Climate Change Debate

Do I Believe in Global Warming?

45 minutes ago

Guest Blogger

7 Comments

From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Cliff Mass

Again and again I am asked:

Do I Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change/GlobalWarning?

A very strange question. Scientists rarely, if ever, use the term believe.

We never use the term ” believe ” when we apply Newton’s laws of dynamics, the first law of thermodynamics, or any of the basic principles of atmospheric physics. I have attended hundreds of scientific meetings and not once did a scientist use the term belief in describing human-caused global warming.

Science is not religion…at least it shouldn’t be. Conclusions should be based on accepted scientific principles and data, not beliefs.

Religon

It appears that global warming has become like a religion to some people, replacing more traditional beliefs. Apparently, a way to fill their lives with meaning and purpose.

As in many religions, there is the prediction of a catastrophic “end time”, with total destruction, if people don’t follow the approved “way”.

Self-appointed prophets describe the proper path that will lead to life (some shown below),

I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.

Those who mislead the population. Those who spread unnecessary fear. Those who benefit financially from the exaggeration and lies.

And woe to a person who stands against the apocalyptic climate vision. They are cast out and rejected. Worse than wrong. Evil

I should know…..and have felt the wrath of name-calling and being cast out (by the Seattle Times and KNKX) for remaining with the science.

So what are my views on climate/change and global warming? Quite honestly, I am pretty much in the mainstream.

I should note that I have published several dozen papers on climate issues, from modeling to data-driven studies. I studied climate science under leaders of the field at the University of Washington, and worked on climate research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) under one of the leading climate scientists in the world (Stephen Schneider, see below), with whom I published several climate papers. I have had many NSF research grants on climate subjects.

Climatologist Stephen Schneider and I at NCAR

So what is my view, based on decades of research and study of the climate?

The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor

A planetary warming of about 1 C over the past 50 years due to such gases (see plot below)

Most of that warming (about 2F) is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A modest, steady warming of the planet.

What about extremes?

The warming is causing fewer cold waves, which is saving lives. But there are worsening heat waves. Since far more people die from cold than heat, fewer people are dying from extreme temperatures as the planet warms. That will be true for a while.

The science and data indicate that hurricanes have not become more frequent as the planet has warmed (see below), but the strongest hurricanes may get more powerful by the end of the century.

Interestingly, even with global warming, deaths from extreme weather have declined substantially (by 90% or more), even with increasingly populated areas (see below).

This is due to greatly improved ability to adapt to climate extremes (e.g., air conditioning) and profoundly improved weather forecasting.

The scientific evidence and demonstrated societal impacts are clear: human-caused global warming is a modest problem. It is not an existential threat to humanity.

As a weather/climate scientist, my views are well within the mainstream.

But unlike some, I am willing to take on the exaggerations of the “believers” and media that are happy to misinform folks to get more clicks or to secure funding from climate activists (like a certain local newspaper in Seattle).

This blog gives me a tool to give my readers the truth.

I have paid a substantial personal price by taking on the “believers” (e.g., KNKX, Seattle Times, name-calling by commenters on this blog, name-callers on some amateur YouTube sites), but the price paid by society, panicked by exaggeration and falsehood, is worse.

4.5 2 votes

Article Rating

7 Comments

idbodbi

August 24, 2026 6:21 pm

The global climate remains an infinitely complex, non-linear chaotic system dominated by natural variability, orbital geometries, ocean-atmosphere fluid dynamics and most importantly plate tectonics.
From a strict epistemological stand in observational science, there is a fundamental distinction between directly measuring an effect in a controlled setting and proving that a specific trace gas is actively driving a change in a massive, chaotic open system.
When evaluating the claim that marginal anthropogenic emissions drive incremental radiative forcing in the real-world atmosphere, the counter-argument rests on three foundational pillars:

The Inability to Isolate Variables in an Open System: In laboratory spectroscopy, the absorption and emission spectra of carbon dioxide are well-established. However, Earth’s atmosphere is not a sealed laboratory container. It is a non-linear, coupled fluid system where isolating the specific radiative impact of a small increase in a trace gas from background noise—such as natural cloud cover variations, water vapor transport, and surface albedo shifts—is empirically impossible through direct measurement alone.
Reliance on Theoretical Parameterizations Over Direct Observation: Radiative forcing itself is not a quantity measured directly by satellites or surface sensors; it is a calculated concept derived from line-by-line radiative transfer models. These models rely on theoretical assumptions about how radiative energy transfers through atmospheric layers, which are heavily parameterized and tuned to fit historical data rather than directly observed as an isolated causal mechanism.
The Dominance and Overlap of Water Vapor: Water vapor shares and heavily overlaps key absorption bands with carbon dioxide across the infrared spectrum. Because water vapor concentrations vary dynamically by orders of magnitude across different altitudes, latitudes, and seasons, determining the precise marginal contribution of added carbon dioxide against the overwhelming, highly variable baseline of atmospheric moisture relies on model-based physics approximations rather than raw empirical isolation.

In scientific inquiry, a consensus is an agreement of opinion, and a computer simulation is an algorithmic projection of current hypotheses. Neither constitutes direct empirical proof that a marginal increase in a trace gas exerts measurable, isolated control over the planet’s radiative energy balance.

John Aqua

August 24, 2026 6:24 pm

I have read and appreciate the numerous posts of yours on this website. Your arguments are supported by facts and data. I believe you take the right approach. There are others who have profited immensely from scaremongering and deceit. They shall burn in Hell, if you believe in that sort of thing.

heme212

August 24, 2026 6:28 pm

wrong question.

how can you not believe in human caused global warming? every time i flick my bic or start my 8 cylinder i heat the air around it.

the question should be, “is it significant, or is what we are seeing natural variability”

trafamadore

August 24, 2026 6:34 pm

You can believe in chairs or you just accept that they exist. Do you believe you are sitting on a chair or are you sitting on a chair?
The temp data says we are warming. You can “believe” that, or accept it. But we are warming, whatever your beliefs.
And the only big and real change is in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can “believe” that, or accept it. But we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and it’s causing the warming.
I can’t see that belief has anything to do with it.

Allen Pettee

August 24, 2026 6:34 pm

Mr. Mass, do you think (not believe) that the inferred warming of the earth from the end of the Maunder Minimum to the late 1800’s (before purported influences of human activity on atmospheric CO2 levels) which is thought to be similar to the extent of warming since the late 1800’s at the very least should cast doubt on your “view” (why aren’t human beings allowed to think anymore…?) that most of that warming is due to “humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions?”

Steve Case

August 24, 2026 6:34 pm

The scientific evidence and demonstrated societal impacts are clear:
human-caused global warming is a modest problem.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

On balance, I would say increasing CO2 is a benefit. Making the case that there’s a down side to more CO2 in the air requires . . . What was that famous quote From Dr. Stephen Schneider?

“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

And once again:

     1. More rain is not a problem.
     2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
     3. More arable land is not a problem.
     4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
     5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
     6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.

The only problem is climate policy, some well known quotes say:

‘The Pandemic Remade Every Corner of Society. Now It’s the Climate’s Turn” Time Magazine

“We Must start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic” Andreas Kluth Bloomberg Opinion

“Shutting down the whole economy is the only way of limiting global warming to 2°C” Yvo de Boer head of the UNFCCC

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. George Soros

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary

“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.” George Monbiot

Nicholas Schroeder

August 24, 2026 6:43 pm

Believe is religion.
Thjink is opinion.
Know is science.
Here is what I know.
You?

GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 288 K or 15 C, while without it GMST would be 255 K or -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also no consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper (walked back in 1906) and no GHE means no 30% albedo. Without GreenHouse Gas water vapor there is no GHE and Earth would become much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.

The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and a plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” surface energy upwelling as a calculated 396 W/m^2 black body impossible. 396 fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.

The GHE is failed science like caloric and phlogiston and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.

Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78