Science is a never-ending discovery of the earth and the world beyond it. It is not static knowledge. True science always welcomes dissenting views from other scientists to be carefully considered and evaluated before drawing even tentative conclusions. The “science” of climate change has not only been unwelcoming to those in disagreement but has helped to eliminate the possibility of knowing who they are and learning why they dissent. The Global Warming Petition Project included over 9,000 scientists with PhDs and over 30,000 scientists in total. The work of these scientists can be read, however, without scientific background much is difficult for the layman to decipher without corresponding explanation or at least exhaustive study. The scientists’ findings were not seriously considered, and the scientists were all quickly dismissed as charlatans and “deniers.”
It was easy to find hundreds of scientists, many of whom were signers of the Petition Project, who wrote understandable arguments on the internet 15 years ago. It’s no longer possible. Those articles from them, dozens with links to peer-reviewed, corresponding studies to validate their claims, have mostly been scrubbed. There are some articles you can still find like this one from a geologist who refutes sea level rise due to glacial melting from warming, but they are not even in your top twenty general Google searches unless you are specific in your query. Why would that happen if these scientists who were labeled as “deniers” did not have good arguments? Certainly, if they did not, it would only make it easier for the scientists of the so-called consensus to make themselves “undeniably” credible. The holes these “deniers” poked in their theory that man is the major cause for climate change were too big to allow to remain easily accessible.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was created to influence policymakers on the way their governments should respond to the climate change issue had to make sure there was as little opposition to their recommendations as possible. This gives a completely new meaning to the term political science. When politicking influences scientific research, the results become unscientific. Polluting emissions are far too simple to answer questions about a very complicated scientific field of study, which alone should raise eyebrows.
Climate changes over very long periods and is due to several factors. Many of them are not anthropogenic, human-related causes. The sun, the earth’s orbit, rotational changes of the earth on its axis, volcanic eruptions, tectonic plates, ocean currents, and many other factors, including CO2 emissions, need to be considered not just alone but the way they combine in various permutations together over time to cause the changes. This makes climate change one of the most complicated schools of science and a largely unpredictable one. Obviously, when the earth was covered in ice over two-and-a-half million years ago, there were no people contributing to the warming that finally made the earth inhabitable.
Even if it were so that greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans are the main reason for global warming, this would mean that every country on earth would have to be on board, some with extreme reduction, almost impossible if only because of their overwhelmingly large populations. Such is the case in China. Even in their efforts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels by turning to energy sources other than coal, China’s emissions rose by 2.6% last year, still the world’s pollution leader. Even with a significant reduction of emissions from the rest of the countries in the world, it would not be enough to counteract warming because of the billions of tons of emissions every year from China alone.
When we consider all of this, we have to ask how much sense it makes for the United States to pay heed to the consensus. During the months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much less human activity. Apparently, however, comparing last June’s numbers to this June’s, there has been only a 5% decline in CO2 emissions. The article seems to imply that one of the best ways we can beat the problem they deem to be one is to have everyone stay home forever. Their major concerns do not lie with current practicalities far more imminently devastating to society like failing economies because fewer people are making or spending money or that people are dying in mass numbers. Instead, they’re focused on dubious predictions which started to take center stage over 30 years ago but whose origins go back to the 1800s which, if were correct in the first place, would see us all living underwater by now. The date for doomsday continually gets pushed out. President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement may not realize its wisdom in our lifetimes.