Hey, Look What I Wrote!

My second climate science column at The Pittsburgh Current!

An excerpt:

Climate science deniers have two separate but related problems when denying the science; the evidence and the science explaining the evidence. In order to succeed, they’d have to explain how all the known evidence,,,is wrong — and wrong in a way that just happens to be the most agreeable to their position. All the seawater measurements? Wrong. All the satellite data? Wrong. Humidity? Weather stations? Glaciers? Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

Just try to imagine the scope of the conspiracy necessary to fake all of that data over all those years.

Then there’s the science we looked at in the last column. The data only shows that the temperatures are rising, the oceans are growing and the glaciers and sea ice are shrinking. If the deniers can show that the scientific explanation itself is flawed, then perhaps another, more benign explanation can take its place — one that finds less blame in our human behavior.

But they can't solve either problem (denying the evidence or the science), can they?