If you are one of the people who believe the climate change movement operates more like a religious or political crusade than a scientific venture in search of the reasons behind Earth's constantly changing climate, you are not alone. Within the past two weeks, The Guardian has instructed its staff to no longer use the term "climate skeptic", instead, to refer to doubters by the more heavily-loaded terms "climate denier" or "climate science denier". (Interesting terms since none of these doubters has ever denied the climate exists.) Politicians such as Democrat Elizabeth Warren have gone so far as to say, "I believe in science. And anyone who doesn't has no business making decisions about our environment." Got that? Either conform to the standard and join the crusade or stop exercise your power in this area altogether!
Still, despite the magnificent rhetoric that climate change supporters have used to gaslight much of the American public, be aware that there are serious reasons to question the entire climate change movement.
- Science understands very little about the climate and is even more in the dark when it comes to predicting the future: Dr. Judith Curry is the former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In a recent article with City-Journal magazine, Dr. Curry revealed that "between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climactic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree." Obviously, the industry could not have been responsible for this, especially considering the plummeted numbers of fossil fuels burned prior to WWII, and even today. Curry also added that "almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large." When asked whether global warming is real, Dr. Curry responded, "There is warming, but we don't really understand its causes." Anyone who remembers the dire warnings in the 1970s of another "Global Ice Age" does not need to be convinced that we really do not understand the climate and the innumerable factors that contribute to it.
- The connection between the climate change movement and the socialist movement: On October 8, 2018, The Guardian ran the following headline: "We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN". The headline was based on a report released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A prediction made by the report is that higher global temperatures are resulting in food scarcity worldwide. The lead author of the report, Myles Allen, stated that preventing disastrous global warming will require "far-reaching transitions in energy, land…and industrial systems", and he argued that the report is "telling us we need to … turn the world economy on a dime." Sheila Zilinsky, a former senior adviser to two Canadian Government Environmental Departments and the author of Green Gospel: The New World Religion, believes she knows firsthand what "turning the world economy on a dime" refers to in the Newspeak of climate change supporters: "I remember sitting in many a meeting with Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart and her saying, 'No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.'" Redistribution of wealth. Or perhaps a better way to phrase it was given by Wesley J. Smith, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism: "The environmental movement wants to make the rich West much poorer so that the destitute can become richer."
- How many times do climate predictions have to be wrong before they are no longer taken seriously? In a 2014 Townhall article, writer John Hawkins wrote the following: "Former NASA scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies 'have failed miserably.' Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models 'have over-forecasted the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH). In 2015 WorldNet Daily reported on a Duke University-led study which "concluded warming hasn't happened as fast as was projected and that natural variability in surface temperatures over the last decade could account for the small increases reported in the last 10 years." Not many of us can be as wrong as many climate change scientists are, and yet remain employed.
- Science is about questioning. Why are dissenting voices in the scientific community being muzzled? When asked by City-Journal why she left the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Curry answered, "Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible...If you don't support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a 'climate-change denier,' a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community." Townhall's John Hawkins pointed out that "31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming." It does not sound as if anything is settled, yet, how often do you hear the voices of these scientists?
