To prove that climate change is not terrible, they say that the warm period was the heyday of the Han and Tang dynasties.

The following article is from Voice of the Wind and Cloud, written by Yuan Lanfeng

Author: Wei Ke, PhD, associate researcher, deputy director of the Monsoon System Research Center, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and member of the Youth Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His research areas are stratosphere-troposphere interaction, East Asian monsoon and extreme climate events.

With the arrival of summer, record-breaking high temperatures and extreme rainstorms have repeatedly occurred. For the first time, Beijing experienced three consecutive days of extreme high temperatures above 40°C. From May 31 to June 27, Beijing's rainfall was only 1.1 mm, a significant decrease of more than 98% compared with the 55 mm in the same period of previous years. These extreme weather conditions remind us that humans are already in a serious climate crisis. However, many people are still confused by the following views, which have become a fog shrouding our cognition, such as: the global climate is not warming, global warming is a conspiracy of unscrupulous scientists, it is nature rather than human activities that cause global warming, the current warming is not worth mentioning in the history of the earth, global warming is caused by solar activity, and global warming is a conspiracy... In fact, there are more than 200 such views.

These views and arguments are the legacy of the past 30 years of climate wars, in which one side is the mainstream scientists who support global warming, and the other side is a mixed group of anti-climate change groups, including oil companies, coal mining associations, media celebrities, lobbying groups, and some non-mainstream "scientists". Today, when global warming has become a fact, we see those "naked swimmers" who have receded in the tide, those anti-climate change groups, who have concocted and spread anti-climate science views and profoundly influenced global cognition, making conspiracy theories, scientific uncertainty, warming benefits, and climate change harm the economy widely circulated, and also making global decisions and actions to address climate change hesitant. They even successfully got the United States to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which ultimately led to the suspension and delay of actions to address climate change for 30 years.

During the sixth round of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report, the facts of various extreme climate disasters awakened many people, among whom young people emerged as a new force. They refused to be fooled. Coupled with the development of climate science, the pseudoscience of climate change has lost its foundation. The smoke of a climate war that has lasted for more than 30 years is about to dissipate. With the support of science, the world is firmly on the road to carbon neutrality, but who can be held responsible for the lost 30 years? Who should be held accountable for the loss of life and property caused by extreme weather in the past and in the future? For at least the next 30-50 years, we will all be in the post-disaster reconstruction of the climate war of the past 30 years, and this impact may last for hundreds to thousands of years.

01. Hunting for climate science

Is there global warming? What causes warming? What impact will global warming bring? This was originally a scientific issue in climate research, but the climate response actions triggered by this involve energy transformation and policy adjustments on a global scale, and the stakeholders are all over the world. As a result, the climate issue has broken through the scientific field and become the core of the struggle between various forces. The most effective way to deal with science is to use "scientists" to fight scientists. The vested interests fund and bribe scientists whose scientific beliefs have collapsed, so that they put forward various seemingly scientific views, creating the illusion that scientists have inconsistent views for the public and decision makers, and then cooperate with other lobbying activities of petrochemical groups to make the real scientific content dusty, so that climate action is hesitant.

On June 23, 1988, American climatologist James Hansen attended a U.S. Congressional hearing and presented the latest data and model predictions at the time, emphasizing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities on the Earth's climate system, making global warming a highly-regarded issue and promoting important actions by the international community to address climate change. In the same year, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) jointly initiated and established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess and provide scientific knowledge on climate change on a global scale.

In 1989, the Global Climate Coalition was established to counter the scientists' actions. The alliance is composed of some American business groups, industry associations and energy companies, aiming to promote debate on global warming and resist environmental policies targeting greenhouse gas emissions. Its members are well-known, such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell in the oil and gas industry, Royal Dutch Shell in the coal industry, and automakers Ford Motor Company and General Motors.

The Global Climate Coalition is mainly composed of American business groups, industry associations and energy companies.

There are many organizations that oppose climate change. For example, the Cool Heads Coalition is also a very powerful organization. This organization is mainly composed of anti-climate change think tanks. Its members include many "famous" think tanks, such as the Christian Coalition, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Center for Science and Public Policy, the Marshall Institution, the Liberty Frontier Organization, the Pacific Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, etc.

The Cooler Heads Coalition is mainly composed of American anti-climate change think tanks.

The climate war against climate science began 30 years ago and has continued to this day. In his new book, Hot Air, British meteorologist Peter Stott describes an encounter in the mid-1990s. In 1996, Stott, who had just entered the field of climate change research, went to the United States to attend the AGU annual meeting held in San Francisco. A week before Christmas that year, the branch venue that Stott attended attracted a large number of listeners, so much so that the aisles and the backstage were full of people. Benjamin Santer, a big name in climate change attribution analysis, was blocked by Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known anti-climate change person, at the venue. Their reports were put together. Half of the audience who came here really wanted to understand what caused climate change, while the other half were probably just there to watch the fun.

Benjamin Santer's report was entirely academic in style. Based on his paper published in Nature [1], he discussed the role of humans in climate change. Benjamin Santer was a postdoctoral fellow recruited by 2021 Nobel Prize winner Klaus Hasselmann in 1987. He assisted Hasselmann in pioneering a new research field, climate change detection and attribution. Benjamin Santer revealed the human factors that affect climate change: the increase in greenhouse gases leads to global warming, while the increase in pollutants leads to global cooling. The two offset each other, resulting in a relatively small warming in the 20th century. However, with the control of pollution and the continued surge in greenhouse gases, the magnitude and speed of global warming will continue to increase.

In his report, Michaels accused Benjamin Santer's view that "humans have a clear impact on the global climate" was completely wrong, and accused climate scientists of deceiving decision makers and the public, making them mistakenly believe that human activities are causing global warming. The IPCC report in which Benjamin Santer participated (then the second IPCC assessment report) was distorted and would lead to unnecessary restrictions on economic growth, thereby destroying the world economy.

The AGU conference is an annual academic conference. Scholars present their own views and there is no live debate. After listening to the different views of the two factions, the audience can judge for themselves. The confrontation between scholars studying climate change and anti-climate change advocates in the 1990s is a good example. Such disputes convey a dangerous message to the media and the public, that the scientific community is still not in agreement on the facts and causes of climate change, and that there is no unified understanding of global warming within the scientific community.

This is exactly what anti-climate change activists want to achieve. The public cannot tell who is the real climate change scientist between Benjamin Santer and Michaels. In short, although Michaels is a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, he is not a real climate change scientist. He accepts funding from coal companies and opposes the science of global warming on various occasions, believing that global warming is small and that the fuss of the scientific community is a means to obtain research funding. But in fact, it is he who has received a lot of funding from the petrochemical industry. According to a 2005 report by the Seattle Times, he received more than $165,000 in funding from the petrochemical industry. In 2006, he received another $100,000 in funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, an energy agency in Colorado. Of course, this is only what appears in public reports and is only part of the financial support he received. Michaels once said on CNN that 40% of his funding came from the oil industry, but the actual proportion is estimated to be higher than this.

Since 1994, Michaels has published a newsletter, World Climate Report, which is published annually by the Greening Earth Society. If you continue to track, you will find that the Greening Earth Society has a close relationship with the Western Fuels Association (WFA), which is an association of coal-burning companies. In addition, Michaels is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a US think tank (lobbying organization), which was founded by Charles Koch, a billionaire in the oil industry, in 1977. So, although he is also a professor at a university, he has already joined the petrochemical group.

When real scientific researchers comprehensively reveal the causes, current situation, impacts, future trends, and coping strategies of global warming from global observation data, theoretical research, and numerical simulations, and call on the world to actively respond and reduce fossil fuel consumption, petrochemical organizations will naturally not sit idly by. They choose to launch an all-out attack. Funding scholars to oppose it is a good idea. These scholars participate in the debate, making the public and decision-making departments believe that the issue of global warming is not worth mentioning, or that the scientific community has not yet studied the issue of global warming clearly. This buys valuable time for the petrochemical industry.

Another recipient of funding from the petrochemical industry is Fred Singer, who received a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in his early years. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, served as deputy assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, and was a professor at the University of Virginia. He holds a prominent position. In 1990, Singer, who had long since retired, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization funded purely by private funds. From this time on, Singer took a different approach and embarked on a path that went against the mainstream scientific community. Scientists say that the ozone hole problem is very serious, and it is caused by ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs emitted by humans. CFCs release free chlorine in the stratosphere under the action of ultraviolet rays, and these free chlorines will act as catalysts to destroy ozone; Singer and Michaels, as scholars, have said on various occasions that ozone depletion is a natural result of volcanic eruptions and has nothing to do with CFCs. They calculated that the amount of ozone-destroying chlorine released by the 1976 eruption of Mount St Augustine was more than 500 times the total amount of CFCs produced worldwide that year. They published a series of articles in the Washington Times and presented their "research results" at US hearings.

When the scientific community opposed tobacco, pointing out that smoking causes lung cancer and that secondhand smoke is also an important carcinogenic factor, Singer and Michaels said on various occasions that these studies were just simple statistics and lacked credibility. They became the favorites of the tobacco industry for a while, and the tobacco industry used their status as scholars to try to create a "debate" in society, confusing the public and the government and causing them to lose their decision-making direction.

It is worth mentioning that SEPP, founded by Fred Singer, is affiliated with the lobbying group Washington Institute for Public Policy Values, which itself is funded by the Unification Church, which is currently identified as a cult organization in my country. The founder, Sun Myung Moon, advocated collective weddings. Many Unification Church believers' marriage partners were randomly assigned and they did not know each other before the wedding. Believers had no right to refuse the marriage partners assigned by the leader. The collective wedding of the Unification Church is called the "holy marriage blessing ceremony". If the newlyweds participate in this wedding ceremony, they will wash away their sins and give birth to children as pure as blank paper in the future. According to regulations, newlyweds must live in special church dormitories and are prohibited from having sex within 40 days. The Unification Church has invested a lot of money in the Washington Times, which has published many articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change, ozone depletion and the harm of secondhand smoke, including Singer's articles.

When it comes to global warming, Fred Singer has been doing a lot of things. He took advantage of the uncertainty in climate change research and claimed that the tools used to study climate change - climate models - are not credible and that there are problems with climate data. Naturally, predictions about the future using climate models are also not credible, thus logically completing a closed loop.

Climate models are tools for simulating climate change, which include complex processes such as atmosphere-ocean-ice-snow-land-vegetation-ocean geochemical processes-volcanoes-human greenhouse gases-human aerosols. Accurately describing each part is a big scientific and technological problem. To integrate all processes and simulate the history and future of climate, there will naturally be many rough or inaccurate parts. Similarly, global observation data covers hundreds of years, and has been affected by observation specifications, instrument updates, site migration, urban heat island effects, etc., and the representativeness of sites in forests, deserts, mountains, oceans, and the poles is limited. Therefore, there is indeed uncertainty in using these data to calculate the global average temperature. There are of course many problems with picking on models and data, and Singh seized this point and opened fire on it, attacking the scientific basis of global warming, which is full of loopholes and not worth mentioning.

Although climate models and data are not perfect, these do not actually affect scientific conclusions. In the 1960s, Japanese-American scientist Syukuro Manabe used the climate model of that era to estimate climate sensitivity and the impact of increased CO2. After more than half a century, the complexity of the model has changed, but Syukuro Manabe's results are still unbreakable, perfectly matching the observational data for more than half a century. Syukuro Manabe also won the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. This shows that even the earlier and more imperfect climate models have long been capable of studying climate change. To make an analogy, studying climate change is like a doctor making a diagnosis. Using the pulse and stethoscope is enough to determine whether there is a heart rate problem in the heart, and even lying on the chest can hear that the heart beats abnormally. However, Singer has been attacking the stethoscope for not being good enough, not accurately measuring blood pressure and heartbeat strength, and being a black box, like a "glass ball", with a distance between it and the object being measured, and cannot truly and fully explain the abnormal condition of the heart. When doctors can use cardiac color ultrasound to depict the picture of the heart, Singh still has something to say, saying that this cardiac color ultrasound equipment has poor accuracy, is not a good brand at first glance, the results are unreliable, is irresponsible to patients, and is suspected of excessive examinations, and it is obvious that the doctor wants to kill for money.

In 1995, Singer issued the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change, announcing that there was no scientific consensus on global warming. The declaration was revised in 1997 and 2005. He claimed that the declaration had been signed by 80 scientists and 25 television news meteorologists, jointly opposing the Kyoto Protocol.

In response to the scientific assessments on climate change conducted by the IPCC every few years, Singh took the lead in establishing the NIPCC, the "Non-Governmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", in 2004. The NIPCC calls itself "an international alliance of scientists" and will independently assess the causes and impacts of climate change "without bias and selectivity" based on published peer-reviewed literature.

In 2007, the IPCC released its fourth climate change assessment report (IPCC AR4). In April of the same year, the NIPCC organized an international climate symposium in Vienna and released the NIPCC report "Natural causes, not human activities, are responsible for global warming" in 2008. In 2013, the IPCC Working Group I released its fifth assessment report "Climate Change 2013: The Natural Science Basis". In response to this report, the NIPCC released the NIPCC report "Revisiting Climate Change II: The Natural Science Basis". Through such operations, Singh created the illusion that there is no unified view in the scientific community. It is very important to create such an illusion because it will make the public and decision makers hesitant when facing major decisions. Since the scientific community "can't explain it clearly", will the response measures be "a bit hasty"? It is worth noting that Fred Singer's books "Revisiting Climate Change: Report of the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change", "Global Warming - The Unfounded Panic" and "Nature is the Main Driver of Climate Change" have been published by Science Press, Shanghai Scientific and Technological Literature Publishing House and China Science and Technology Press respectively. His views have long been widely disseminated in China. However, since these books are published by professional science presses, their erosion of scholars and researchers is more serious, especially those in non-climate change fields.

Anti-climate change advocates are also good at collective signature and joint petition campaigns. For example, the Heartland Institute once published an advertisement: "More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that global warming may be a natural phenomenon rather than a crisis." Later, even Scientific American magazine could no longer stand the chaos of the petition. They randomly selected 30 of the 1,400 signatories on the petition list who allegedly held a doctorate in climate-related sciences and conducted a survey. The results showed that only 11 people agreed with the petition (including 1 active climate researcher), 6 said they did not sign, 3 did not remember it at all, and 1 had already passed away... Based on this ratio, Scientific American estimates that the supporters of the petition are only centered on about 200 climate researchers, and none of these 200 climate researchers have published any relevant research to support their assumed skepticism, but they are still able to sign with confidence.

Singer's activities are funded by many lobbying organizations, including the conservative think tank Heartland Institute, which in turn is funded by petrochemical giant ExxonMobil. According to the website http://exxonsecrets.org/, between 1998 and 2014, ExxonMobil sponsored various anti-climate change organizations and individuals with a total amount of $30,925,235. The recipients include not only the Heartland Institute, but also the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, Frontiers of Freedom, the Annapolis Center, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. Analysis)…There are so many individuals behind these lobbying groups, and their power is astonishing.

From 1998 to 2014, ExxonMobil sponsored various anti-climate change organizations and individuals with a total amount of US$30,925,235. The specific amount of funding can be found at the following website: http://exxonsecrets.org/

Companies sponsored by ExxonMobil and the individuals behind them between 1998 and 2014.

Others funded by the oil and coal agencies include Malaysian-American astrophysicist and aerospace engineer Willie Soon, who works in the Solar and Stellar Physics Department at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and has received more than $1 million in funding from the oil and coal agencies since 2001. He has publicly accused the IPCC of being a "pure bully" and "blatantly manipulating the facts," arguing that global warming is primarily caused by solar changes, not human activities.

Another person who holds a similar view is Sallie Louise Baliunas, an astrophysicist at Harvard University. She is a member of the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the International Astronomical Union, etc. She has worked at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and served as deputy director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. She and Willie Soon have worked together to insist that solar variability is more closely related to temperature changes. This statement has been widely publicized by lobbying groups including the Marshall Institute and TCS Daily. Half of the 10 editors of Climate Research magazine, which published her research, resigned to protest against the irregularities of peer review. However, Sallie won the Peter Beckman Award for her criticism of the "global warming scam" (Peter Beckman is a professor of electrical engineering who later became famous for opposing Einstein's theory of relativity and other modern physics theories). The aforementioned Willie Soon, Fred Singer, and Patrick Michaels have all "won" this award.

Also rising to fame for his opposition to climate change is Canadian Stephen McIntyre, famous for his opposition to the "hockey stick curve", founder and editor of the anti-climate blog Climate Audit, which won the 2007 "Best Science Blog" blog award and was named 32nd in the New Statesman's "50 Important People of 2010" for questioning the scientific community in the "Climategate" incident.

Ross McKitrick, a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, has also benefited from anti-climate change. He serves as a senior researcher at the Fraser Institute, a lobbying organization, and a member of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). He is engaged in environmental economics and policy analysis. He is famous for questioning the hockey curve. His anti-climate science work "Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming" published in 2002 won the second place in the Donner Prize (awarded by the Donner Canadian Foundation, one of Canada's largest foundations).

After 20 years, looking at the anti-climate change "books" and various awards won by anti-climate change advocates, I have to sigh that various institutions have awarded funds, honors and awards to pseudoscience and anti-climate change, highlighting the obvious tendency of various awards, while real scientific works have been criticized. It is worth noting that books including the NIPCC report have also been translated and introduced into China, and related views have long been widely circulated in the Chinese world.

Under the operation of these institutions and individuals, various views against climate change have been thrown out, completely confusing the media and the public. Most of these people are not from meteorology, climate or environmental fields, many have no scientific research experience, and most have not received training in natural sciences, but this does not hinder their influence. These people write books, participate in TV and radio programs, cater to the public's tastes, and harvest Internet traffic.

The public does not like things that follow the rules. They like entertainment, huge conspiracy stories, explosive news, alarmist predictions, and exposing scientists' "manipulation" and "conspiracy", which are exactly what many climate change opponents are good at. Based on this, those who oppose climate change like to package global warming as a huge conspiracy, such as: "Global warming is a conspiracy of scientists around the world", "Scientists with ulterior motives artificially modify data", "The greenhouse effect theory has been artificially tampered with!", "There is corruption in the peer review process of scientists", "Scientists try to hide the cooling in the global temperature series", etc.

We can also make economic calculations. Other anti-climate change arguments include "addressing global warming kills jobs", "even if CO2 emissions are limited from now on, it won't make much difference", "renewable energy is too expensive", "limiting CO2 is harmful to the economy", and "adapting to global warming is cheaper than preventing it".

Or they promote agnosticism, "There is no completely certain science (even the theories of Newton, Einstein, etc. are constantly being revised, so how can today's climatologists say for sure that there is global warming!)", "The climate is in a chaotic state and is unpredictable", "Scientists cannot even accurately predict the weather, let alone the climate in the next hundred years".

Some people think that climate change is not worth making a fuss about, that "humanity has successfully experienced climate change in the past", "historically, the extent of Arctic sea ice has been smaller than it is now", "heat waves and extreme heat waves are common throughout history", "human activities have insignificant impact on global climate", "the IPCC are alarmists and worrywarts", and some even play the sympathy card, saying that "climate change skeptics are the Galileo and Bruno of today".

The author has summarized the relevant viewpoints and found that there are more than 200 views and "facts" against climate change put forward by these organizations and individuals over the years. These views are widely circulated in various media, eroding the scientific knowledge of the public and the media from all corners. Many people think that they have reached the conclusion through "independent thinking", but they don't know that those anti-climate change remarks have already influenced them in a subtle way. Please refer to the appendix at the end of this article for relevant arguments to see if there are any statements that you are familiar with. There is an unconfirmed story that after Einstein came out of nowhere and proposed the theory of relativity, 100 "scientists" jointly opposed it. When Einstein learned about it, he laughed and said that if I was wrong, I didn't need 100 people to sign it, and one person could prove that I was wrong. If global warming is false, there is no need for more than 200 facts and opinions, just one is enough.

The purpose of these climate change opponents throwing out so many opinions and "facts" is to muddy the waters and make the legislatures and governments of various countries hesitate when they should take resolute measures to deal with global warming, which will eventually lead to delays, lay the foundation for the continued interests of the petrochemical industry, and win time for industrial transformation. It has to be admitted that these operations are very successful. They have completely made the US government do nothing to deal with climate change, and it has withdrawn from global cooperation to deal with climate change twice. The first time was in 2001. The newly-elected Bush administration used the excuse that "reducing greenhouse gas emissions will affect the economic development of the United States" and "developing countries should also assume the obligation to reduce and limit greenhouse gas emissions" and believed that "the scientific basis for global warming is not conclusive" and announced that it would refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, thus withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997. The second time was in 2017, when the newly-elected Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement signed in 2015.

Anti-climate institutions and organizations have played a role in fueling the US government's withdrawal from international agreements. On March 23-24, 2017, the Harlan Institute held the "12th International Conference on Climate Change" (March 23-24) in Washington. The main topic of the conference was: how to get the Trump administration to get out of the Paris Agreement as quickly as possible.

It is worth noting that the signing of international agreements requires the support of not only developed countries but also developing countries. In addition to shaking the will of developed countries and influencing the direction of public opinion, it is also a good idea to interfere with the cognition of developing countries and make them oppose international agreements. In addition to the more than 200 opinions and "facts" that are spread around the world, the developing countries still like conspiracy theories the most, such as "global warming is a conspiracy by developed countries such as the United States to contain developing countries." Such remarks make developing countries always wary of international cooperation and international agreements, making international agreements and international cooperation difficult. Interestingly, the opposite view is also circulated within developed countries, such as "the concept of global warming was fabricated by the Chinese and for the Chinese in order to make the US manufacturing industry lose its competitiveness... global warming is a complete and expensive scam," which was the public view of former US President Trump during his campaign.

Driven by anti-climate change organizations and individuals, global climate scientists have experienced the "hockey stick curve", "climategate", "glaciergate", "Amazongate" and other events, and have been exhausted physically and mentally. Currently, there is a spoof video on YouTube that mocks meteorologist Professor Michael Mann [2]. He was mocked for falsifying data, inventing the "hockey stick" curve, and cursed that he had committed a great sin and would not live long. The video was produced by the "Minnesota for Global Warming (M4GW)" organization, using Michael Mann's head portrait, and the lyrics are as follows:

“Using the old method to fabricate data

Confusing data day by day

Ignore the snow and cold

And the downward curve

Hide the cooling

Michael Mann thinks he's smart

Invented the whole hockey curve

Ignore the snow and cold

And the downward curve

Hide the cooling

Climategate, I think you are doomed

I hope you have lots of time.

But what you did was a great crime.

Tree-ring data are too narrow

You should cut down more trees.

Instead of embracing them

Ignore the snow and cold

And the downward curve

Climategate, I think you are doomed

I hope you have lots of time.

But what you did was a great crime."

However, in such an environment, climate science still tenaciously moves forward. The early atmospheric circulation model was combined with the ocean circulation model to form a coupled model (CCM), and then the land surface model and sea ice model were continuously added to form the physical climate system model. Subsequently, the global carbon and nitrogen cycle and biogeochemical processes were also included, and the model further developed into the Earth System Model (ESM). The model is also becoming more and more refined, from the early 400-500 km grid spacing, which has been refined for decades to 10 km at present, and the processes such as clouds, aerosols and radiation included in the model are becoming more and more accurate.

From the 1990s to 2023, the IPCC has released six assessment reports on climate change, and the wording of the reports on the impact of human activities on climate change has become increasingly certain. IPCC AR6 can already give quantitative values ​​of climate change. According to IPCC AR6, the possible range of global surface temperature increase caused by humans since 1850-1900 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, and the best estimate is 1.07°C. Among them, greenhouse gases may cause a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human-driven factors (mainly aerosols) cause a cooling of 0 to 0.8°C, and other natural processes (solar radiation and volcanic activity, etc.) cause temperature changes ranging from -0.1°C to 0.1°C, while changes caused by internal variability in the Earth's climate system are -0.2°C to 0.2°C.

02. The most confusing anti-climate change view

"The climate is changing. It has changed before and will change in the future. The current warming is normal."

This view is the most confusing one against climate change and has long been ranked first among all the views against climate change (https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php). Even many scholars at home and abroad cannot distinguish between ancient climate change and current global change.

The deceptiveness of this view lies in the fact that it contains both scientific facts and unreliable views. To use Franklin's words, "a half-truth is often a lie". In the history of the earth, there have indeed been dramatic climate changes, with many changes from glacial to interglacial periods, and the accompanying global warming and cooling. In most of the history of the earth, the global temperature was much higher than it is now, and even the time when there was ice and snow at the poles was very limited. The change that is often mentioned in European and American society is that Spitzbergen Island in the Arctic Circle of Norway used to have alligators and tropical forest wetlands, but is now covered with ice and snow. This is seen as a typical case of climate change.

Therefore, anti-climate change activists often use ancient times to explain current climate change, explaining ancient climate change as:

There have been various climate changes in the history of the Earth , some of which were far more severe than today, but the Earth's creatures still survived. What's the big deal about the current climate change?

There have been many climate changes in history that were far greater than today's, but there were no humans at that time, so humans are not the main cause of climate change.

This interpretation confuses the main difference between ancient climate change and modern climate change:

1) Ancient climate change was mainly caused by natural causes, while modern global warming is caused by human activities.

2) Ancient climate change took longer to complete, while modern climate change is happening much faster.

Regarding the second point, we can compare some extreme processes in the history of the Earth with the current climate change. Take the Paleogene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55.9 million to 55.7 million years ago, PETM) as an example. This was a period of rapid temperature rise in the history of the Earth. In just 3000 to 20,000 years, the global temperature rose by 4 to 7 degrees Celsius, reaching 10 to 25 degrees Celsius higher than the temperature from 1850 to 1900. At that time, the world was extremely warm, there was no ice and snow at the poles, and some tropical and subtropical plants and animals appeared in the polar regions. During this period, the global carbon dioxide concentration soared from about 900ppm to about 2000ppm, with an increase rate of about 0.04 to 0.42ppm per year, and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was 300-1.5 billion tons of carbon. However, during the period from 2010 to 2020, the global carbon dioxide increase rate reached an average of 2.5ppm per year, and the global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period reached more than 30 billion tons, far exceeding the PETM period. If compared with the climate change in the past one million years, the recent rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is hundreds of times faster than the fastest rate in the past one million years. This difference in speed is equivalent to "a person dies after two weeks" and "a person dies after a hundred years." For the latter, most people will not worry or be sad, and will accept it calmly and it will not affect their lives. But for the former, they need to see a doctor immediately to find the cause.

“Global warming is caused by solar activity”

The change of solar irradiance is relatively complex, with a long-term trend of brightening, with an increase of about 8% in brightness every billion years. The brightness of the early sun was only about 70% of the current brightness. Many people regard this brightening as the cause of global warming, and they have no idea of ​​the "scale" of time. An increase of 8% every billion years is only 0.008% per million years or 0.0000008% per century, which is very, very small and not enough to cause any noticeable changes. At this rate of change, the increase in solar brightness between 1920 and 2020 can only increase the temperature of the earth's surface by about 0.0000016 ℃, while during this period, the earth's surface temperature actually increased by 1 ℃, which is obviously not caused by the evolution of the sun.

Solar activity also has an 11-year cycle, which is known from observations of the number of sunspots starting in 1611. There is a good positive correlation between the number of sunspots and solar irradiance, that is, when the number of sunspots is high, the solar irradiance is high, and when the number of sunspots is low, the solar irradiance is low. As for the cause of this, recent studies believe that every 11 years or so, Venus, the Earth, and Jupiter will line up on the same side of the sun, thus creating the strongest gravitational pull on the sun, and the period of this arrangement corresponds to the minimum period of sunspots.

The change in solar irradiance caused by the change in the 11-year solar cycle is very small. According to observation data from the past few decades, especially satellite observation data from the past 40 years, the numerical difference between high and low solar cycles is only about 1 watt/square meter, accounting for only about 0.07% of the average solar irradiance. According to the research of Wetherald and Manabe (1975) and Hansen et al. (1984), the climate effect caused by the doubling of carbon dioxide is similar to that caused by a 2% increase in solar irradiance. Therefore, the change in surface atmospheric temperature caused by a 0.1% change in the solar cycle is only 0.1°C. Due to the huge volume of the ocean and land, changes in the climate system are difficult to achieve balance within decades or even centuries. In the 11-year solar cycle, even if the high and low values ​​will cause changes in surface temperature (even if it is only 0.1°C), the cycle has changed when the climate system is far from establishing balance. The high value has been converted to a low value, or the low value has been converted to a high value. Therefore, the 11-year solar cycle cannot cause abnormal climate conditions to continue to develop in a certain direction to form a long-term trend. To use the philosophy of investment guru Buffett, "Investing is like rolling a snowball. The important thing is to find very wet snow and a very long slope." The reason why the 11-year solar cycle cannot form a clear long-term trend is that the "snow is not wet enough" and the "slope" is not long enough.

“Global warming is good for agriculture, so it’s a good thing”

Those who hold this view mainly support the idea that "CO2 is a fertilizer for plants", believing that an increase in CO2 will promote plant growth, which is beneficial to increasing crop yields, expanding agricultural arable areas, and extending the growing season. Plant growth is accompanied by the process of photosynthesis, in which plants use light energy to combine carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, while releasing oxygen. Therefore, from the perspective of the raw material of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is indeed a fertilizer for plants. In theory, an increase in carbon dioxide will help photosynthesis, thereby increasing crop yields.

However, the growth of plants is not only related to the amount of CO2, but also needs to consider temperature and water resources. Generally, there is a certain temperature range for photosynthesis of plants. Within the temperature range, photosynthesis can proceed normally, especially near the most suitable temperature, where photosynthesis efficiency is the highest. However, when the temperature is too high, the activity of the invertase in the plant will be affected, resulting in a decrease in the efficiency of photosynthesis. In addition, when the temperature is too high, the transpiration and respiration of the plant will also accelerate. In order to prevent water evaporation, the plant will close its stomata, resulting in insufficient supply of carbon dioxide, and the photosynthesis of the plant will then rapidly weaken. If the temperature rises to a certain level, the leaves will wilt due to severe water loss, which is more common during the high temperature period at noon in summer. In severe cases, it may even cause the leaves of the plant to dry up and die.

For northern my country, rising temperatures will help reduce cold damage and increase accumulated temperature, which seems to make northern high-altitude cold regions more livable and conducive to agricultural production. However, for the dry and cold northern regions, water resources are the primary factor restricting agricultural development. Therefore, the negative impact of drought far exceeds the impact of warming, which is not conducive to agricultural development in these regions.

In the spring of 2022, India suffered from severe high temperature drought. In April, the average temperature in Punjab Province in northern India, known as the "Bread Basket of India", rose by 7 degrees Celsius. The high temperature caused a decline in wheat production, with losses exceeding 500 kilograms per hectare. On May 14, India announced a ban on wheat exports, which took effect immediately. As the world's second largest wheat producer, India's ban has disrupted the global market to a certain extent, making international food security "worse". In the summer of 2022, Europe suffered from extreme drought, which was called the worst drought in 500 years. Wheat production is expected to drop by more than 8%.

In addition to affecting yields, climate warming will also lead to significant changes in crop quality. For example, taking rice, the world's second largest food crop, as an example, research [3] shows that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations will make rice less nutritious. The higher the concentration of carbon dioxide in the rice growth environment, the lower the content of protein, iron, zinc and some important B vitamins it contains.

Although the arable area in my country's high-altitude and cold regions may increase, global warming, in addition to bringing high temperatures and scorching heat, has also accelerated the global water cycle and disrupted the global atmospheric and ocean circulation, bringing about the "dry to dry, wet to wet" effect, making rainstorms and floods in rainy areas more severe, and making arid areas more arid. Compared with the limited increase in arable areas, the existing vast agricultural areas will be more affected by climate change and extreme weather. Therefore, using global warming to increase arable areas is a bit like trying to get the skin of a tiger. Taken together, the overall risks and losses far outweigh the benefits.

"Global warming will help revive the glory of the Han and Tang dynasties"

Many people believe that warming is a good thing and firmly believe that "in history, warm periods correspond to prosperous times, while cold periods are associated with more wars." They believe that rising temperatures mean that a "prosperous age" is about to come. The widespread spread of this view caters to the public's yearning for the "Han and Tang Dynasties' prosperous times."

There are indeed many studies at home and abroad that believe that during the warmer climate, my country has fewer border troubles, fewer peasant uprisings, and a more stable society, while during the colder climate, my country has more border troubles, more peasant uprisings, and more turbulent society. However, the rise and fall of a society is a complex system. As for the climate, China has a vast territory and complex regional climates. The climates in the northern nomadic areas, northern plains, Central Plains, the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, South China, and Northwest China are very different. The core factors and causes of climate anomalies are very different. In addition to cold and warm, there are also droughts, floods, rainstorms, sandstorms, locust plagues, etc. Social stability is also related to the government's governance capabilities, culture, religion, etc. Different organizational methods and government governance capabilities face the same natural disaster, and the social resources that can be mobilized and the response results are completely different. Therefore, when discussing the demise of the Tang Dynasty, meteorologist Zhang Deer pointed out that "Chinese history is a profound and heavy 'big book' that is endlessly interpretable. The succession of historical dynasties has very complex reasons. The prosperity of Chinese civilization would never be so simple as to collapse and disintegrate due to a change in a natural factor (such as precipitation) on a ten-year scale. Why is Chinese civilization so fragile!" [4] We also need to understand that "times have changed". Whether the laws of the past are applicable to the present requires in-depth thinking. We have entered the industrial society from an agricultural society, from fragmentation to stability and unity, and from being threatened by grassland peoples for a long time to global competition. The laws of the past may not necessarily apply to the present.

Historically, people mostly lived near water, mainly near large rivers. The historical "super cities" such as Chang'an, Bianjing, and Luoyang were all near large inland rivers. The conflicts in Chinese history were mainly between the nomadic peoples in the north. However, the global economy is no longer a natural economy, and the historical laws cannot be fully applied. The world's major cities are now mainly built in coastal delta areas, close to the mouths of rivers. The world's major cities are all developed along the coast, such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Singapore, Mumbai in India, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami in the United States... In fact, 680 million people in the world live in coastal areas within 10 meters above sea level, about 2.4 billion people live in coastal areas less than 100 kilometers from the coastline, and more than 3 billion people rely on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods [5]. my country's economic center has also shifted to the southeastern coastal areas, which are more vulnerable to high temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather.

The causes of modern wars and social unrest are not only the competition for food resources, but also the competition for oil, natural gas, mineral resources, etc. Ideological clashes, geopolitical competition, external interference and nationalism are all causes of conflicts and wars. Although wars have continued for thousands of years in human history, the most tragic wars in human society occurred in the 20th century, which can be called the "century of war". There were World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Cold War, the Middle East War, the Gulf War, etc., as well as countless regional conflicts. It is difficult to say whether the occurrence of these wars has any relationship with climate change, but these wars have indeed changed the regional and global conditions.

Global warming will generally bring more climate disasters and have a far-reaching impact on global agriculture. In addition to posing great challenges to poverty eradication and sustainable development in developing countries, social problems caused by reduced agricultural production will also increase the risk of social unrest and regional conflicts in these regions, which will bring potential risks to my country's "Belt and Road" cooperation, involving various issues such as overseas asset preservation, project security and protection of overseas Chinese. It will also bring about international issues such as the gap between the rich and the poor, immigration and climate refugees.

03. Use magic to defeat magic

Anti-climate change views and opinions have penetrated the global knowledge and cognition, and it has been difficult to eliminate them for a long time. When everyone thought there was no solution, another force rose up, the young people rose up. In August 2018, 15-year-old Swedish girl Greta Thunberg skipped classes for three consecutive weeks and ran to the door of the Swedish Parliament to protest, demanding that the Swedish government reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the commitment of the Paris Agreement, and she became a star in an instant. She launched the "Friday for Future" movement, calling on students to strike for one day every Friday to urge countries to take action to address climate change. With the help of viral spread of social media, this activity quickly spread to many countries around the world. By March 2019, 1.4 million students from more than 100 countries around the world participated in the activity, representing young people's refusal to be fooled and wait for a long time, and they can't wait to see the results of emission reduction.

In December 2018, Greta attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP24) held in Katowice, Poland, and called on countries around the world to "take action, like adults." In September 2019, at the United Nations Climate Action Summit, she angrily rebuked leaders of various countries: how dare you! This sentence won her the Time Person of the Year 2019, a nomination for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize, and the 2019 Big Ben Award for the world's top ten outstanding young people.

Although many people disagree with her "naive" appeals and proposals, the world treats her with tolerance. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres met with her, former US President Obama met with her, and many "big names" including Russian President Putin, US President Trump, French President Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, British Prime Minister Theresa May and Labour Party leader Corbyn responded to her.

It is unrealistic to expect young people to be "mature and stable", and young people don't care about the opinions of "mature" adults at all. They do their own thing regardless. Young people have formed a radical climate group "Extinction Rebellion" and have carried out various protests around the world: sticking their hands on famous paintings, destroying public facilities, obstructing the normal passage of trains, smashing the windows of buildings, blocking the main bridges of the Thames, and sticking themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace. They believe that traditional petitions, lobbying, voting and protests have long lost their effectiveness, and they hope to achieve change through resistance.

The strange thing is that while the young people are "crazy" and making trouble everywhere, the anti-climate change old people are still mocking them, but they have lost the focus of media attention and their voices. It turns out that only magic can defeat magic. These old people have not only lost their voices and focus, but are also slowly getting older and older, and gradually withering away. On April 6, 2020, Fred Singer died in a nursing home in Maryland at the age of 95. On July 15, 2022, Patrick Michaels died at the age of 72.

In October 2021, two scientists who studied climate change, Tokuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann, won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The former was a pioneer in numerical simulation of climate change, and the latter pioneered climate change detection and analysis. It seems that science has finally defeated anti-science, but this can hardly be considered a victory, at most it can only be considered a pyrrhic victory. Because from the 1990s to the present, global action to combat climate change has been delayed for nearly 30 years. During these 30 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has soared from about 350ppm in 1990 to about 420ppm in 2023. In the past two million years of the Earth's history, such a large increase would have taken at least 10,000 to 30,000 years, but we have only used more than 30 years, which is nearly a thousand times faster than in the history of the Earth. It can be said that "one day now is several years in history."

Anti-climate change advocates have been abandoned by the times. In addition to the magic of young people defeating them, the most important thing is that the facts of global warming and extreme climate have educated the masses. On June 29, 2021, the entire western North America was like a fire. The highest temperature in Lytton, a city in central British Columbia, Canada, reached 46.6°C, causing wildfires. At the same time, western North America entered the worst drought period in the past 1,200 years; in mid-July 2022, the whole of Western Europe continued to have high fevers, and the worst drought in 500 years occurred. On July 19, the temperature in the area of ​​London Heathrow Airport in the UK soared to 40.2 degrees Celsius. The UK issued the first extreme high temperature red alert in history and declared a national state of emergency. In the summer of 2022, the highest temperature in Shanghai exceeded 40 degrees Celsius seven times, and the Shanghai Meteorological Bureau rarely issued seven high temperature red alerts. Large areas of my country from North China to the Yangtze River Basin, East China and South China have continuously experienced the strongest high temperatures since 1961. The highest temperature in Chongqing even reached 45 degrees Celsius. In this extreme high temperature, the arguments of anti-climate change advocates such as "global warming is fake" and "global warming is not large" have been falsified by facts, and people suddenly realized: For anti-climate change advocates, anti-climate change is just a business.

Anti-climate change advocates have also been abandoned by their financial backers, petrochemical companies, mainly due to technological progress. In the past 10 years, with the large-scale development of solar and wind energy and technological progress, the cost of clean energy has dropped significantly, and it is only 10% of 10 years ago, and even lower than traditional thermal power generation. In this context, petrochemical companies' investment in thermal power generation is obviously no longer cost-effective, so they have transformed to new energy. Although petrochemical giants are deeply affected by the global move towards low carbon, this does not prevent them from pursuing greater business opportunities. The petrochemical and power industries that once opposed climate change have already invested heavily in new energy research and transformation. Although they are questioned for still taking a "denial" and "delay" attitude in responding to climate change, ExxonMobil's financial statements already have investments in low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture, hydrogen energy and advanced biofuels. On October 23, 2021, Saudi Aramco, the world's oil and gas giant, also announced that it would achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released a report announcing that due to the significant growth of wind and solar energy, in 2022, the two contributed 14% of the U.S. electricity generation. Together with hydropower's contribution of 6%, biomass and geothermal energy's contribution of 1%, the proportion of renewable energy reached 21%, surpassing coal's 20% for the first time and nuclear power's generation for the second time. Although natural gas still contributes the largest share, reaching 39%, new energy surpassing coal gives people hope for comprehensive replacement of new energy.

According to the European Energy Statistics for 2022 released by Ember in January 2023, Europe has survived the energy crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, and wind and solar energy have continued to develop. In 2022, wind and solar energy have become Europe's largest source of electricity, accounting for 22.3% of Europe's electricity, exceeding nuclear energy's 21.9% and natural gas power generation's 19.9%. Solar and wind power generation supplemented 83% of the power shortage in the European crisis, becoming the "ballast stone" in the storm. There is no doubt that solar and wind energy in Europe will continue to grow in 2023, and with the recovery of nuclear energy in 2023, if the weather is normal and hydropower generation continues to recover, the dependence on coal will be greatly reduced.

Energy companies are investing rapidly in new energy sources, which puts the "troublemakers" who have been cooperating with the giants in opposing climate change in an awkward position. The script has changed. Where will the future go? Of course, this is not difficult for them. They are even better at dealing with this change than the public who listen to them. They have quickly boarded the express train of global carbon neutrality and are driving on the highway of low-carbon technology.

Appendix: Common arguments against climate change [6]:

1) The climate is changing. It has changed before and will change again. The current warming is normal.

2) Global warming is caused by solar activity;

3) Global warming is not a bad thing;

4) There is no consensus in the scientific community on global warming;

5) In fact, the world has been cooling;

6) Model results are unreliable;

7) Temperature records are unreliable;

8) Animals and plants can adapt to global warming;

9) Temperature warming has stalled since 1998;

10) Increased ice and snow cover in Antarctica;

11) In the 1970s, an ice age was predicted, but now warming is predicted. Are scientists reliable?

12) The increase in CO2 lags behind the increase in temperature, so it is not CO2 that causes global warming;

13) Although CO2 increase can cause warming, the climate sensitivity of the climate system to CO2 increase is actually very low;

14) We are entering the next ice age;

15) Ocean acidification caused by CO2 increase is not serious;

16) The increase in CO2 has little or no effect;

17) There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature;

18) CO2 is not a pollutant at all;

19) CO2 is a fertilizer for plants;

20) Historically, CO2 levels were much higher than they are today;

21) The “hockey stick” curve of temperature increase over the past millennium is unreliable [7];

22) The “Climategate” incident revealed that global warming was a conspiracy by scientists with ulterior motives such as CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia);

23) There is no link between hurricane changes and global warming;

24) Al Gore is wrong[8];

25) The area of ​​glaciers is increasing;

26) It is cosmic rays that cause the temperature increase;

27) 1934 was the hottest year in history;

28) I'm freezing to death these days, who said global warming is the problem? ;

29) Extreme weather is not caused by global warming;

30) Sea level rise is greatly exaggerated;

31) The urban heat island effect causes warming;

32) Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were actually higher;

33) Mars is also warming (warming is not limited to Earth, so this warming is not caused by human activities);

34) The melting of Arctic ice and snow is the result of natural cycles;

35) The oceans are cooling;

36) Recent global warming is part of a 1,500-year cycle;

37) Human CO2 emissions are only a small part of CO2 release;

38) The impact of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from human activities is very small and is not enough to change the laws of natural climate change;

39) It is hard to imagine that only 5% of carbon is responsible for climate change, while 95% has no effect.

40) The IPCC is a group of alarmists.

41) Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas;

42) Global warming is caused by the use of electromagnetic waves by humans for communication;

43) Limiting CO2 is harmful to the economy;

44) There is no such thing as global warming;

45) Greenland used to be covered with vegetation (and the temperature was higher);

46) Greenland’s ice and snow are increasing;

47) The Greenland ice sheet is not collapsing;

48) Greenland has lost only a small fraction of its ice mass;

49) There is no empirical evidence for global warming;

50) Other planets (Mars, Jupiter, Pluto) are also warming;

51) Arctic sea ice is recovering;

52) We are only emerging from the Little Ice Age;

53) The temperature was still dropping in the middle of the last century;

54) Global warming has stalled in 1998/2002/2007/2010;

55) There was warming before 1940, when CO2 levels were very low (CO2 has nothing to do with warming);

56) Satellite data reveal that the troposphere is not warming at all;

57) It is changes in aerosols that cause global warming;

58) The winter of 2009-2010 saw a record cold snap;

59) It is global warming caused by the El Nino event;

60) The reduction of snow and ice on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa is due to human land use;

61) Global warming is not caused by human activities (other than humans);

62) Global warming is caused by natural cyclical changes;

63) There are no tropospheric hotspots at all;

64) is the warming caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO);

65) Scientists cannot even accurately predict the weather (let alone the climate in the next 100 years);

66) The IPCC is wrong about Himalayan glacier changes (in IPCC AR4, section 10.6.2, the IPCC wrote “the likelihood of [the Himalayan Glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” This statement is not from the official publication);

67) The second law of thermodynamics (temperature cannot be transferred from a low temperature object to a high temperature object) is contrary to the greenhouse effect theory;

68) The greenhouse effect theory has been artificially tampered with;

69) Limiting CO2 would hurt the poor;

70) Cloud cover changes can provide a negative feedback mechanism;

71) There is no completely certain science (even the theories of Newton, Einstein, etc. are constantly being revised, so how can today’s climatologists say for sure about global warming!);

72) Predictions of sea level rise are exaggerated;

73) Global warming is caused by warming oceans;

74) The IPCC’s account of the Amazon rainforest is wrong;

75) Coral bleaching is recoverable;

76) The greenhouse effect of CO2 has reached saturation;

77) Volcanic activity releases more CO2 than human activity;

78) CO2 is only a trace gas;

79) 500 scientists refute the so-called "global warming consensus";

80) It is methane CH4 that causes global warming;

81) CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a relatively short time

82) The measurement of CO2 is questionable;

83) The humidity of the air is decreasing;

84) Neptune is warming;

85) Spring did not start early;

86) Jupiter is warming;

87) is the warming caused by land use;

88) Scientists try to hide cooling in global temperature series;

89) CO2 levels did not increase at all;

90) Record snowfall disproves global warming;

91) Someone deliberately changed "global warming" to "global change";

92) The length of the solar cycle has changed, which is evidence of global warming caused by solar activity;

93) CO2 is released from the ocean;

94) The IPCC overestimated global temperature increase;

95) Pluto is warming;

96) CO2 is not the only factor driving climate change;

97) The peer review process is corrupt;

98) The Arctic was warmer in the 1940s;

99) Renewable energy is simply too expensive;

100) Sea ice is increasing in the Southern Hemisphere;

101) Sea level rise is slowing down;

102) Even if there is a limit on the total amount of CO2 emissions, it will not make much difference (compared to no limit);

103) Temperature changes are affected by changes in the observation site environment (the observation station is close to air-conditioning exhaust fans, and the surrounding area is affected by changes in radiation from parking lots, hot roofs, sidewalks, buildings, etc.);

104) Lindzen and Choi (2009) found that climate sensitivity is actually very low;

105) Phil Jones says there has been no global warming since 1995;

106) Human activities have a negligible impact on global climate;

107) Increased temperature (primarily SST) will lead to a decrease in cirrus clouds, thus allowing more outward infrared radiation, just like the iris of a human eye (the brighter the light, the smaller the pupil, the darker the light, the larger the pupil), regulating the Earth's temperature by changing the amount of radiation (Lindzen et al. 2001);

108) When calculating the global average temperature, some stations were excluded, which led to warming;

109) Reducing the total amount of CO2 is too difficult;

110) Reducing the total amount of CO2 is not that urgent;

111) is global warming caused by changes in surface albedo;

112) Tree ring data after 1960 disagree with temperature warming;

113) It is black carbon that causes global warming;

114) Roy Spencer discovered the negative feedback process (published a book called "The great global warming blunder", using a simple model to analyze the problem of global warming)

115) James Hansen's estimate in 1988 was wrong;

116) is global warming caused by global brightening (reduction in cloud cover leading to increased solar radiation at the surface);

117) Global warming is not as high as expected;

118) The reduction of Arctic sea ice is offset by the increase of Antarctic sea ice;

119) It is just a change in climate state;

120) Global warming caused by the solar cycle;

121) Less than half of scientists support global warming;

122) Plant stomatal data show that CO2 concentration changes are higher and greater;

123) More than 31,000 scientists signed the "OISM Petition" against the Kyoto Protocol;

124) There has been no loss of sea ice;

125) Global warming is caused by a decrease in the frequency of volcanic activity;

126) The IPCC deliberately made the Medieval Warm Period disappear from long series data;

127) The climate is in a chaotic state and unpredictable;

128) Sea levels are not rising;

129) It is ozone changes that cause global warming;

130) Freedom of Information Act requests are being ignored;

131) Climate change skeptics are today’s Galileos;

132) The IPCC consensus on global warming is a hoax;

133) Tuvalu (Pacific island nation) has not seen sea level rise;

134) Naomi Oreskes (Professor of History and Science, University of California, San Diego) Research on the global warming consensus is problematic;

135) Renewable energy sources cannot provide baseload energy production;

136) Kevin Trenberth said in an email in October 2009 that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment";

137) The decline of the ice sheet has been exaggerated;

138) CRU (Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK) tampered with temperature data;

139) Melting ice and snow cannot cause the Arctic to warm;

140) Respiration causes an increase in CO2;

141) Satellite errors cause temperatures in the Great Lakes to be artificially high;

142) Paulo Soares (2010) found no correlation between CO2 and temperature;

143) We are actually entering a cold period;

144) Murry Salby discovered that the increase in carbon dioxide was a natural phenomenon;

145) The sun is getting hotter;

146) Earth's temperature has been warming for most of the past 10,000 years;

147) There is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations;

148) is the wasted heat that causes warming;

149) Water vapor in the stratosphere can prevent global warming;

150) The current warming rate is similar to that of 1860-1880 and 1910-1940;

151) An exponential increase in CO2 can only lead to a linear increase in temperature;

152) The winter of 2008/2009 set a record for snow and ice cover in the United States;

153) The Mauna Loa station in Hawaii that measures CO2 concentrations is a volcano;

154) CERN CLOUD experiment proves that cosmic rays cause global warming;

155) The so-called "97% consensus of scientists on global warming" has been disproven;

156) Venus does not have a runaway greenhouse effect;

157) Climate change deniers are part of the “97% of scientists”;

158) There is a correlation between water surface height and sunspot number;

159) Changes in planetary orbits cause global warming;

160) The temperature of the Antarctic continent is too low for ice and snow loss to occur;

161) Positive feedback means runaway warming;

162) Global warming skeptics excluded from IPCC;

163) CO2 was higher in the Late Ordovician than it is today;

164) Atolls will grow as sea levels rise;

165) It is the internal variability of the climate system that causes global warming;

166) Natural processes caused the increase in CO2, not human activities;

167) Adapting to global warming is cheaper than preventing it;

168) CFCs (Freon) are the substances that cause warming;

169) Scientists retract claims about sea level rise;

170) Warming leads to an increase in CO2;

171) Changes in carbon dioxide concentration are not strictly related to changes in temperature

172) Investment in renewable energy kills jobs;

173) Schmittner et al. (2011) found that climate sensitivity is relatively low;

174) There has been no significant warming in the past 16 years;

175) A major solar minimum will lead to another ice age;

176) DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) Arctic temperature data reveals that the Arctic is cooling;

177) Dr. Ben Santer (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) altered the 1995 IPCC report;

178) Even if a limit is set on the total amount of CO2, it is impossible to cool down the earth's temperature;

179) Global warming is a shift in climate state caused by natural cycles;

180) Earth’s climate has a 60-year cycle;

181) The Royal Society is a supporter of climate change skepticism;

182) Global warming is just a few degrees of warming, why make a fuss?

183) It is microwave transmissions from satellites that cause the warming;

184) CO2 contributes only 35% to global warming;

185) IPCC graphs showing accelerated warming are misleading;

186) Sea levels dropped in 2010;

187) Historically, the extent of Arctic sea ice was smaller than it is today;

188) UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) reconstructed satellite remote sensing atmospheric temperature data confirmed that the climate model and surface temperature series are wrong;

189) There was no global warming during the Industrial Revolution;

190) Fredrik Ljungqvist's (2010) global temperature reconstruction (a 2000-year-long temperature reconstruction) debunked Mann's "hockey stick" curve lie;

191) James Hansen (1988) once predicted that the highway on the west bank of the Hudson River in the United States would be submerged by seawater. Now it is fine. It is totally unreliable.

192) Even if all CO2 in the atmosphere is removed, it will not make any difference, so no action will be taken;

193) Loehle and Scafetta (2008) found a 60-year cycle in climate history that is responsible for global warming;

194) Joseph E. Postma's research (an article published on the website) proves that the greenhouse effect is false;

195) It is the changes in underground temperature (geothermal heat) that dominate climate change;

196) Humans have successfully navigated past climate change;

197) Heat waves and extreme heat waves are common throughout history;

198) Bush: Taking measures to reduce CO2 emissions is not in the national interest of the United States;

199) Trump: The concept of global warming was invented by and for the Chinese in order to make the US manufacturing industry uncompetitive;

200) Trump: Global warming is a complete and utter scam that costs a lot of money;

201) Climate change is created by Soviet/Russian/American/Chinese weather weapons;

202) Climate change is a conspiracy by developed countries to contain developing countries;

Notes:

[1] SANTER BD, TAYLOR KE, WIGLEY TM, et al., 1996. A Search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere [J]. Nature, 382(6586): 39-46.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc.

[3] Zhu, C., K. Kobayashi, I. Loladze, J. Zhu, Q. Jiang, 4, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012.

[4] Zhang Deer, 2008. Questioning the theory that the monsoon caused the fall of the Tang Dynasty based on China’s historical climate records [J]. Progress in Climate Change Research (02): 126-130.

[5] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/

[6] https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[7] Temperature curves over the past 1000 years revealed by multiple sets of temperature reconstruction data in the Northern Hemisphere, from Mann (2008).

[8] Former U.S. President, environmental activist, produced an environmental documentary "The Unforgettable Truth" that won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary. He and the United Nations Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

This article is reproduced with authorization from the WeChat public account "Voice of the Wind and Clouds".

The cover image of this article comes from the copyright library. Reprinting and quoting it may cause copyright disputes.