I encourage people to use these key approaches to effectively fight climate change misinformation and the climate denial movement

Alain Robichaud : "Advocate for better regulations on misinformation (e.g., holding media accountable)."

Would you be consistent and also want to keep so called climate activists accountable for spreading misinformation? When they name their organization in a way implying that there is genuine risk of extinction of our specie due to climate change? Would you go after journalists/activists (but sometimes also regrettably scholars) for hyping up the problem, making spectacular doomsday prediction (which are wonderful for fundraising or keeping viewers engaged) and later when those prediction turn out to be false, that ruins credibility of actual researchers?

"Focus on relatable impacts (e.g., extreme weather, health risks, economic effects)."

How deep are you willing to go? I actually do model climate health risk and noticed that most studies both acknowledge but later in impact assessment politely ignore/downplay role of low temperature modulated respiratory infections. If you account for that then in continental climates life expectancy is actually experiencing subtle net increase up due to climate change (in temperate climate it is mixed bag).

Article Evolving threats in an unforgiving climate: impact of non-op...

Dear Marcin Piotr Walkowiak

Thanks for your reply.

I completely agree with you that cold weather is also a significant concern. A 2015 study published in The Lancet, which analyzed data from 13 countries, found that cold weather is responsible for approximately 7.3% of all deaths, whereas heat accounts for only 0.4%. This means that cold-related mortality is nearly 18 times higher than heat-related deaths. Cold exposure increases the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory diseases.

However, cold weather is generally predictable—weather forecasts are often accurate in this regard—and it is unlikely to pose the greatest threat to our human specie. In contrast, air pollution is responsible for approximately 25% of all deaths, making it nearly four times deadlier than cold. Modern climate change is largely driven by air pollution, establishing a clear link between the two.

On the other hand, sudden catastrophic floods can strike without warning, while extreme heat and drought contribute to devastating wildfires—such as the recent fires in California and Canada —resulting in significant loss of life and property damage. These extreme events are increasing in frequency, whereas occurrences of extreme cold weather are slightly declining. Therefore, while cold should not be dismissed, it does not warrant the highest level of concern. From an economic point of view, cold mortality is not a big deal when you compare to devastaion of wildfires, hurricanes, floods, etc.

Now, addressing your concern:

"Would you be consistent in holding so-called climate activists accountable for spreading misinformation as well?"

I am interested in discussing science and the ways in which some scientists distort it. However, I am not concerned with what is reported on social media, platforms like X, or television. If you can provide specific examples of real scientists spreading misinformation about the threats posed by climate change, I would be happy to examine them. It is crucial to separate scientific discourse from the rhetoric of uninformed social media narratives.

cc;

Barton Levenson Henrik Rasmus Andersen

Alain Robichaud "Cold exposure increases the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory diseases."

Technical point here - cold predominantly works through increased spread of respiratory viruses. Nevertheless, later those infection triggered deaths are being coded towards pre-existing conditions. (If you are curious how I know it: there are studies showing how exactly during influenza outburst there is neatly matching surge of other causes of death, primarily cardiovascular)

"In contrast, air pollution is responsible for approximately 25% of all deaths, making it nearly four times deadlier than cold. Modern climate change is largely driven by air pollution, establishing a clear link between the two." Interesting, could you explain? This 25% looks oddly high. "From an economic point of view, cold mortality is not a big deal when you compare to devastaion of wildfires, hurricanes, floods, etc." You present here quite original position concerning priorities. Last few years the dominating view had been that halting spread of respiratory viruses (with one nastier than usual) being quite deadly for high risk individuals is a big deal, totally worth sacrificing some economic output without any second thought. That wasn't a unique - similar decision are being mostly consistently done in developed countries in relation ex. healthcare (when funding some highly expensive procedures) or military (easier to convince voters to pay in taxes for solving problems with airstrike with smart weapons than to send land forces and see fellow citizens returning in flag-wrapped coffins) You may think that my perception is skewed due to concentrating my studies on human mortality, but looking brutally for my country: -the Flood of Millenia (1997) - 56 dead in Poland (counting the nearby countries would double that) -mundane (no influenza peak) winter period +1000 dead every week in Poland comparison to summer (and that mask elevated number of infection through the year) While I know that the difference in DALY wouldn't be that crushing, just still the impact of natural disaster would be barely noticeable in mortality dataset.

In case of dealing with the flood risk further increased by climate change, while we haven't given up our love for building in flood zones, we at least built dam to protect Wrocław (main city that had been flooded in 1997) and in the flood last year it had been properly shielded. This propensity to build in places that clearly had been high risk before recent warming (and later anyway blame climate change) appears to be quite popular as for example for hurricanes it seems that increased damage seems to be caused by increased value of infrastructure plus odd tendency to build in high risk areas, while impact of climate change was hard to pinpoint. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0165-2

So I notice that based on our decisions we prioritize human lives and in case of infrastructure tend not to even care enough for not to build it in scenic but high risk place.

"However, I am not concerned with what is reported on social media, platforms like X, or television."

Are you certain about it? I mean you want to fight with climate misinformation, but you want to deal to tackle only the surface problem - that some random dude makes weird rant online and that's being taken seriously. It's hard to explain how it could be possible without admitting that authority of major institutions crashed in eyes of general population. Answering why exactly such decline in trust has happened could be rather awkward. Thus I think that if you want to tackle the problem, you should be deeply concerned what is being reported to general population as the mainstream science as any blunders there affect perceived credibility.

Dear Marcin (MPW thereafter)

MPW: Technical point here - cold predominantly works through increased spread of respiratory viruses. Nevertheless, later those infection triggered deaths are being coded towards pre-existing conditions. (If you are curious how I know it: there are studies showing how exactly during influenza outburst there is neatly matching surge of other causes of death, primarily cardiovascular)

AR: Now you are talking about 3 factors acting together: cold weather + virus +pre-existing conditions. It is hard to know which factor was predominant and it is likely a case by case situation. For example, I got COVID-19 virus and I was not even aware of it. I just discovered following a routine test. I guess my immune system is strong. On the flip side, one of my friend had pre-existing conditions and he smokes and drinks and he almost died from COVID. Note that cold weather during pandemics might not be the most important factor as US states of Southern US were more affected than Northern US states. I was surprised to hear that in Florida and California, the virus COVID had spread as fast as anywhere else.

MPW: This 25% looks oddly high.

AR: These are figures from many international organisms confirmed by model simulations. See my paper (refrenced in the Introduction)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31994992/

In the introduction of my paper I give good references for millions (3-8 millions) per year dying due to poor air quality.

MPW: You present here quite original position concerning priorities. Last few years the dominating view had been that halting spread of respiratory viruses (with one nastier than usual) being quite deadly for high risk individuals is a big deal, totally worth sacrificing some economic output without any second thought.

AR: I am not a policy maker and I do not decide of priorities. COVID was a very rare event, a pandemic, not a permanent condition as air pollution and rapid climate change. For the rest I would tend to agree with you, our society is vulnerable to many environmental threats including viruses, pandemic, etc.

That is why we should adapt and mitigate and manage the risk. There will be always be people minimizing the risks for ideological reasons and media to make spectacular the risks like if the glaciers will melt tomorrow. My view is to get prepare and effectively manage the risk. My question here was for to respond to misinform climate deniers who pollute the internet with false claims such as "natural climate change explain everything and we do not need for any action" or other kind of other claims of that sort (CO2 does not trap heat, etc.).

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak

Concerning the paper that you provided, Pielke’s argument highlights the importance of normalizing socioeconomic factors when assessing climate change impacts. However, the absence of a clear trend in normalized economic losses does not contradict the scientific consensus that climate change is intensifying hurricanes. If hurricanes are getting stronger but economic losses remain stable, it likely reflects a combination of improved adaptation and limitations in current economic normalization methods. For example, less people re-constructing in vulnerable zones, better codes for buildings, etc.

Kerry Emmanuel has shown that the power of hurricanes and tropical storms and the frequency of categories 3 and over has increased (although it is debatable if the total frequency has increased or not).

www.nature.com/articles/nature0390

Alain Robichaud "I was surprised to hear that in Florida and California, the virus COVID had spread as fast as anywhere else."

There is a balancing game between underlying immunity and modulating weather conditions. When there is a new virus it can go through population like wildfire. Nevertheless, endemic viruses reach a dynamic equilibrium state and end up having their season when the conditions are the most favorable for them, generally during colder periods. Just there would a modest difference as in colder regions to reach equilibrium one would need a few more people infected what would cause a few more deaths among vulnerable. In spite of summer waves COVID-19 is clearly shown to prefer colder weather, apparently no clear preference for any particular humidity: https://doi.org/10.1097/ee9.0000000000000338

[give me a while to digest your article on pollution]

"My question here was for to respond to misinform climate deniers" Assuming that's purely science motivated question intended for tackling some clearly flawed starting premises, in this highly politically polarized period, in order to be taken seriously in that particular camp, your priority is not even demonstrating your top expertise but basic impartiality. If people see you going after with comparable enthusiasm against ex. those who say stuff not much better than "the glaciers will melt tomorrow", then your chances on convincing someone while explaining basic physics behind the process go up.

However, in case of someone being indistinguishable from someone wanting to selectively use science as convenient tool in political activity, then one should be prepared to be taken on equal footing with any other political activists. Keep in mind that after a few heroic cases of fighting misinformation that did not age especially well (like story of Hunter Biden's laptop or issue of coronavirus research in Wuhan), big share of population may be somewhat skeptical and suspect less than noble intent, while rebuilding trust would take years of stellar track record.

Positions that you expressed here appear to be somewhat in conflict: "natural climate change explain everything and we do not need for any action"

AND

"I am not a policy maker and I do not decide of priorities."

If you go from scientific explanation of phenomenon to action, then you are clearly expressing prioritization of policy preferences.

"However, the absence of a clear trend in normalized economic losses does not contradict the scientific consensus that climate change is intensifying hurricanes." I'd give you example from epidemiology - there are numerous studies (much easier and faster to perform) showing that tested vaccine works by demonstrating that it boosted level of antibodies. While it indeed can be promising based on proxy indicator, oddly enough most people outside of the field are less mesmerized by elevated level of antibodies as the end goal but rather ask for direct evidence on how well this translates into some other metrics that they actually care about like reduction of mortality, hospitalization or sick days after factoring in side effects. If there are genuine problems to demonstrate statistical significance on the key metrics it already informs that any impact is minuscule at best.

There is very similar problem with hurricanes. Most likely they are up a bit. However, if after picking sample of really respectable size (century for a huge country) they still struggle to detect any statistical significance on ultimate outcome metrics, then instead of Armageddon we're either way talking about some subtle, barely detectable impact which does not fare strongly while weighting in policy options and this part also should be communicated clearly.

"For example, less people re-constructing in vulnerable zones, better codes for buildings, etc." Your speculated explanation could be turned into intriguing policy advice: in order to keep climate change hurricane damage below detection threshold try to avoid stubborn reconstruction in obvious flood zones and avoid shoddy construction work. (Dunno, sounds radical, in my country based on our track record we apparently do love building in flood zones so giving up such bad habit seems hard and we shouldn't be lecturing others. :D)

• Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Barton Levenson Henrik Rasmus Andersen

Few comments about your stetements:

• The idea that viruses establish seasonal patterns is generally true but varies by virus type.
• COVID-19 does not strongly follow a "cold-weather preference" pattern like flu, as it has caused waves in all seasons.
• Climate has some influence, but immunity, variant characteristics, and human behavior are much stronger drivers of viral spread.
• ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the second part of your comments:

MWP: "My question here was for to respond to misinform climate deniers" Assuming that's purely science motivated question intended for tackling some clearly flawed starting premises, in this highly politically polarized period, in order to be taken seriously in that particular camp, your priority is not even demonstrating your top expertise but basic impartiality. If people see you going after with comparable enthusiasm against ex. those who say stuff not much better than "the glaciers will melt tomorrow", then your chances on convincing someone while explaining basic physics behind the process go up.

AR: I am not entirely sure I undersand your points but what I want to point out with this question is the falty logic of the denial movement. Here are some key points:

1. False Balance Fallacy

Science is not about maintaining a "balance" between opposing views—it's about evidence. The overwhelming scientific consensus supports anthropogenic climate change, while climate denial is largely based on misinterpretations or distortions of data. Equating climate alarmism (rare and often self-corrected in scientific discourse) with outright denial (which is widespread and often politically motivated) creates a misleading impression that both sides are equally problematic.

2. The Denial Strategy Is Not About Fairness

Climate deniers often engage in bad-faith arguments, shifting goalposts, cherry-picking data, and outright rejecting evidence. Their goal is not to have a fair discussion but to create doubt. Appeasing them by attacking the "other extreme" does not necessarily increase credibility—it can just be used to further delay action.

3. Scientific Communication Is Already Conservative

Mainstream climate science (such as IPCC) is generally cautious in its conclusions. If anything, many risks (such as ice sheet destabilization or permafrost methane feedback) have historically been underestimated rather than exaggerated. Focusing on fringe alarmist claims gives the false impression that mainstream science is exaggerated, when in reality, the biggest issue is underreaction.

4. Who Determines What Is "Too Alarmist"?

What counts as an exaggerated claim is often subjective. Predicting when exactly a glacier will collapse is uncertain, but the overall trend of ice loss is well-documented. Denialists often use claims of "alarmism" to dismiss real risks, even when those risks are supported by data.

While impartiality is important in general, prioritizing the appeasement of climate deniers by also attacking alarmism is misguided. The key is to focus on the best available evidence and communicate it clearly—without artificially balancing misinformation with cautious scientific conclusions.

MWP: However, in case of someone being indistinguishable from someone wanting to selectively use science as convenient tool in political activity, then one should be prepared to be taken on equal footing with any other political activists. Keep in mind that after a few heroic cases of fighting misinformation that did not age especially well (like story of Hunter Biden's laptop or issue of coronavirus research in Wuhan), big share of population may be somewhat skeptical and suspect less than noble intent, while rebuilding trust would take years of stellar track record.

Positions that you expressed here appear to be somewhat in conflict: "natural climate change explain everything and we do not need for any action"

AND

"I am not a policy maker and I do not decide of priorities."

If you go from scientific explanation of phenomenon to action, then you are clearly expressing prioritization of policy preferences.

AR: Well I think you should bear in mind these key points:

1. Science and Policy Are Separate but Related

Scientific findings describe how the world works; policy decisions are about how to respond to those findings. Explaining the evidence for human-caused climate change does not inherently mean endorsing a specific policy—it simply lays out the reality. Saying that "climate change is real and largely driven by CO₂ emissions" is a factual statement, not a policy position.

On the other hand, advocating for a specific carbon tax, a Green New Deal, or deregulating fossil fuels would be a policy position. Scientists can explain risks and potential outcomes, but it’s up to policymakers and society to decide how to act.

2. "If You Care About Policy, You're an Activist" Is a False Dilemma

The argument implies that anyone who discusses the implications of scientific findings must be treated as a political activist. But this is misleading. Scientists routinely study real-world problems that have policy implications—whether it’s climate change, pandemics, or structural engineering failures—without becoming "activists."

For example, if an engineer reports that a bridge is structurally unsound, they are not taking a "policy stance" by recommending repairs. They are applying expertise to assess risk. Climate science works the same way: describing the problem does not mean pushing an agenda.

3. False Equivalence With Past Misinformation Cases

The argument references issues like Hunter Biden’s laptop and COVID origins to suggest that skepticism toward climate science is justified. This is a rhetorical diversion:

• Climate science has decades of peer-reviewed research, independent confirmations, and clear physical mechanisms.
• The examples given (political scandals and pandemic origins) involve uncertainty, political narratives, and media biases—very different from climate science, which is based on measurable physical processes.

4. Contradiction Between "We Don’t Need Action" and "I Am Not a Policymaker"

The claim that one cannot simultaneously argue "natural climate change explains everything, so no action is needed" and "I am not a policymaker" is flawed.

• The first statement is a scientific assertion (though incorrect, as human influence on climate is well-documented).
• The second statement simply acknowledges a role distinction—scientists inform, policymakers decide.

If someone falsely claims that "no action is needed because climate change is natural," they are making a scientific error, not just a political preference. Rejecting bad science does not mean one is endorsing a specific policy—only that they are correcting misinformation.

Conclusion:

The core issue here is an attempt to conflate presenting climate science with taking a political stance. While climate action is inherently political, the underlying science is not. Scientists should communicate facts clearly, without needing to engage in political debates on equal footing with activists or policymakers. Trust in science is best rebuilt through transparency and accuracy, not by avoiding topics with political implications.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

MWP: "However, the absence of a clear trend in normalized economic losses does not contradict the scientific consensus that climate change is intensifying hurricanes." I'd give you example from epidemiology - there are numerous studies (much easier and faster to perform) showing that tested vaccine works by demonstrating that it boosted level of antibodies. While it indeed can be promising based on proxy indicator, oddly enough most people outside of the field are less mesmerized by elevated level of antibodies as the end goal but rather ask for direct evidence on how well this translates into some other metrics that they actually care about like reduction of mortality, hospitalization or sick days after factoring in side effects. If there are genuine problems to demonstrate statistical significance on the key metrics it already informs that any impact is minuscule at best.

There is very similar problem with hurricanes. Most likely they are up a bit. However, if after picking sample of really respectable size (century for a huge country) they still struggle to detect any statistical significance on ultimate outcome metrics, then instead of Armageddon we're either way talking about some subtle, barely detectable impact which does not fare strongly while weighting in policy options and this part also should be communicated clearly.

"For example, less people re-constructing in vulnerable zones, better codes for buildings, etc." Your speculated explanation could be turned into intriguing policy advice: in order to keep climate change hurricane damage below detection threshold try to avoid stubborn reconstruction in obvious flood zones and avoid shoddy construction work. (Dunno, sounds radical, in my country based on our track record we apparently do love building in flood zones so giving up such bad habit seems hard and we shouldn't be lecturing others. :D)

AR: Your argument draws a parallel between the use of proxy indicators in epidemiology and climate science, emphasizing that the absence of a clear trend in economic losses due to hurricanes suggests that any climate-driven impact is subtle at best. This is a reasonable perspective, but let’s break it down carefully.

1. Proxy Indicators Are Still Valid but Have Limits In both vaccine studies and climate science, proxy indicators (e.g., antibody levels or hurricane intensity) are often necessary when direct measurements of the ultimate outcomes (e.g., mortality reduction or economic losses) are difficult to isolate due to confounding factors.Vaccines: A rise in antibody levels doesn’t guarantee reduced mortality, but it’s a strong biological indicator that can predict effectiveness. Hurricanes: A rise in storm intensity doesn’t directly translate to higher economic losses because those losses depend on factors like wealth distribution, adaptation measures, and exposure. 2. Why Economic Losses Aren’t the Best Metric for Climate Impact Economic losses depend on more than just hurricane intensity or frequency. A few key reasons why economic loss trends might not reflect climate-driven hurricane changes:Increased adaptation (better building codes, improved forecasting, evacuation measures). Changes in population density (more people moving into or out of coastal areas). Inflation-adjusted wealth growth (wealthier societies can absorb financial shocks better). The lack of a clear upward trend in normalized economic losses doesn’t disprove that hurricanes are intensifying—it just means that other factors have counterbalanced potential damage increases.3. Statistical Significance vs. Real-World Impact It’s true that if an effect is too small to be statistically significant over a large dataset, it suggests a weaker impact. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the impact is irrelevant:Climate change is shifting long-term averages, but extreme events are inherently rare, making robust statistical detection difficult. Small changes in hurricane intensity can have nonlinear effects on damage (e.g., a slight increase in wind speed can cause disproportionate damage). Some climate impacts are only emerging now and might become clearer in the future. 4. Policy Implications: A Sensible Takeaway Your humorous take on "not rebuilding in flood zones" is actually a key part of sensible adaptation strategies. If better building codes and smarter land use policies are keeping hurricane losses in check, that’s a success story—but it also means we can’t assume climate change isn’t making hurricanes worse just because losses haven’t skyrocketed.Conclusion The absence of a strong trend in normalized economic losses doesn’t contradict the idea that climate change is intensifying hurricanes—it just suggests that human adaptation has, so far, been effective at mitigating damages. However, that doesn’t mean the problem is negligible; it simply means that policy decisions (like better building codes and zoning laws) have mattered as much as, or more than, the climate signal itself.

I have included a study from NOAA on the increase of catastrophic events. THat does not lie.

Alain Robichaud

"I have included a study from NOAA on the increase of catastrophic events. THat does not lie."

You presented graph with highly impressive numbers... The value and location unadjusted numbers for those disaster categories are as impressively growing for all categories as they grow for… storms… whoopsie. (could be worse, one person on RG already tried to build similar point by presenting me a dataset showing even earthquake damage comparably climbing up in recent years and got really unhappy when I pointed it out)

"Partially true. Many respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV, peak in colder months due to factors like indoor crowding, lower humidity (which preserves viral particles), and weaker mucosal immune responses."

Uhm... "GENERALLY during colder periods".

As side note, even the rest is "partially true" as influenza B prefers higher relative humidity.

"Not necessarily. Colder climates might experience more respiratory infections due to indoor crowding, but healthcare quality, vaccination rates, and population density are far more critical determinants of mortality than just temperature."

To be specific I quantified that (high temperature vs. low temperature vs. GDP) in my paper that I linked at start. Though to be fair this paradox that in Mediterranean region people lived oddly longer than expected based on their GDP had been known for ages.

"This is misleading. COVID-19 has had waves in all seasons, including strong summer surges."

That's not "misleading", that's exactly following basic epidemiological models with virus-host needing a while to reach equilibrium and before that striking at odd moments.

"COVID-19 does not strongly follow a "cold-weather preference"

I have already attached recent a paper where on huge sample they demonstrated exactly that. Could you advice me some better methods on fighting misinformation, though one that would work in virology? :D

"I am not entirely sure I undersand your points but what I want to point out with this question is the falty logic of the denial movement."

I pointed out what's the source of problem of why particular issues become partisan. Frankly, you could it even counter what I said with even stronger argument - that you are not responsible for any policy blunders during the last pandemic, you had alibi, at that time you had been preoccupied with modelling impact of air pollution. While technically correct, it still would not solve the underlying issue that at this point people perceived to be on intersection of science and politics are treated with high level of scepticism, under assumption that they are simply political activists who like to use properly selected scientific arguments when they serve their particular agenda.

I'm not trying to convince you that it's especially fair or deserved, I'm simply trying to point out what's the problem and which events may created such perception. The issue is quite simple in the principle. If you want to be convincing to "the denial movement" then you have to understand their rationale / "faulty logic" to bring arguments which they would buy. If you want to dismiss those arguments out of hand and proceed anyway, then feel free, just afterwards tell me how convincing for the target audience such approach turned out to be. I simply notice that perceived credibility is low (there are studies showing crashing trust of effectively all institutions), and following signalling theory to rebuild trust one needs to make costly signal suggesting some correction, like ex. sacrificing alarmists.

"Science is not about maintaining a "balance" between opposing views" Your question clearly wasn't about proper running science but on how to be convincing in this particular situation. You really should not conflate those two concepts.

"Equating climate alarmism (rare and often self-corrected in scientific discourse) with outright denial (which is widespread and often politically motivated) creates a misleading impression that both sides are equally problematic."

When we discuss policy that's politically motivated by definition. Concerning false equivalency, if we take IPCC models as some gold standard then by being denialist one undershoots by 100%, while some alarmist (like those who talk about extinction of our specie) clearly require overshooting those models by at least a few hundred percent. Moreover, after people hear a few times in the media that “the Science” predicted them some spectacular doom, while oddly enough they are still alive, they really don’t ask about what had been the model assumptions and explicitly stated limitations near the bottom study, as even the journalist who had been creating overhyped headline relied on abstract or press release. From less nuanced ideas one could fully believe it or vehemently reject it. Right now there is significant share of population on the West who don’t want to reproduce as the media made them think that future of their children would disastrous:

“Uncertainty of an unborn child’s future. In four studies, participants were concerned about their child(ren)’s health and wellbeing in an uncertain future, confronted by the effects of climate change. This was reflected in reader comments from topical online news articles, with

many predicting the quality of life for unborn children as ‘bleak’ or ‘doomed’ [53]. Projections of a ‘dire’ future were expressed in Smith et al. [57], with some participants feeling out of control of the future state of the planet and disappointment that the ability to enjoy aspects of nature such as “kayaking, or hiking, or snowboarding” [p.6] may no longer be accessible to future generations. In Nakkerud [37] and Kra¨henbu¨hl [54], participants were concerned that societies were heading towards collapse and therefore did not want the responsibility of raising a child in their envisioned uninhabitable world.”

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000236

Seems that in comparison being merely climate change denier would be in such case much more effective evolutionary strategy and something one would be less likely to deeply regret in later life (unless trying to raise family in middle of area particularly prone to natural disasters amplified by climate change)

"Who Determines What Is "Too Alarmist"? What counts as an exaggerated claim is often subjective. "

Dunno... Who determines what is "too denialist"? Whole idea of fighting with climate misinformation clings on assumption that there is some well defined, reasonable mainstream and everything that dramatically strays from it is easy to identify and pillory (or at least ridicule). If you start building here the opposite case, then you are undermining your own starting premise.

Plan B: You can’t effectively play this card “Highlight consensus: Over 97% of climate scientists agree on human-caused climate change” as due to general population becoming aware of cases of cancel culture, any consensus is no longer taken assumed to be necessarily caused by some hard evidence.

There are even memes circulating stating that:

“97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. The other 3% are banned from social media”

Yes, exactly “97%” in the meme, so apparently its target audience must have seen that particular message already a few times without getting convinced.

I know that in climate science cancel culture is not a serious threat, in contrast to ex. soft sciences which turned out to be able to not only enforce ideological orthodoxy in quite many countries but even continuously overrule inconvenient genetics findings and trample any supposed “bigots”. Wider population is unlikely get this nuance here. From things that may work, one may however try to play the card that older models are roughly on track. Prediction has been made a few decades concerning climate sensitivity to CO2, here are actual emission, now is the day of reckoning – here is what model predicted vs. what was ultimately observed (maybe some moving 5 year average). Shown on the graph to be close enough and easy to read. That may work a bit.

“This is a reasonable perspective, but let’s break it down carefully.”

“Some climate impacts are only emerging now and might become clearer in the future.”

This is a part that I have mixed feelings. While trying to push everything into linear regression, I always have this heretic feeling that non-linear mechanisms could happen and dispersion could deviate from normal distribution. :D Whenever someone brings me model predicting the future, my first question is whether model built on those assumptions would be at least able to predict the past by roughly matching historical data as we already have quite steep warming from the ‘70s onward. In mortality/temperature models that I dealt with, really well I see that most models published would be unlikely to even pass this test.

To make it clear, it does not guarantee model predictive success, however such requirement dramatically constrains assumptions that one could push into model.

“ Policy Implications: A Sensible Takeaway” In policy implication you have one key problem – there is quite different approach when facing utter and otherwise unavoidable devastation than when facing some highly nuanced calculation on balancing cost of emission reduction, suspected damage, cost of adaptation and some subtle gains (like saving on heating or slightly higher crop yields due to longer vegetation season)

I thought that “building on flood zones tend to end up badly” is one of last remaining sentences that is not deemed as politically polarising yet, just keeping a bit extra margin of error in relation to historical data should be pending on circles justified by “climate change” / “not trusting intellectuals too much”. :D

“policy decisions (like better building codes and zoning laws) have mattered as much as, or more than, the climate signal itself.”

That’s quite close to problem that I’ve already have seen in my modelling of seasonality of mortality – I was able to pinpoint role of climate for any snapshot, however the longer term trends had been governed by other factors completely overshadowing any subtle impact of climate change. Though it also raises a problem in any projection – if one has good reason to expect then the relation is going be completely changed, then calculation on any impact of slightly different climate in few decades starts being highly shaky.

MWP: You presented graph with highly impressive numbers... The value and location unadjusted numbers for those disaster categories are as impressively growing for all categories as they grow for… storms… whoopsie. (could be worse, one person on RG already tried to build similar point by presenting me a dataset showing even earthquake damage comparably climbing up in recent years and got really unhappy when I pointed it out)

AR; The number are adjusted SIr. What is your point exactly ?

MWP: I simply notice that perceived credibility is low (there are studies showing crashing trust of effectively all institutions), and following signalling theory to rebuild trust one needs to make costly signal suggesting some correction, like ex. sacrificing alarmists.

AR: I am not sure what is your definition of alarmist ? If a risk is there that would potenially cause catastropic consequences in the future and if scientists are categorical (97% consensus) why the denial movement is so strong ? As an anlogy, if 97% of doctors would tell you that you have cancer, what would you do, deny it ? Saying that doctors are biased ? that they have an agenda ? That they are corrupted ? So why climate deniers (the great majority of them have no clue about atmospheric science) are so sure about the non-existence of a threat ? Can you answer that question ?

Alain Robichaud “AR; The number are adjusted SIr. What is your point exactly ?”

They are only INFLATION adjusted. So if the same brick cost 2$ instead of 1$, they took this change into account. However, if in harms way stand nowadays not one but two buildings (or instead of a shed on the same parcel was built a McMansion), then this change is not taken into account. As society becomes more affluent so more square meters per inhabitant are built and higher standards are applied that becomes the dominating factor driving up disaster damage, while to detect subtle impact of climate would require additional adjustments.

“I am not sure what is your definition of alarmist ?”

My personal definition is a person that makes me roll my eyes as much as denialist would and for both I’d be comparably enthusiastic to bet my own money in highly unfavourable ratio against particularly bold prognosis derived from theories they claim are true. If you expect precise, logically consistent definition: if by deviating -100% from IPCC median model someone becomes deplorable denialist, then maybe by predicting something requiring +100% deviation from IPCC one becomes alarmist and should be treated in the similar fashion?

I gave you exert from article of people living in panic and making key life choices based on conviction that otherwise their kids would die in some spectacular climate disaster. What’s your position here and whether you are willing to fight with that particular misinformation as well?

I notice that in the rest part you are not focused on why "trust in institutions is at bottom low and how to fix it". But let’s try “why the denial movement is so strong ?” Because issues of fighting climate change become key talking points of establishment and used as blanket justification of unpopular, not specially effective or sometimes even unrelated policies. Hyped up media coverage and subsequent reality not living up to hype did not help either. Personally, I also wonder why counter-establishment tries to challenge the strongest part, instead of acknowledging it and challenging any other part of chain of reasoning leading to those unpopular policies. Most likely their target audience is not scientifically literate enough to care, though among other groups I've also seen equally funny stuff going around, so our cognitive capabilities may be simply easy to overrule by group loyalty in general. Though there are first glimmers of hope on improvement of basic scientific literacy in this field, as I’ve seen (AFAIR the Guardian) that there had been a few years ago a rise of horrifying “lukewarmists”.

“As an anlogy, if 97% of doctors would tell you that you have cancer, what would you do, deny it ?” If you are going into medical analogies… You mentioned that your immune system was not specially impressed by COVID-19... Anyway, long after pandemic is gone the official policies of most (Denmark was a rare cases of giving up) public health authorities insist that even young, healthy, low risk individuals should be regularly boosted anyway. Are you and other people around you seriously following that particular recommendation? I hope that there would be no problem to get more than 97% of experts on board that COVID-19 exist or that vaccines tend to provide some protection against infections, just from this point there is a long way to demonstrate rationale of particular policies...

MWP: They are only INFLATION adjusted. So if the same brick cost 2$ instead of 1$, they took this change into account. However, if in harms way stand nowadays not one but two buildings (or instead of a shed on the same parcel was built a McMansion), then this change is not taken into account. As society becomes more affluent so more square meters per inhabitant are built and higher standards are applied that becomes the dominating factor driving up disaster damage, while to detect subtle impact of climate would require additional adjustments.

AR: You are partially correct in stating that inflation-adjusted disaster costs do not account for changes in exposure, such as increased development in risk-prone areas. However, this argument is incomplete and misleading because scientists and economists do apply additional adjustments to account for these factors.

1. Studies Correct for Exposure and Socioeconomic Changes Researchers use normalization techniques that adjust for population growth, wealth accumulation, and development patterns—not just inflation. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown that even after correcting for these factors, extreme weather events are causing increasing losses, consistent with climate change predictions. For example, a 2020 study by K. Emanuel in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) found that hurricane damage is increasing beyond what can be explained by societal changes alone.

Link: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1912277116

Please read this study before coming back with other arguments.

2. Climate Change Amplifies Disaster Intensity and Frequency The core issue isn’t just more buildings in harm’s way, but stronger and more frequent disasters due to climate change. For instance, hurricanes are intensifying more rapidly, rainfall from storms is increasing, and heatwaves are becoming more frequent—all trends that directly increase damage potential. Insurance companies and reinsurance firms (e.g., Munich Re, Swiss Re) explicitly state that climate change is driving up disaster-related losses, beyond economic growth effects. And they know what they re talking about.

3. Even Per-Capita Losses Are Increasing MWP, if your argument were true, we would expect disaster costs per capita or as a percentage of GDP to remain stable. However, studies show that per-capita disaster costs are rising even after accounting for wealth and development.

4. BTW your argument is Popular Among Deniers Climate skeptics often cherry-pick economic trends while ignoring scientific analyses that correct for societal changes. The insurance and financial sectors—whose business depends on accurate risk assessment—do not buy into this excuse and are actively increasing climate-related risk premiums. -------------------------------------------------------------------

About your definition of an alarmist:

MWP, your response is a mix of false equivalence, misrepresentation of alarmism, and strategic distraction from the core scientific consensus. Let’s break it down and debunk it properly.

1. The False Equivalence Between Alarmists and Deniers

Claim:

• An "alarmist" is just as bad as a denialist because they both deviate from the IPCC consensus, one predicting too little, the other too much.

Debunk:

• The IPCC reports are conservative, meaning they often underestimate worst-case scenarios rather than exaggerate them.
• Climate "alarmists" often base their concerns on peer-reviewed science exploring tail-risk scenarios, which the IPCC itself acknowledges are possible but assigns lower probabilities.
• In contrast, deniers reject well-supported mainstream science and rely on cherry-picked data or misinformation.
• A 100% deviation from the IPCC median toward underestimation (denial) is not the same as a 100% deviation toward overestimation. The first ignores evidence; the second engages with real uncertainties.

Bottom line: Alarmists may overestimate risks, but their concern is rooted in scientific uncertainty about worst-case outcomes. Deniers, however, reject scientific consensus outright.

2. The Emotional Panic Argument

Claim:

• Some people live in panic and make irrational decisions for their children based on fear of climate doom.

Debunk:

• Individual emotional reactions do not invalidate scientific reality.
• Fear-driven responses exist in any crisis (e.g., pandemics, financial collapses, Trump's decisions), but that does not mean the crisis itself is exaggerated.
• The bigger problem is not panic but complacency—many people underestimate climate risks, leading to inadequate action.

Bottom line: Fear is not an argument against science. The existence of extreme personal reactions does not discredit climate change. My view and strategy is the following: DON'T BE SCARED, BE PREPARED.

3. The “Trust in Institutions” Deflection

Claim:

• People distrust institutions because climate policies are used to justify unpopular or unrelated actions, and the media hypes things up without delivering on predictions.

Debunk:

• Trust in institutions is not solely a climate issue—it’s a broader societal trend due to political, economic, and media dynamics, politicians making promises they cannot deliver, etc.
• The fossil fuel industry has spent decades manufacturing distrust through PR campaigns designed to make people skeptical of climate science.
• The idea that “hyped-up media coverage” led to disappointment is misleading—many scientific predictions have come true, but the media sometimes frames them poorly.
• Climate action does not justify every policy—some policies may be flawed, but that does not change the underlying science.

Bottom line: Institutional trust issues are weaponized by deniers to justify skepticism about climate science, but this is a separate issue from scientific reality.

4. Why Do Deniers Challenge the Science Instead of Policy?

Claim:

• The denial movement should challenge climate policies, not the science.
• However, their audience isn’t scientifically literate enough, so they attack the strongest part of the argument (the science).

Debunk:

• Many denialists do attack policy, often arguing that climate action is too costly, ineffective, or politically motivated. However, this does not work as well if they accept the science, because then policy action seems justified.
• Instead of engaging in policy debate, they choose to attack the science itself—because undermining the reality of climate change is more effective for delaying action.
• This is a well-documented strategy from fossil fuel lobbyists and right-wing think tanks (e.g., Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute).

Bottom line: Denialism focuses on attacking science because accepting the science makes it harder to justify inaction. The idea that "people aren't scientifically literate enough" is a convenient excuse.

5. The “Lukewarmist” Misrepresentation

Claim:

• The rise of “lukewarmists” (who acknowledge some warming but downplay its severity) is a sign of improving scientific literacy.

Debunk:

• Lukewarmism is just a rebranding of climate denial. It accepts minimal warming but rejects urgent action by downplaying consequences.
• This is not an improvement in literacy, but a strategic shift in rhetoric after outright denial became untenable.
• Many "lukewarmists" still ignore core scientific findings—such as the risks of exceeding tipping points or the inadequacy of small temperature changes to avoid catastrophic impacts.

Bottom line: Lukewarmism is a soft form of denial designed to delay action, not an increase in scientific literacy.

Conclusion:

Your arguments are full of false equivalencies, strategic distractions, and misrepresentations of both science and public reaction. While alarmism can exist, it is not equivalent to denial, and concerns about climate impacts are largely based on science, not hysteria.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, concerning my analogy, here is the answer:

Your response is a textbook example of a deflection. Instead of engaging with my analogy, you are trying to change the subject to pandemic policies, hoping to create skepticism about scientific consensus in general.

Your Claim:

• Public health policies on COVID-19 were controversial, so we should question climate science in the same way.

Debunk:

• My analogy was about expert consensus (climate risk vs cancer risk evaluated by the most qualified experts) not policy debates like COVID19 which is highly dependant on social factors.
• If 97% of oncologists diagnose you with cancer, the rational response is to take it seriously—not dismiss it because you distrust some unrelated medical policy.
• Whether or not people follow public health recommendations is a separate issue from whether the medical science behind them is sound.
• Likewise, whether some climate policies are good or bad has no bearing on the scientific reality of climate change.

Bottom line: The correct response to a 97% expert consensus is to take it seriously—just as you would for a medical diagnosis. Distrust in policies is a separate issue.

2. COVID-19 and Climate Change Are Not Equivalent Cases

Your Claim:

• Because some people don’t follow public health recommendations on COVID-19, this suggests that scientific consensus on climate change should also be questioned.

Debunk:

• COVID-19 involved rapidly evolving science in a fast-moving crisis, requiring policy adjustments in real-time.
• Climate science, in contrast, is decades-old, well-established, and based on fundamental physics, not just statistical modeling.
• Policies related to COVID-19 varied by country and political context, but the underlying reality of the virus was not in dispute among experts—just as climate change is not.

Bottom line: Short-term health policies in a pandemic are not the same as long-term climate science. The existence of debate over pandemic policies does not justify rejecting overwhelming climate evidence.

3. The Bait-and-Switch Tactic

This response follows a classic misinformation tactic:

Conclusion:

Your response and comments confuse policy with science, and relies on a bait-and-switch argument. The core analogy remains undefeated: When 97% of experts agree on a serious problem, the rational response is to take action—not deny it.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Barton Levenson

Communication is a powerful tool for driving climate action, but it’s often overlooked by researchers...

How scientists can drive climate action: celebrate nature and promote hope

After years of storytelling and running classes and festivals, I’ve seen first-hand how a love of nature makes people want to protect it...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00567-5

Thanks very much Ljubomir for your reference.

Ljubomir Jacić

I see a lot of similar things and behavior from climate deniers versus democracy deniers, anti-government sentiments, anti-vaccine partisan, etc. There are very often right wing extremist. Their response is a mix of false equivalence, lies, logical fallacies, misrepresentation of alarmism, and strategic distraction from the core scientific consensus. Of course, as you said, communication is a powerful tool but with these kind of people, because there is a wall of biased ideology and extremism, logical arguments and better communication just bounce back. As the famous quote says:

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice, because malice can be exposed and prevented by the use of force, but against stupidity we are defenseless." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Seeking truth in a world of propaganda is very very difficult. What do you think ?

Dear Alain Robichaud , yes, "Seeking truth in a world of propaganda is very very difficult." We MUST keep on and fight against propaganda. Continuing education is obvious regarding this issue.

Just to enrich previous discussion dear Alain Robichaud

A radical manifesto for truth : A Climate of Truth: Why We Need It and How To Get It

Is a revolution of standards in public life the key to tackling our intertwined environmental crises? A compelling book argues it is...

"In A Climate of Truth, climate scientist Mike Berners-Lee argues that technological advances will never be enough to tackle the ‘polycrisis’ of global climate, food and energy issues. Instead, he sets out a radical manifesto for truth, writes conservation scientist Julia Jones in her review. Berners-Lee posits that if people received - from politicians, businesses and media - an honest view of the catastrophic state of the planet and the radical change required, they would vote for leaders who can deliver what's needed. “Whether greater honesty from our politicians really is the panacea Berners-Lee implies needed to solve the polycrisis, we certainly need more of it,” writes Jones..."

https://www.cambridgebookshop.co.uk/products/a-climate-of-truth?srsltid=AfmBOoqTAl0VJpHP2dFkEQPi80zESDW8QIQF1B7l1O2emtQdBPe7Dh6b

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00794-w

Dear Ljubomir.

I am quoting your book you recommend

"We have most of the technology we need to combat the climate crisis - and most people want to see more action. But after three decades of climate COPs, we are accelerating into a polycrisis of climate, food security, biodiversity, pollution, inequality, and more. What, exactly, has been holding us back?"

It sounds certainly as an interesting book. I have not read it so far. However, the extreme-right and even moderate right movement are a major obstacle to more action concerning the climate crisis. They keep repeating that climate crisis is an hoax and manufactured by socialists and democrats. They are backed up by Big Oil and Gas and misinformation campaign organized to discredit climate scientists. A lot of money is attributed for that. That has a big impact on the public. Even specialist got confused. I work at the CMC here in Montreal in atmospheric science and many people in my building in the meteorology community things that climate crisis is not an emergency. Incredible.

To fight climate change,we also have to fight climate deniers.

Based on the references below, here are typical traits of climate deniers:

• Anti-vaccine – Rejects the scientific consensus on vaccine safety and efficacy.
• Moon landing denial – Believes the Apollo missions were staged and man never walked on the Moon.
• Flat Earth belief – Thinks the Earth is flat despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
• Distrust of scientists and experts – Frequently claims that scientists are corrupt, manipulated, or part of a global conspiracy.
• Belief in a globalist or elite conspiracy – Often claims that climate change is a hoax invented by the UN, “globalists,” or elites to control the population.
• Rejection of mainstream media – Believes that the media is biased or complicit in covering up the “truth.”
• Selective skepticism – Demands absolute proof for climate science but readily accepts fringe and ridiculous theories without evidence or published in predatory journals (little or no peer-review)
• Cherry-picking data – Highlights cold weather events or temporary slowdowns in warming as “proof” that climate change isn’t real.
• Misuse of scientific terms – Uses terms like “natural cycles,” “the climate has always changed,” or “CO₂ is plant food” out of context.
• Overconfidence without expertise – Claims that they “do their own research” and dismisses decades of peer-reviewed work by thousands of climate scientists running climate models on super-computers
• Use of logical fallacies – Frequently employs straw man arguments, false dichotomies, false dichotomy and appeals to emotion or freedom.
• Links to fossil fuel interests or ideology – Often unconsciously or consciously aligned with political or economic ideologies that oppose environmental regulation and promote BIg Oil ad Gas interests.
• Anti-environmental rhetoric – Views environmentalism as anti-progress or anti-human, sometimes equating climate policy with communism or tyranny.
• Belief that climate change is a natural hoax or exaggerated for profit – Thinks climate scientists are only “in it for the money” or fame (whereas Big Oil and Gas promoters are billionaire)
• Mistrust in government action – Sees any form of climate policy as government overreach or an attack on personal liberties.
• Support for pseudoscience – May believe in chemtrails, homeopathy, or other debunked theories.
• Social media echo chamber – Gets most information from online influencers, YouTube channels, CO2 coalition website, or forums that reinforce their views.
• Hostility toward climate activists – Often ridicules or vilifies Greta Thunberg, Al Gore or environmental groups.
• Belief that climate change is a religion – Accuses scientists and activists of turning climate change into a “cult” or faith-based ideology.
• Cognitive dissonance – Holds contradictory beliefs (e.g., climate change isn’t real but climate change is natural and good).

REFRENCES:

• Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.
• Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change.
• Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change.
• Cook, J. et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters.
• Del Vicario, M. et al. (2016). Echo chambers in the age of misinformation. PNAS.
• Dunlap, R. E. & McCright, A. M. (2015). Challenging climate change: The denial countermovement. In Climate Change and Society.
• Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere. American Sociological Review.
• Hornsey, M. J. et al. (2018). The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes. PLOS ONE.
• Lewandowsky, S. et al. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLOS ONE.
• McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views. The Sociological Quarterly.
• Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury.
• Uscinski, J. E. & Parent, J. M. (2014). American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford University Press.

Alain Robichaud

Thank you for sharing such a comprehensive strategy. I find the multi-layered approach very practical, especially in today’s fragmented media environment.

I'm currently exploring how cultural symbols and public narratives—especially within subcultures and popular media—might be strategically realigned to support environmental goals without directly invoking politicized ecological messaging. This may offer an alternative route to circumvent ideological fatigue or polarization, by embedding climate-positive values in everyday culture.

I wonder how this might complement efforts like truth-based rebuttals or media literacy by shifting the framing itself—less overtly about “green ideology,” more about long-term resilience, economic practicality, or even aesthetic norms. What do you think?

Dear Alain Robichaud , thanks for your contribution. Fight against misinformation and disinformation is a MUST. Pseudo-science MUST be fought.

Regarding "Climate change", I would like to add, just to remind about my famous compatriot Milutin Milankovitch and his excellent work:

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth’s Climate

https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

It is hard to fight misinformation when you received insults like this guy on another thread:

A climate Denier wrote me: : AR (i.e. Alain Robichaud) doesn't provide answers or comments, he gets AI to make them for him. THAT is pretentious. Hypocrisy is a key strength of the socialists. AR would be lost if he didn't have AI to make all his comments for him.

--------------------------------------------------

I cannot answer that guy while being polite. I have explained previously to him that I use AI for correcting my English (which is my third language) and to get some extra references for my ideas. I am a atmospheric scientist having 30 years experience trying to provide actual facts but I am receiving insults from deniers. It is very hard considering that I have degrees in atmospheric science and 30 years experience like if I had no knowledge and experience whereas this denier has no university degree and pretend to know more.

One day I have returned his insult and the moron complained to my employer trying to making lose my job. What a bunch of morons are these deniers.

Some are more vicious than others.

Inside Trump’s campaign to censor climate science

As climate disasters intensify, the Trump administration is not just denying science, it is actively censoring it. Pallavi Sethi examines how efforts to erase climate data in the US undermine scientific institutions, threaten global climate preparedness and deepen inequalities in a warming world...

"These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined. Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter...

As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/08/04/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/

Thanks Ljubomir for sharing this. Very useful but at the same time very scaring.

Ljubomir Jacić

I want to share this important issue:

Year 2023 and 2024 were the warmest on records. Climate warming is continuing of course and usually an El Nino year is warmer than La Nina year but there was more than that. 2023-2024 undergone a El Nino but that was rather moderate. So there is something else. There is a new thing that must be taken into account. Reducing sulfates diminishes air pollution but increases short wave solar radiation and therefore global temperature.

Only few climate scientists recognized that. Dr James Hansen is one of them

Please look at this article:

news: Accelerated global warming linked to decreased sulfur aerosols from ships

dieselnet.com/news/2024/04hansen.php

That means that we must coordinate air quality policies with climate policies otherwise these policies could be conter-productive. Black carbon reduction is a better choice as a target because reducing BC both improve air quality and reduce climate forcing. Reducing sulfates alone while keeping CO2 high will not improve things.

Alain Robichaud , I am aware of this source of acceleration of global warming. Thanks for article. Have You read this one:

Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming

"Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols. In 2020, fuel regulations abruptly reduced the emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping by about 80% and created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact. Here we estimate the regulation leads to a radiative forcing of +0.2+/-0.11Wm−2 averaged over the global ocean. The amount of radiative forcing could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980 with strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity. The warming effect is consistent with the recent observed strong warming in 2023 and expected to make the 2020 s anomalously warm. The forcing is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020. The radiative forcing also has strong hemispheric contrast, which has important implications for precipitation pattern changes. Our result suggests marine cloud brightening may be a viable geoengineering method in temporarily cooling the climate that has its unique challenges due to inherent spatiotemporal heterogeneity."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3

Thanks Ljubomir

Now the focus of air quality policies is to reduce PM2.5 to cope with new WHO air quality guidances and some scientists target species such as sulfates and organic aerosol for reduction. But these two species have a cooling effect. Promoting policies to reduce these species will contribute to exacerbate climate warming. This is a wrong approach. The right approach, in my mind, is to reduce black and brown carbon (which both warm the planet being a climate forcer and are harmful to health) as well as reducing precursors of ozone (methane, a strong greenhouse gas, formaldehyde, Volatile organic compounds, etc.). This would provide a good balance between climate and air quality policies. To reduce further PM2.5, reducing NH3 will also limit acid rain and eutrophication. Reducing only SO2 and sulfates without taking into consideration the complexity of the chemical atmospheric soup is a non-sense.

Deniers often explain that what controls Earth's temperature is the ideal gas law: PV=nRT, i.e. auto-compression.

Following a recent discussion with deniers, I have created (with the help of AI) a response to them when they try to replace radiation physics with “gas law magic.”

Pseudo-fact 1– “It’s just auto-compression / pressure!”

Denier: “Surface is warm because of the weight of the atmosphere pressing down.” Reply:

• Pressure doesn’t supply energy, it just sets density.
• If compression alone set temperature, Earth would cool instantly after the compression stops (which needs energy by he way).
• Surface T is maintained by continuous energy input/output (radiation), not static weight.

Pseudo-fact 2 – “Ok, pressure didn’t change… but volume did!”

Denier: “Climate change comes from atmosphere expanding.” Reply:

• Expansion is a result of warming, not a cause.
• Scale height H=RT/gH = RT/gH=RT/g increases slightly after greenhouse warming, not before.
• Surface pressure stays ~constant, so P–V changes can’t explain long-term global temp shifts.

Pseudo-fact 3 – “Ok fine, it’s gravity!”

Denier: “The greenhouse effect is fake, gravity sets the lapse rate and surface T.” Reply:

• Yes, gravity + thermodynamics set the lapse rate (≈9.8 K/km dry, 4–7 K/km moist).
• But they don’t set the absolute surface temperature — only the temperature difference with altitude.
• Without greenhouse gases absorbing/emitting IR, the whole column would radiatively balance at ~255 K, no matter the lapse rate.

Pseudo-fact 4 – “But the gas law says…”

Denier: “PV=nRT proves everything!” Reply:

• The ideal gas law is a state equation, not an energy budget.
• To compute T, you need energy balance (Sun in vs. IR out), not just pressure and volume.
• Otherwise, you’d predict the same T for Earth and the Moon at equal pressure — which is nonsense.

Pseudo-fact 5 – “But CO₂ is tiny / irrelevant!”

Denier: “CO₂ is only 0.04%, too small to matter.” Reply:

• Trace gases can dominate radiation if they interact with key wavelengths. Ozone (~0.00006%) blocks most UV, saving life on Earth.
• CO₂, H₂O, CH₄ absorb in the IR “windows” where N₂ and O₂ are transparent.
• Small % ≠ small effect.

Final conclusion: Pressure, volume, and gravity explain structure (how T varies with height), but only radiation sets the absolute energy and surface T. That’s why every climate model and observation matches radiative–convective equilibrium, not “auto-compression.”

Dear all,

I have worked with the help of IA on a document which group most of the the false claims from climate deniers with the logic error type, providing counterpoint and references. Please help with adding up more entries so we can reach 100 entries for false claims and debunking those. I have compiled 81 so far.

Ljubomir Jacić

It is pointless to answers these climate deniers. They start with wrong premises driven by ideology, build on with junk science and reach wrong conclusions pleasing Big Oil and Gas. They are likely themselves strongly linked with Big Oil and Gas or mining industries. No point. Some even still believe that Earth is flat.

As inspired by Your last reply dear Alain Robichaud

5 timely cartoons about climate change denial

https://theweek.com/cartoons/cartoons-climate-change-denial

Climate Change Denier cartoons and comics

"Bold single-panel gags, sharply satirical illustrations, and punchy comic strips bring the world of climate change deniers to life with both humor and edge. These expertly drawn cartoons expose the contradictions and absurdities of denial, perfect for sparking conversation in editorials, adding bite to social media posts, or animating classroom debates about science and skepticism. Each piece is professionally crafted and available for licensing through CartoonStock, ensuring quality and originality for your project or publication. Take a look through this collection to find the perfect visual to inform, challenge, or amuse your audience..."

https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/climate_change_denier.asp?srsltid=AfmBOorlVv2U9q2L_Bxwc7bb7OeurajWgfO_FXrLEJYp7LELe0-Mdlbx

Thanks Ljubomir for additional cartoons.

In my case, the cartoon I posted on the last page was made by myself (using google images and ppt). :)

But thanks anyways.

Cheers

US disbands controversial climate panel

Faced with a lawsuit, the administration of US President Donald Trump has disbanded a panel of five well-known critics of climate science who issued a controversial draft report that casts doubt on the evidence underlying global warming. The document serves as the scientific basis of the Trump administration’s efforts to repeal a landmark 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare — which could ultimately prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating those emissions. The Department of Energy has declined to withdraw the report, although observers note that disbanding the panel could further undermine the report’s legitimacy...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02942-8

Climate impacts are real — denying this is self-defeating

“Leading climate scientists have crafted a formal response, arguing that the DOE’s report makes a mockery of science by misrepresenting, cherry-picking or outright ignoring evidence compiled by scientists around the world over the past several decades. Ultimately the United States, and the world, will emerge the poorer for it.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to undermine efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will ultimately leave us all worse off, argues a Nature editorial...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1

Ljubomir Jacić

Here I am pointing out to your attention this excellent video presented by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about the 4 phases of climate denial.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhck1sIFCM

These tricks have already been used with success by the tobacco industry few decades ago and now by Big Oil and Gas nowadays. But as what happened with the tobacco industry, the boomerang will soon turn back on them right in their face (cartoon A.R. and Chatgpt).