You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?”

One of the main accusations launched by climate activists is that anyone arguing against man-made global warming is “anti-science.” They tell us that the science is “settled,” and that anyone who objects is ignoring a blindingly obvious set of facts.

But what to do about someone like me? I’m in hearty agreement that the global climate has warmed by roughly one degrees Celsius over the past 150 years. However, my study of the relevant geology and physics leads me to believe that solar variability, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for this warming.

And so, it is precisely because of science that I am skeptical of man-made warming. Should I still be labeled “anti-science?”

Of the people who deride climate “deniers,” I’d like to ask some basic questions:

  • Do you know that carbon dioxide progressively loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases?
  • Do you know that man-made warming theory relies on water vapor, not carbon dioxide, to drive future warming?
  • Do you know that cloud formation contradicts this water vapor “feedback?”
  • Do you know that climate scientists have never solved this “cloud problem?”
  • Do you know that solar activity in the 20th Century increased to its highest levels in at least 2,000 years?
  • Do you know that every previous warm period over the past few thousands of years coincided with strong solar output?

These are just a few basic questions about climate science. But they help to illustrate why the climate debate is not as simple as many would assume.

What concerns me is that the general public seems to have no understanding of the core issues being debated. And yet they heatedly defend “climate change” against any dissenters.

Ironically, whenever I engage people in discussion or debate on the issue, they invariably respond, “Well, I don’t know anything about it” or “I’ve never studied it, but rely on what I hear on the news.” The worst offenders get their “facts” from Bill Nye or Bill Maher.

Why then should they be so quick to criticize those who hold a different view, especially those who have invested great effort to study the subject matter?

At this point, “climate change” is like a book that everyone has heard of—but no one has read. Activists’ vigorous defense of man-made warming is akin to their saying, “It’s a great book.” But when pressed, they admit to never actually having read it.

My concern is that the global climate could tilt back toward a cooler era. There are valid reasons to worry about such a possibility since long-term solar activity is now declining. And even more troubling is the prospect that such a colder era could arrive in tandem with decarbonization policies limiting global energy production.

The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe—a lack of reliable energy at precisely the point that human survival would need the greatest access to cheap, reliable, scalable power production.

All of this points to a series of questions that should merit an honest discussion. Unfortunately, the angry rhetoric of the climate debate makes that unlikely right now.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (29)

  • Avatar

    Steven

    |

    Well said. We live in a democracy–which means that people have the right to their views, opinions, and free speech. We need to promote reason and courtesy in the climate debate.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Renato

      |

      You live in a constitutional republic and that institutionalism gives you the freedom and rights you talk about.
      In a democracy (see Venezuela), the democratic majority would have voted to strip you from those rights.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Deecee

        |

        Damn right.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Solar variability and other natural causes are much more plausible than the contorted, complex and politically correct narrative we are being told to accept.

    Along that same line, I live on acreage that was covered by a massive glacier just 11,000 years ago. That is but a blink of an eye in geologic and meteorologic time, and it clearly wasn’t caused by man.

    There’s a saying in medicine: “When you hear hoof beats, don’t assume it’s zebras.” In this case, the leftist movement hears hoof beats and assumes they’re encountering unicorns.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Don’t worry Gator their time is is at an end, The same you told Me!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        I have more confidence in Trump than Harper, and now we have Trudeau, it’s Green forward here like if it was lizzy Mae or that brown shirt NDP! Best thing is NDP, Libs, and as small as the Greens are?The media party is what is controlling and what elected the liberals here! As long as they have control then it will be the same, until they see the same that is happening south of us! Reminder to all before, the libs were in control how many years? Was it better for you? Only when Harper was in charge the media made it about you! Now is it better that Trudeau is in charge? Is the media doing the same for you with Trudeau?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Me

          |

          That was for them northern communities that seem to be flooded every year, and their drinking water was contaminated every year except this year? What happened?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Well it suddenly stopped right after Trudeau was elected. so it wan’t just this year!

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            It wasn’t because the media party suddenly lost interest now was it? Naa that can’t be it???

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Are all the low laying residence in Quebec going to be asked to move? Ya know the ones that were flooded? Like those in that northern community?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Funny that Mr Gillette went on a hunger strike and couldn’t do it more than 8 days, and that Chief whats her name Broke the Guinness record? Amazing?

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            What I am saying is the fix is in and we are going to pay, cause the liberals say so or the NDP! Not the greens they are too wacked out to be considered!

      • Avatar

        Derek Colman

        |

        Don’t be so sure. The false narrative about saturated fats survived 60 years before it was debunked. I don’t believe we have that long before cooling starts to hit and crop failures kill millions.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The anti-sceince wackos who want us to reject the data from the sattlites and only ecspt their new age pagan mumbo jumbo about Global Warming/Climate Change they want us to return to sacrificing virgins and children to their earth and sun gods like the pagan aztecs,incas and myans did

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    Greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change: I’d gladly accept two out of three right now. I’ve run out of firewood. The soil is too cold to plant my crops. The calendar says today is May 12 but it feels like April 1st. We used to call south-western Ontario the Banana Belt, but now that’s an unwelcome joke.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Funny how back in the 1970’s that same liberal rag TIME was going u on about Global Cooling and a New Ice Age was coming and i beleive there was a episode of the series IN SEARCH OF about a coming New Ice Age Just look it up on your computer of this Global Cooling and New Ice Age

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Lazo

    |

    Isn’t a basic tenet of science Occam’s Razor namely, If you hear hoof beats it’s generally horses, not Zebras? Thus when someone points their finger at AGW, CO2, minor components of the atmosphere as the culprit in global warming/climate change/climate disruption, it goes against common thinking that it may be the sun or simply the natural cycle?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The only sceince these eco-wackos support is the same kind of so call science that supports their crazy ideas and crack-pots like Al Gore,Bill Nye,David Suzuki,Leonardo DiCaprio,Luarie David as well as the various eco-wackos from the various eco-wacko groups

    Reply

  • Avatar

    turtle

    |

    Fine but who is Steven Wright? Can we see his “study of the relevant geology and physics… (which has led him)… to believe that solar variability, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for this warming.”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      prestigio

      |

      It is self-evident that
      solar variability can cause
      temperature variability

      There is no proof that
      co2 does anything
      in that regard

      Reply

  • Avatar

    John Leonn

    |

    If you want to know why the Arctic Ice reduces , while the Antarctic Ice accumulates (increases)., suggest pages 87 thru 91 ( chapter 6 ) in “The Inconvenient Skeptic- The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth’s Climate” by John Kehr…Each chapter has a common sense explanation section , followed by a more scientific treatise for those requiring more depth…..

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    This whole thing shifted from a perfectly good hypothesis to a scam when political activists chose to ignore the obvious and logical influences such solar variability and went all-in for tortured and ever-changing scenarios of man-induced driving mechanisms.

    When a political cause controls the multi-billion dollar funding purse strings PLUS the media/popular culture portrayal of research, AND THEN seeks to restrict debate and free speech, we no longer have real science… we have a scam.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dale

    |

    Are there references available for the statements made in the “questions for those who like to call us science deniers”?
    I’ll start us off with a reference for the first question.
    A paper by V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden, 2012: entitled “Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948–2010” in the May 2012 issue of Journal of Climate, Vol. 25, Issue 10, 3599–3609

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Science unquestioned is not science.

    “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.” …

    …”I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
    -Dr. Michael Crichton

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sangfroid

    |

    I have long looked for a way to express what Steven has stated so eloquently. The real deniers are those who refuse to look up the facts or those ‘scientists’ who are unable to publicly admit they may be wrong. Us ‘skeptics’ are not denying that climate is changing nor that mankind may be contributing an insignificant amount to the changes. We are denying all the proposed ‘solutions’ to curb climate change or that all the ‘extreme’ weather is directly caused by increased CO2. People have short memories and do not know or study history enough to know that extreme weather events have always occurred. Glaciers may melt, seas may rise, temperatures may rise. However, we will adapt to these changes. We always have and we always will. The trillions of dollars a year that IPCC and others want ‘us’ to spend on stopping climate change can be better put learning how to burn coal and oil more cleanly (I worry about the particulate pollution), to help impoverished nations to build the infrastructure they desperately need to live healthier more productive lives and thus reducing the rise of population, to finding ways to adapt if need be.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    If there is a common theme throughout environmental advocacy it is that we relinquish our dominion of Earth. OK, surrender our perch on top of the food chain. In the morning I’m pet food.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ScottM

    |

    Yes, we know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic. That’s why the accelerating growth of CO2 concentration only increases temperature only linearly in the time domain.

    While climate sensitivities greater than 1 K per CO2 doubling depend on water vapor feedback, it’s (at best) misleading to say that future increases depend “on water vapor, not carbon dioxide”. Better to say that they depend “on water vapor as well as carbon dioxide”. The current rate is consistent with a transient CO2 sensitivity of about 1.8 K per doubling, confirming your positive feedback (equilibrium sensitivity would, of course, be higher still).

    Yes, we know that clouds are hard to model and present both positive and negative feedback components. We know the Sun peaked around the end of the 20th century and that while solar activity has been in decline, the temperature record continues to show a positive trend.

    We embrace these facts, not because they tell us something we want to hear (they don’t), but because we want an accurate understanding and accounting of the trends in our climate, and all their causes, natural and anthropogenic. It might even turn out to be useful.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    scott

    |

    What ? …. the sun caused climate change…. No… seriously no! You mean that big yellow thing makes us all hot….?

    ( sarcasm for those of you who are humour impaired)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Scottar

    |

    Actually there are 2 forms of heating occurring. 1 is specific heating of all the atmospheric gases of the earth. The other is the GHE effect of which the physics process name escapes me. The 2 primary gases involved are water vapor and CO2. Methane content is so minimal that it’s a trace gas.

    Even then 0.04% of CO2 just can’t have the forcing effect that AGWs claim. And how do the 2 processes eqivalate?
    These are questions that remain unanswered for my concerns. I have come across 2 papers that go into that, they just need clarification and validation.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!