A reader asked a question of me in a comment a while ago, and now that I am back to blogging I think I’ll answer it. I write only of my own path to skepticism, I’m sure that there are many others who have different reasons, but that is for them to know and reveal, if they wish.
Jeremy, a hard-core anti-wealth AGW ‘believer’ asked me this question:
Short answer, maybe the planet is warming, maybe it’s not; it does not matter. The most asinine label attached to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is ‘climate change’. Climate always changes, its natural state is to be in constant flux; climate has been warming and cooling long before man came along and will be doing so long after man is gone.
What I do not give credence is that man or his activities have any effect whatsoever on the climate of the planet. Don’t get me wrong, I do not support wanton polluters or casual disregard for natural resources, but nor do I possess a desire to return to the stone age and give up all the wonderful inventions and conveniences of modern life. If environmentalism simply meant promoting cleaner air, water and maximized use of resources like oil and gas, and embraced nuclear power I might even be a member of a group like that.
But AGW is nothing but junk science supported by flimsy computer models designed and operated by alchemists. That Al Gore, a lifelong failure in every academic endeavor he ever undertook, leads this movement is the icing on the cake.
Consider that the planet is estimated to be anywhere between 3.5 and 4.5 billion years old. It has survived meteor impacts, geologic upheavals, volcanic eruptions and glaciation, each of which humble man’s feeble ability to impact the planet. Yet AGW theorists studied fewer than 100 years of recorded temperature data and claim to know not only that the world is warming, but that man is the cause. If it were not so serious in its consequences, it would be laughable.
Why am I a skeptic? Because the first time I heard about the issue of AGW, it was Al Gore and David Suzuki telling me that the science was settled and the debate was over. Really? Science is settled? Show me anyone making that claim and I will show you someone unworthy of the respect due a scientist. The arrogance of the claim raised a red flag in my enquiring mind, and when I started to investigate, the hubris and dishonesty of the AGW proponents became immediately apparent, and this blog was born.
Jeremy asks why I frequently refer to the Sun if I don’t believe in global warming. Simply put, the Sun is the engine that drives climate - an active sun makes us warmer and a quiet sun warms us less, as demonstrated since the late 1990’s. That’s it, all you need to know about climate ‘science’ is right there. No computer models required. Blaming AGW on trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is akin to blaming dolphins for the tides.
I used to think that environmentalists of the old school were decent people, caring for the natural world and bringing attention to things that man could do better. But some time ago the movement was hijacked by activists with agendas like anti-capitalism, anti-industry, anti-nuclear stances and these actvists were soon joined by any number of name-your-grievance losers that were unable to make a go of it in the real world and threw ideological tantrums as a result.
If these deluded folks did nothing but scream about their outrage du jour and did no harm, I’d let them go at it, whatever rows your boat. But there is a dark underbelly to the greens that makes me furious, and I want them held accountable. Greenpeace is a genocidal organization with the blood of millions of dead African children on its hands. Greens try to convince us that using food for fuel is a good idea when almost a third of the global population is starving. Greens claim that the planet cannot support the present population of the planet, and then go about encouraging behavior that makes that prediction a devastating reality. Greens want to ban GM foods, ban DDT, ban fertilizers and anything that promotes efficient food production, never mind how many must die to satisfy their craven delusion that they are doing something ‘good’.
Until the cycle of cynical activism ends, I will use my little blog to represent the skeptical side of the equation. Readers should make up their own minds, don’t take my word for it - educate yourself and see what you think, but at least think about it. That is advice most of the green sites will never encourage, for they know that once people see the reality, their hoax is done.
[ad#insert-large]
Excellent post.
Well said.
I too am a skeptic, and the same alarm bells went off when I hear “The science is settled.” statements.
The biggest thing that I would love to get across to some of the AGW crowd is that I don’t hate the environment!
what I dislike is the idea that if you question AGW you someone who hates this earth and all her beauty. I am lumped in the same group as those who clear cutting everything in sight for a buck. An oil spill is just the cost of progress. Those who will dump pollutants into our drinking water to save a few dollars and a bit of time.
This is far from the truth.
I have no problem driving a smaller fuel efficient car, I turn off my lights and power devices when they are not in use. I sort my recyclables as best as I can. I don’t focus on my carbon footprint, but rather on my environmental footprint.
I would rather we focus on air pollutants, lead and mercury in my drinking water and food supply.. you know the things that are going to kill me and my family regardless of how warm or cold it gets.
You can tell me that the trace amount of mercury in these new carbon-footprint-friendly light bulbs are fine, but I ask, will it still be fine in 20 years when there are billions of these in the landfills throughout the world?
Well said.
I too am a skeptic, and the same alarm bells went off when I hear “The science is settled.” statements.
The biggest thing that I would love to get across to some of the AGW crowd is that I don’t hate the environment!
what I dislike is the idea that if you question AGW you someone who hates this earth and all her beauty. I am lumped in the same group as those who clear cutting everything in sight for a buck. An oil spill is just the cost of progress. Those who will dump pollutants into our drinking water to save a few dollars and a bit of time.
This is far from the truth.
I have no problem driving a smaller fuel efficient car, I turn off my lights and power devices when they are not in use. I sort my recyclables as best as I can. I don’t focus on my carbon footprint, but rather on my environmental footprint.
I would rather we focus on air pollutants, lead and mercury in my drinking water and food supply.. you know the things that are going to kill me and my family regardless of how warm or cold it gets.
You can tell me that the trace amount of mercury in these new carbon-footprint-friendly light bulbs are fine, but I ask, will it still be fine in 20 years when there are billions of these in the landfills throughout the world?
My two bits-which differs a bit from the positions give here.
Is the Earth warming?
Yes. Or at least it was.
By definition, it began to warm when we (it) began to leave the bottom of the last ice age.
It continued to warm and will continue to warm until we turn the corner back down to the next ice age.
The ambiguity in my position has to do with the fact that there hasn’t been much warming in the past ten years or so, so it is possible that we have turned the corner. But it is too early to say-we went through this 30 years or so ago with a great we-got-to-install-socialism-to-survive the impending ice age then. (Never mind the “nuclear winter” that should have followed the volcanoes.)
My beef with the we-got-to-install-socialism-to-survive the heat folks is in these three areas.
1. While the temperatures have hit a plateau, the ceeohtwo graph continues apace. Obviously no connection between the two.
2. Hot is good, Cold is bad. Cold has be associated historically with famine, pestilence, discomfort and despair. Hot has been associated with plenty, comfort, health, and wellbeing.
3. Human being have little effect on global climate. (Some effect locally, for sure.) (Did you notice that it looks like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter are all doing climate change things? Solar output is used to explain that.
My two bits-which differs a bit from the positions give here.
Is the Earth warming?
Yes. Or at least it was.
By definition, it began to warm when we (it) began to leave the bottom of the last ice age.
It continued to warm and will continue to warm until we turn the corner back down to the next ice age.
The ambiguity in my position has to do with the fact that there hasn’t been much warming in the past ten years or so, so it is possible that we have turned the corner. But it is too early to say-we went through this 30 years or so ago with a great we-got-to-install-socialism-to-survive the impending ice age then. (Never mind the “nuclear winter” that should have followed the volcanoes.)
My beef with the we-got-to-install-socialism-to-survive the heat folks is in these three areas.
1. While the temperatures have hit a plateau, the ceeohtwo graph continues apace. Obviously no connection between the two.
2. Hot is good, Cold is bad. Cold has be associated historically with famine, pestilence, discomfort and despair. Hot has been associated with plenty, comfort, health, and wellbeing.
3. Human being have little effect on global climate. (Some effect locally, for sure.) (Did you notice that it looks like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter are all doing climate change things? Solar output is used to explain that.
Great analysis. Complex science is rarely “settled”, and it certainly isn’t about consensus either.
Welcome back! We’re all looking forward to the return of the Weekly Hoax Round-up!
Great analysis. Complex science is rarely “settled”, and it certainly isn’t about consensus either.
Welcome back! We’re all looking forward to the return of the Weekly Hoax Round-up!
Chris - we agree entirely, it is not inconsistent to recycle and care for nature and be a climate skeptic, an inconvenient truth that the lefties would prefer to deny.
Larry, you nail it in point #2, cold is very bad.
thanks to everyone for the welcome back sentiments.
Chris - we agree entirely, it is not inconsistent to recycle and care for nature and be a climate skeptic, an inconvenient truth that the lefties would prefer to deny.
Larry, you nail it in point #2, cold is very bad.
thanks to everyone for the welcome back sentiments.
Hear hear! All I can say is, damn straight! I think that hits the nail on the head, Greens (as opposed to “everyday” people who are *reasonable*) don’t give a sh*t about “the Environment” anymore. It’s we-got-to-install-socialism-to-survive (and don’t forget we-got-to-keep-the-subsidies-rolling-in) that’s the real point.