Close
Field Notes today i learned (til)

5 Alternative Facts on Climate Change Disproved

February 10, 2017

Government officials are making several claims about one of today’s hottest topics, climate change, yet are lacking some scientific proof…

1. Global Warming is a hoax.

Twitter 1

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is a real crisis, not a hoax created by the Chinese. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “it is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”[1] Human actions have been largely attributed to snow and ice melt, changes in the hydrological cycle, and sea level rise. Also stated by the IPCC, “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”1 Evidence for climate change due to anthropogenic forcing has been recognized by scientists across the world, with the primary driver being the measured increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from environmentally harmful processes including fossil fuel combustion.

2. The Keystone XL Pipeline will not harm the environment.

Screenshot 2017-02-01 21.32.44

The Keystone Pipeline, an oil pipeline system running between Canada and the United States, has just been approved by President Trump to advance the construction of an extended line called the Keystone XL. Barack Obama rejected the project last November, due to extensive proof that the disadvantages far outweigh the potential benefits. The Keystone XL would have harmful environmental impacts including a projected generation of over 22 billion tons of carbon pollution, which has been proven to exacerbate climate change (2). In addition to the emissions that will be caused by the pipeline extension Canada will be losing 54,000 square miles of untouched wilderness, which will cause significant loss of habitat, increase erosion, and reduce the amount of trees available to absorb atmospheric carbon (3).

3. NASA’s Earth Science division’s environmental monitoring efforts are “politically correct”. –Robert Walker

NASA's Earth monitoring satellites greatly assist with tracking and predicting major climate events, such as this dust storm blowing across Northern Africa. (2)
NASA’s Earth monitoring satellites greatly assist with tracking and predicting major climate events, such as this dust storm blowing across Northern Africa. (2)

Walker, a senior adviser for President Trump, also stated that “over half the climatologists in the world doubt the influence of human activity on climate change”5. The latter statement has already been proven to be factually incorrect in the first scientifically disproven alternative fact, demonstrating Walker’s lack of credibility on the matter. NASA’s Earth satellites have consistently proven to be an invaluable resource to humankind. They have repeatedly proven the reality of the climate change issue at stake with evidence of rising global temperatures, sea level, and greenhouse gas emissions. Removing the ability to track these environmental trends with human activity would also remove the ability to show the global harm caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions from projects such as the Keystone XL Pipeline. With Trump’s plan to reassign some Earth monitoring efforts to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NSF (National Science Foundation), who both have significantly smaller budgets, the performance of these critical satellites will diminish extensively. NOAA and NSF would not have the time, money, and resources to take on these extra duties to sufficiently track essential environmental changes that are rapidly occurring daily. By shutting down NASA’s Earth Science division, a wealth of environmental data that is currently being used to generate predictive models and identify long-term climate trends will greatly diminish. Even if Earth satellites launch in the future, under a different administration, the gap in data will be a severe setback for climate science with long-term impacts that can take decades to recover from.

4. Record temperature lows are a sign that climate change isn’t real.

Screenshot 2017-02-01 22.46.56

Rising global temperatures cannot be sensed by a human from day to day life. According to NASA, global mean temperatures have increased by 1.4° Fahrenheit since 1880, with most of this warming (2/3 of it) occurring since 19756. Temperatures fluctuate significantly due to natural cycles such as winter and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which drive temperature extremes to various parts of the world. Despite occurrences of cold weather, the global mean temperature is still rising at a nonlinear rate, as shown below. Additionally, the climate change crisis is not solely about warmer temperatures. Human activity has been related to changes in the hydrological cycle, atmospheric composition, frequency and intensity of climate phenomena such as ENSO and monsoons, and other key earth systems that impact global communities and ecosystems (1).

Global Surface Temperature since 1884, with the 10 warmest years occurring since 2000 (3).
Global Surface Temperature since 1884, with the 10 warmest years occurring since 2000 (3).

5. We cannot conclusively say how much human activity is interfering with the climate.

“The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.” –Scott Pruitt (7)

With only 5% of climate scientists denying the existence of sufficient proof to link human activity as the primary cause of climate change, Pruitt’s statement of the debate behind climate change is misleading. The overwhelming majority of climate experts are not debating this issue. However, since Pruitt’s argument is based on the fact that 100% of climate scientists are not in agreement over the extent of human activity on the climate, he is emphasizing the need for further research on the topic to be conducted in order to produce more conclusive findings. If the 95% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is a real global crisis, then conclusive findings are necessary to protect the homes and health of both our generation and the next. Climate change has significant potential to threaten future existence of coastal communities, stability of ecosystems all over the world, and the health of the 7.5 billion people inhabiting the planet.

References

1. “IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. [Stocker,T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf>

2. Biello, David. “How much tar sands add to global warming”. Business Insider. Jan 2013. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-tar-sands-add-to-global-warming-2013-1

3. “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project Executive Summary”. Jan 2014. United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs https://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf

4. “Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on politicized science”. The Guardian. 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

5. Norianne, Elli. “Climate denial is the official stance of the Trump administration”. Daily KOS. Nov 2016. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/28/1605040/-Climate-Denial-is-the-official-stance-of-the-Trump-administration

6. Carlowicz, Eric. “Global Temperatures”. NASA Earth Observatory. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

7. “Questions for the Record for the Honorable E. Scott Pruitt”. Environment and Public Works Committee. Jan 2017. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6d95005c-bd1a-4779-af7e-be831db6866a/scott-pruitt-qfr-responses-01.18.2017.pdf

Photo Sources

1. “Donald J. Trump on Twitter”. Twitter. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385

2. “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet”.NASA. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

0Likes
Gemma OConnor
About Author

Gemma is a 5th year Industrial Engineering major at Georgia Tech. She is very passionate about climate science and conducts paleoclimate research that uses coral geochemistry to reconstruct temperature records in the central tropical Pacific.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
To be human or something else?
today i learned (til)
Why Laughing at Memes With Friends is Good For You
today i learned (til)
The Psychology of Marketing: A Series (Part 1 – Introduction)
today i learned (til)
Rethink Your Workout

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.