Why I am a “Climate Skeptic”
The vast majority of climate science will be beyond my comprehension. Despite this, however, it does not mean that I, or anyone else, should accept the proclamations of climate alarmists (like former Vice President Al Gore or Climate Scientist James Hansen) on faith. Scientists and politicians who sound the alarm proclaiming incidents (like Tropical Storm Sandy) is the result of global warming should be questioned and public objections to such statements should arise.
I am a climate skeptic (for lack of a better term) simply because I have considered both sides of the issue of global warming and climate change and have decided that the arguments made in favor of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming are not credible. This is the result of my thinking that much of the arguments making the case for human activity being the predominate cause of global warming and climate change are nothing more than a Leftist fantasies being furthered for political reasons in order to regiment and control people.
Questioning conclusions, however, is the starting point of science. Scientists form hypothesis based on testable data and observation of natural occurrences and then culminate their ideas into written studies that are scrutinized by fellow scientists via the peer-review process. This is the result of criticism, counter points, and alternate observation. I have not ever been impressed with the so-called consensus on global warming especially when Al Gore and (then) California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the debate is over and the science is settled with the help of their friends in the media back in 2005-6 in hopes of being able to silence those who dissent on the issue.
My confidence in climate alarmists was further diminished when I saw how they intentionally lied in areas of research as highlighted by the Climategate scandal. That incident demonstrated how scientists associated with the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit not only manipulated research data but also intentionally destroyed their work. The CRU scientists also knowingly attempted to undermine Freedom of Information efforts to have access to their findings so as to avoid scrutiny of their work while slandering scientists who dissent which is a practice that continues to this day. Such activities to destroy another person’s reputation while avoiding review of their formulas and hypothesis reeks not only of cowardice but shows that people who conduct themselves this way avoid reality by lying which they know inside the depths of their soul they are wrong.
What I deny is the catastrophe being put forth by climate alarmists as to what will happen if no action is taken. I further deny the hypothesis that the Earth’s climate system will increase the initial warming from CO2 in multiple instances, resulting in Earth’s temperature going from a manageable less than or to one degree Fahrenheit over the next century to three, five, or even ten degrees which, in turn, will result in weather catastrophes on a global scale. The Earth is warming but any human activity (including the usage of fossil fuels) is not-significant enough to result in temperature increases nor contribute to global warming or changes in Earth’s climate.
Earth’s climate is always changing due to alterations influenced by solar activity (such as magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares). A recently leaked United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirms this in which the study states that the sun’s activity and its link to Earth’s short and long term climate changes is stronger than they originally thought. I do think, however, that when temperatures rise due to solar activity it results in increased CO2 but any increases in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases (like water vapor) from warming of the globe will not be influenced by increased carbon dioxide levels nor will any warming be any different from previous decades, such as the Medieval Warm Period when European civilization thrived.
All environmental doomsday predictions with human-influenced global warming and climate change studies are religion and not science. The role climate scientists who state the affirmative on human-induced climate change act nothing more than white-coated priests who twist or pervert climate data in order to rubber stamp environmentalist group claims that are used to guiltify the populace into altering or scaling back their lifestyle which is tantamount to an attack someone’s quality of life resulting from their prosperity. Regardless of how much environmentalist groups (like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace) disguise their religious beliefs with scientific jargon or claim that their stances on specific issues are grounded in science, their statements should be treated as religion as nothing more.