copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2017-05-31): The issue of whether or not a change in global temperature is outside the range of "normal natural variability" depends on the timescale being considered. It is true that some physical climate models (and some statistical climate models based on historically observed variability) indicate that it is possible for a warming episode as large as that seen from 1979-2000 to come about from unforced (internal) variability. However, when an unforced warming episode occurs, it is typically followed by an unforced cooling episode (if that wasn’t true, the climate would be fundamentally unstable and it would have run away to a snowball or hothouse state a long time ago). This means that the longer the sustained change in temperature, the less likely it is that the change could be due to "normal natural variability". This is why the IPCC used a period almost 3 times longer in their attribution statement that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." [...] This is a falsely constructed argument by limiting the time range to 1979 to 2000. One can cherry pick an interval and show that it’s not especially different from the past, however if one takes the full reliable record of the last 140 years the warming is unequivocal.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2014-04-03): The only reliable data I know of on rate of warming comes from Greenland ice core data that records Arctic warming during the transition from the last Ice Age (i.e., the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago). This warming was extremely rapid by any measure – about 5-100C of that warming took place within 30 years or less (Alley 2000). As far as I know, this is the only good data we have on the rate of warming over any period of time, during any transition into an Interglacial period, that is short enough to compare to current global warming rates since 1950 that are blamed by some people on human emissions of carbon dioxide but that others point out is well within natural variation. [...] "Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history." .
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2014-04-23): Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11,19,20,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10,22 [...] There is no question, however, that the effects of human-induced warming have the potential to affect weather patterns around the world. Changes in the subtropics can also impact the rest of the globe, including the United States. There is growing evidence that the tropics have expanded poleward by about 70 to 200 miles in each hemisphere since satellite measurements began in 1979, with an accompanying shift of the subtropical dry zones, midlatitude jets, and both midlatitude and tropical cyclone tracks.153,161,162 Human activities have played a role in the change, and although it is not yet possible to separate the magnitude of the human contribution relative to natural variability,15 these trends are expected to continue over the coming century.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2006-05-01): This finding strongly suggests that over the vast majority of the global area analyzed, the observed twentieth-century warming trends on a regional scale are unlikely to be due to internal climate variability alone. [...] The climate model simulations provide additional evidence for the hypothesis that the observed surface temperature warming during the twentieth century is too large to have been caused by internal climate variability or natural climate forcings alone. The observed trends (1901–2000 and 1949–2000) exceed model-generated internal variability and are significantly inconsistent with trends from natural-only forcing experiments over a wide majority of the global regions tested. There is little evidence that the model simulates too little internal climate variability; in fact, the model appears to simulate excessive internal climate variability on interannual time scales in many regions and at the global scale. [...] In summary, anthropogenic forcing agents, as opposed to natural forcing agents or internal climate variability, are simulated to be the dominant cause of the pronounced warming in the late twentieth century. This agrees with a number of previous global modeling studies of natural versus anthropogenic forcing (e.g., Tett et al. 1999; Stott et al. 2000; Broccoli et al. 2003; Meehl et al. 2004). Establishing the relative contributions of individual forcing agents in CM2 will require further specialized experiments and will be the topic of a future study.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2013-11-15): We analyzed four separate regions of the Atlantic Ocean—a basin noted for pronounced multidecadal variability. In the South Atlantic (Fig. 7o), there is a detectable anthropogenic warming for start dates up to the late 1970s. An interesting feature in this region is that warming trends from the late 1800s are near the 95th percentile of the all-forcing model simulations. North Atlantic SSTs (45°–60°N; Fig. 8a) exhibit no detectable trends outside of the range of natural variability for any start dates, according to our analysis. This region is notable for having probably the least detectable signal of any of our study regions around the globe. Despite the lack of detectable trends, the observed trends are at least consistent with the all-forcing runs, which have a very wide 5th–95th percentile range of trends due to the large simulated internal variability, as will be shown later in this section. In the subtropical North Atlantic (20°–45°N; Fig. 8b) an anthropogenic signal is detected for start dates from about 1890 to 1920 and around 1970, but otherwise is only borderline detectable up to about 1980.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-10-03): Misleading : While there is uncertainty about the precise value of the human contribution to global warming, that uncertainty does not include the possibility that human activities are not the primary contributor. Factually inaccurate : There is no significant scientific disagreement about the fact that human activity is responsible for climate change.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2022-04-04): Limiting global warming will require major transitions in the energy sector. This will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use, widespread electrification, improved energy efficiency, and use of alternative fuels (such as hydrogen). [...] "It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F)," said Skea. "Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible." The global temperature will stabilise when carbon dioxide emissions reach net zero. For 1.5°C (2.7°F), this means achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally in the early 2050s; for 2°C (3.6°F), it is in the early 2070s.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): When asked during an interview on CNBC on Thursday if he believes carbon dioxide is the main "control knob" warming the planet, Pruitt said "measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact." "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt said, speaking from an energy conference in Houston. "But we don't know that yet." [...] In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide should be considered an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. Using that authority, President Obama's EPA determined in 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as contributors to global warming, are harmful to human health and should be regulated.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2021-08-09): IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years Landmark assessment says that greenhouse gases are unequivocally driving extreme weather — but that nations can still prevent the worst impacts. [...] Modern society’s continued dependence on fossil fuels is warming the world at a pace that is unprecedented in the past 2,000 years — and its effects are already apparent as record droughts, wildfires and floods devastate communities worldwide — according to a landmark report from the United Nations on the state of climate science. The assessment from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says things are poised to get worse if greenhouse-gas emissions continue, and makes it clear that the future of the planet depends, in large part, on the choices that humanity makes today.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-10): The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a main driver of climate change. "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," EPA chief Scott Pruitt told CNBC's morning news show "Squawk Box" yesterday (March 9). [...] Carbon dioxide is no dark-horse candidate for the warming of the atmosphere. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (who would later win the first-ever Nobel Prize for Chemistry) published a paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science that laid out the basics of what's now known as "the greenhouse effect."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2020-02-03): No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times and that human activity is the most significant factor. [...] On their climate home page, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines says, "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions," and that "Climate change is increasingly affecting people’s lives." The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement: "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2021-06-29): The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement. [...] Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2022-10-12): In addition to our surface station data, we have many different lines of evidence that Earth is warming (learn more). Birds are migrating earlier, and their migration patterns are changing. Lobsters and other marine species are moving north. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting worldwide, and snow cover is declining in the Northern Hemisphere (Learn more here and here). Greenland’s ice sheet—which holds about 8 percent of Earth’s fresh water—is melting at an accelerating rate (learn more). Mean global sea level is rising (learn more). Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent (learn more). We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Unless it is offset by some equally large cooling influence, more atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to warmer surface temperatures. Since 1800, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 410 ppm in 2019. We know from both its rapid increase and its isotopic "fingerprint" that the source of this new carbon dioxide is fossil fuels, and not natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes, or outgassing from the ocean. Finally, no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend. Taken together, these and other lines of evidence point squarely to human activities as the cause of recent global warming.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): EPA head Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not 'primary contributor' to global warming The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming. [...] CNBC, "EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming," March 9, 2017
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): EPA chief says carbon dioxide not a primary cause of global warming WASHINGTON -- The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency. [...] "So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt told CNBC’s "Squawk Box."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2024-02-20): WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated. [...] Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma's attorney general. He said he was not convinced that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal is the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists. [...] "So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt said. "But we don’t know that yet, we need to continue to debate, continue the review and analysis."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, said Thursday morning that he doesn’t think carbon dioxide is "a primary contributor" to climate change. "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact," Pruitt said on CNBC’s show Squawk Box. "So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet … we need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis." Pruitt’s statement is at odds with the vast scientific research on climate change, including the consensus of U.S. scientific agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as the EPA itself. Contrary to Pruitt’s statement, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and scientists have been precisely measuring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since the 1950s. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million (ppm) and have soared from about 315 ppm in 1960 to 407 today.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): "No," said Pruitt. "I believe that measuring, with precision, human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." [...] This conclusion only strengthened throughout the 2000s. By 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced that there was at least a 95 percent chance that CO₂ was causing global warming. [...] In 2009, the EPA formally agreed, announcing that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases endangered public health and welfare by causing global warming.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box." [...] The statement contradicts the public stance of the agency Pruitt leads. The EPA's webpage on the causes of climate change states, "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): The head of the Environmental Protection Agency administrator said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming – a stance at odds with leading climate scientists. Scott Pruitt made the comment to CNBC’s Joe Kernen when he was asked if he believes that carbon dioxide "is the primary control knob for climate." "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he said on CNBC’s "Squawk Box."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2017-03-09): President Trump's head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming. "I would not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Scott Pruitt said Thursday in an interview with CNBC's Joe Kernen. [...] Those statements are at odds with an overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that humans are causing the climate to warm by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The view that CO2 is a major heat-trapping gas is supported by reams of data, included data collected by government agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2020-11-30): Thirty prominent climate scientists sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday, refuting his recent false statement that carbon dioxide is not a primary driver of climate change. [...] It joined the avalanche of response to Pruitt’s statement last week in an interview on CNBC that he did not agree carbon dioxide was the primary contributor to global warming, a statement contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus. [...] "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact," Pruitt said. The doubts he expressed went further than in his testimony before Congress, however, as he said of carbon dioxide, "No, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Claim: I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. (EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, 2017-10-03)
Evidence (2018-06-05): Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. EPA