Isolated Low Temps May Reassure Climate Skeptics

Areas of the country that have experienced record low temperatures since 2005 happen to be home to many global warming deniers. And researchers theorize there may be a connection. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Getty Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock Images (MARS)

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Global warming deniers love to point to cold or snow as evidence against climate change. Like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Remember last year, when he tossed a snowball in Congress? "You know what this is? It's a snowball. It's very, very cold out." With that, he offhandedly disproved decades of climate science. To some people.  

But such cold-influenced-denial may be playing out across the U.S., in particular in Appalachia and the South. Because it turns out those areas have had lots of record low temperatures in the last 12 years. And they're also by and large the same parts of the country that have high numbers of global warming skeptics. So researchers have a theory that personal experience with cold snaps could be trumping scientific facts. The analysis is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Robert K. Kaufmann et al., Spatial heterogeneity of climate change as an experiential basis for skepticism]

Study author Robert Kaufmann, an environmental scientist at Boston University, says the way around this might be to put climate data in terms people understand: money. "We should propose a simple bet to climate skeptics. And that is: For every new record high temperature at a weather station, you pay us a dollar. And for every new record low temperature, we'll pay you a dollar."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Or, he says, think of climate change as a slot machine, especially with the president-elect. “He's run casinos. So you can kind of think of climate like a climate casino. If you were a casino owner and you had a machine that was constantly paying out more record high temperatures than more record low temperatures, you would look into that machine. Something's wrong with the machine. And that's what the climate machine has been doing."

However you think about it, Kaufmann won't be betting. "I got no dough, man, I'm an academic."

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe