Climate Change-Is the Debate Over?

Climate change. It is the one topic, no matter how unpopular, that never seems to go away. It is the obsession of the Left and the progressive movement.

We always hear the same argument from the Left, “the science is undeniable and the debate is over.” Another popular quote is, “97% of the scientific community agree that global warming is real and an immediate threat to our national security.”

Those of us who disagree are quickly labeled as science deniers, backward thinking morons who belong to the flat-earth society. Regardless of the validity of their arguments, their statements go against common sense.

First, saying the science is settled is the antithesis of science. Science, by its very definition, should always be expanding, seeking truth, and changing as new information is discovered or gathered. Information is found, a hypothesis is proposed, the community tries to prove the hypothesis, and the scientific community vets the conclusions through the infamous peer-review process. Supposedly, this is done to ensure integrity and honesty within the scientific community.

What we are seeing today is the complete opposite. Science is supposed to be about differing views. Debate and opposition should be at the core of scientific inquiry. Instead, we have abandoned debate and succumbed to the “cult” of group-think and consensus. This is especially dangerous in science, which is supposed to be neutral and objective. However, we know that humans have worldviews and are easily influenced by our biases.

The Scientific Consensus & Global Cooling

In the 1970’s, the science was also “settled.” Only back then, it was called Global Cooling, instead of Global Warming or its most recent name, Climate Change. We were told by our politicians and scholars that scientists were at a consensus and believed that if we did not take drastic action, we would see another ice age within twenty-years. Some scientists even stated that the weather would destroy the worlds crops, resulting in the death of approximately one hundred million people a year due to starvation by the 1990’s. These are the same group of people that are using the exact same rhetoric, the only difference is global warming instead of global cooling.

Let’s assume for a second that global warming is real. If we would have followed the advice of the “scientific community” back in the 70’s and poured soot into the atmosphere, we would have warmed the earth significantly more than what it is now and at a much faster pace.

Why is that a problem? Well, the ice would have already melted and most of us would have been dead or in deep trouble. All of this because of the scientific community. Thank God we did not listen to the “brilliant” minds that said the “science was settled.” See, that is the problem with demonizing an opposing point of view. The irony is that the Left hates absolutes, especially absolute truth. However, Global Warming is absolute and must be dealt with immediately.


Global Warming & Science

Proponents of Global Warming argue against the above information by stating that climate science as used today did not exist in the 1960’s and 70’s. This of course is true. However, that argument fails to address its most fundamental flaw, its premise.

“Hindsight is always 20/20.” This could not be more true about modern technology and science. Of course the technology we possess today did not exist in the 60’s and 70’s, just like the technology we will have in 2050 and 2060 will be far different than what we have today. Our understanding of science will be far more advanced in forty-years than it is today. The point is simple; debate and differing views are not only necessary for science, but vital. The adversarial nature of the peer-review process should be brought back. Instead, it has become a “cult” of belief, where if you do not believe in what the scientific “consensus” believes, you are shunned and discredited. Whether it is challenging evolution, global warming, or anything else our politicians and some leftist scientists in prominent positions hold dear.

For example, Al-Gore has reiterated time and again the urgency of halting the tide of global warming (pardon the pun). He even went as far as to say that we would have an “Ice-Free Arctic by 2013.” Instead, the ice expanded by 50%. You may remember all of the commercials and meme’s showing the polar bears without homes. Well, they are doing fine right now.

The earth has maintained a constant temperature for the last eighteen years and has not warmed. It is currently leveled. Scientists state that this is just a pause and that the earth’s temperature will increase dramatically after this pause. This is just wild speculation (Don’t even get me started on the problem with their weather models).

Meteorologists and scientists belong to a small group of professions that can constantly be wrong and do not need to apologize. Meteorologists get the weather wrong far more often than right. They cannot even accurately predict weekly weather, but they expect us to believe they can predict the weather decades or even centuries ahead? Please.

Scientists are wrong all the time. Not all of them, but many are. How many times have they said eggs are bad for you, then good. Coffee is great for your health, then bad, then good. Vitamins are great, then they can cause cancer. Which is it? When asked, they say this is part of the scientific process. Fine, i’ll buy that. Then why would the same not apply to global warming or evolution? See my point?


Exposed: Al Gore Could Be Proven A Fraud After Shocking New Data Destroys His Climate Change Claim

Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice – In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age

Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead – Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’

The 97% Consensus Myth

Liberals and progressives love using this argument. Seriously. It’s the only weapon in their arsenal. If you remove the “97% of scientists agree with us and not with you” myth, all they have left is belief or ignorance, maybe both.

The truth is that the the 97% number touted is from sketchy data, unreliable opinion polls and a handful of them at that. Not only is this cherry-picking data at its finest, but blatant dishonesty as well. This lie was proliferated by John Cook by picking and choosing what papers were convenient to his argument and which were not.

97% of scientist who believe global warming is real believe that it is man-made. That is a different argument altogether and a more honest approach, though not entirely accurate either. Many scientists do not believe global warming is a threat, much less man-made. The climate has been changing for thousands of years, we are only now starting to understand it.

The Wall Street Journal reported, “One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen,John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.”

In reality, approximately 52% of scientists believe that global warming is man-made and not a natural cycle. If you begin to read how the “97% consensus” was reached you will observe several anomalies in the techniques used to gather the data and opinion. In my humble opinion, the following website breaks it down nicely:

Cherry-picking information is a practice followed by all professions and world-views. However, this is exactly why debate is so vital to good science or any profession. “Settled-science” should be a phrase that is never used, especially in the scientific community.


The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

In Conclusion

While doing my research, I began to find a plethora of evidence and information that strongly suggested and in my opinion, even proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 97% myth was created by willful deceit and cherry-picked data. There is a healthy amount of evidence against global warming and should at least be worth a look for anyone trying to find out the truth for themselves.

You may not believe me and you shouldn’t. However, unlike the left I encourage debate and have come up with a novel idea. Do your own research.


By the way, I also include a website called skelticalscience which is a pro-global warming website in my sources. Check it out, it’s important to learn both sides.

Important links not listed in the above references

The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s