Apostasy

I admit it—I’m an apostate. I’ve decided to reject the religion of Climate Change Alarmism and instead, acknowledge the proven scientific method—you know, the one that relies on empirical observation, statistical analysis of historical data, and a cold, objective evaluation of the facts. The scientific method is NOT political, is NOT Left or Right, it is NOT “consensus,” and it does not rely on 100-year computer models as its primary driving force. The scientific method indicates that climate change alarmism is, well, nonsense.

But apostates are suspect, are they not? They “deny” a “consensus” of scientists. They argue that the Ayatollah of Climate Change Alarmism, one Al Gore, doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about. They smile ruefully when politicians as diverse as Barack Obama and John McCain validate the climate change mantra, suggesting that we better act fast, or catastrophe will befall us all. Worse, since we’re the cause of it (the ultimate in hubris), we can fix it by spending trillions while at the same time retarding the economic progress of emerging nations.

But I suspect most readers of the blog are climate change fundamentalists, and you’re shaking your head. How can you be so blind, you ask? Don’t you care about the environment?

Before I answer that question, I’d ask a favor. Test your fundamentalism by watching a real scientist present real empirical data, and draw scientifically valid conclusions about climate change. Professor Robert Carter of James Cook University (Queensland, Australia), a researcher on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years), presents a scientific talk captured in four YouTube segments presented by William M. Briggs. It’s one of the better presentations I’ve seen, and if you’re not afraid of graphs and trend lines (and some frank talk with a little humor mixed in), it may jolt your long-held fundamentalist beliefs.

Now to the questions “How can you be so blind? Don’t you care about the environment?” My response … I’m certainly not blind and I do very much care. We need to reduce pollutants significantly (CO2 is not a pollutant). We need to become energy independent much sooner that most believe we can – a good number is 10 years. We need to foster existing alternative energy technologies and put them into place immediately. But spending trillions on a laughable effort to change the world climate? If anything, it’ll distract us from doing the important things that will help to actually improve the environment.

So I proudly proclaim my apostasy and watch in wonder as people who condemn fundamentalist beliefs in other arenas fall into the same fundamentalist trap themselves.

A postscript: Bad science comes in many forms—“creationist science” promulgated by the Right who desparately wants it in the classroom (a really bad idea) and now, “climate change alarmism,” promulgated by the Left who really want it in the classroom (an equally bad idea). A California lawmaker has proposed a bill that would mandate teaching “climate change” in the classroom. That would be fine if all the science is presented, but I’ll bet what he’s really looking for is the introduction of the religion of Climate Change Alarmism. And as I've mentioned, that's a really bad idea.