The first question: Does it bother you that your climate change alarmist missionaries seem to be opposed to free and open debate on the issue? As a scientist by training, I can tell you that in no other field of scientific inquiry have I ever seen this intensity behind an assertion that “the science is settled.” The true scientific approach should be open-minded and unintimidated by the flow of information.
The latest illustration is this Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, identified as the top weatherman in France, who just lost his position because he came out with a book challenging the climate change orthodoxy. With that sort of thing going on, do you really trust the information you’re being told? With dissidents being intimidated, how do you know if the experts you’re relying on are giving their honest opinions or are merely protecting themselves from a similar fate?
The second question: What exactly is this “consensus” that climate change alarmists keep referring to? I watched the questioning of Sierra Club President Aaron Mair by Senator Ted Cruz, where Mr. Mair was unable to discuss the science or explain why the earth has not been significantly warming over the past 18 years, but instead kept repeating that he agreed with the 97% of scientists, the “consensus,” who say there is human-caused global warming. However, all those who tout this “consensus” make a logical leap that they fail to explain. Saying that humans contribute to warming of the planet is a different matter from saying that they contribute significantly to that warming. That, in turn, is very different from saying that they account for the majority of warming. And that, in turn, is very different from saying that the warming is catastrophic. So, on the other side of this “consensus” issue, we have this declaration of the Petition Project, in which over 31,000 scientists signed a petition stating, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.” I believe that many of those 31,000 scientists would be among those in the cited “consensus” who believe that humans contribute to warming, but don’t believe it poses anything like the danger being trumpeted by the alarmists.
The third question: Have you thought through all the alarmist claims that these people are making? They are saying, for example, that global warming will lead to both droughts and floods. Does that make any sense to you at all? How about the predicted rise in the oceans? I ran the calculations on that. The Arctic ice cap averages 3-4 meters thick and covers from 9 to 12 square kilometers. If you run those numbers, it shows that if the entire Arctic ice cap melted, it would cause a rise in the oceans of about 1 centimeter.
The final question: Does this climate change discussion seem to you like science or like politics?
I’ll answer this last question for myself: It is politics, through and through.
Do you agree? Disagree? I welcome your comments.
Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.
