Climate Change Skeptics: The True Scientific Heroes

Climate activists demonstrate in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Several environmental and human rights groups are planning protests around Paris to call attention to populations threatened by man-made global warming and urge an end to human use of oil, gas and coal. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

Let’s start with an absolute fact: climate change scientists are not prophets.  Believing them on faith or because they have certain letters after their name does the pursuit of truth no justice.  Those who blame every storm or wildfire on climate change are just plain silly.  But the silliness stops when one realizes that lives are potentially at stake.  We have seen the hysteria before.

After Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, whose modern analogy is that IPCC report on climate change, the world basically banned the use of DDT.  Because of this environmental “success” story, an estimated 30-50 million Africans- most of them children- died from malaria.  A similar scenario played out in India.  These were preventable deaths stoked by largely unfounded fears.

Today, it is not DDT, but carbon dioxide- not even a manufactured chemical, but something that occurs naturally in the atmosphere.  We are told that 97% of climate scientists have reached consensus.  But consensus on what exactly?  The answer: their own research.

They agree since the entire field is biased and slanted in their favor.  It starts in the halls of higher education where professors who rely on grants to study climate change push graduate students in that direction.  If they agree with their professors, they are more likely to get that Master’s or PhD.  Then they join the cadre of scientists pushing the climate change agenda because it brings in more grants and money and papers.

Of course, if the “scientist” obtains a result that disproves his climate change hypothesis, chances are it will never be reported and they go back to the drawing board.  Why?  Because the publications they rely upon are likewise biased.  In any study, there may be multiple hypotheses and if only one is proven, it will see the light of day in a publication.  Hence, we never see the negative findings.  Simply, as with most scientific fields, studies that disprove a hypothesis are generally rejected and never make it to the peer-review level.

When the IPCC declares that 97% of the active publishers of climate change science believe the problem to be real, it is nothing but a self-fulfilling false prophecy from non-prophets.  That is like saying 97% of seminary students believe in their religion.  Consensus at the IPCC level makes less sense than so-called “expert opinions.”

Enter the field of journalism which focuses on climate change Armageddon.  No self-respecting journalist who relies on click bait would dare read a boring scientific paper’s abstract, let alone the entire thing.  Why waste the editor’s time with some positive news about climate change?  The result: they now stick a scary line about climate change into every story.  From bees to birds, from ticks to ants, from human caravans to wars, climate change is to blame.  The number of unsubstantiated climate change statements from journalists could fill a book.

We are privy only to the stories of the most catastrophic scenarios.  When questioned, those with defensive personalities lash out with vitriol and derision.  Unfortunately, the hysterics usually cannot get beyond the title of an article that questions their climate change worldview.

The only way to correct the wrong is to intellectually approach the issue and for that we need science. Today, the climate change world is too politicized and replete with biases that only reinforce their worldview.  It is important that we get this right because lives and a way of life are what is in the balance.  People die when no one questions scientific dogmas.  Thus, it is the private watchdogs who call out the hysteria, the bias, the misrepresentations and even the manipulations of data.  Instead of demonizing the skeptics, they should be respected and encouraged to call out the untruths of climate change.

Lest we forget, Greenpeace saved very few whales; the petroleum industry saved them.   Rachel Carson’s book is responsible for the deaths of countless children and adults.  Whether a policy maker, teacher, journalist, environmentalist, or even a Latina Congresswoman from the Bronx, we know precious little about climate change other than what trickles from the desks of those with a stake in grant money and professional reputations on the line in climate change hysteria.

Should the layers of research and academic bias be trusted?  Are climate scientists getting it wrong?  Are they exaggerating and misleading us rubes?  Are they misstating the issue?  Are there are lonely, silenced heroes out there?

It has happened before with DDT and horrible consequences.  And climate change is more politicized and sexy an issue than DDT ever was.