They call Global Warming skeptics “anti-science.” However, the term is a misnomer because skeptics are not really against science, they are simply skeptical of the claims of its believers. Here are some reasons for your skepticism:
• Doomsday forecasts. Future climate forecasts for virtually all regions of the world tend to be doomsday in nature. If you live in a dry area it will just dry out. Areas of tremendous precipitation will only get wetter. More flooding will inundate flood prone areas; Heavier winter snowfalls will cover areas traditionally hit by heavy winter snowfalls. Even in the short term, nothing gets better. You can assume that growing seasons in Siberia or Canada could be lengthened by warming and could receive bumper crops for a few decades. Perhaps the Sahara desert will receive more rain and become a more hospitable savannah. Such changes are never predicted. Instead, we hear nothing but catastrophic scenarios. In my opinion, this is intentionally designed to scare the public into action. Politicians understandably engage in such hyperbole, since most politicians tend to stretch or exaggerate the truth, but scientists should be above pseudoscience.
• Scientific neutrality. Scientists claim to be neutral, tell only the truth, and are above personal politics. Ironically, this cannot be the case, as I have heard scientists who accept Climate Change label scientists who question Climate Change as rogues or tools of Big Oil or Big Tobacco (yes, Big Tobacco! Just they can’t kill enough kids with their cigarettes, so now they want to destroy the whole planet!). Skeptics sometimes point to a late snowstorm or cold snap as evidence against global warming. Climatologists, meteorologists, and other scientists denounce such evidence and explain that a storm or outlier weather event does not disprove a climate theory. are correct. Unusual local or regional weather events and the weather are not necessarily connected. Furthermore, climate change will occur over decades and may not be observable for a season, a year, or even several years. Yet when Climate Change advocates use that very storm as evidence to confirm their scientific beliefs, the scientific community falls eerily silent. An unbiased and honest scientist would be as quick to denounce the latter claim as the former. However, their silence, along with the aforementioned doomsday scenarios, demonstrates that many scientists are just as inconsistent and biased as the skeptical scientists and non-scientists they condemn.
• Climate Change is responsible for everything. Whether it’s Tropical Storm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, or a brutal winter blizzard, they’re all blamed on climate change. A cool day in the middle of summer? A warm day in the dead of winter? Sleep? Wind? Freezing rain? There is no need to accept unseasonable weather, blame God or even accuse “Mother Earth”, because Climate Change is the real perpetrator. Some also attribute tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity to climate change. Apparently none of these “natural events” occurred before human-induced (anthropogenic) Climate Change. By the way, this all-encompassing guilt is why they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. It allows its promoters to blame the activities of man for any “act of God”, unwanted weather or abnormally cold weather.
• Storm damage and lives lost. Every major blizzard, hurricane, or storm takes a tragic toll on human life. Everyone suffers from the loss of life, and we must continue to do everything we can to minimize these seemingly senseless deaths. However, all claims that storms are getting more costly and deadly are misleading. Real estate in general is worth more today than it was decades ago. Buildings and structures also cost more, and construction often takes place in precarious areas, such as floodplains, near earthquake fault lines, or even below sea level near the ocean. In addition, the population has increased significantly in a very short time. In the last fifty years, the US has gained more than 120 million more people; The population of Canada and Australia has practically doubled; the UK added almost 10 million people; The populations of China and India have increased by more than 600 million each; and the world has added over 4.5 billion MORE people. Any major storm will inflict greater monetary damage and tragically claim more lives, simply because the cost of real estate has increased and the world’s population has grown.
• Carbon footprint. It’s the epitome of hypocrisy when the wealthy fly private jets to global warming conferences, eco-conscious celebrities are herded in gas-guzzling limousines to movie premieres and award ceremonies, and performing artists fly and they transport personnel and equipment from city to city on a world tour, while preaching green commonplaces during their performances. Perhaps when they heat, cool, and light their mansions with genuinely renewable energy sources, and walk, bike, or at least carpool to their destinations, the skeptics will begin to believe. What happened to leading by example? Imagine a demonstration to save a local park from development. Celebrities, politicians and other speakers lament what would be the loss of pristine beauty. They ask the community to come together and do whatever it takes to save the park. After the demonstration ends, paper bags, empty water bottles, plastic bags, flyers, and other assorted debris litter the park. Would anyone really believe that the speakers and their supporters were serious? And why is it acceptable to exclude the rich and famous from practicing what they preach, simply by virtue of their position?
• Carbon credits. This brings us to carbon credits. Paying a company to invest in green energy could be a good investment; using that investment as an excuse to continue with a carbon-spending lifestyle is misleading. Many Climate Change leaders claim to be “carbon neutral” simply because they bought carbon credits. The easiest way to see if this works is to ask a simple question. What if everyone bought carbon credits, technically became carbon neutral, but continued to live regardless of their lifestyle? Clearly, this would accomplish very little in the fight against Climate Change. We do not have the technology to make the whole world or even entire nations carbon neutral. Carbon credits are a way for the very wealthy to “buy” their way out of altering their lifestyles. This gives the impression of a true sacrifice for the cause, and allows them to continue denouncing those who remain skeptical of Climate Change. During the American Civil War, the wealthy avoided fighting battles by paying a fee or finding a substitute. They may have contributed to the cause, but everyone knows they had no part in the actual fighting.
• Treaty of Kyoto. During the Clinton Administration, the Kyoto Treaty failed to secure a single vote in the United States Senate. Among its many proposals, the Kyoto Protocol attempted to set a global standard for carbon emissions. Not even the “environmental senators” voted for him. Almost all global greenhouse gas emissions proposals exclude China (the biggest “carbon polluter” country) and India, the world’s two most populous countries. The argument against its inclusion is mainly economic. Emissions cuts will cripple your savings, leading to increased poverty. If this is true for the economies of China and India, it is also true for other countries. Furthermore, proponents argue that those two countries, and Third World or developing countries, should be exempted, because they did not cause the problem. The blame lies with the Western industrial countries. Even if this is true, exempting countries from emissions only makes the problem worse, as they will continue to emit greenhouse gases. Is the goal to secure our western guilt or save the planet?
• Satellite evidence. Large storms recorded by weather satellites are visually impressive. Experts point to a video of huge storms and say their sheer size reflects the impact of climate change. They make a similar argument with Arctic sea ice. Through satellites, we can now accurately measure summer ice melt each year, and science can confirm that the polar ice cap has shrunk in recent decades. However, while these observations could indicate a change in climate, according to NASA, the first successful geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1964. Polar satellites didn’t exist until the 1970s. We simply don’t possess any satellite data before then. Therefore, from a climate perspective, most of this scientific information and observation, while valid, is very recent.
•Al Gore. It certainly doesn’t help a scientific movement when the person most associated with that enterprise is a politician. To be sure, people have different opinions about the politics and personality of former Vice President Al Gore. But what is not debatable is that he has no scientific training. I would also say that he does not understand scientific argument or method, and is unparalleled nerve when he questions the scientific expertise of those who disagree with him. If you don’t mind having a former politician like Al Gore as the face of the fight against climate change, imagine that face is Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, John Howard, Stephen Harper, or even Sarah Palin.
• Transfer of Assets. Nor does it help the cause of Climate Change when there is an official discussion at the international level about the transfer of wealth from rich countries to poorer countries. Remember, the stated goal of climate change fighters is to reduce carbon emissions around the world. That goal is sensible and desirable. However, transferring money from one group to another is social engineering and, once again, an attempt to blame the West. It certainly has little to do with reducing global carbon emissions.
