You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?”
One of the main accusations launched by climate activists is that anyone arguing against man-made global warming is “anti-science.” They tell us that the science is “settled,” and that anyone who objects is ignoring a blindingly obvious set of facts.
But what to do about someone like me? I’m in hearty agreement that the global climate has warmed by roughly one degrees Celsius over the past 150 years. However, my study of the relevant geology and physics leads me to believe that solar variability, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for this warming.
And so, it is precisely because of science that I am skeptical of man-made warming. Should I still be labeled “anti-science?”
Of the people who deride climate “deniers,” I’d like to ask some basic questions:
- Do you know that carbon dioxide progressively loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases?
- Do you know that man-made warming theory relies on water vapor, not carbon dioxide, to drive future warming?
- Do you know that cloud formation contradicts this water vapor “feedback?”
- Do you know that climate scientists have never solved this “cloud problem?”
- Do you know that solar activity in the 20th Century increased to its highest levels in at least 2,000 years?
- Do you know that every previous warm period over the past few thousands of years coincided with strong solar output?
These are just a few basic questions about climate science. But they help to illustrate why the climate debate is not as simple as many would assume.
What concerns me is that the general public seems to have no understanding of the core issues being debated. And yet they heatedly defend “climate change” against any dissenters.
Ironically, whenever I engage people in discussion or debate on the issue, they invariably respond, “Well, I don’t know anything about it” or “I’ve never studied it, but rely on what I hear on the news.” The worst offenders get their “facts” from Bill Nye or Bill Maher.
Why then should they be so quick to criticize those who hold a different view, especially those who have invested great effort to study the subject matter?
At this point, “climate change” is like a book that everyone has heard of—but no one has read. Activists’ vigorous defense of man-made warming is akin to their saying, “It’s a great book.” But when pressed, they admit to never actually having read it.
My concern is that the global climate could tilt back toward a cooler era. There are valid reasons to worry about such a possibility since long-term solar activity is now declining. And even more troubling is the prospect that such a colder era could arrive in tandem with decarbonization policies limiting global energy production.
The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe—a lack of reliable energy at precisely the point that human survival would need the greatest access to cheap, reliable, scalable power production.
All of this points to a series of questions that should merit an honest discussion. Unfortunately, the angry rhetoric of the climate debate makes that unlikely right now.