Read: Land, Soil, Water, Natural Vegetation, and Wildlife Resources

Solutions for Global Warming

Of course, industries and multinational conglomerates emit more carbon than the average citizen. Nonetheless, activism and community effort are the only viable ways to slow the worsening effects of global warming. Furthermore, at the state or government level, world leaders must develop concrete plans and step-by-step programmes to ensure that no further harm is done to the environment in general.

Although we are almost too late to slow the rate of global warming, finding the right solution is critical. Everyone, from individuals to governments, must work together to find a solution to Global Warming. Some of the factors to consider are pollution control, population growth, and the use of natural resources.

One very important contribution you can make is to reduce your use of plastic. Plastic is the primary cause of global warming, and recycling it takes years. Another factor to consider is deforestation, which will aid in the control of global warming. More tree planting should be encouraged to green the environment. Certain rules should also govern industrialization. Building industries in green zones that affect plants and species should be prohibited.

Effects of Global Warming

Global warming is a real problem that many people want to disprove to gain political advantage. However, as global citizens, we must ensure that only the truth is presented in the media.

This decade has seen a significant impact from global warming. The two most common phenomena observed are glacier retreat and arctic shrinkage. Glaciers are rapidly melting. These are clear manifestations of climate change.

Another significant effect of global warming is the rise in sea level. Flooding is occurring in low-lying areas as a result of sea-level rise. Many countries have experienced extreme weather conditions. Every year, we have unusually heavy rain, extreme heat and cold, wildfires, and other natural disasters.

Similarly, as global warming continues, marine life is being severely impacted. This is causing the extinction of marine species as well as other problems. Furthermore, changes are expected in coral reefs, which will face extinction in the coming years. These effects will intensify in the coming years, effectively halting species expansion. Furthermore, humans will eventually feel the negative effects of Global Warming.

Also Read: Concept of Sustainable Development

Sample Essays on Global Warming

Here are some sample essays on Global Warming:

Essay on Global Warming Paragraph in 100 – 150 words

Global Warming is caused by the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere and is a result of human activities that have been causing harm to our environment for the past few centuries now. Global Warming is something that can’t be ignored and steps have to be taken to tackle the situation globally. The average temperature is constantly rising by 1.5 degrees Celsius over the last few years.

The best method to prevent future damage to the earth, cutting down more forests should be banned and Afforestation should be encouraged. Start by planting trees near your homes and offices, participate in events, and teach the importance of planting trees. It is impossible to undo the damage but it is possible to stop further harm.

Essay on Global Warming in 250 Words

Over a long period, it is observed that the temperature of the earth is increasing. This affected wildlife, animals, humans, and every living organism on earth. Glaciers have been melting, and many countries have started water shortages, flooding, and erosion and all this is because of global warming.

No one can be blamed for global warming except for humans. Human activities such as gases released from power plants, transportation, and deforestation have increased gases such as carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere. The main question is how can we control the current situation and build a better world for future generations. It starts with little steps by every individual.

Start using cloth bags made from sustainable materials for all shopping purposes, instead of using high-watt lights use energy-efficient bulbs, switch off the electricity, don’t waste water, abolish deforestation and encourage planting more trees. Shift the use of energy from petroleum or other fossil fuels to wind and solar energy. Instead of throwing out the old clothes donate them to someone so that it is recycled.

Donate old books, don’t waste paper. Above all, spread awareness about global warming. Every little thing a person does towards saving the earth will contribute in big or small amounts. We must learn that 1% effort is better than no effort. Pledge to take care of Mother Nature and speak up about global warming.

Essay on Global Warming in 500 Words

Global warming isn’t a prediction, it is happening! A person denying it or unaware of it is in the most simple terms complicit. Do we have another planet to live on? Unfortunately, we have been bestowed with this one planet only that can sustain life yet over the years we have turned a blind eye to the plight it is in. Global warming is not an abstract concept but a global phenomenon occurring ever so slowly even at this moment. Global Warming is a phenomenon that is occurring every minute resulting in a gradual increase in the Earth’s overall climate. Brought about by greenhouse gases that trap the solar radiation in the atmosphere, global warming can change the entire map of the earth, displacing areas, flooding many countries, and destroying multiple lifeforms. Extreme weather is a direct consequence of global warming but it is not an exhaustive consequence. There are virtually limitless effects of global warming which are all harmful to life on earth. The sea level is increasing by 0.12 inches per year worldwide. This is happening because of the melting of polar ice caps because of global warming. This has increased the frequency of floods in many lowland areas and has caused damage to coral reefs. The Arctic is one of the worst-hit areas affected by global warming. Air quality has been adversely affected and the acidity of the seawater has also increased causing severe damage to marine life forms. Severe natural disasters are brought about by global warming which has had dire effects on life and property. As long as mankind produces greenhouse gases, global warming will continue to accelerate. The consequences are felt at a much smaller scale which will increase to become drastic shortly. The power to save the day lies in the hands of humans, the need is to seize the day. Energy consumption should be reduced on an individual basis. Fuel-efficient cars and other electronics should be encouraged to reduce the wastage of energy sources. This will also improve air quality and reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is an evil that can only be defeated when fought together. It is better late than never. If we all take steps today, we will have a much brighter future tomorrow. Global warming is the bane of our existence and various policies have come up worldwide to fight it but that is not enough. The actual difference is made when we work at an individual level to fight it. Understanding its import now is crucial before it becomes an irrevocable mistake. Exterminating global warming is of utmost importance and each one of us is as responsible for it as the next.

Also Read: Essay on Library: 100, 200 and 250 Words

Essay on Global Warming UPSC

Always hear about global warming everywhere, but do we know what it is? The evil of the worst form, global warming is a phenomenon that can affect life more fatally. Global warming refers to the increase in the earth’s temperature as a result of various human activities. The planet is gradually getting hotter and threatening the existence of lifeforms on it. Despite being relentlessly studied and researched, global warming for the majority of the population remains an abstract concept of science. It is this concept that over the years has culminated in making global warming a stark reality and not a concept covered in books. Global warming is not caused by one sole reason that can be curbed. Multifarious factors cause global warming most of which are a part of an individual’s daily existence. Burning of fuels for cooking, in vehicles, and for other conventional uses, a large amount of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and methane amongst many others is produced which accelerates global warming. Rampant deforestation also results in global warming as lesser green cover results in an increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas. Finding a solution to global warming is of immediate importance. Global warming is a phenomenon that has to be fought unitedly. Planting more trees can be the first step that can be taken toward warding off the severe consequences of global warming. Increasing the green cover will result in regulating the carbon cycle. There should be a shift from using nonrenewable energy to renewable energy such as wind or solar energy which causes less pollution and thereby hinder the acceleration of global warming. Reducing energy needs at an individual level and not wasting energy in any form is the most important step to be taken against global warming. The warning bells are tolling to awaken us from the deep slumber of complacency we have slipped into. Humans can fight against nature and it is high time we acknowledged that. With all our scientific progress and technological inventions, fighting off the negative effects of global warming is implausible. We have to remember that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our future generations and the responsibility lies on our shoulders to bequeath them a healthy planet for life to exist.

Climate Change and Global Warming Essay

Global Warming and Climate Change are two sides of the same coin. Both are interrelated with each other and are two issues of major concern worldwide. Greenhouse gases released such as carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere cause Global Warming which leads to climate change. Black holes have started to form in the ozone layer that protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays.

Human activities have created climate change and global warming. Industrial waste and fumes are the major contributors to global warming.

Another factor affecting is the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and also one of the reasons for climate change. Global warming has resulted in shrinking mountain glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic and causing climate change. Switching from the use of fossil fuels to energy sources like wind and solar.

When buying any electronic appliance buy the best quality with energy savings stars. Don’t waste water and encourage rainwater harvesting in your community.

Tips to Write an Essay

Writing an effective essay needs skills that few people possess and even fewer know how to implement. While writing an essay can be an assiduous task that can be unnerving at times, some key pointers can be inculcated to draft a successful essay. These involve focusing on the structure of the essay, planning it out well, and emphasizing crucial details.

Mentioned below are some pointers that can help you write better structure and more thoughtful essays that will get across to your readers:

Prepare an outline for the essay to ensure continuity and relevance and no break in the structure of the essay
Decide on a thesis statement that will form the basis of your essay. It will be the point of your essay and help readers understand your contention
Follow the structure of an introduction, a detailed body followed by a conclusion so that the readers can comprehend the essay in a particular manner without any dissonance.
Make your beginning catchy and include solutions in your conclusion to make the essay insightful and lucrative to read
Reread before putting it out and add your flair to the essay to make it more personal and thereby unique and intriguing for readers

Also Read: I Love My India Essay: 100 and 500+ Words in English for School Students

Ans. Both natural and man-made factors contribute to global warming. The natural one also contains methane gas, volcanic eruptions, and greenhouse gases. Deforestation, mining, livestock raising, burning fossil fuels, and other man-made causes are next.

Ans. The government and the general public can work together to stop global warming. Trees must be planted more often, and deforestation must be prohibited. Auto usage needs to be curbed, and recycling needs to be promoted.

Ans. Switching to renewable energy sources , adopting sustainable farming, transportation, and energy methods, and conserving water and other natural resources.

Relevant Blogs

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Digvijay Singh

Having 2+ years of experience in educational content writing, withholding a Bachelor's in Physical Education and Sports Science and a strong interest in writing educational content for students enrolled in domestic and foreign study abroad programmes. I believe in offering a distinct viewpoint to the table, to help students deal with the complexities of both domestic and foreign educational systems. Through engaging storytelling and insightful analysis, I aim to inspire my readers to embark on their educational journeys, whether abroad or at home, and to make the most of every learning opportunity that comes their way.

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people

Climate change is real and caused by humans

The IPCC is not the only scientific group that has reached a clear consensus on the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming. As this NASA page points out, 200 global scientific organizations, 11 international science academies, and 18 American science associations have released statements in alignment with this consensus.

Graphic showing how atmospheric CO2 has increased since Industrial Revolution

Amanda Staudt is the senior director for climate, atmospheric and polar sciences at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, where she has worked since 2001. The Academies, she said, first began studying climate change in 1979, researching how much warming would likely happen if the amount of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were doubled.

Four decades later, those findings have held up and have been strengthened based on scores of continued studies and analysis. “The remarkable thing about that study,” she said, “is that they basically got the right answer” from the start. This 1979 study by the National Research Council, Staudt said, led to investment in climate science in the U.S.

Though this consensus has been thoroughly established, scientific research and new findings continue. Staudt said countless attempted rebuttals of climate science findings have been researched and disproved.

“We did a lot of studies in that time period, looking at those questions,” she said, ”and one by one, putting them to bed and convincing ourselves over and over again, that humans were affecting climate, and that we could document that effect.”

At the National Academies, reaching consensus requires open sessions and dialogue with scientists and agreement from committees, which typically consist of 12-15 experts. Their draft reports go through peer review, and reviewers’ concerns are resolved before publication is approved. The goal is for the complex science of climate change to become as thoroughly researched and substantiated as possible.

“One of the things I think about scientists is that we’re all inherently skeptics at some level,” Staudt said. “That’s what drives us to science, that we have questions about the world around us. And we want to prove that for ourselves.”

Scientists consistently reaffirm evidence that climate change is happening

Climate scientists worldwide go through similar processes before their findings are published. And their research papers, too, show a strong consensus about global warming. As NASA states on its website , “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” (By sound practice, scientists resist saying science is for all times “certain” or that its findings are “final,” and the “extremely likely” language respects that practice.)

One of the studies about the consensus was led by John Cook, a fellow at the Climate Change Communication Research Hub at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Cook and colleagues reviewed nearly 12,000 scientific papers to examine how aligned published research is on major findings on climate change. That study found that 97 percent of scholarly papers that take a position on climate change do endorse the consensus. The papers that rejected the consensus position contained errors, according to subsequent research .

In reviewing the papers, Cook has said he and his colleagues found the consensus to have been so widely accepted by 2013 that many researchers by then no longer felt a need to mention or reaffirm it in their research papers.

Also see: Causes of global warming: How scientists know that humans are responsible

Samantha Harrington

Samantha Harrington, director of audience experience for Yale Climate Connections, is a journalist and graphic designer with a background in digital media and entrepreneurship. Sam is especially interested... More by Samantha Harrington

Responding to the Climate Threat: Essays on Humanity’s Greatest Challenge

A new book co-authored by MIT Joint Program Founding Co-Director Emeritus Henry Jacoby

From the Back Cover

This book demonstrates how robust and evolving science can be relevant to public discourse about climate policy. Fighting climate change is the ultimate societal challenge, and the difficulty is not just in the wrenching adjustments required to cut greenhouse emissions and to respond to change already under way. A second and equally important difficulty is ensuring widespread public understanding of the natural and social science. This understanding is essential for an effective risk management strategy at a planetary scale. The scientific, economic, and policy aspects of climate change are already a challenge to communicate, without factoring in the distractions and deflections from organized programs of misinformation and denial.

Here, four scholars, each with decades of research on the climate threat, take on the task of explaining our current understanding of the climate threat and what can be done about it, in lay language―importantly, without losing critical aspects of the natural and social science. In a series of essays, published during the 2020 presidential election, the COVID pandemic, and through the fall of 2021, they explain the essential components of the challenge, countering the forces of distrust of the science and opposition to a vigorous national response.

Each of the essays provides an opportunity to learn about a particular aspect of climate science and policy within the complex context of current events. The overall volume is more than the sum of its individual articles. Proceeding each essay is an explanation of the context in which it was written, followed by observation of what has happened since its first publication. In addition to its discussion of topical issues in modern climate science, the book also explores science communication to a broad audience. Its authors are not only scientists – they are also teachers, using current events to teach when people are listening. For preserving Earth’s planetary life support system, science and teaching are essential. Advancing both is an unending task.

About the Authors

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was vice-chair of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Henry Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus, in the MIT Sloan School of Management and former co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural and social sciences and policy analysis in application to the threat of global climate change.

Richard Richels directed climate change research at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). He served as lead author for multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Ben Santer is a climate scientist and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow. He contributed to all six IPCC reports. He was the lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report which concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. He is currently a Visiting Researcher at UCLA’s Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science & Engineering.

Access the Book

View the book on the publisher's website here .

Order the book from Amazon here .

Reimagining cities with prof. david hsu.

Photo of David Hsu on card with text Chalk Radio and MIT OpenCourseWare.

E5: Why are EVs more popular than hydrogen cars?

The MIT Edgerton Center’s third annual showcase dazzles onlookers

Students help the MIT Motorsports team push their car into Lobby 13 for the 2024 MIT Edgerton Center student showcase.

E4: An introduction to hydrogen energy (re-air)

Mit climate news in your inbox.

Is global warming real?

Scientific consensus is overwhelming: The planet is getting warmer, and humans are behind it.

In recent years, global warming and climate change have been the subject of a great deal of political controversy, especially in the U.S. But as the science becomes clearer and consensus grows impossible to ignore, debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions about how best to respond.

Temperatures rising

Chart of GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX

Evidence of rising temperatures is pervasive and striking: Thermometer records kept over the past century and a half show Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius), and about twice that in parts of the Arctic .

That doesn’t mean temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But by analyzing average temperatures all over the world, scientists have demonstrated an unmistakable upward trend.

This trend is part of climate change , which many people consider synonymous with global warming. Scientists prefer to use “climate change” when describing the complex shifts now affecting our planet’s weather and climate systems . Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas , and a range of other impacts.

All of these changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

How is climate change measured?

Although we can't look at thermometers going back thousands of years, we do have other records that help us figure out what temperatures were like in the distant past. For example, trees store information about the climate in the place they’re rooted. Each year trees grow thicker and form new rings. In warmer and wetter years, the rings are thicker. Old trees and wood can tell us about conditions hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

Windows on the past are also buried in lakes and oceans. Pollen, particles, and dead creatures fall to the bottom of oceans and lakes each year, forming sediments. Sediments contain a wealth of information about what was in the air and water when they fell. Scientists reveal this record by inserting hollow tubes into the mud to collect layers of sediment going back millions of years.

For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill cores through the Earth's polar ice sheets . Tiny bubbles trapped in the ice are actually samples from the Earth's past atmosphere, frozen in time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Computer models help scientists to understand the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns. Models also allow scientists to make predictions about the future climate by simulating how the atmosphere and oceans absorb energy from the sun and transport it around the globe.

We are the reason

Several factors affect how much of the sun's energy reaches Earth's surface and how much of that energy gets absorbed. Those include greenhouse gases, particles in the atmosphere (from volcanic eruptions, for example), and changes in energy coming from the sun itself.

Climate models are designed to take such factors into account. For example, models have found that changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols have contributed only about two percent of the recent warming effect over 250 years. The balance comes from greenhouse gases and other human-caused factors, such as land-use changes.

The speed and duration of this recent warming is remarkable as well. Volcanic eruptions, as an example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But they have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Events like El Niño also work on fairly short and predictable cycles. On the other hand, the types of global temperature fluctuations that have contributed to ice ages occur on cycles of hundreds of thousands of years.

The answer to the question, “Is global warming real?” is yes: Nothing other than the rapid rise of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity can fully explain the dramatic and relatively recent rise in global average temperatures.

For Hungry Minds

Another weapon to fight climate change? Put carbon back where we found it

How global warming is disrupting life on Earth

What is El Niño—and will it lead to more snow this winter?

Are there real ways to fight climate change? Yes.

For Antarctica’s emperor penguins, ‘there is no time left’

Environment

History & Culture

History & Culture
History Magazine
Mind, Body, Wonder
Coronavirus Coverage
Paid Content
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Your US State Privacy Rights
Children's Online Privacy Policy
Interest-Based Ads
About Nielsen Measurement
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Nat Geo Home
Attend a Live Event
Book a Trip
Inspire Your Kids
Shop Nat Geo
Visit the D.C. Museum
Learn About Our Impact
Support Our Mission
Advertise With Us
Customer Service
Renew Subscription
Manage Your Subscription
Work at Nat Geo
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Contribute to Protect the Planet

The Center for Global Studies

Climate change argumentation.

Carmen Vanderhoof, Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Penn State

Carmen Vanderhoof is a doctoral candidate in Science Education at Penn State. Her research employs multimodal discourse analysis of elementary students engaged in a collaborative engineering design challenge in order to examine students’ decision-making practices. Prior to resuming graduate studies, she was a secondary science teacher and conducted molecular biology research.

Subject(s): Earth Science
Topic: Climate Change and Sustainability
Grade/Level: 9-12 (can be adapted to grades 6-8)
Objectives: Students will be able to write a scientific argument using evidence and reasoning to support claims. Students will also be able to reflect on the weaknesses in their own arguments in order to improve their argument and then respond to other arguments.
Suggested Time Allotment: 4-5 hours (extra time for extension)

This lesson is derived from Dr. Peter Buckland’s sustainability presentation for the Center for Global Studies . Dr. Peter Buckland, a Penn State alumnus, is a postdoctoral fellow for the Sustainability Institute. He has drawn together many resources for teaching about climate change, sustainability, and other environmental issues.

While there are many resources for teaching about climate change and sustainability, it may be tough to figure out where to start. There are massive amounts of data available to the general public and students need help searching for good sources of evidence. Prior to launching into a search, it would be worthwhile figuring out what the students already know about climate change, where they learned it, and how they feel about efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. There are many options for eliciting prior knowledge, including taking online quizzes, whole-class discussion, or drawing concept maps. For this initial step, it is important that students feel comfortable to share, without engaging in disagreements. The main idea is to increase students’ understanding about global warming, rather than focus on the potential controversial nature of this topic.

A major goal of this unit is to engage students in co-constructing evidence-based explanations through individual writing, sharing, re-writing, group discussion, and whole group reflection. The argumentation format presented here contains claims supported by evidence and reasoning (Claims Evidence Reasoning – CER). Argumentation in this sense is different from how the word “argument” is used in everyday language. Argumentation is a collaborative process towards an end goal, rather than a competition to win (Duschl & Osborne, 2002). Scientific argumentation is the process of negotiating and communicating findings through a series of claims supported by evidence from various sources along with a rationale or reasoning linking the claim with the evidence. For students, making the link between claim and evidence can be the most difficult part of the process.

Where does the evidence come from?

Evidence and data are often used synonymously, but there is a difference. Evidence is “the representation of data in a form that undergirds an argument that works to answer the original question” (Hand et al., 2009, p. 129). This explains why even though scientists may use the same data to draw explanations from, the final product may take different forms depending on which parts of the data were used and how. For example, in a court case experts from opposing sides may use the same data to persuade the jury to reach different conclusions. Another way to explain this distinction to students is “the story built from the data that leads to a claim is the evidence” (Hand et al., 2009, p. 129). Evidence can come from many sources – results from controlled experiments, measurements, books, articles, websites, personal observations, etc. It is important to discuss with students the issue of the source’s reliability and accuracy. When using data freely available online, ask yourself: Who conducted the study? Who funded the research? Where was it published or presented?

What is a claim and how do I find it?

A scientific claim is a statement that answers a question or an inference based on information, rather than just personal opinion.

How can I connect the claim(s) with the evidence?

That’s where the justification or reasoning comes in. This portion of the argument explains why the evidence is relevant to the claim or how the evidence supports the claim.

Implementation

Learning context and connecting to state standards.

This interdisciplinary unit can be used in an earth science class or adapted to environmental science, chemistry, or physics. The key to adapting the lesson is guiding students to sources of data that fit the discipline they are studying.

For earth science , students can explain the difference between climate and weather, describe the factors associated with global climate change, and explore a variety of data sources to draw their evidence from. Pennsylvania Academic Standards for earth and space science (secondary): 3.3.12.A1, 3.3.12.A6, 3.3.10.A7.

For environmental science , students can analyze the costs and benefits of pollution control measures. Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Environment and Ecology (secondary): 4.5.12.C.

For chemistry and physics , students can explain the function of greenhouse gases, construct a model of the greenhouse effect, and model energy flow through the atmosphere. Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Physical Sciences (secondary): 3.2.10.B6.

New Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Connections

Human impacts and global climate change are directly addressed in the NGSS. Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI): HS-ESS3-3, HS-ESS3-4, HS-ESS3-5, HS-ESS3-6.

Lesson 1: Introduction to climate change

What are greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect? (sample answer: greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane contribute to overall heating of the atmosphere; these gases trap heat just like the glass in a greenhouse or in a car)
What is the difference between weather and climate? (sample answer: weather is the daily temperature and precipitation measurements, while climate is a much longer pattern over multiple years)

Drawing of the greenhouse effect – as individuals or in pairs, have students look up the greenhouse effect and draw a diagram to represent it; share out with the class

Optional: figure out students’ beliefs about global warming using the Yale Six Americas Survey (students answer a series of questions and at the end they are given one of the following categories: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, dismissive).

Lesson 2: Searching for and evaluating evidence

Compare different data sources and assess their credibility
Temperature
Precipitation
Storm surge
Ask the students to think about what types of claims they can make about climate change using the data they found (Sample claims: human activity is causing global warming or sea-level rise in the next fifty years will affect coastal cities like Amsterdam, Hong Kong, or New Orleans).

Lesson 3: Writing an argument using evidence

Claim – an inference or a statement that answers a question
Evidence – an outside source of information that supports the claim, often drawn from selected data
Reasoning – the justification/support for the claim; what connects the evidence with the claim
Extending arguments – have students exchange papers and notice the strengths of the other arguments they are reading (can do multiple cycles of reading); ask students to go back to their original argument and expand it with more evidence and/or more justification for why the evidence supports the claim
Anticipate Rebuttals – ask students to think and write about any weaknesses in their own argument

Lesson 4: Argumentation discussion

rebuttal – challenges a component of someone’s argument – for example, a challenge to the evidence used in the original argument
counterargument – a whole new argument that challenges the original argument
respect group members and their ideas
wait for group members to finish their turns before speaking
be mindful of your own contributions to the discussion (try not to take over the whole discussion so others can contribute too; conversely, if you didn’t already talk, find a way to bring in a new argument, expand on an existing argument, or challenge another argument)
Debate/discussion – In table groups have students share their arguments and practice rebuttals and counterarguments
Whole-group reflection – ask students to share key points from their discussion

Lesson 5: Argumentation in action case study

Mumbai, india case study.

Rishi is a thirteen year old boy who attends the Gayak Rafi Nagar Urdu Municipal school in Mumbai. There is a massive landfill called Deonar right across from his school. Every day 4,000 tons of waste are piled on top of the existing garbage spanning 132 hectares (roughly half a square mile). Rishi ventures out to the landfill after school to look for materials that he can later trade for a little bit of extra money to help his family. He feels lucky that he gets to go to school during the day; others are not so lucky. One of his friends, Aamir, had to stop going to school and work full time after his dad got injured. They often meet to chat while they dig through the garbage with sticks. Occasionally, they find books in okay shape, which aren’t worth anything in trade, but to them they are valuable.

One day Rishi was out to the market with his mom and saw the sky darken with a heavy smoke that blocked out the sun. They both hurried home and found out there was a state of emergency and the schools closed for two days. It took many days to put out the fire at Deonar. He heard his dad say that the fire was so bad that it could be seen from space. He wonders what it would be like to see Mumbai from up there. Some days he wishes the government would close down Deonar and clean it up. Other days he wonders what would happen to all the people that depend on it to live if the city shuts down Deonar.

Mumbai is one of the coastal cities that are considered vulnerable with increasing global temperature and sea level rise. The urban poor are most affected by climate change. Their shelter could be wiped out by a tropical storm and rebuilding would be very difficult.

Write a letter to a public official who may be able to influence policy in Mumbai.

What would you recommend they do? Should they close Deonar? What can they do to reduce air pollution in the city and prepare for possible storms? Remember to use evidence in your argument.

If students want to read the articles that inspired the case study direct them to: http://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/climate-change/

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-07-06/top-20-cities-with-billions-at-risk-from-climate-change.html#slide16

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-26/smelly-dumps-drive-away-affordable-homes-in-land-starved-mumbai

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/asia/mumbai-giant-garbage-dump-fire/

Resources:

Lines of Evidence video from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN)
Climate maps from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Sources of data from NASA
Explore the original source of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences (PNAS) study

Differentiated Instruction

For visual learners – use diagrams, encourage students to map out their arguments prior to writing them
For auditory learners – use the lines of evidence video
For ESL students – provide them with a variety of greenhouse gases diagrams, allow for a more flexible argument format and focus on general meaning-making – ex. using arrows to connect their sources of evidence to claims
For advanced learners – ask them to search through larger data sets and make comparisons between data from different sources; they can also research environmental policies and why they stalled out in congress
For learners that need more support – print out excerpts from articles; pinpoint the main ideas to help with the research; help students connect their evidence with their claims; consider allowing students to work in pairs to accomplish the writing task

Argument write-up – check that students’ arguments contain claims supported by evidence and reasoning and that they thought about possible weaknesses in their own arguments.

Case study letter – check that students included evidence in their letter.

References:

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.

Hand, B. et al. (2009) Negotiating Science: The Critical Role of Argumentation in Student Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Claim, evidence and reasoning: Supporting grade 5 – 8 students in constructing scientiﬁc explanations. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-gases.html

http://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/climate-change/

Mat hew Broderick

Cynthia Macri

CRTW 201-008

15 November, 2012

Researched Argumentative Essay

When the topic of global warming comes up in conversation many people either groan and avoid conversation, or don their dueling gloves and prepare for a heated debate. Some people feel guilty and concerned; some simply do not care. Different points of view yield different stances on the subject. Coming from the scientific and environmental points of view, myrmecologist Edward O. Wilson discusses the severity of global warming, some of the threads of thought that oppose his own, and some of the consequences of continued mistreatment of the environment in his book The Future of Life . While some people may claim ignorance on the subject, global warming and substantial data showing annual increases in global temperature have been broadcast throughout the media and discussed in schools and seminars around the world. While there may be developing countries that do not understand global warming or how humans contribute to it, the developed countries that are the biggest contributors to global warming are very well-informed of the situation. The question is will the people who can act and make changes to save the environment do so, or will they play dumb and look the other way while the world as they know it crumbles at their feet?

Assuming that most individuals cherish their beloved planet, many environmentalists and ecologists post blogs, write essays, publish works, and give speeches informing the public about the future threat their planet faces. They hope to educate and persuade as many people as possible to fight for the future of the planet. From the scientific point of view, this issue is of extreme importance, and requires close examination of historical patterns, modification of current practices, and close monitoring of the atmospheric content in the future. In his book, Wilson jests but maintains a serious tone as he holds human beings accountable, “we have driven atmospheric carbon dioxide to the highest levels in at least two hundred thousand years, unbalanced the nitrogen cycle, and contributed to a global warming that will ultimately be bad news everywhere” (23). Although Wilson discusses these advanced chemical and biological concepts, he keeps his point simple and hopes to use guilt to evoke action in his audience. Many scientists assume that the general public is familiar with the science behind the atmosphere, and some people may disagree because they merely do not understand how the contribution of extreme CO2 excess could contribute to a shift in global weather pattens. Others are aware of the situation, but are unwilling to make changes because their focus lies elsewhere.

One of the main points of view that frequently opposes the environmentalist and ecologist ways of thinking is that of the economist. From the economist's perspective, the focus is on production and consumption. He may think: “this is only hurting the environment a little bit, if there are consequences they will be far down the road and we can deal with them once we are more financially stable and have developed better technology.” Nobody can argue with the economist for prioritizing in such a manner, and Wilson attempts to reason out the logic noting, “he is right, of course. Every species lives on production and consumption... The economist's thinking is based on precise models of rational choice and near-horizon time lines. His parameters are the gross domestic product, trade balance, and competitive index... The planet, he insists, is perpetually fruitful and still underutilized” (24). The economist is merely thinking in the way that he has been taught to think; he is logically managing his immediate goals, but he is failing to utilize critical thinking to fully grasp the issue at hand. Waiting until global warming is a more immediate threat and assuming that the damage will be stoppable or treatable at that point are concepts that fail to take the immense risk into consideration. The condition of the atmosphere may be beyond repair by the time major economic organizations jump on board, and shifts in climate are already clearly obvious all over the world. Unusual weather patterns are leaving climatologists confused and baffled, natural disasters are claiming innocent lives left and right, and the world almost seems angry from the years of human ignorance and abuse. Individuals everywhere, perhaps even the economics-driven thinkers focused on industrial expansion, can no longer remain blind to these blatant signs. Non-critically thinking economists would benefit from conducting research and reviewing the information behind global warming, before it's too late.

The definition of global warming is the increase of the average temperature on the surface of the earth (Venkatarmanan 226). Some people argue that the climate of the earth is supposed to fluctuate, and that this is just a hotter time in the climate cycle, but this trend of a steady increase in temperature doesn't seem like it will cease. Science and technology journalist M. Venkatarmanan points out the dangerous pattern, “over the last 100 years, the average air temperature near the earth's surface has risen by a little less than one degree Celsius or one point three degrees Fahrenheit” (226). Many may scoff at this minimal observation, but climatologists predict that even this small change can result in a major impact on the earth. Ken Caldeira, a journalist for Scientific American , notes his observation of the evidence of global warming already, “as predicted there has been more warming over land than over the oceans, more at the poles than the equator, more in winter than in summer and more at night than at day. Extreme downpours have become more common. In the arctic, ice and snow cover less area, and methane-rich permafrost soils are beginning to melt. Weather is getting weirder, with storms fueled by the additional heat” (Caldeira 78). Although the signs of unnatural global warming are quite evident, many do not believe that humans have anything to do with such an occurrence.

The truth lies in the data. The cause of global warming is the green house effect. In the Indian Journal of Science and Technology , Venkatarmanan explains the green house effect that occurs in the atmosphere from sunlight. To simplify the explanation: when the sunlight reaches Earth, some is absorbed and the rest is radiated back to the atmosphere. The leftover sunlight, which is supposed to escape to space, is absorbed by greenhouse gases. This extra absorption of energy warms the atmosphere, and eventually the greenhouse gases act like a mirror and reflect the extra energy back toward the surface of the earth (226). Logically, one may infer that an increase in the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will further increase the temperature of the earth's surface. Although the quantity of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere today are pretty high, the situation is only compounding, and continuing unregulated emission of greenhouse gases will lead to a dangerous future.

One could easily hold humans accountable for contributing the immense quantities of greenhouses gases to earth's atmosphere and creating the conditions for a threatening future. Human beings rely heavily on industry and the usage of fossil fuels for energy. According to Venkatarmanan, “The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels leading to the emission of carbon dioxide” (226). Humans have been burning large quantities of fossil fuels for many years. Every time something burns, carbon dioxide escapes into the atmosphere, and there are immense amounts of carbon dioxide released when a fossil fuel burns. While humans may not have a complete record of the fluctuations in the atmosphere from the past, one can infer that the result of prolonged combustion of fossil fuels has contributed greatly to the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Considering the industrial revolutions across the globe and the quantity of fossil fuels that humans have previously combusted, a large portion of the blame falls on the head of the human race. The economic expansion and rapid technological development of this day and age have become something that is expected by society, and industrial economists feel pressured to continue delivering at the current rate. Industrial leaders are aware of the hazardous effects of the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, but their immediate goals involve reaching economic stability and societal pleasure.

As the economists realize their goals, and humans destroy plants to build houses, hospitals, schools, and many other important structures, the situation compounds itself. The plants and natural vegetation utilize organic processes to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Flowers, crops, and trees love carbon dioxide because it is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food (“How Trees” 2). When humans build places to live and clear out areas for crops, they are eliminating some of the living tools for fighting global warming. In history humans were ignorant to this fact, but in the modern day and age individuals are aware of the price of killing a plant. Aside from losing these natural atmosphere balancers, the decomposition of dead vegetation emits small amounts of carbon dioxide as well. This is a huge problem in Indonesia and Brazil currently, as immediate conversion of the land into agricultural land is more of a problem than the burning of fossil fuels. According to the Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics , “Indonesian sources have estimated the current rate of conversion of forest to agricultural land to be 1.32 million hectares per year” (Warr and Arief 297). This economic-based land-use change accounts for the bulk of Indonesia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. This fact reinforces the concept that humans need to regulate more than just the burning of fossil fuels to save the atmosphere.

Humans are causing harm merely by clearing land to live and grow food on, but the real damage comes from the industry-based deforestation of the natural rainforests around the world to build factories or harvest the trees for paper. Earth's trees are the grand-daddys of photosynthesis, “trees absorb carbon dioxide while they grow and trap it for many years to come. On average, over thirty years, a tree can absorb 230 kilograms of carbon dioxide” (“How Trees” 2). Not only have human beings created a potentially hazardous atmospheric condition, but they unknowingly destroyed many of the best known mechanisms for repairing the damage and continue to do so in large-scale today. Human nature's desire to advance and survive is truly amazing, almost scary, but if humans fail to compromise with the environment, their mission of extending and improving life will backfire.

The consequences associated with the failure to control global warming are numerous and severe. One consequence involves destruction of society as we know it by numerous and increasing natural disasters. Some people do not think that the small temperature change constitutes apocalyptic natural disasters, but vast evidence exists to argue otherwise, “ It is well known that tropical cyclones form only over warm oceans from which they gain their energy, largely from the latent heat of condensation. Thus, it would not be surprising if a warmer and moister world contained enhanced overall hurricane activity” (Anthes et al. 624). According to this evidence, the threat of increased global disasters is very real, and not as distant as many may hope. Today we only see small changes in temperature, but what about in a hundred years, or a thousand? If humanity continues to advance unchecked, the future may hold temperatures more than just a few degrees hotter than usual, and in turn, exponentially larger hurricanes.

The hypothesis that an increase in global temperature will lead to a world ridden with natural disaster is quite logical, but even those who are skeptical can't deny the other implications. Many species that cannot migrate easily or adapt to change will be killed into extinction by the increasing global temperature. This could potentially compound the problem by the death of many carbon dioxide-absorbing tropical trees that cannot migrate. If they die, then more carbon dioxide could enter the atmosphere. According to biodiversity research, “e stimated global warming–induced rates of species extinctions in tropical biodiversity hotspots are even projected to exceed those because of land use, supporting the suggestion that global warming may be one of the most serious threats to tropical biodiversity” (Kreyling, Wana, and Beierkuhnlein 594). If events unravel the way this research suggests, the problem of trees dying on their own could eventually outweigh destruction by human hand. This is the “too late” that many environmentalists refer to when discussing the need for urgency in repairing the atmosphere.

Although there are many justly entitled view points on the issues of global warming and the governmental utilization of resources, the facts of the matter scream for attention on this issue and call for immediate change. Natural disasters are growing larger and more dangerous, and exotic species are dying as a result in the climate shift. Humanity must act now to reduce and reverse global warming. There are many different areas in which humans can make small changes that will make huge differences if everyone does their part, especially the thinkers who favor economic expansion. Some of the changes necessary involve reigning in on deforestation, and advancing efforts to plant news trees. Regardless of which method humanity utilizes, the fate of the Earth depends on society realizing its mistake, taking immediate responsibility, and correcting the problem of Global Warming. This must happen, or Earth is surely doomed.

Works Cited

Anthes, Richard et al. “Hurricanes and Global Warming – Potential Linkages and

Consequences.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 87. 5. (2006): 623-628.

EBSCOhost.com. Web. 1 November, 2012.

Caldeira, Ken. “The Great Climate Experiment.” Scientific American. NV. NI. (2012): 78-83.

N.A. “How Trees Can Combat Carbon Emissions.” Express and Echo. NV.NI. (2007): 1-2.

Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 1 November, 2012.

Kreyling, juergen, Desalegn Wana, and Carl Beiekuhnlein. “Potential Consequences of Climate

Warming for Tropical Plant Species in High Mountains of Southern Ethiopia.” Diversity

and Distributions. 16. 4. (2010): 593-605. EBSCOhost.com. Wen. 1 November, 2012.

Venkatarmanan, M. “Causes and Effects of Global Warming.” Indian Journal of Science and

Technology. 4. 3. (2011): 226-229. EBSCOhost.com. Web. 1 November, 2012.

Warr, Peter and Arief Anshory Yusuf. “Reducing Indonesia's Deforestation-based Greenhouse

Gas Emissions.” Australian Journal of Agriculture. 55. 3. (2011): 297-321.

Wilson, Edward O. The Future of Life . New York: Random House, inc. 2012. Print.

Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming?

No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times and that human activity is the most significant factor.

Cartoon showing people lined up for different buses bearing signs that indicate most scientists are baording the bus called "human-caused change"

Today, there is no real disagreement among climate experts that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. NOAA Climate.gov cartoon by Emily Greenhalgh.

Consensus of experts

The United States' foremost scientific agencies and organizations have recognized global warming as a human-caused problem that should be addressed. The U.S. Global Change Research Program has published a series of scientific reports documenting the causes and impacts of global climate change. NOAA , NASA , the National Science Foundation , the National Research Council , and the Environmental Protection Agency have all published reports and fact sheets stating that Earth is warming mainly due to the increase in human-produced heat-trapping gases.

On their climate home page , the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines says, "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions," and that "Climate change is increasingly affecting people’s lives."

Photo of a scientist hanging from a rope into a snowpit that shows soot layers

Soot from fires and air pollution contributes to global warming, and its impacts may be especially strong in the Arctic, where it darkens the snow and ice—as shown in this photo—and accelerates melting. Despite some uncertainty about just how much influence soot and other aerosol particles have played in climate change in the past century, there's little debate among climate scientists that the primary driver of recent global warming is carbon dioxide emissions. Photo from NOAA Ocean Today .

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement : "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued this position statement : "Human activities are changing Earth's climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and they will continue to do so into the future—in ways expected as well as potentially unforeseen. To limit these impacts, the world's nations have agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this goal, global society must promptly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions." (Reaffirmed in November 2019)

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) What We Know site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."

Consensus of evidence

These scientific organizations have not issued statements in a void; they echo the findings of individual papers published in refereed scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains a database of over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals, and multiple studies of this database show evidence of overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes published the results of her examination of the ISI database in the journal Science . She reviewed 928 abstracts published between 1993 and 2003 related to human activities warming the Earth's surface, and stated, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

This finding hasn't changed with time. In 2016, a review paper summarized the results of several independent studies on peer-reviewed research related to climate. The authors found results consistent with a 97-percent consensus that human activity is causing climate change. A 2021 paper found a greater than 99-percent consensus.

Probably the most definitive assessments of global climate science come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Founded by the United Nations in 1988, the IPCC releases periodic reports, and each major release includes three volumes: one on the science, one on impacts, and one on mitigation. Each volume is authored by a separate team of experts, who reviews, evaluates, and summarizes relevant research published since the prior report. Each IPCC report undergoes several iterations of expert and government review. The 2021 IPCC report, for instance, received and responded to more than 78,000 expert and government review comments.

Every five years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convenes hundreds of international scientists and government representatives to review and assess peer-reviewed research on climate science. In each cycle, the panel publishes three key reports: one on the basic science , one on impacts , and one on mitigation .

The IPCC does not involve just a few scientists, or even just dozens of scientists. An IPCC press release explains: "Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks."

Governments and climate experts across the globe nominate scientists for IPCC authorship, and the IPCC works to find a mix of authors, from developed and developing countries, among men and women, and among authors who are experienced with the IPCC and new to the process. Published in 2021, the Sixth Assessment Report was assembled by 751 experts from more than 60 countries (31 coordinating authors, 167 lead authors, 36 review editors, and 517 contributing authors). Collectively, the authors cited more than 14,000 scientific papers. In other words, the IPCC reports themselves are a comprehensive, consensus statement on the state climate science.

In the headline statements from the Sixth Assessment report's Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC concluded:

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole – and the present state of many aspects of the climate system – are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since [our last report].

Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S.A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters , 8, 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 .

Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P.T., Anderegg, W.R.L., Verheggen, B., Mailbach, E.W., Carlton, J.S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A.G., Green, S.A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters , 11, 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 .

Doran, P., and M.K. Zimmerman (2009): Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos , 90(3), 22–23.

IPCC. (2013). Factsheet: How does the IPCC select its authors? Accessed January 3, 2020.

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva Switzerland. Accessed January 22, 2020.

IPCC. (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3−32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. (2021). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Lynas, M., Houlton, B.Z., Perry, S. (2021). Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters , 16, 114005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 .

Oreskes, N. (2004). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science , 306, 1686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618 .

Oreskes, N. (2018). The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we're not wrong? Climate Modelling , pp. 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_2 .

Sherwood, S. (2011, May 10). Trust us, we're climate scientists: The case for the IPCC . The Conversation .

We value your feedback

Help us improve our content

view all topics > Climate change

Humans are causing global warming

As the tumultuous century was drawing to a close, the conservative Yale grad challenged the sitting vice president’s ideas about global warming. The vice president, a cerebral Southerner, was planning his own run for the presidency, and the fiery Connecticut native was eager to denounce the opposition party.

The date was 1799, not 1999—and the opposing voices in America’s first great debate about the link between human activity and rising temperature readings were not Al Gore and George W. Bush, but Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster.

As a gentleman farmer in Virginia, Jefferson had long been obsessed with the weather; in fact, on July 1, 1776, just as he was finishing his work on the Declaration of Independence, he began keeping a temperature diary. Jefferson would take two readings a day for the next 50 years. He would also crunch the numbers every which way, calculating various averages such as the mean temperature each month and each year.

In his 1787 book, Notes on the State of Virginia , Jefferson launched into a discussion of the climate of both his home state and America as a whole. Near the end of a brief chapter addressing wind currents, rain and temperature, he presented a series of tentative conclusions: “A change in our climate…is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep….The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.” Concerned about the destructive effects of this warming trend, Jefferson noted how “an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold” in the spring has been “very fatal to fruits.”

Jefferson was affirming the long-standing conventional wisdom of the day. For more than two millennia, people had lamented that deforestation had resulted in rising temperatures. A slew of prominent writers, from the great ancient naturalists Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder to such Enlightenment heavyweights as the Comte de Buffon and David Hume, had alluded to Europe’s warming trend.

A contemporary authority, Samuel Williams, the author of a 1794 magnum opus, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont , had studied temperature readings at several points in the 18th century from his home state and half a dozen other locales throughout North America, including South Carolina, Maryland and Quebec. Citing this empirical data, Williams claimed that the leveling of trees and the clearing of lands had caused the earth to become warmer and drier. “[Climate] change…instead of being so slow and gradual, as to be a matter of doubt,” he argued, “is so rapid and constant, that it is the subject of common observation and experience. It has been observed in every part of the United States; but is most of all sensible and apparent in a new country, which is suddenly changing from a state of vast uncultivated wilderness, to that of numerous settlements.”

This opinion had been uttered for so long that it was widely accepted as a given—until Webster. Today Webster is best known as the author of the American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), but his “great book” was actually his retirement project. He was a pioneering journalist who edited American Minerva , New York City’s first daily newspaper in the 1790s, and he weighed in on the major public policy issues of the day, cranking out essays on behalf of the Constitution, a 700-page treatise on epidemics and a condemnation of slavery. He would also serve in the state legislature of both Connecticut and Massachusetts. Webster disputed the “popular opinion that the temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change” in a speech before the newly established Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1799. Several years later, Webster delivered a second address on the topic. The two speeches were published together in 1810 under the title “On the Supposed Change of in the Temperature of Winter.”

With the thermometer still a relatively recent invention—the Polish inventor Daniel Fahrenheit didn’t develop his eponymous scale until 1724—conclusions about weather patterns before the mid-18th century were based largely on anecdotes. In the first two-thirds of his 1799 speech, Webster attacked Williams, a pastor who helped found the University of Vermont, for his faulty interpretations of literary texts such as the Bible and Virgil’s Georgics . Challenging Williams’ assumption—derived from his close examination of the Book of Job—that winters in Palestine were no longer as cold as they used to be, Webster declared, “I am really surprised to observe on what a slight foundation, a divine and philosopher has erected this theory.” But Webster, while acknowledging that the Bible may well not have been “a series of facts,” tried to spin the weather imagery in ancient texts his own way. Citing passages from Horace and Pliny, Webster asserted that “we then have the data to ascertain the ancient climate of Italy with great precision.”

To settle the scientific debate, Webster offered more than just literary exegesis. In examining “the cold of American winters,” Webster focused on the numbers—and his opponents’ lack of hard data (Jeffersons recorded his own temperature readings in a private diary). “Mr. Jefferson,” Webster stated, “seems to have no authority for his opinions but the observations of elderly and middle-aged people.” Webster saved most of his ammunition for Williams, who had written the more extensive brief, replete with an array of temperature readings. Williams’ central contention, that America’s temperature had risen by 10 or 12 degrees in the prior century and a half, Webster asserted, just doesn’t make any sense. “The mean temperature of Vermont,” he writes, “is now 43 degrees…If we suppose the winter only to have changed, and deduct one half the supposed abatement, still the result forbids us to believe the hypothesis. If we suppose the heat of summer to have lessened in the same proportion…the summers formerly must have been intolerable; no animal could have subsisted under ten degrees of heat beyond our present summer temperature. On whichever side we turn our eyes, we meet with insurmountable difficulties.”

Webster concluded by rejecting the crude warming theory of Jefferson and Williams in favor of a more subtle rendering of the data. The conversion of forests to fields, he acknowledged, has led to some microclimatic changes—namely, more windiness and more variation in winter conditions. But while snow doesn’t stay on the ground as long, that doesn’t necessarily mean the country as a whole gets less snowfall each winter: “We have, in the cultivated districts, deep snow today, and none tomorrow; but the same quantity of snow falling in the woods, lies there till spring….This will explain all the appearances of the seasons without resorting to the unphilosophical hypothesis of a general increase in heat.”

Webster’s words essentially ended the controversy. While Jefferson continued to compile and crunch temperature data after his retirement from the presidency, he never again made the case for global warming. Neither did Williams, who died a few years after the publication of Webster’s article. Webster’s position was considered unimpeachable. In 1850, the acclaimed German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt declared that “statements frequently advanced, although unsupported by measurements, that…the destruction of many forests on both sides of the Alleghenys has rendered the climate more equable…are now generally discredited.”

And there the matter rested until the second half of the 20th century, when scientists began to understand the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. The second great global warming debate poses a different set of scientific questions from those raised in the late 18th century, and this time the science clearly supports the idea that human activity (including clearing and burning forests) can increase temperatures. But it is Webster’s papers, with their careful analysis of the data, that have stood the test of time. Kenneth Thompson, a modern environmental scientist from the University of California at Davis, praises “the force and erudition” of Webster’s arguments and labels his contribution to climatology “a tour de force.”

Joshua Kendall is the author of The Forgotten Founding Father: Noah Webster’s Obsession and the Creation of an American Culture (Putnam, 2011).

Get the latest History stories in your inbox?

Click to visit our Privacy Statement .

Joshua Kendall | READ MORE

Joshua Kendall is the author of First Dads: Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack Obama , which is coming out in May.

Column: The climate scientist who just won a $1-million judgment against climate change deniers

Show more sharing options
Copy Link URL Copied!

One of the major issues confronting scientists today — especially those working in the heavily politicized fields of global warming, vaccines and the origin of COVID-19 — is how to deal with the torrents of misinformation and disinformation, some of it personal, pushing back against their work.

Climate scientist Michael E. Mann just found an answer. Sue the critics — and win.

Last week, a Washington, D.C., jury awarded Mann more than $1 million in punitive damages against two right-wing writers who had accused him of research fraud.

I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.

— Climate scientist Michael Mann

The jurors didn’t appear to find this a close question. They ruled that the online posts written by Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn breached the legal standards applied to defamation lawsuits involving a public figure such as Mann — that their writings asserted facts that were “provably false” and that they knew or should have known that their assertions were false.

The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each defendant, plus $1,000 in punitive damages from Simberg and $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn. The verdicts capped a painful 12-year battle that Mann waged to protect his reputation from trolls questioning his integrity.

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said after the verdict .

There’s more to the case than the exoneration of a single scientist. The verdict scored a direct hit on personal attacks on scientists using innuendo and outright lies, all aimed at advancing partisan and economic ideologies by undermining scientific research.

“ The attacks denigrating science and trying to undercut science, both for climate science and biomedicine, [are] not just about the science,” Peter Hotez, a leading authority on medicines and vaccines and a prominent foe of anti-science politics, told PBS.

“It’s now gone the next step to attack the scientists and portray us as public enemies,” said Hotez, who is collaborating with Mann on a book about the anti-science movement. “Both Michael and I are stalked regularly. We receive threats online, phone calls to the office, sometimes physical confrontations. So it’s gone out to that new level.”

FILE - Florida Surgeon Gen. Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, left, speaks at a news conference with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, right, Monday, Jan. 3, 2022, at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Ladapo says the state will formally recommend against COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children. Ladapo made the announcement at a roundtable event organized by DeSantis that featured a group of doctors who criticized coronavirus lockdowns and mandate policies. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)

Column: Meet the most dangerous quack in America

Florida Surgeon Gen. Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo is advising people to avoid the most effective COVID vaccines, just as a surge in disease cases gets worse.

Jan. 9, 2024

Scientists working in all fields subjected to partisan critiques have lamented that the flow of lies about their work and about established science can be unrelenting.

The critics are financed by right-wing foundations and their claims repeated at congressional hearings — typically, these days, chaired by House Republicans aiming to pump conspiracy theories into the mainstream . Sometimes, as many targets have experienced, the criticism degenerates into personal threats and physical confrontations .

Much is at stake in these battles. Global warming is an elemental threat to life on Earth, and ignoring it as its deniers advocate is a recipe for extinction. Campaigns by anti-vaccine activists can cause sickness and death for untold millions in the U.S. and worldwide.

To understand Mann’s case, it helps to start at the beginning.

In 1998 and 1999, Mann and colleagues published two papers reporting that global temperatures, which had been stable for at least a millennium, began rising sharply during the 20th century and especially in the last 50 years. They used evidence from tree rings, sediment cores from oceans, caves and lakes and ice cores from glaciers to reconstruct climate patterns of the distant past.

The 1999 paper illustrated their findings with what became known as the “hockey stick” graph because it resembled that implement with a long horizontal shaft (the distant past) ending with a nearly upright blade (recent times).

Mann’s research and the graph drew immediate pushback from global warming deniers, who questioned his data and methodology. After 2009, when emails among climate scientists including Mann were hacked from the files of the University of East Anglia in Britain and cherry-picked to suggest that the scientists were manipulating their data, they also questioned his integrity.

The attacks on Mann should have been ended by a series of official investigations through 2021 that cleared him of research wrongdoing, including two by Pennsylvania State University, where Mann taught from 2005 to 2022, and another by the National Science Foundation.

In all, eight separate investigations by official bodies found Mann innocent of wrongdoing or validated his research findings; the results all were made public. But the attacks continued, even up to this day. (Mann is now at the University of Pennsylvania.)

LOS ANGELES, CA - AUGUST 03: Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a premier of a documentary film called "Midnight at the Border" at the Saban Theater on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2023 in Los Angeles, CA. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Column: Measles is again on the march across the world, thanks to anti-vaxxers such as RFK Jr.

Measles cases are surging in Europe and Central Asia, according to the World Health Organization. Who’s responsible? The anti-vaccination movement and its leaders, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Dec. 19, 2023

That brings us to the noxious posts by Simberg and Steyn.

Simberg’s post, titled “The Other Scandal in Unhappy Valley,” was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on July 12, 2012 — after Mann had been cleared. It’s worth noting that the CEI is a free-enterprise think tank that has been funded by the Koch network, other far-right moneybags and the tobacco industry, and that global warming denial has been one of its favorite themes .

Simberg drew a connection between the scandal in the Penn State football program involving a cover-up of sexual molestations by Jerry Sandusky, an assistant coach, and the university’s purported “whitewash” of Mann’s hockey stick deceptions. (The headline referred to the nickname of Penn State’s scenic location, “Happy Valley.”)

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” Simberg wrote, “except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”

CEI has left Simberg’s post up on its website but has excised his references to Sandusky as “inappropriate.” However, the full post , including its original references to Sandusky, was reprinted in a 2016 decision by a Washington, D.C., court of appeals that allowed Mann’s case against the writers to proceed to trial.

Steyn followed Simberg’s post with his own , published in the conservative organ National Review on July 15.

While writing, apropos of Simberg’s Sandusky reference, that he was “not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers,” Steyn asserted that Simberg “has a point.” He called Mann’s hockey-stick graph “fraudulent.”

Steyn and Simberg both questioned the investigations that cleared Mann. Simberg noted that Penn State’s investigators were all tenured professors on its faculty. Steyn wrote, “If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?”

Simberg also referred disdainfully to a 2011 investigation by the National Science Foundation’s inspector general , which exonerated Mann, writing that it relied on information from Penn State and therefore was “not truly independent.”

LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 18, 2021 - - Dozens of anti-vax protesters rally in front of City Hall in Los Angeles on September 18, 2021. An anti-vaxxer was stabbed and a reporter was sent to the hospital with a head injury at last month's rally at City Hall. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Column: Scientists are paying a huge personal price in the lonely fight against anti-vaxxers

The anti-vaccination and anti-science movements are killing thousands of innocent people. Why don’t government agencies and professional groups speak up?

Oct. 20, 2023

A couple of points about that. First, Simberg wrote that the investigation was by the National Academy of Sciences, which is different from the NSF. (The NAS conducted its own investigation upholding Mann’s work , in 2006, but that’s not the one Simberg quoted.)

Second, the NSF’s office of inspector general specifically stated that in its investigation it did not rely on Penn State.

Rather, it examined “a substantial amount of publically [sic] available documentation concerning both [Mann’s] research and parallel research conducted by his collaborators and other scientists” in the field of global warming, and also interviewed Mann, “critics, and disciplinary experts” before finding that there was no evidence that Mann “falsified or fabricated any data.”

National Review defended itself and Steyn’s column with the sort of vacuous braggadocio that is its stock in trade.

In a 2012 editorial headlined “Get Lost,” its editor, Rich Lowry, laughed off Mann’s threat to file a lawsuit by pledging that if Mann did so it would be pleased to engage in “extremely wide-ranging” discovery — “we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.”

In the event, National Review turned tail and ran. It persuaded the D.C. court to drop it from Mann’s lawsuit in 2021 by pleading that Steyn wasn’t its employee but merely an “independent contractor” and that none of its employees had reviewed his posting until it was published on its website, which it portrayed as sort of a neutral landing place for posts to appear. That “journalistic project of great interest”? Fugeddaboutit.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute also got itself dismissed from Mann’s lawsuit in 2021 via a similar argument that a judge described as “an assertion of ignorance” : It said Simberg wasn’t its employee and that the low-level employee who did review his article before it posted checked it only for “formatting error and typos,” not for content.

Column: House Republicans give a crash course in how to concoct a conspiracy theory about COVID’s origin

House Republicans used an oversight hearing to accuse former NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of complicity in the COVID pandemic. The loser in this cabaret is science.

July 11, 2023

National Review continued to ridicule Mann . In January, as the trial against the writers began in a D.C. courtroom, it labeled Mann “a darling of fashionable opinion,” placed his case in the category of “runaway snowflakery” and called it “laughably weak.” (Whoops.) Given the publication’s court-ordered immunization against liability, it appeared to be taking on the role of a bully who goads others into waging battle with the words, “Let’s you and him fight.”

Now that the verdict is in, National Review is wrapping itself in the U.S. Constitution. It editorialized that a few blocks from the courthouse, “at the National Archives Museum, the 1st Amendment faded a little on its parchment.”

It asserted that Mann won the $1-million verdict merely for a blog post that did no more than “ruffle [his] feathers.” It charged that Mann’s “mendacity and egomania” motivated his lawsuit.

“Ultimately, this lawsuit is not about Mark Steyn or about conservative magazines or about climate change,” National Review wrote, “but about the integrity of free speech in these United States.”

The truth is, however, that Steyn and Simberg lost only after the jury applied the most stringent standards for defamation lawsuits — standards that have been developed precisely to protect “the integrity of free speech” and that protect serious journalism. Mann had to show that the authors knew or should have known that their factual assertions about his work were false, and that’s exactly what he did.

The lesson embodied in the jury award is not that you can’t smear or defame your targets. The jury didn’t rule that you can’t express an opinion about them or their work in the course of robust debate.

What it did rule, and it isn’t alone in honoring this principle, is that you can’t smear them by parading lies and misrepresentations as though they’re facts — not without paying a price.

That may be a frightful lesson for National Review and other publications like it, but it should be comforting for the rest of us.

Latest from Michael Hiltzik

Column: how the gop — with democratic party connivance — has undermined a crucial effort to avert the next pandemic, column: calling the police on campus protests shows that college presidents haven’t learned a thing since the 1960s, column: after a years-long pause, the fcc resurrects ‘network neutrality,’ a boon for consumers, more to read.

Los Angeles, CA - April 29: Avroh, Maya and Maryam, left to right, are three young plaintiffs who have sued the EPA, and poses for a portrait near the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California where a hearing for the lawsuit took place on Monday, April 29, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

Lawsuit appears to be in peril for California children harmed by climate change

May 1, 2024

Dr. Anthony Fauci fields media questions at the White House on Thursday.

Column: Two Rutgers professors are accused of poisoning the debate over COVID’s origins. Here’s why

March 20, 2024

LOS ANGELES, CALIF. - OCT. 4, 2022. Youth soccer teams practice at Wilmington Waterfront Park in the shadow of the Conoco Phillips refinery. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Editorial: California can’t let big polluters win by undermining climate change disclosure laws

March 8, 2024

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik has written for the Los Angeles Times for more than 40 years. His business column appears in print every Sunday and Wednesday, and occasionally on other days. Hiltzik and colleague Chuck Philips shared the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for articles exposing corruption in the entertainment industry. His seventh book, “Iron Empires: Robber Barons, Railroads, and the Making of Modern America,” was published in 2020. His forthcoming book, “The Golden State,” is a history of California. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/hiltzikm and on Facebook at facebook.com/hiltzik.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Byron Allen smiling in a dark blue suit in an office with a window view overlooking Los Angeles

Company Town

Byron Allen’s Allen Media Group facing layoffs across all divisions of the company

May 2, 2024

FILE - In this June 16, 2020 file photo, the sun is reflected on Apple's Fifth Avenue store in New York. Apple will reports earnings on Thursday May 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Apple suffers 10% drop in quarterly iPhone sales to start the year, biggest drop since pandemic

Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange in New York, Wednesday, May 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Wall Street climbs to trim its loss for the week

SAG-AFTRA members picket in Los Angeles.

SAG-AFTRA taps Nielsen for streaming data to enforce new contract

Share full article

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Climate Forward

Your most pressing climate questions.

Introducing Ask NYT Climate, where we’ll explore how climate intersects with your everyday life.

By Ryan McCarthy

I’m the new editor of the Climate Forward newsletter.

Are traffic circles better for the environment than four-way stops? Will the oceans be too hot for fish to survive? Is green hydrogen a thing?

Over the past few years, we here at the Climate desk have received hundreds of smart, often highly specific, questions from our readers about what they can do in their daily lives to affect climate change. To answer some of these questions, this week we’ve launched “ Ask NYT Climate ,” which is dedicated to exploring how climate intersects with your life.

Our first edition is about the perhaps counterintuitive idea that buying stuff online can actually be better for the planet than driving to a store. And if you’ve got a question you want us to answer, send it via the form at the bottom of this page .

To get a sense of how the biggest issues in the climate world intertwine with our lives, I also turned to our reporters and asked them two things: “What’s the most common question you hear from readers?” and “What are the biggest questions your sources are trying to answer right now?”

Our warming planet

“When I tell people I write about science and the natural world, the questions, I think, kind of stop,” said Raymond Zhong . He was only half-joking.

He writes about what climate scientists are thinking and researching. But on the core issues of climate change, he pointed out, the science is largely settled.

“A lot of the most basic questions people have about climate change were answered by scientists long ago,” Zhong said. We know what’s warming the earth: emissions of carbon dioxide, largely from human sources. And we know stopping global warming requires moving away from fossil fuels.

That said, the question he most often gets is some version of “What can I do?” (These are the kinds of tricky questions — which kinds of personal choices matter more than others — that will be a focus of Ask NYT Climate.)

Many of Zhong’s sources in the scientific community are investigating a somewhat different question: What role have we all played in this year’s record-breaking heat, and what that might tell us about the future? To answer that, some of them are looking back to the ancient world .

“The question, broadly, is: Has something deeper in the climate system changed?” Zhong said. We know many of the reasons the planet was so hot last year, but scientists are trying to discern the exact effect of other variables, including El Niño, or of aerosols emitted from ships’ smokestacks, which in a twist can have a cooling effect on the planet.

“Is 2023 the harbinger of something worse? That’s a deep question,” he said, “and it’s challenging the notion that we’ve already solved all the big questions.”

The scale of the problem

Coral Davenport , who covers climate change policy from Washington, also says she gets the “What can I do?” question a lot. In fact, it’s the most common thing our reporters hear from readers.

Individual actions can add up, of course. For example, food choices do have consequences. Earlier, we answered your questions about the climate implications of what we eat .

But Davenport said she often has to remind people of the sheer scope of climate change. Moving the global energy system away from fossil fuels is a gargantuan undertaking.

“As a problem, as a policy issue,” Davenport said, “it is arguably the most gigantic problem in the world.”

Climate change, she said, “absolutely cannot be solved unless it’s by gigantic entities working together. It has to be massive and global.” Davenport has recently covered things like the Biden administration’s pause on building a new natural gas export terminal , Republican attacks on electric vehicles and drilling regulations .

What do Davenport’s sources want to know? Many say they simply want to understand what the government’s rules will be. “I hear a lot of frustration,” Davenport said, “from companies caught in a regulatory whiplash” between Democratic and Republican administrations.

Automakers and electric utilities in particular, she said, tend to complain about climate rules that come and go as political winds change in Washington. But those changes, and those complaints, have become more extreme than in the past, she said.

How to protect nature

“One question I get is, ‘Is there any hope?’” said Catrin Einhorn , who covers biodiversity, wildlife ecosystems and nature. She’s covered things like ocean protection treaties , vanishing kestrels and the decline of California salmon .

The Climate desk has written about the hope vs. despair debate extensively over the past few years . We’re coming off the hottest year on record , but there are growing reasons to think the world can make significant progress, perhaps even quickly. “There are many pathways, spelled out by rigorous research. Each has tradeoffs,” wrote Somini Sengupta in our interactive Climate FAQ, which is built around the questions people ask of it.

Many of Einhorn’s sources, meanwhile, are focused on quantifying biodiversity loss and finding ways to slow it down. Globally, the rate of species extinction is currently at least tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10 million years. “Climate change is actually an easier problem to solve than biodiversity loss,” Einhorn said. “Biodiversity loss is even more sprawling and also harder to measure than greenhouse gas emissions.”

And, she says, her sources are obsessed with the big question of how we can reorient our economy — and a growing population that consumes more and more — in ways that don’t take as severe a toll on the natural world.

Three places where change is happening

Glaciers are shrinking , coral reefs are in crisis and last year was the hottest on record . Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide , the main greenhouse gas, have passed a dangerous new threshold as people continue to burn fossil fuels. Is anyplace making progress on climate change?

The short answer is: It’s complicated, but yes.

Uruguay has pivoted in less than a decade to generating almost all its electricity from a diverse mix of renewables.

In China, an electric car that costs just $5,000 is suddenly one of the biggest sellers.

Paris is transforming itself into a city of bikes. The percentage of trips taken by bicycle within Paris more than doubled between 2020 and 2024, from 5 to 11 percent , thanks in part to new bike lanes set up during the coronavirus pandemic.

Steps like these, taken individually, aren’t enough to avoid the most serious consequences of climate change — worsening droughts, intensified storms and human suffering. Still, they show how some places are pulling off significant local changes very quickly. Read more here. — Delger Erdenesanaa

More climate news

The Cadillac Lyriq is the new darling of the E.V. industry, Bloomberg reports .

Ecuador is considering more debt-for-nature swaps after last year’s record-breaking $1.6 billion swap deal, Reuters reports .

Heatmap News examines why pollsters may be underestimating climate change as a political issue.

Rooftop solar generates so much electricity in California that on certain days gigawatts of power are “curtailed,” or essentially thrown away, per The Washington Post .

Thanks for being a subscriber.

Read past editions of the newsletter here .

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here . Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here . And follow The New York Times on Instagram , Threads , Facebook and TikTok at @nytimes.

Reach us at [email protected] . We read every message, and reply to many!

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Paris is becoming a city of bikes. Across China, people are snapping up $5,000 electric cars. Here’s a look at a few bright spots for emission reductions.

In theory, online shopping can be more efficient than driving to the store. But you may still want to think before you add to cart.

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways humans are starting to manipulate nature to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

IMAGES

Write A Short Essay On Global Warming
138 Global Warming Essay Topics & Ideas
Problem of Global Warming Argumentative Essay on Samploon.com
Global Warming Argument Essay : The ultimate climate change FAQ
Issue of Global Warming Argumentative Essay on Samploon.com
Global Warming Speech

VIDEO

Essay on Global Warming
Essay on Global Warming
Global Warming Debate
essay on global warming|global warming|10lines essay on global warming|#globalwarming#essaywriting
Why we need to care about global warming
Unveiling Climate Change Agenda Controversies 💥🌍 #facts #climatechange #technology

COMMENTS

'Both sides' of the climate change debate? How bad we think it is, and
'All efforts at the moment are assuming if we reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 we can limit warming to 1.5C. ... sides of the climate change debate in ... current path by 2100 global temperatures ...
Essay on Global Warming with Samples (150, 250, 500 Words
Essay on Global Warming Paragraph in 100 - 150 words. Global Warming is caused by the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere and is a result of human activities that have been causing harm to our environment for the past few centuries now. Global Warming is something that can't be ignored and steps have to be taken to ...
Opinion
Davis is a professor of earth system science at the University of California, Irvine. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which was released last week and which we co-authored ...
The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
Average global temperatures have increased by 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.2 degrees Celsius, since 1880, with the greatest changes happening in the late 20th century. Land areas have warmed more ...
Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people
[Leer en español aquí] The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused is strong. Scientific investigation of global warming began in the 19th century, and by the early 2000s, this research began to coalesce into confidence about the reality, causes, and general range of adverse effects of global warming.This conclusion was drawn from studying air and ...
Responding to the Climate Threat: Essays on Humanity's Greatest
The scientific, economic, and policy aspects of climate change are already a challenge to communicate, without factoring in the distractions and deflections from organized programs of misinformation and denial. Here, four scholars, each with decades of research on the climate threat, take on the task of explaining our current understanding of ...
Climate Change: What Must Be Done, Now
We are at the beginning of a mass extinction; it's been estimated that up to 200 species of plants and animals go extinct every single day, and that isn't acceptable. We must push world ...
Global warming: Is it real? Get the facts.
Scientific consensus is overwhelming: The planet is getting warmer, and humans are behind it. In recent years, global warming and climate change have been the subject of a great deal of political ...
Stop blaming yourself for the climate crisis
An estimated 52% of Americans say that global warming should be a "high priority" for Congress and the president, according to a 2020 national survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change ...
Debate: For and against climate change
For: There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of manmade climate change. By Peter Landon. Speaking as a palaeoclimatologist, reconstructing past climates, one of the key lines of evidence for human impact on climate change is that over the past few millennia we have never seen such a rate or magnitude of warming that we see now. . Past climate tells us about trends and ...
Climate Change Argumentation
Summary. Subject (s): Earth Science. Topic: Climate Change and Sustainability. Grade/Level: 9-12 (can be adapted to grades 6-8) Objectives: Students will be able to write a scientific argument using evidence and reasoning to support claims. Students will also be able to reflect on the weaknesses in their own arguments in order to improve their ...
Sample Researched Argument Essay
15 November, 2012. Researched Argumentative Essay. When the topic of global warming comes up in conversation many people either groan and avoid conversation, or don their dueling gloves and prepare for a heated debate. Some people feel guilty and concerned; some simply do not care. Different points of view yield different stances on the subject.
Global warming
Modern global warming is the result of an increase in magnitude of the so-called greenhouse effect, a warming of Earth's surface and lower atmosphere caused by the presence of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and other greenhouse gases. In 2014 the IPCC first reported that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and ...
Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global
Published February 3, 2020. No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times and that human activity is the most significant factor. Today, there is no real disagreement among climate experts that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
The Climate Change Debates
Global warming is a device used by Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging, business-hating liberal intellectuals for advancing their political aims. "Ideology" is a word that appears relatively frequently in Hulme's Why We Disagree About Climate Change (although he never explains what he means by it).
Humans are causing global warming
Today's climate change is driven by human activities. Scientists know that the warming climate is caused by human activities because: They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere. They know why those gases are increasing in the atmosphere. They have ruled out other possible explanations.
Global Warming Essay: Causes, Effects, and Prevention
The most important cause of global warming is greenhouse gases, which trap hot air in the Earth's atmosphere instead of allowing that heat to escape into space. Greenhouse gasses build up in the earth's atmosphere, effectively insulating the planet just as a greenhouse used to grow fruits and vegetables traps heat.
Climate Change Assay: A Spark Of Change
Bahçeşehir College is committed to increasing students' awareness of the changing world we live in. This climate change essay competition saw many students submitting well thought out pieces of writing. These essays were marked on their format, creativity, organisation, clarity, unity/development of thought, and grammar/mechanics.
America's First Great Global Warming Debate
July 14, 2011. The opposing voices in America's first great debate about global warming was between Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster in 1799. Bettmann / Corbis; The Granger Collection, New York ...
Are Humans the Major Cause of Global Warming?
The scientific consensus. Within the scientific community, there is essentially no disagreement on the causes of climate change. Multiple studies have shown that at least 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause. Major scientific assessments also agree.
Global Warming Argumentative Essay
Global warming is sometimes referred to as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the absorption of energy radiated from the Earth's surface by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to become warmer. The greenhouse effect is what is causing the temperature on the Earth to rise, and creating many ...
Global Warming: Argumentative Essay
Global warming is a process of the Earth's temperature rising, due to radiation from sunlight that is being trapped in the earth by greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. The process starts with the greenhouse gases allowing the sunlight to access the Earth; letting the necessary amount in.
Hiltzik: The climate scientist who won $1 million from global warming
In 1998 and 1999, Mann and colleagues published two papers reporting that global temperatures, which had been stable for at least a millennium, began rising sharply during the 20th century and ...
Your most pressing climate questions
Our warming planet "When I tell people I write about science and the natural world, the questions, I think, kind of stop," said Raymond Zhong.He was only half-joking.