My Top 8 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate

By Chris Martz | June 15, 2019

Follow @ChrisMartzWX

As an aspiring meteorologist, I take my passion far beyond what many weather enthusiasts do. Rather than just giving a weather forecast, I like to explain why something is happening, and likewise with the climate. 

Earth's climate system is very dynamic, meaning that it's prone to change due to any number of reasons, it's not uniformly controlled by atmospheric carbon dioxide, contrary to what you hear in the press.

Instead of talking about why climate changes, I want to do something different. Whenever I go to debate someone on climate change, they do one, two, or all of three things; that is call me a "denier" and hurl personal attacks at me, question my credentials, or use straw-man arguments rather than trying to prove me wrong. 

In the process of weather forecasting, I look at different forecast models which lay out different solutions for how the weather will play out in the days and weeks ahead. I choose certain models which I think have the best solution to make my forecast, but also look at models that may provide a different solution; that may actually work better. In my few years of spending hours a day studying climate change, I have sided with the "skeptics." However, as an open-minded individual, I seek for information that may prove me wrong (and in some instances, I will admit that I have been wrong). 

With that said, let's take a look at some of my biggest annoyances in the climate change debate.

8. Climate activists skew the term "climate change." This isn't necessarily an annoyance per se, but it is a little aggravating at times. Decades ago, the term "climate change" would mean a change in climate, not necessarily a result of man-made processes. Nowadays, it's simply assumed as if climate change is man-made.

7. Politicians using the media to distort scientific research. This one's a no-brainer. We all know that politicians lie regardless of their political party affiliation. We also know that media outlet ratings are heavily weighed on politics, thus politicians use the media in order to spread their messages in hopes of gaining support for when election time rolls around. Climate change is a hot topic in politics and is very partisan among Democrats and Republicans. Politicians will often take scientific research and only read the summary at the beginning, known as the "abstract" without looking at the different different scenarios of what may happen further down the road as a result of negative and positive feedbacks in the climate system, and use the summary and worst-case scenario in proposed legislature.

6. Climate activists questioning my credentials. At some point in a debate (if it even makes it that far), the opposition will ask me about my credentials. In other words, they want to see if I am "credible enough" to be talking about climate change. 

Here is my response to that: 

As of the time this article was written (June 15, 2019), I am an aspiring meteorologist. I am not currently a "degreed" meteorologist, but I am planning on going to college to major and get a Masters of Science (M.S.) in meteorology. In addition, I have had very good email (and Twitter DM) discussions with various meteorologists and climatologists. Some of them agree with me, some of them don't. It should also be noted that at 16 years old, I have been able to write articles for Watts Up With That?, Climate Change Dispatch, and Climatism, a proud achievement that many my age (and older) have and will never get the opportunity to do.

So, just because I am not currently a scientist, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. 

5. Climate activists appeal to authority and citation of a consensus. Over and over and over again, people who preach the climate crisis appeal to authority. Appealing to authority does nothing to propagate the advancement of science, as it's an argument that people use to claim that something "must be true" just because it's believed by someone who is considered to be an "authority" on a subject. Just because the majority of scientists may say "ABC," whereas contrarians say "XYZ" does NOT make the consensus correct!

4. Climate activists unwillingness to debate. Tony Heller has proven this one to be true time and time again. One of the best examples was when he asked Keith Carson to debate, then Keith backed down a few hours later. I too will often try to debate people, and they end up backing down, refusing to debate, or blocking me on Twitter. Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, and Peter Gleick are notorious for this (it's their accounts and their choice, so they can do what pleases them, but it isn't very professional to block someone when they are trying to debate you).

3. Skeptics constant use of cold weather and snow to try and disprove global warming is happening. Day in and day out, I see fellow skeptics (some of whom I look up to) use cold weather events or snow days as evidence against global warming. Single weather events can not be used as evidence against global warming.

2. Climate activists say weather does not equal climate, then turn around and use a single heat wave to try and prove global warming. While I agree with climate change activists reminding skeptics that weather and climate are not the same, these climate activists constantly do an about-face and blame hot weather on climate change. This too, is foolish because one day's worth of record heat is not part of a long-term trend. 

1. Climate activists use the use of the term "climate [change] denier." Last, but definitely not least, this is my all time biggest annoyance in the climate change debate. I have seen the words "climate denier," "climate change denier," or simply "denier" used all too many times. As far as I'm concerned, there is nobody on Earth who denies the fact that climate changes at the very least naturally. Even those who call themselves "deniers" are not really deniers. Climate has been in a constant state of change for over 4.5 billion years, and will continue to do so in the future.