Dr. Changebluff: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The CO2. (Part II)

MYTH: There is near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is significantly manmade, and “scientific” dissenters are just a handful of crackpots.

I’m going to try to do this series tackling only one major issue at a time.  I don’t know at this point how many parts this will take, and I may post about other issues before I fully explore this one.

That being said, let me start at what I believe lies at the heart of the political battle regarding climate change.  To begin, few, if any, people argue that the climate is not changing.  At issue is the question of whether or not the actions of man are having a direct and great effect on the changes.

As I said last week, one of the things that gives this specious theory seeming merit is the insistence that it is not a “theory” but “settled science” instead.

Part of what perpetuates the “settled science” myth are media representations, government beholden “scientific” bodies and the education system that either doesn’t know any better or is also in the bag for the government.

The fact of the matter is, man’s effect on the climate is in no way, shape, or form “settled science” or even “a global consensus” outside of scientific bodies tied directly to western governments or the UN.

In fact, as recently as March of this year, thirteen times the number of scientists who authored the IPCC report publicly voiced their dissent from the UN findings (Including former IPCC scientists).  And that’s just those filing a report with the UN.  There are currently over 30,000 American scientists petitioning the US government to abandon the Kyoto Accord and stop their senseless (and needless) agenda that will only harm science, technology and economy without providing one bit of assistance to the environment.

Contrary to the dissenters being “crackpots,” it is instead the manmade climate change supporters who are found in their greatest numbers in government-tied “scientific” bodies.  These “scientific” bodies, whether US, European or UN, are beholden to their masters for funding and indeed their very existence – it should come as no surprise when it is revealed that they ignore real science in order to pave the way for “progressive” environmental policies.  And the media, largely doing the same thing in many areas, also helps feed the myth.

In short, the most reliable science (that which is dictated by observation and results rather than observation selectively tailored to fit a set of desired results predetermined by politicians by scientists employed by those politicians) indicates that what changes we see in the climate are natural, and the effect of man is negligible or nonexistent.

Next up: If it’s not us, what causes climate change?

Dr. Changebluff: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The CO2. (Part I)

For 28 of my 30 years on this planet, I have been an ardent supporter of theories of global warming and, later, “global climate change.” Well, during the years in the beginning I wasn’t really an ardent supporter of anything, but I accepted the wisdom of the prevailing theory of the day and had no particular objections.

I had long been taught those theories (in my youth it was only “global warming”) exclusively and had no idea that any dissent was possible, much less credible. I distinctly remember covering the chapter on “the greenhouse effect” in Mrs. Williams 7th grade science class, although I was already familiar with virtually every one of the definitions and concepts already. I also distinctly remember watching the tailpipe of a parent’s car idle at the bus stop one winter morning in second grade and trying to imagine how much greenhouse gas they were putting out (although the alarm was being raised on aerosol cans equally with cars back then, or so it seemed to me).

In fact, when I started to become more politically involved after the 2000 election, it was a point of disagreement between myself and the conservative “pundits” who seemed to have a more sensible philosophy on government, economy and foreign policy in virtually all other areas. Another personal experience I distinctly remember was a 2007 conversation with my brother in which I expressed concerns that conservative voices – which had wonderful ideas that would increase our prosperity, security and prestige – were relegating themselves to irrelevancy by clinging to such a ridiculous position as that of a global climate change skeptic.

But the more research I did, the more convinced I became that the skeptics at least had concerns that both seemed reasonable and, rather than being addressed in scientific manner, were simply ignored by the western governments, scientists beholden to those governments, and the education and media institutions that I was finding were even more beholden to those governments.

The more I looked, the more “manmade global climate change” seemed to be a house of cards. Sure, once the fundamental assumptions are accepted, it all seems very consistent and reasonable, but I have yet to come across a “manmade global climate change” supporter who has ever questioned or looked into those fundamental assumptions apart from pulling up the government-produced reports used to justify their bids to increase regulations (the very things being impeached by the objections).

In the coming weeks, I intend to walk you through my journey, as best as I can remember the major twists and turns that it took, in an effort to explain how I personally went from global warming supporter to skeptic.