Does climate change exist? Sure. On an elementary level, there was once an ice age and today there is not. So obviously, the climate changes. The deeper question is how much of an impact human interaction with the planet contributes to changes in the environment compared to natural forces, such as solar flares from the sun. Is human contribution to changing climate patterns a miniscule factor, or a major one? Are humans single-handily capable of bringing on an ice age by over-powering nature? The mostly one-sided and “research” funded debate goes on (pro tip: if you are one who wants to score some research money, make sure to be a climate change enthusiast), but here are 6 reasons why some of us our skeptical about the human impact on climate change.
The Goal Posts Keep Getting Moved
I’m never sure whether to call it “global warming” or “climate change” because the goal posts keep getting moved. (And I won’t even bring up the 1970’s “global cooling” scare out of fear of being labeled a “climate denier.”) When the global warming hysteria started reaching a peak in the early 2000s and we were warned of sudden and drastic warming in the years to come, a problem occurred: the earth stopped it’s trend of warming despite record output of Co2 (the “culprit”). The plateau is now 15 years strong in a time the pro-science guys predicted the opposite. This led to two things.
First, the alarmists started calling it “climate change” and, in the absence of heat, just noted that every hurricane, tornado, or raindrop was a cause of “climate change.” The second was that they were forced to acknowledge that the reason for the flatlining was the same reason we were skeptical in the first place: they were caused by natural forces beyond human control. They were basically agreeing with us deniers! In a completely unbiased report, ahem, compiled by NASA, they determined that “there are… all kinds of natural fluctuations that sometimes cause warming, sometimes cooling. Ocean changes, for instance, can have a big impact on the world’s temperature. One example that [random NASA cited “expert”] cites is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warmer and cooler surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean that can last between 10 and 30 years.”
And then there was another gem in the same report. In order to prove the current decades-long non-warming trends was also proof of global warming, researchers ran “computer simulations” to make it so. They put their data in and, like magic, researchers “concluded that in a climate being warmed by man-made carbon emissions, it is possible, and indeed likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of ‘cooling’ or no warming superimposed on a longer-term warming trend.” This would be great and all sciency and such if they predicted it before there was a 15-year-and-counting stop in warming, not a decade into it. It’s a little too convenient to claim that whatever trend you see (even cooling!) is part of global warming, because some financed-to-prove-or-combat-climate-change researchers suddenly decided it was. Which dives us right into…
Human-Caused Climate Change Can Never be Proven Wrong
Never. Never, ever, never. Quite simply, there is no mechanism to prove man-made global warming wrong. Is that not the key to scientific inquiry and theory? If I theorized that fish could live on land with no water, it would be pretty easy to disprove that theory by dropping a fish in the desert. But with global warming, there is no mechanism to disprove the theory. (For fun, ask global warming alarmists what the temperature “should” be as opposed to what it is. How is there even a possible correct answer?) If it’s too hot: global warming. If it’s too cold: also global warming. Global warming explains both droughts and floods. (I’m guessing there’s a scientific answer to how many inches of rain one should expect each year, right?) It explains tornadoes, and earthquakes, and tsunamis, and snow, too. And if a tornado is especially strong, that really, really proves global warming. And don’t even get me started on hurricanes, because that just brings me to…
Alarmists Predictions Aren’t Great
For this, I’ll skip the general problem that global warming enthusiasts have at picking days to hold conferences that end up being the coldest on record. I’ll also skip the recent voyage by alarmists who set out to prove a melting earth that resulted in the researchers getting stuck in ice far from their destination, with far less equipment and technology than their century-ago predecessors. That would just be piling on. Don’t worry, because this would later be explained as both a #1 (move the goal posts) and #2 (we are never wrong!).
Instead, I’ll just take a look back at Al Gore and his inconvenient predictions. The main theme of Gore’s “documentary” was: “freak out because tornadoes and hurricanes are going to triple in number and size and destroy us all.” That wasn’t actually on the cover, but… oh wait, it sort of was. The cover art for the work that scored him both a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award featured a smoke stack that literally emitted a hurricane. We were now going to see a greater number of hurricanes that were also stronger than ever, starting as soon as they left the theaters.
Basically, we should expect five or so Hurricane Katrina’s a year, and a bunch of smaller ones. We are basically going to live on the set of The Day After Tomorrow. And just about every year since then, the “experts” predicted one above-average hurricane season after the next only to see very little happen year, after year, after year. Don’t worry, the horrible predictions on hurricane disasters were once again explained as… natural climate variations of the earth. And in case you can’t see a pattern, everything proves global warming, always. And, further ironically, their main excuse for a lack of man-made global warming and hurricane activity is once again the scientific argument of the skeptics: that nature controls the climate far more than we can imagine to.
(To be continued…)