Why I’m a Climate Change Skeptic (And warmists should chill out)

cartoon inquisitionDespite being a moderately intelligent and relatively well-educated person, I find it hard not to be skeptical of the popular theory of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change or global warming.

I’m not a scientist, but I have no difficulty accepting the doctrines of this or that science provided a consensus exists among scientists in a particular field. Thus I have no difficulty accepting the periodic table of the elements, or the idea that later biological species descend from earlier species, or the notion that our physical universe is 13 or 14 billion years old. And so on.

So why do I find it difficult to believe in global warming when I’m told every day that 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists agree that human behavior makes a significant contribution to climate change? Let me list the reasons.

Please note, however, that I’m not claiming that the anthropogenic theory is wrong. I am simply saying: “Here is one not-entirely-stupid man who has his doubts.” I offer myself as a case study. Perhaps global-warming folks can, by studying my sorry example, figure out how to make their arguments more effective.

1. There are (a) certain real sciences — for instance, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology. A layperson like myself can trust what scientists in these fields have to say. They are almost certainly correct. But then there are (b) certain “sciences” that are not fully scientific.

I have in mind, for example, the “sciences” of economics and psychology. One should listen with attention and respect to what economists and psychologists have to say, for they are (for the most part) serious persons who have spent years trying to discover the truth about economic and psychic phenomena. But you can’t be quite sure that they are correct in what they say. For their “sciences” are not truly scientific. Well, then, how scientific is the science (or “science”) of climatology? I suspect it lies closer to the “scientific” than to the scientific end of the spectrum.

2. I’m told that 97 percent of climatologists agree on the anthropogenic theory. What about the other 3 percent? In a true science that would be a pretty big group of dissenters. If I only 97 percent of chemists agreed on the periodic table, I’d have doubts about the periodic table. Or if a mere 97 percent of biologists agreed on evolution, I’d have doubts about evolution.

3. If I’m correctly informed, the globe has not been getting warmer for about 15 or 20 years now. This makes it harder for me to believe in the man-made theory.

4. The people who, at least in my hearing, make the most noise about the scientific nature of the climate change theory, the people who are most insistent that I am an unscientific numskull for not accepting the theory, are politicians and movie stars.

Politicians and movie stars are very smart people, no doubt about it. But they are not scientists. I am reluctant to allow them to shape my judgments on questions of science.

5. The theory of man-made global warming is most ardently championed by those on the political left. But leftists are “big government” people. They have a great bias in favor of big actions by big government.

That predisposes them to believe in the man-made theory. For if man-made climate change is a reality, this calls for really big governmental action — and not just big action by the U.S. government, but a coordinated worldwide action by all big governments. This is just the kind of thing leftists dream about.

To repeat: I’m not saying the global warming enthusiasts are wrong. I’m just showing why some of us — perhaps due to our intellectual deficiencies — are not convinced.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (33)

  • Avatar

    Rod Cass

    |

    Due to our intellectual deficiencies we are not convinced.. what an idiot i am, damn !

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    And of course the 97% consensus is pure fraud, just like the fudged numbers alarmists use as ‘proof’ that we are doomed.

    OTOH, we have over 30,000 real scientists who say CAGW is bunk. I’m still waiting on the alarmists to find that many scientists who agree with CAGW.

    Then there is the fact that there is not one peer reviewed paper refuting the perfectly natural looking climate change as anything other than natural.

    If you want me to believe man is responsible for a recent global warming, you have 4,500,000,000 years of precedence to refute. And you also need to stop tampering with the data.

    Alarmists are a costly epic fail.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    As Gator has said the 97% figure is highly misleading . It was not a survey of scientists it was a sample of papers .

    When over 30,000 scientists take the time to read and to sign the Oregon Petition it makes the 97% of papers survey insignificant.

    Climate gate shows how a small clique of scientists circled the wagons ,threatened other scientists who didn’t agree with their hypothesis . The climate forecasting models of that clique have now been proven to be highly inaccurate .

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Actually there were two 97% claims. One said that 97% of climate experts agreed man was causing global warming and that it would be catastrophic.

      God leftists are gullible! 😆

      [i]”An invitation to participate in the survey
      was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists…. In our survey, the most specialized and
      knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed
      climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than
      50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79
      individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
      to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”[/i]

      And here were the questions asked:

      1. [i]When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?[/i]

      2. [i]Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
      [/i]
      Significant can be 10%. Note that there was no opportunity in the survey (which was not subject to peer, or any other review, which explains its blatant flaws) to quantify or even discuss what part natural variability had to play. They sent out 10,257 surveys, received 3146 replies (seems that most Earth scientists were not even concerned enough to reply), and used only 79 to come up with a 97% consensus that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and man may have been a minor
      contributor. By their ‘figuring’ that means that 2.5% of those who responded to
      the survey agree the Earth has warmed. EARTH SHATTERING!!! 😆

      This is the sort of manipulation that warmists use to fool the public into thinking we have a problem. Truth be told, I would answer ‘yes’ to question 1, and ‘maybe’ to question 2.

      If you do not understand that you have been duped by the grantologists, I have a very nice bridge for sale, and 97% of bridge experts say you should buy it.

      The other claimed that 97% of climate science papers blamed man and that it would be catastrophic.

      https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

      Both claims were not just ‘misleading’, they were fraudulent.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I think this all started with a perfectly good [i]theory[/i], but it was soon hijacked and hyper-funded by the left when they saw the potential for AGW to serve as a surrogate for their entire 100-year political/economic wish list, now disguised as “science”.

    I note that Hollywood leftists and their political counterparts decry the corrupting influence of any dollar spent to investigate AGW alternative viewpoints yet can’t find any conflict of interest when politicians earmark [i]billions[/i] of taxpayer dollars toward their “pet” global warming research projects. I suspect that if anything approaching unbiased funding and media coverage of this field were allowed we wouldn’t be wasting our time and resources on AGW.

    Just imagine what [i]real and tangible[/i] results we could have provided for our environment and our economy if we had not wasted that money and effort.

    • Avatar

      Steve

      |

      Its interesting…people can sense when stuff is hyped tot he max, and quietly will listen to skeptics and likely agree….

      I think debunking the stuff kids get told at school is important – even if it means your child winds up beingt he meat in the sandwhich and raising the ire of the teacher…but truth be told, if the teacher is fully in the CAGW camp, who cares? If the kid still cops a pummelling, I’d be into see the teacher quick smart and give them the rounds of the kitchen table personally…..

      The child will see that teachers are fallable, and truth be told, they started the whole mess, so they will just have to deal with it……you start putting rubbish in my kids head, see how fast you get a tongue lashing from me….

      If the teacher says “hey – its curriculum” I’d be tempted to tell them in no uncertain terms that what they teach is scientifically wrong, and will be corrected at home as required.

      What the CAGW mob want is people cowering in complaince and unleash authroity figures on the population to belt them into shape. With CAGW youre forced to call a teacher a liar to make sur eyour child sees both sides of the argument …well…so be it…..bring it on….

  • Avatar

    rick

    |

    This ‘leftist’ thing only applies in the USA. Well, there aren’t really ant lefties in the USA but that’s a different.

    By that, I mean, as a British Leftist myself, President Obama and his cronies are EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS by our standards. Our own current government in the UK is the most right wing, extremist conservative government we’ve ever had – yet it is FANATICAL about ‘Climate Change’ in the extreme.

    I, and several of my like-minded friends, am a both a scientist (BSc Chemistry, MSc Energy Studies) and a true left winger politically. However, I am also strongly in the ‘AGW is a massive scam’ camp, I do not believe the data shows the Earth is at risk of run away temperature rise and I certainly do not believe CO2 concentrations are driving ‘Climate Change’

    So although this is a predominantly USA based website, please do not keep assuming that Leftists are all automatically Climate Change Alarmists because we aren’t. As a Socialist I do not believe we should be making energy more expensive and passing the costs on to working people and certainly not for completely spurious reasons. Working people round the world have it hard enough without being made poorer for no good reason.

    Anyway, I just point out that many of the folks described as ‘Leftists’ on this site are in fact nowhere near being true leftists and I would prefer it if they were not associated with us on the true political left.

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Hey Rick! You are absolutely right (so to speak). I prefer to call the lunatics ‘Progressives’, as both sides are ‘progressing’ towards a larger and more totalitarian form of governance.

      In the US ‘Liberals’ (AKA ‘Leftists’) have been demonized by real liberals and conservatives, because they are [b]not[/b] true liberals. A real Liberal believes in liberty, our founders were true liberals, and so am I.

      Over here those who actually believe in liberty are known as ‘Libertarians’, and that is what I am.

      We are two nations divided by a common language. Together we stand.

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      You Britishers drive on a different side of the road than we do in the USA, so no wonder we’re confusing left and right.

      The thing I most particularly laugh at is the collectivist thinking that the communists and fascists were diametric opposites.

      Absolute lie. They were the same. The only thing they were in conflict about was who was going to be in charge.

      The opposite of collectivism is anarchy. In the middle of the road is democracy and/or some strong constitutional form of representative gov’t.

      And you need a strong and enforceable constitution to make sure that the principal that gov’t derives it’s authority only by leave of the people’s consent is promulgated and submitted to.

      As soon as the public forgets that, they submit to tyranny. We’re seeing it happen in the USA as we speak.

      • Avatar

        rick

        |

        yup

        the USA is widely seen as a global fascist hegemony

        but my point was that the oft repeated claim that right wingers are skeptics and left wingers are warmists is simply not true

        Obama, Cameron and many other right winger psychos are rabid Climate Change advocates whilst plenty of true left wing thinkers think the opposite

        so please stop blaming the Left for the AGW con trick

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          Unless this is sarcasm, and I don’t see how.
          You need a psychiatrist, kid.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Jaypee, in my limited understanding of Anglo vernacular, Rick is correct. Even though we speak the same language, the definitions are different.

            In the US a leftist is a communist and/or fascist, but in Britain a leftist is a true liberal.

            In Britain a right-winger is what we call a Progressive, or fascist.

            Rick is an ally, and he is simply stating the orient of the semantics from his side side of the pond.

            From what I understand of our two worlds, Rick and I are both Libertarians, and value individual liberties. We agree that governments are seeking too much control over the populace.

            And Rick, please correct me if I got any of this wrong. I believe it is important for all of us who love liberty to understand that we are fighting a common foe, regardless of the nomenclature.

            United we stand. And that begins with understanding that we agree on basic principles.

          • Avatar

            rick

            |

            yes I am an ally in this argument over global control, energy, AGW, the whole ‘alarmist’ story (frankly bizarre in my opinion)

            politically I doubt very much I’m anywhere near you guys but that is not the point and no I doubt it is just a matter of nomenclature

            there are no doubt many alarmists who would claim to be ‘on the Left’ but, as has been pointed out, they are not really on the left at all, they are really crypto-fascists seeking total global domination and not just over energy

            The European Union will spend over $250 TRILLION in the 21st Century attempting to lower CO2 emissions, the cost to be largely born by working people paying higher energy bills. There is ZERO mechanism whereby the citizens can vote to change this policy. This is fascism in practice right now & for us it is on the extreme right wing of politics.

            certainly no sarcasm intended at all

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [img]politically I doubt very much I’m anywhere near you guys but that is not the point and no I doubt it is just a matter of nomenclature[/img]

            I worked in an office in which about 90% voted for Obama. After years of careful and considerate discussions of principles, the vast majority those same people agreed with me, and not Obama.

            It is all about telling the truth, and finding common ground. Those same Obama voters told me to run for office, and that I would get their vote if I did.

            Progressives lie in order to divide us, because divided, we fall.

        • Avatar

          Robert

          |

          Obama is most definitely not considered right wing by anyone in the US.

          The difference between left and right in Europe, based on the seating in the French Parliament way back when and the associated political stances that resulted isn’t quite the same here in the US.

          If I can find it again I’ll try and link a very nice essay I found dealing with this once. But my understanding was the your left and right in politics matches up with our right and left.

          Though I do believe that as time moves on they are becoming more and more blurred and in the realm of politics they claim to be this when they work towards that, and at least in our two party system, the both suck.

          • Avatar

            rick

            |

            Obama not on the right?

            holy cow, do you need me to list the whole range of extreme right wing policies he supported? You Americans might not think you have a right wing president but I guarantee you the rest of the world does

            Gob smacking stuff

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            That might be helpful in illustrating the difference in viewpoints.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Rick you missed my point, in your country he may be considered to be a right wing politician, but in our country he is not.

            In the US the Republican party is considered right wing and is constantly vilified by those who consider themselves to be “liberals” or on the left.

            If you would list the policies you consider right wing we could contrast them with what we typically consider left wing here in the states. Would be interesting.

            Do other countries consider him right wing? It wouldn’t surprise me, I’m only saying that here in the US he isn’t considered right wing. Had the dumbed down American voters considered Obama to be right wing he would have never been elected.

    • Avatar

      GR82DRV

      |

      Rick, how refreshing! What we need is for American leftists to simply be honest like you. Let philosophies compete in the open arena of ideas without hiding behind false pretenses.

      I think the difference is the fundamental American experience and the deeply ingrained principle of American independence and individual liberty. Leftists here know that government centered lives wont sell so they have created an environmental straw dog to promote their political goals.

      The greatest irony is that historically, countries that have attempted the most extreme socialist rule have devolved into some of the worst economies, the most oppressive tyrannies, and the most [i]abysmal[/i] environmental records on the planet. It seems we’re never to judge them on their record, but rather by their stated good intentions.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Rick, I also agree that there is a nomenclature rift between Europe and the States. You sound much like me. I consider myself a “pragmatic Libertarian”, which to most Americans is just another flavor of Conservative. Essentially, I believe that government solutions should be looked at as the last, rather than the first options, to solve problems. The pragmatic side also acknowledges that some things (like private highway infrastructure, or universal private school systems) are just not practical, so I am willing to [i]cautiously[/i] concede some public/government functions beyond those of safety, security, law, and public health.

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    Sorry, Rick but most Canadians consider Obama to be leftist. Canada has a Conservative Prime Minister, but Canada is way farther down the Socialist road than the USA. Maybe a better metric would be, which way does a leader want to take his country. A major difference between American politics and the British parliamentary system is the 2-term limit on Presidents. Obama can’t run for another term and he’s acting like it. Harper, Cameron et al want to earn re-election and can’t act like emperors.

    • Avatar

      rick

      |

      I have no idea what you are banging on about frankly

      the whole world regards the USA and Obama as extreme right wing politically

      Obama may be regarded in North America as being on the left of US politics but as the whole of US politics is on the extreme right wing globally he is still a right winger

      ‘king north Americans only ever look at things through their own tiny prism

      there are 6.7 billion other people on the planet and if you surveyed them all the majority would agree that both Obama and the USA are very right wing

      sheesh I get so fed up arguing with you folks, I’ll leave you to it

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Hey Rick! I for one am not arguing with you, in fact I may agree with you, and welcome your thoughts. I simply asked you to illuminate us with examples, not everyone here is familiar with across the pond terminology. I welcome you to share with us, because I believe we are closer to agreement than any of us know.

        As I roughly quoted earlier, we are two nations separated by a common language. Dialogue is the key to understanding, and understanding is the key to progress.

        Please do not take my inquiry as a challenge. I think I know where you are coming from, and would like to hear more.

        We Americans may come across a bit crude at times, but it is our way of hashing out differences. I really do look forward to your input.

        All the best!

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Obama had such great potential and squandered it by picking the wrong issues .
    He is obviously intelligent but it doesn’t always come with common sense .

    Pushing the scary global warming theme just as it was being exposed as a grossly over stated non issue was /is a waste of his time in office .

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      No, Obama isn’t that smart. He is our first Affirmative Action POTUS, and it shows.

      [i]’It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.'[/i]
      -Ronald Reagan

      Education camps do not make people smart.

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    [quote name=”rick”]I have no idea what you are banging on about frankly

    the whole world regards the USA and Obama as extreme right wing politically

    Obama may be regarded in North America as being on the left of US politics but as the whole of US politics is on the extreme right wing globally he is still a right winger

    ‘king north Americans only ever look at things through their own tiny prism

    there are 6.7 billion other people on the planet and if you surveyed them all the majority would agree that both Obama and the USA are very right wing

    sheesh I get so fed up arguing with you folks, I’ll leave you to it[/quote]I was in a Scottish pub when a “local” mistook me for a “Yank”. I had no idea what he said to me, my Scottish wife provided a translation of his unprovoked belligerence afterwards. There’s a ton of resentment against Uncle Sam, for sure. WWII didn’t help the relationship. Reagan and Thatcher enraged many Brit’s, too. Of course USA is to the right of Europe, but which way is Obama trying to take it? Many Americans have whiplash from the sharp turn.

    • Avatar

      Steve

      |

      People need to stop thinking in terms of left and right – most politicians seems to be assets of the globalists, they have whatever “wrappers” assigned to themby his handlers and uses it accordingly. This is how so many bad things get through parliament/congress.

      The whole agenda is a tyrannical world govt, the globalists will use whichever willing pawn will put their hand up – whether they dangle power, or money or something that appeals to their degenerate nature – men of poor quality will sell out others of greater moral standing ( i.e. traitors ) because those of higher morals see them for what they are…and they dont like it.

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        I don’t think we should throw up our hands and say they’re all alike so what’s the difference because they are not all alike. Just because some are ideologues and the others are gutlessly stupid does not mean they are alike.

        I think extremism should be called out for it is tyrannical ideology for its own sake and fundamentally opposite any conception of human freedom and liberty.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Obama is running out of runway in any event .It is incredibly disappointing to know the leader of one of the greatest countries in the world is willing to spend his administrations time trying to adjust the earth’s thermostat while promoting an overblown scam .

    Of course the business implications to him have nothing at all to do with it .

    It’s hard to point a finger at Russia or China when the USA seems intent on
    outsourcing jobs and it’s constitutional
    rights to self governance through the next planned international government fronted by the UN.

    Choice Board positions are still available while they last .

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    Maybe Rick is a communist? If Communism is the true far left, then Libertarianism is the far right. The centre remains where it is. Looking through a commie prism, Obama appears to be way,way,way over there, maybe right of centre.

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      If communism is the leftist extreme, how is Obama not part of it ? Take any policy position of Obama’s and then try to imagine a position further left of it. And when you can’t, it’s time to admit the position is the extreme left.

      Btw, right wing extremism is anarchy. Show me one anarchist in American gov’t. There aren’t any. Right wing extremism does not exist in American gov’t.

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    Anarchy is no gov’t at all, off the political scale (imo)

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Just like totalitarianism is total gov’t. That’s the proper view of the scaling : From one extreme to the other.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.