OK, as promised.

I think it's ridiculous the demagoguing over this issue, on both sides. There is very little rational discussion of "global warming", now usually referred to as "climate change". Those who don't buy into the full-scale socialization of production to counteract this "crisis" are called "climate deniers", or "climate skeptics" (since when is being a skeptic a bad thing?), or if it's Bill Maher doing the demagoguing, "stupid."

I consider myself a rational skeptic about pretty much everything, so I guess that includes the hysterical, even religious dogma of climate change. Here's my thinking:

1. As a scientifically trained person, it does not seem all that well established that unusual warming is happening ("unusual" is an important qualification here).

Recently, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as Fellow at the American Physical Society because he believed that the climate issue had become politicized to the point where it had reached dogma and no serious rational discussion is allowed on the topic. His resignation letter is worth quoting in part:



We know that the climate of the earth changes significantly over time, and while 50 or 100 years seems like a long time to humans, geologically speaking it is barely noticeable. We're talking about a hundred trips around the sun, out of billions.

So, perhaps the recent data show some warming. Even so, Dr. Giaever makes the excellent point that measuring the temperature of the whole planet is a very iffy proposition, and a rational person would be very reasonable to wonder what is actually being measured here. Most of the climate change fueling the fear mongers is actually anticipated climate change based on computer models, but the earth's climate is such a vastly complicated, chaotic system, that a rational person should be forgiven if they are a bit skeptical of this approach. We can't even reliably predict the weather more than a few days out.

Having said all that, let me, for the sake of argument, concede that unusual climate change IS, occurring. Then:

2. It is almost impossible to establish with certainty that it is caused by human behavior.

The planet's climate is a very complex system of interdependent factors. Most of what I've seen about climate is the same as the nonsense I see in the media about medical studies.

Almost all media reporting of scientific studies confuses correlation with causation. This is the classic "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy, and many scientists are not immune. Simply because the earth is a bit warmer over the period of industrialization does NOT mean that the warming is CAUSED by industrialization.

In complex systems, like the human body or the climate of a planet, it is EXTREMELY difficult to establish a causal relationship with a high degree of confidence.

Given that we know of so many other influences over the climate in the earth's geological history (eccentricity in the earth's orbit, volcanism, sun spots, etc, etc, etc), there are many potential, interrelated "causes". I contend that the system is too complex to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause is "greenhouse gas" emissions, or even what the effect of these emissions are. 30 years ago, it was fervently believed that these emissions would cause global cooling. It's just very, very difficult to know.

We DO know that the earth's climate fluctuates. And we know this has happened for millions of years. So, it is not necessarily due to human activity. It might be, or it might be simple correlation.

But, it might be the case, so for the sake of argument, let's concede both the point that the earth is getting warmer, and that it's caused by humans (evil capitalists, mostly). Then:

3. It is not at ALL established that a warmer planet is a bad thing.

In fact, the Paleocene epoch was one of the warmest geological epochs and was an amazingly diverse period biologically. Given the huge biological diversity found today at tropical latitudes and in rain forests, it might be the case that a warmer planet would be good for all of us. Certainly a warmer planet would allow vast areas of Canada and Siberia to become food-producing land.

The climate scare feeds on a human tendency to fear change, but it is not well established that the current temperature of the planet is the optimal temperature, or that an optimal temperature even exists. It seems extremely childish to me to assume that the current temperature of the planet is the "best" or "optimal" temperature. What is the evidence for this?

Humans are extremely adaptable. If the ice caps melt it probably will suck to be a polar bear or to own land on the Outer Banks of North Carolina's coast, but it is not clear at all that it would be bad for humanity, or for biodiversity as a whole. It could be a boon. We don't know because the system is too complex to understand at that level.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the earth is warming out of control, it's caused by humans, and it's a terrible catastrophe that awaits us. Even then:

4. It's not clear we can do anything about it anyway.

System theory has shown us that complex systems are often unstable. Setting aside the point made by Dr. Giaever that planetary temperature does appear fairly stable, whatever changes may have been caused by humans might not be reversible.

Irreversible systems are the rule in nature. Reversibility is the exception.

EVEN IF, we know for a fact that the earth is warming,
AND we know that it's been caused by humans,
AND we know it's a terrible outcome,

EVEN then, we don't know if we can do anything about it. And one thing that's for certain is that whatever measures the pandering, idiot politicians come up with will do more harm than good. If the system is too complex for scientists to fully understand, there is absolutely no chance that bureaucrats, politicians and diplomats can understand it at all.

So, what we're left with is the current situation:

A large group of (primarily leftist) activists have embraced this controversy because they see it as a tool to advance the agendas they've had for years. Another large group (primarily rightists) automatically disagrees with everything they say. Nobody is thinking rationally, and the entire debate is over social control and what our future society is going to look like.

The biggest red flag to me, as a skeptic and rationalist, is to notice the astonishing alignment of the climate scare with the agenda of the modern Left. One could say that this is the agenda because the concern is so dire, but anybody with a brain and without a dog in the fight will see immediately that the agenda came first. In other words, this whole argument is just an excuse for social control and the struggle to get other people to do what we want them to do. Anyone who disagrees is a "denier" or "stupid", and isn't that just what the do-gooders always believe about those who disagree with their grand plans?

So yes, I'm proudly a "skeptic". That doesn't mean that I'm stupid, and it doesn't even mean that I don't accept the temperature of the planet is changing (as it always has). But it absolutely means that I don't believe we have perfect knowledge of this situation or would know what to do about it even if we did.

As one example, our knee-jerk laws about incandescent light bulbs are just ridiculous. They result from the exact same kind of reactionary thinking that gave us the ridiculous TSA rules, which most people admit now are about controlling anxiety and doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, so we don't feel powerless. The result is "security theatre". I contend that what we have now is "environmental theatre".

I can hear the argument already that "so what if we don't know everything? We need to do SOMETHING!!!!". That's just irrational, fear- and anxiety-based decision making. The policies that come from that kind of decision making end up costing a huge amount for negligible (or often even counterproductive) result. They impoverish the mass of people to soothe a particular group's anxiety. That's not a good enough reason, as far as I'm concerned.