The making of a climate skeptic – at University

Foreword by Anthony Watts.

This essay is written by a student at the University of Wyoming, who finds herself in the middle of a set of circumstances that are pushing her further into the realm of being a climate skeptic. It is an eye-opening read. I have verified the identity of the student, but per her request (due to the backlash she fears) I am allowing her to write under the pen name of “Clair Masters”


Guest essay by Clair Masters

The class was languid, most kids were on their phones, or surfing Facebook on their laptops. I sat with my notebook open in front of me, empty except for the lecture title at the top of the page. The professor put a slide up on the projector showing a chart relating CO2 and temperature over the course of a few million years, the one we’ve all seen by now. The CO2 curve lags after the Temperature one, and anyone’s first reading of the chart would probably be that temperature is driving the CO2 changes, not the other way around, if there is any trend at all. I perked up slightly, it was new for a professor to show alternate data, and looked around expectantly at other students, waiting for some kind of reaction—confusion, frowns, anything to show they’re seeing something that fights what we’ve been told since elementary school. I saw a few yawns, dull stares, people on their phones, though one loud girl who was a religious global warming fanatic was glaring at the slide, slouching in her seat so her hand could pet her (dubiously trained) service dog.

Besides her, no one cared, and certainly I was the only one who glanced up in surprise when our professor began to talk about the chart as if it didn’t matter, something like “This trend suggests the opposite of what we know to be true” before moving on. I looked down at my notebook—friends and family tell me my face does not hide emotions well, and I didn’t want my professor to know I was annoyed. I don’t know why he even included it in the lecture, but that’s what happens in these courses. It was incredible to me at the time, but my professors would often include evidence contrary to the anthropogenic climate change theory before quickly sweeping it aside with some short remark. It doesn’t matter this data exists, it doesn’t matter that there is debate in the climate science community—not here. This is a University, after all.

College wasn’t when I first started questioning the “acceptable” views of climate change. As far back as middle school I was a tough case for teachers trying to push global warming. It was fashionable back in 2008 to rabidly teach the “polar bears are drowning” narrative after those photographs from 2007 that showed the bear standing on a single hunk of ice. Tragic! A picture like that was all it took to have most of my classmates nodding solemnly along while our teachers taught us about our carbon footprint—about how we were contributing to the plight of the poor polar bears with our gluttonous use of electricity, by our parents having more than one car.

An animal fanatic, I spent hours paging through my Zoobooks and animal encyclopedia collections, reading all about polar bears. A number stood out to me; 60 miles. Polar bears often swim for 60 miles to get from one body of solid ground to the next. Proud of myself, I brought it up to my science teacher, and instead of getting the glowing pat on the head I was used to when I did outside research for classes, I was chastised.

“You’re wrong,” she said, looking surprisingly angry, “polar bears can’t swim that far. Global warming is melting their home, and they’re dying off.”

At the time, I thought of myself as a teacher’s pet, the good student, so her tone took me completely by surprise. I wasn’t trying to say global warming wasn’t killing the bears, as far as I knew it was. My teachers told me so, so it must be true. Her denial about the swimming capabilities of the bears is what threw me off, and for the first time I was faced with doubting a teacher. Who do I trust, the books I’ve read or this teacher? Something changed in me around that time, and that seed of doubt she unknowingly planted ended up making me who I am today—a skeptic. Not just for climate change and the like, but for everything. I abruptly stopped believing everything my teachers told me, it was a hard wake up call to the real world as I realized that adults had agendas.

This idea was reinforced when one of the books in a beloved young adult series by James Patterson abandoned the original plot and conflict to go fight against global warming—essentially like rewriting the X-Men as Captain Planet. Horrified and disgusted that the characters would rather go protect those (at this point, goddamn) polar bears than stop the original mad scientist threat, I recognized the real propaganda element of this whole global warming deal. I started fighting back in small ways, mostly in the form of asking questions; “Don’t we breathe out CO2?”, “Warmer weather will help some animals, won’t it?”. I was not popular with my seventh-grade teachers. My friends were oblivious to my small insurrection; I was always the kid who raised her hand in class anyway.

It wasn’t until my senior year of high school that I finally got the scientific background to really combat the ideas that were being pushed on me. I took a high level environmental science class that pushed me to dig deep and question what I thought I knew about the way our climate works. I loved that class, and for once I had a teacher who didn’t try to shut me up. She acknowledged and engaged me, didn’t brush away my questions, and every year since my graduation from high school I’ve given a short presentation over Skype to her class about Petroleum engineering, petroleum geology, a little paleontology, and college life.

I distinctly remember two specific moments in that class that were “a-ha” moments for me. The first is when we watched that required documentary: Gasland. Some of the claims made in that documentary were beyond absurd, and like the skeptical jerk I am, I fact checked while watching it in class. On the school-administered iPad, I googled every single thing Josh Fox presented that got my spider-sense tingling. Antelope in Wyoming are going extinct? Not even close. Fracking fluid is in people’s water, letting them light it on fire? Try naturally occurring methane. At this point, I was already toying with the idea of going into some kind of geological science, and I was intrigued by the idea of fracking technology. We did a short lab in that class where we tried to get oil out of sand, and I thought it was cool. It was my love of all fields of science, not to mention the thrill of being involved in such a villainous industry, that helped me decide on Petroleum Engineering.

The other moment was when we were focusing on alternative energy, including a lengthy discussion about Hydrogen powered cars. I raised my hand quickly.

“If we’re worried about CO2 causing global warming, wouldn’t it be much worse if we were all driving cars that had water vapor as their exhaust?”

She paused, thinking it over. “I think you might be right, that’s a very interesting observation.” She said, before re-explaining to the class what I was talking about, how water vapor captures much more heat than carbon dioxide. I felt good about being able to apply what I learned about climate and our atmosphere to challenging popular “green” narratives. The best part was that my teacher was so supportive, and was willing to admit when something our textbook claimed wasn’t entirely true.

It has been a very different ride in college. Exhausting, as now I’m surrounded by professors and students who promote anthropogenic climate change predictions with such intensity, it makes the most zealous cultist fanatics look calm and reasonable. Again and again I’m surprised by the reactions of my peers to my skepticism, sometimes I even prompt truly angry reactions from people. One crunchy granola geology guy engaged me in a conversation about alternative energy, he tried to argue that hemp oil would soon overtake our need for fossil fuels. Right. Somehow the conversation got to land use, and I expressed an opinion that the states probably could deal with their environmental problems and land use better than federal agencies—he quoted something about the Koch Brothers, and I left him for class. Maybe a week later, he handed me a piece of notebook paper with “research” written up on it—mostly a series of bullet points about the American Lands Council which he somehow connected to white supremacy, right wing fanaticism, and most bizarrely of all the Kim Davis controversy. I couldn’t believe that someone who was a “scientific” person felt the need to use the guilt by association trap, the screeching leftist “Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!” nonsense in a discussion about land use. I gave up my favorite study spot after that, opting to avoid him instead of giving him the what-for I’d so like to. I don’t have time for that—I have school to worry about.

There have been plenty of times that I wondered if it’s my perspective that is wrong, I’ve done some soul searching on the topics I’m passionate about. College has challenged my views, while it seems to only confirm the ideas that the “warmists” hold. Some of my previously held beliefs have changed, like much of what I understood (or thought I understood) about climate, but I’ve still yet to be presented solid evidence for primary anthropogenic climate change that isn’t either refuted by another study, or backed with accusations like the ones crunchy granola guy lobbed my way. I’ve stopped being shocked by the way my professors obediently tow the party line—as I learned a few years ago that at least here, federal funding is dependent on a certain amount of global warming acceptance. I’m thankful for the engineering courses I’m taking, because if my geology and earth sciences were not balanced out by the dry technical calculations of engineering, I’d probably lose my mind. (Just imagine how bad it would be if I were in sociology or women’s studies!) I am disappointed by the quality of the “science” taught at University though—when theory is presented as fact, and computer models are regarded as gospel despite their infamous unreliability, it’s not actual science.

It’s propaganda—dogmatic as any religion.

It’s my 5th year since heading west for my engineering degree. This year I’m taking a handful of great little petroleum classes, and finishing off my geology minor. Of course, it’s my geology class that is giving me a headache. A mineral resource course sounds pretty straightforward… except of course our professor managed to turn it into a climate change/ humans are killing everything/ we’re all going to die class. We even have a section of the class towards the end of the semester dedicated to social justice, because that’s why I’m getting a science degree. In retrospect, I should have known what I was getting into when I looked around and saw several students with either half shaved heads or hair colors that in nature scream “I’m toxic”.

It’s gonna be a fun semester, and I’ll try to keep you updated.

 

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 2 votes
Article Rating
399 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Dayton
September 8, 2017 10:28 am

Clair, apparently your interest in the topic of climate change is deeper and more detailed than can be satisfied by the classes you have taken that treat climate change only as one of many subjects. I suggest that you simply take one actual climatology class, because that will be able to answer all your questions, and accurately. If you don’t want to take a class, why not read an introductory climatology textbook? Here is one aimed at people who want only an introduction and who have minimal technical background: David Archer’s “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast”: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

James James
September 8, 2017 11:23 am

Bless you Clair. Jim James Ph.D. U Wyoming 1986

ScottM
September 8, 2017 1:24 pm

I just want to address two points of ignorance in the essay.
1. Why is the *pattern* of CO2 lagging temperature referred to as a “trend”? A trend is a monotonic change over some period of time time. Two oscillating variables don’t constitute a trend. I do not think that word means what she thinks it means.
2, What happens to water vapor exhausted from a fuel cell vehicle? Does it cause a long-term increase in average global humidity? Or does it condense out? How long will it take for H2O in the atmosphere to double from fuel cell exhaust, if all cars switched to hydrogen fuel cells? Is this shorter than, the same as, longer than, or much-much-much-much longer than the 130 years or so that it will take CO2 to double at current rates? Fossil fuels consist of hydrocarbons. What happens to the “hydro” part of the hydrocarbon when you burn them?
Sorry, Clair, you need to spend more time getting that “scientific background” you boast of.

Reply to  ScottM
September 9, 2017 5:45 am

You will notice that she raised the water vapour question as a schoolgirl.
This puts you in rather an awkward position.
Are you:
A) Picking a fight with a child’s viewpoint?
Or:
B) Failing reading comprehension?

Reply to  ScottM
September 9, 2017 6:08 am

It appears I am only one who red this letter in a way that most if not all of other commentators did not.
May be there is more to Miss Masters than what was my first impression, reason why I red some paragraphs second time. I even asked a question about the most contentious one. May be it is my background that make me look for the purpose behind the context of a ‘conversation’.

Bartemis
September 8, 2017 3:54 pm

Reading this was like deja vu all over again. Similar to my experiences a few generations earlier, when we were being told the globe was cooling due to industrial activity, and all the oil would be gone by 1985, DDT had created a Silent Spring, and the population explosion would result in mass famine.
The good news is, the overreaction and failed hype results in a new generation of skeptics. Once they move on, the process begins all over again. But, maybe, this time, the enhanced collective memory provided by the internet will help dampen the next sky-is-falling epidemic.

Tom Dayton
September 8, 2017 5:06 pm

Clair, if you are interested in why atmospheric CO2 follows temperature increase (is a feedback) and sometimes leads temperature increase (is a forcing), you can easily find out why. A summary is here https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm; read the Basic tabbed pane and then the Intermediate one. I also highly recommend Richard Alley’s lecture “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History” https://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g. A transcript of a similar lecture by him apparently is in a short, free, e-book: https://islandpress.org/book/the-carbon-control-knob

Reply to  Tom Dayton
September 9, 2017 6:06 am

Readers, You will find that the pseudoscience blog Tom Dayton linked to tries to excuse the observation that warming drives CO2 by claiming that, once it starts, the CO2 takes over.
Ignoring the fact that there are no stated uncertainties in the dating measurements from the ice cores (for the sake of argument – it isn’t a science blog after all)…
Three points:
1) If CO2 takes over, why did it stop? Has all the warming from CO2 already occurred? This would fit with Beer-Lambert’s Law but it doesn’t fit with the AGW hypothesis.
Unfortunately for the fate of the world, Skeptical Science haven’t quite disproven AGW yet because:
2) The effects of wobble sin the orbit are not the only variation. If CO2 takes over form one then it ought to take over from everything. From a spate of volcanoes cooling the skies to, conversely, a quiet tectonic period causing this runaway global warming again. Yet the record is quite clear. The phantom tipping points have never occurred. Therefore we cannot expect then to occur from water vapour amplification this time either.
But this is just probability. Have we no evidence? Yes, we do. It’s the Tropical Hotspot.
3) The tropical hotspot is an hypothesised warmer part of the atmosphere over the tropics. As water vapour amplification is meant to happen from any warming it should happen in the tropics relative to temperate zones. This hotspot was on the cover of the IPCC AR3. It was the physical evidence that would be found to prove that AGW was dangerous.
But when it was looked for, it wasn’t there.
Finally, a cartoon.

Bartemis
Reply to  M Courtney
September 9, 2017 8:04 am

Absolutely. And, typical of SS, which is a marketing site, not a science site.

Tom Dayton
Reply to  Tom Dayton
September 9, 2017 8:30 pm

M Courtney: I guess you could not be bothered to read that Skeptical Science article past Figure 1. Figures 2 and 3 have error bars. You are wildly incorrect in asserting that the Skeptical Science article claims “warming drives CO2 by claiming that, once it starts, the CO2 takes over.” Absolutely not; again, I can’t decide if you are purposely misstating what that article says, or have really, really poor reading comprehension, or are just lazy, or have no interest in the truth but only in provoking reactions from sensible people.
CO2 increase in the atmosphere CAN be a positive feedback to warming from other causes, IF warming of the ocean is sufficient, AND there is no overwhelming increase in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 from other sources. CO2 or anything else being a positive feedback does NOT mean that warming feedback will run away (https://skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming.htm; read the Basic, then Intermediate, then Advanced tabbed panes). Milankovich cycles trigger both glacial periods and interglacial periods, and CO2 levels respond as feedbacks in both cases: https://skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

Tom Dayton
Reply to  Tom Dayton
September 10, 2017 9:22 am

Clair, here is a peer reviewed article whose full text is available for free: “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing the Earth’s Temperature”: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

tango
September 8, 2017 6:48 pm

you ask any uni student what there thoughts are there mostly all been brain washed by left wing teachers i feel sad for them as they where also brain washed into global warming when they went to school

September 12, 2017 2:12 pm

I liked your essay. I suggest that you read my investigation of an entirely new and different analysis of the atmosphere and climate change. You might pick up the baton and enjoy running a challenging course.
https://www.harrytodd.org

1 3 4 5