Why I’m a Global Warming Skeptic

Pages: 1 2

Let’s begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us.  Nonetheless, this does not mean we turn off our brains and simply accept the pronouncements of those sounding the alarm and offering their remedies.  I am a global warming skeptic (to say the least) specifically because I have thought through the issue and the claims of the alarmists just don’t add up.  What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.

First, I am skeptical because skepticism is the scientific starting point.  Not cynicism but skepticism.  This is especially true when the remedy being proposed is so drastic — in this case requiring the near-total dismantling of society as we know it.

I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” as there are enough good and serious scientists who reject the claims of the alarmists to make the pronouncement of “consensus” simply untrue. Besides, every wrong theory that had previously been embraced by society – such as the “fact” that the world is flat – was embraced by a “consensus” of scientists at the time and obviously that consensus was very wrong.

My skepticism is only increased with the knowledge that the science of climatology is relatively new, little tested and since its claims about consequences are decades and even centuries in the future, never proven by having had their predictions come true.  In fact, many of the alarmists’ most hyped claims have been proved by time to be patently wrong.  As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.

My skepticism of this new science is furthered even more by the knowledge that the “facts” upon which their models are created are based almost entirely on numbers that are not easily verified and which require great speculation to determine.  If these “facts” are wrong then the models are useless (to say the least.)  Remember, the whole global-warming theory is based on only a couple of degrees of change over many millennia. Do scientists really know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802?  Do they really know that number down to a single fraction of a degree?  I’m skeptical and you should be, too.

My confidence in the conclusion of these alarmist scientists is further weakened because I’ve been here before.  For as long as I can remember the “experts” – many the very same people pushing global warming hysteria today – have been predicting one ecological disaster after another.  In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling, global wetting, global drying, mass starvation, acid rain, an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS, Mad Cow and, just the other day, a deadly pandemic of Swine Flu.  Alarmism seems to be a tactic employed by scientists to draw attention to their causes, garner major funding and make a name for themselves and hyped by a willing news (and publishing) media because hysteria sells.

My trust in the conclusions of the alarmists is even further diminished by the unscientific methods the alarmists are using in their efforts.  Not only are we now privy to leaked documents emailed back-and-forth between those at the head of the “climate change” research detailing the destruction of their work and their underhanded methods of preventing Freedom of Information laws to allow others to double-check their supposed findings, but the campaign to slander other scientists – those whose work sheds doubt on the alarmists’ claims – reeks of the kind of cowardice shown by those who know they are lying.  Slander is not a scientific practice.  Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit.  In fact, it is anti­-scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science.

Pages: 1 2

  • Amused

    Before climate change became a political football , filled with the agendas of religionists and big buisiness, ergo -politicians and ideologues , way back in the early 70's scientists observed and predicted widening holes in the Ozone layer over the poles .This too was scoffed at due to special interests and the resulting ignorance .Well the predictions came about , people in Australia noted more cases of ultraviolet related skin cancers , and in younger people .Satellite measurements confirmed this .Core samples confirm this . Mean temperatures also have been rising . This too was predicted by observation , then confirmed by observation …SKEPTICISM as to the causes IS ALSO science , so long as it is based in science and not some biased religious or political view , as is found in this blog .

  • Amused

    Unfortunately , in the Republican echo chamber , healthy scientific skepticism has morphed into an illogically unrecognizable mantra , filled with the usual mindlessness found in 'conspiracy theories ' , where science has been determined to be part of a plot to destroy christianity , the USA , and as one poor misguided individula put it " the end of society as we know it " ….what was skepticism based in reality, becomes DENIAL based in political /religious paranoia .Another post here suggests " Study both sides of the argument with an open mind " …really ! Yea riiiight ! When most of you here now reject science out of hand with the accusations of leftist plots , claiming Science as merely a tool of the opposition , an enemy of christianity ,part of a dastardly and dark conspiracy to destroy Mom and Aplle pie , and all we hold dear .

    • Grayzel

      "I love how some of you wanna be 'scientists " parrot the words of your demagogues ." Amused

      This is an interesting statement to make and then follow up with parroted words of your own demagogues. I would ask you to calm yourself, look in the mirror and breath deep. Forget your science fiction and get a grip on reality. Study both sides not just the wacky world of progressives.

      • Amused

        I see "repetition " is a way of life for you grayzel . Go back and come up with something you actually THOUGHT of .

  • RAP

    Yo Amused, does that mean the debate is over or not? …. LOL

    • Amused

      No , it means I'm not glued to my computer screen . Climate change has been a scientific issue since the early 70's . Back then there were numerous science publications , Science News a weekly and Scientific American a monthly . This is not a new argument , just a bunch of new Know -Nothings repeating the rhetoric of their poiltics and religious views . I have no political idealogues , the inarticulate and basically ignorant Al Gore , who like most politicians eventually trips over his tongue , which is then siezed by the mindless morons on the other side of the political coin , as a phony bolster for their arguments .The points I brought up are not part of anyones echo chamber , they are scientific facts , and if anyone wants to argue the cause , that's fine . But most here are in denial of the already documented effects . That's where your arguments depart from logic and science .Yours is no longer a scientific debate , but one of pure politics . So who are you trying to kid ? Take your irrational arguments to your irrational mirror images on the left . Science has no favor towards either .

  • krisdekock

    the author is correct in his analysis. global warming is a farce created by elitists that only sheeple will follow. thank goodness for free thinking people who don't buy into the notion of global warming, along with many, many scientist!

    • Amused

      Yea , damn those elitists who actually have a knowledge of the scientific disciplines they argue .

    • krisdekock

      and damn those many, many scientists who disagree that global warming is a hoax…but you are more than welcome to throw your $$ downt the toliet for carbon offsets…

  • Kender

    to understand why gore pushes AGW look into the carbon credit exchange, who owns it, who gets the royalties from it…..it's all one big power and money grab….

  • Amused

    That is correct , skepticism , not denial based in political ideology , or some psuedo-religious conspiracy theory .

  • dumb

    Isn't there anybody else out there who thinks maybe global warming is real but would rather just deal with the consequences than with the misanthropic left's solutions?

    Haven't we seen the way that plays out before?

  • cjk

    The N*zi site administrator has finally published my original comments and marked them as if they were published days ago which is false.
    This can be easily seen by the fact that they have far fewer negative checks by all his brownoser snuggle-up buddies out there than my other comments.
    BAD DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR by someone with the power to censor.
    All you out there that can think for yourselves keep that in mind because I'm just one commenter, but this goon has possible control over every comment.

  • Amused

    Everyone claims that Skepticism is "a good thing " in Science . And they are correct , it is essential . So when the actual number of scientists who are qualified to enter the argument of man made global warming ,and /or its confirmed effects , that number of "skeptics " is only 0.3 percent . Why is it that 97 % of qualified and credentialed scientist concurr that global warming IS in fact occurring and it is in fact being caused by rising levels of man made co2 ?
    You guys are all wet , so buried in your political propaganda and rhetoric , that Science has now become your enemy . No wonder .

    • Chris Nichols

      How many of that 97% are getting government grants? Care to answer that Mr. Skeptical?

  • Solinkaa

    CO2 is rising (but still remains a trace gas in the atmosphere), the temperatures are falling. Check your data.

  • Amused

    Funny how anyone who does not "sing-a-long " with the republican/conservative ignorant despising of science , anyone who actually understands the issue of co2 emissions and Hardfacts that are confirmed , is ridiculed or accused of being a "leftist " . And the number of thumb down simply confirms the pervasive presence of totally brainwashed imbeciles who will deny the facts until the water is up to their ears , or until such a time when it becomes politically expedient for the Republican party to admit to the truth . What a bunch of LOSERS .

    • Paul

      Can you explain why the Ice on the Poles is melting. The computer models are man made and do not accurately track past climate. By excluding data that does not fit the models can be made to work. Why was Greenland so named?

  • Chris Nichols

    Why don't you answer his question coward. If there is anyone that believes a load of BS and "parrots" what they are told, it's you. You haven't answered my earlier reply to one of your posts about the Archimedes principle. This is why the fake science of AGW gains so much traction, there are plenty of idiots out there like you who wouldn't know real science from a row boat.

  • http://www.realclimate.org/ James

    Continued Denier PWNage….

    It's kind of funny how 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest year on record! http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112

    As for the Medieval Warm Period,you are absolutely wrong. It was warmer in some parts of the world (for example, Greenland which you conveniently cite) but it was much cooler in other parts of the world, like the tropical pacific (which you conveniently ignore). Global temperatures were far LOWER during this brief warming period.

    As for your list of "over 31,000 of the leading American scientists" can you show me this list? Who are these leading scientists? How many of them are in fields that actually study climate? How many of them have published any peer-reviewed papers? To my knowledge this list has never been revealed.

    As for your comments on sea level rising, you clearly don't understand the effects of thermal expansion of water. And your continual focus on Al Gore reminds of creationist obession with hating Charles Darwin. The IPCC's estimates of sea levels rising ranges are below, and the average range within the more certain predictions are about half a meter of sea level rising. The "larger values" in the graph contain the potential but uncertain increase from ice sheets melting.

    I'm not surprised to see you run off onto your and anti-Al Gore rant and global elitist conspiracy theories. Your views on climate change are dictated by your pre-conceived notion and your confirmation bias which cause you to do nothing but regurgitate garden variety straw man arguments, and repeat them again without bothering to address my rebuttals. It reminds me of creationists who repeat their fallacious straw man version of evolution which they 'refute' and pretend to understand the science. Much in the same way, your 'knowledge' is little more than the templated denier arguments floating around the internet.

    This debate may be 'over' as far as you're concerned, but I'll find other deniers who use the same templated straw man arguments and press them with the truth.

    • http://www.algore.com/ James

      F. Swemson = PWNed

  • http://www.gogreen4power.info/ Go Green Energy, Use Green Energy, Global Warming Solution

    Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I am inspired! Very useful info particularly the ultimate part :) I take care of such info a lot. I used to be looking for this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.