A Skeptical Look at Global Warming

 

Another day dawns, bringing with it more undeniable proof of global warming, or climate change, as it is now referred to. Proponents of this position declare their theory unassailable beyond any doubt. Anyone who questions them is derided as a fool or a lackey of Big Oil. Some of us do remain unconvinced, and have some questions that the “overwhelming majority” of scientists have not answered.

To start with, why shouldn’t the climate be getting warmer? We are, and here all scientists agree, at the tail end of an ice age that will last until the vast sheets of ice covering the poles melt. One would think warming would be a positive thing as it would usher in longer growing seasons, less need for energy, and a flourishing of animal and plant life. Ah, but there is a difference between the warming caused by humans and that done by nature, say scientists. Hogwash! First, there is little evidence man has much to do with global warming. Even if we do have a measurable effect on the temperature, what difference does it make where the extra degrees come from? Warm is warm and cold is cold, and if we get to a tropical paradise a few centuries earlier, so much the better. But the oceans will rise, inundating whole cities if we continue on our mad dash to Armageddon! Unfortunately for that view, the Dutch have been taming the sea for centuries without the benefit of any modern technology.

And what of the scientists who tell us how close to catastrophe we are? Have they shown themselves to be completely trustworthy? There have been leaks of e-mails showing that the most respected proponents of climate change have boasted of their prowess in faking data and keeping any of their research results from the prying eyes of the public, even in the face of court orders to do so. We have seen hockey stick graphs discredited. We have seen studies that confirmed terrifying changes in the earth’s ecosystem, only to see those studies repudiated days later. In one of the most recent examples of this phenomenon, publishers of a world atlas simply erased several hundred square miles of Greenland’s ice cap. Sure enough, a few days later it was revealed that someone had “goofed” and the ice was still there. No problem except for the few panicked Greenlanders who were frantically building arks.

The most telling fact that leads to the discrediting of the scientists is their proposed solution to the theoretical problem of climate change. Even if we accept fully all of their claims, and acknowledge that we are on the precipice of annihilation, what would we expect those scientists to advise us to do? Why, they would tell us that we must end all human activity that adds to the devastation. It wouldn’t matter where it was occurring, or whether polluters received permission to continue their destructive practices. Instead, we are advised by these self-appointed guardians of the environment that polluting is fine as long as one pays other, cleaner, companies or less-developed nations for the privilege (cap and trade). If you are a private citizen and want to fly your private Boeing 707 around, just buy “green credits” from people like Al Gore, who promise to plant trees to offset your wasteful ways. If that is the answer, why not say so? Just tell people it’s fine if they want to drive a gas-guzzling Hummer as long as they plant a few acorns in their backyards.

I and my fellow skeptics are not flat-earth wackos. We are capable of weighing evidence from cogent arguments and persuasive evidence to come to reasonable conclusions. What we are not capable of is being bullied into believing a theory based upon fraud and illogic. So, those who want to lose sleep over global warming may do so. I’m lying in my hammock with my Mai Tai awaiting the arrival of tropical Colorado.