Like many other topics, climate change is something that is never really discussed. It is assumed that everyone agrees that CO2 emissions from people are changing the global climate. I myself take a different stance on the issue and want to present my views so that people understand climate skeptics better. I support vaccinations, I know the earth is round, I do not doubt the moon landing happened, etc. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have seriously thought and read about climate change. I want to present some reasons why I am skeptical of man-made climate change.
The Climate Is Complex
This one is probably the most common reason provided by skeptics. Weather people make wrong predictions about the weather much of the time. Despite better technology, the accuracy of predictions vary. If they struggle with just predicting the weather for the week, it would seem impossible for someone to predict the future climate of the planet in ten years. There are also other complex variables that determine the climate. This sinks in when we consider the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, some which trap heat worse than CO2, like water vapor and methane. If it is that complex, how can we be entirely confident in predictions of the climate?
The Names Changed, But The Predictions Haven't
Back in the 1970s, all the major media outlets were claiming that the climate was cooling and that there would be catastrophic consequences. The New York Times was one of them. Later, it was global warming with much of the same claims. Now it is climate change. Clearly, the global cooling theory was wrong, but many institutions were promoting it. If they were wrong about that, why would they be correct now? Also, why change the term to climate change? I know some people will say it is because scientists know more now, which I agree with. But why are the catastrophic predictions sounding the same? Does this mean our planet is doomed, regardless if it is cooling or warming? Just like with the boy who cried wolf, making apocalyptic predictions for anything starts to fall on deaf ears.
The Medieval Warming Period
https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-blur-classic-close-up-339800/
As the name implies, there was a period when the average temperature was very high in medieval times, even though humans were not emitting CO2 as much as they do today. Knights did not have cars and the peasants did not work in factories. Wouldn't this prove that maybe the climate can warm due to other factors? Yet the IPCC and some climate activists never seriously talk about this. In fact, there have been scientists who tried to hide this period of warming since it hurts the theory of man-made CO2 emissions warming the planet.
Climate Change Supporters Don't Encourage Debates
I may not be a scientist, but I know that science is meant to be a forum for discussion. I am all for talking about climate change and I am open to hearing the evidence that proves human CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Yet when climate skeptics have offered to debate, global warming supporters avoid it or just mock climate skeptic views. Bill Nye has even gone so far to say that he is open to locking up climate skeptics. How does that resolve the debate? There should be an open discussion to help people get closer to the truth. When someone avoids debates, it leads me to conclude that they lack evidence for their position.
Global Warming Spokespeople Ignore The Progress
People tell the United States that it needs to lower CO2 emissions or it is blamed for them going up. But CO2 emissions have greatly decreased in the United States. CO2 emissions have gone up in the developing world, especially in countries like India and China. In the West, we have more alternative energy sources and better technology. Yet the CO2 message is the same and fingers are pointed at the West. This makes no sense to me, but the next reason for my skepticism explains why this is done.
The IPCC Is Dominated By Political Interests
Even though there are scientists on the IPCC, the process is influenced by activists and politicians. I watched a video from two British IPCC scientists who said that the process is affected by politics. Representatives from different governments review the IPCC report and make changes. Many of the representatives want the reports to support policies that favor their governments rather than have an objective document that informs about what to do with climate change. If you don't believe me, governments nominate the scientists rather than independent scientific institutions. Clearly, there are conflicts of interest being overlooked here.
Centralized Governments
live.staticflickr.comThe policies promoted by politicians to fight climate change encourage more centralized governments. These policies increase government control over the economy and our lives. In addition, many of the climate change supporters are proponents of socialism and totalitarianism. Former UN Official, Christiana Figueres, said that China's one-party Communist government is better for fixing climate change, even though that same government restricts the religious liberty of Muslims and Christians. Most centralized governments are created by scaring people into thinking big government is their savior. Climate change is the perfect tool to use.
Former IPCC Scientists And Those Who Have Changed Their Minds
People think conservatives are climate skeptics while liberals embrace the "truth." Actually, there have been plenty of scientists who went from being global warming supporters to skeptics. Judith Curry was once a supporter and is now an outspoken critic of the IPCC. She also stated that the views of climate skeptics should be considered in the conversation. Due to her mind being changed, the climate change community views her as a heretic. A scientist who is on the Left and is skeptical of man-made climate change is Robert Giegengack. He voted for Al Gore in 2000, but he does not agree with his climate claims. There are a number of others who have changed their minds towards skepticism.
Being A Climate Supporter Pays More Than A Climate Skeptic
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/dollar-money-finance-dollars-163473/The media claims that climate skeptics are paid money by coal or oil companies to promote fossil fuels and deny climate change. Even if that were true, climate change supporters have been paid way more for their endorsements. Al Gore has made millions of dollars through his promotions and documentaries. Scientists also receive a steady flow of money from funding. If they said that the climate is not man-made, governments would not provide as much money for research. Think about it, if you wanted to make money from climate change, why would you go for the minority group? If anything, most people would be afraid to come out as a climate skeptic since they would be labeled as a "climate denier." It pays to tell people that increasing CO2 emissions will kill the planet and we need to do something about it.
Climategate
If anything has added the most to my skepticism, it was the East Anglia emails. You can read some important ones here. The media did not cover this fairly, as the emails showed how scientists were looking for ways to alter climate data to support man-made climate change. If you read the emails, they show there are scientists looking to mislead the world. I usually trust science, but things like this make me more hesitant. It is like businesses that get caught in a scandal; average people begin to mistrust that business and other companies in the same field.
I do not expect to change anyone's minds, but I do expect this to show that climate skeptics are not irrational people. This list is not comprehensive, I could have provided a number of other reasons, like the banning of fossil fuels will keep people in poverty. If anything, I hope it shows how an open and fair debate would really help the world with climate change. I care about the planet just like everyone else. I am all for alternate, clean energy since fossil fuels do contribute to air pollution and release volatile organic compounds. If you are truly open-minded, start by reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change." Even though it sounds like a book written by Republicans, it cites sources from both sides. It even cites leftist scientists who are skeptical of man-made climate change. This book solidified my views on climate change and is a great resource. I hope that all people begin to critically think about climate change and hold institutions accountable.
