Climate myths often begin with a true fragment: climate has changed naturally, carbon dioxide supports plant growth, models have uncertainty, or one winter can be unusually cold. The error comes from using that fragment to dismiss the full body of evidence.
Here are eleven common claims and the evidence needed to evaluate them.
1. “The climate has always changed”
It has. Past climate shifts resulted from orbital cycles, solar changes, volcanoes and natural carbon-cycle feedbacks. That history does not explain the present trend. Measurements show that greenhouse gases from human activities are now the dominant cause of observed warming.
2. “Scientists do not agree”
Scientific disagreement exists about details such as regional rainfall and the speed of particular feedbacks. It does not overturn the broad conclusion that the planet is warming and human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause. NASA summarises statements from major scientific organisations supporting that conclusion.
3. “It is the Sun”
Solar energy affects climate, but satellite measurements do not show an increase capable of explaining recent warming. The observed pattern also matters: the lower atmosphere has warmed while the stratosphere has cooled, a fingerprint expected from increasing greenhouse gases rather than a brighter Sun.
4. “Volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans”
Human activities emit far more carbon dioxide each year than volcanoes. Large eruptions can temporarily cool the surface because sulphate particles reflect sunlight. Volcanoes are important natural influences, but their modern CO2 emissions do not explain the sustained rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
5. “A cold winter disproves global warming”
Weather describes short-term local conditions; climate describes patterns over decades and large regions. A cold week can occur on a warming planet, just as a cool morning can occur during summer. The relevant evidence is the long-term global trend, not one location or season.
6. “Carbon dioxide is too small a fraction of the atmosphere to matter”
A substance can have a powerful effect at low concentration. Carbon dioxide absorbs outgoing infrared radiation at specific wavelengths. Human emissions have raised its atmospheric concentration substantially above the pre-industrial level, disrupting the balance between incoming and outgoing energy.
7. “More CO2 is simply good for plants”
Additional CO2 can stimulate growth for some plants under controlled conditions. Real crops and ecosystems are also limited by water, nutrients, heat, pests and extreme weather. Higher CO2 can reduce the nutritional quality of some crops, and warming can move conditions outside the range in which a species thrives.
8. “Climate models are useless because they are not exact”
Models are not crystal balls. They represent physical processes and produce ranges based on emissions and uncertainty. Their usefulness lies in testing explanations, projecting broad responses and comparing scenarios. A forecast need not predict every local year perfectly to show that more greenhouse gases raise long-term global temperature.
9. “Warming stopped”
Short periods can warm more slowly or quickly because heat moves between the atmosphere and ocean and because volcanic, solar and weather patterns vary. The longer record shows continued warming, increasing ocean heat, shrinking ice and rising sea level. NASA’s climate evidence summary brings these independent indicators together.
10. “Renewable energy is worse because manufacturing has emissions”
Solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and power lines require mining and manufacturing. So do fossil-fuel plants, wells, pipelines and a continuous fuel supply. Fair comparisons count full life-cycle impacts per unit of electricity. Manufacturing impacts are reasons to improve material sourcing, durability and recycling, not evidence that fossil combustion has no climate cost.
11. “It is too late, so action is pointless”
Some damage is already unavoidable, but every additional increment of warming increases risks. Cutting emissions limits future warming; adaptation reduces harm that can no longer be avoided. There is no scientific cliff after which all actions have identical outcomes.
What the evidence actually establishes
The IPCC concluded that human activities have unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Its assessment attributes roughly 1.1°C of warming from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 to human greenhouse-gas emissions, partly offset by cooling aerosols. The IPCC’s Working Group I summary explains the attribution and observed changes.
This conclusion rests on multiple lines of evidence: measured greenhouse-gas concentrations, laboratory spectroscopy, satellite observations, ocean heat, temperature records, ice loss, sea-level rise, paleoclimate data and model experiments with and without human forcing.
How to evaluate a new climate claim
- Check whether the claim confuses local weather with global climate.
- Ask whether it selects a short start and end date while ignoring the longer record.
- Look for several independent measurements, not one graph without its source.
- Distinguish uncertainty about magnitude from uncertainty about whether an effect exists.
- Prefer national science agencies, peer-reviewed assessments and data providers over screenshots.
Climate misinformation also appears in arguments about individual campaigners. Our evidence-led article on Al Gore and private aviation shows why documented behaviour should be separated from unsupported claims.
Bottom line
Natural variability, imperfect models and genuine scientific debate all exist. None explains away the measured rise in greenhouse gases or the observed warming pattern. The strongest response to a climate myth is not a slogan; it is to identify the claim precisely and compare it with the full evidence.
Climate myth number 1: climate change exists.
We spend thousands of milions of dollars on something that doesn’t exist. Imagine that some people actually believe that climate change is real LOOL
There are a lot of misconceptions because people are ignorant. people trust scientists when it comes to EVERYTHING BUT climate change.
If a famous scientist is saying: “You know what? There will be a meteor hitting the planet tomorrow!” people would believe him/her. But once they say: “we need to drive less car and eat less meat if we want to still live on this planet in 200 years”, people refuse to believe it. Why?
Wow, thanks a lot! But I have to comment on number #9, that you mention that “warmer weather can sometimes be better”. Not many people believe that, espeically not where I am from (athen, Greece).
Here its NEVER going to be someone that says something like “ohhhh I wish it was hot today”. Went on your “about” page and found out that you were born and living in Norway, so that might actually give some meaning 😀 hehe,
but thanks, ill share this article on Facebook
Getting a Republican to believe in climate change is like getting the Pope to become pro-abortion. In other words: it is impossible.
For some weird reasons, I have been in a lot of “climate change discussions” with colleagues. My work is building houses, which means that I have a lot of colleagues that do not have so high education. And frankly, most of them get their information from Fox News. That doesn’t help either.
What I feel is that they have made up their mind. And if you confuse them with facts, they just strongly try to climb to the hope that what they said first was true. After all, admitting failure is not something that humans very often do. And if someone told you for ages that global warming is a myth, you will probably believe that until you can see for yourself that it`s true. Sad, but true.
Hello, thanks for your comment.
Some people are impossible to educate. The ones that strongly believe in something that does not exist (conspiracy theory people) will never agree with facts. We are living in a world where feelings come first, and facts very often are the second thing people care about.