Climate change is an illogical chain of hypotheses

Global warming is no "myth." There is definitely something going on. There are too many studies indicating changes not to believe that.

But, that does not mean humans should change their activity, if they could, or that those who can change their activity should do so. It does not mean that our government should use less carbon if the goal is to reduce carbon emissions to slow down or prevent global warming.

This is what I mean when I say "I don't believe in climate change." What I mean is, I am not convinced that the entire chain of reasoning starting with the "fact" of climate change (it is a theory, not a fact) leads to the conclusion that we should take specific steps as a result. This chain of reasoning is comprised of many suppositions which are not necessarily proven or true, and thus the entire chain is unlikely to be right. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Let me give an analogy. Let's say you are hungry because you haven't eaten in five days. You need food, and you need it right away. Should you take a gun out of your closet, go down to the supermarket, and rob it, in order to eat?

Let's look at that chain of facts. You are very hungry. You have a gun. If you show your gun to the clerk, you will get food. Nobody will die because the clerk won't refuse your demand, he will just give you food. If you wear a mask, you won't get arrested because they won't know who you are. Perhaps you will give the clerk a note so your voice is not recognized. Perhaps you will cut the words for your note out of the newspaper so your handwriting will not be evidence. Perhaps you will wear gloves when creating your note so you don't leave any fingerprints. So now you have a plan. What could possibly go wrong?

What a climate-change believer would say is that if you are hungry, you must rob a store for food, because they have a scenario as outlined above which is plausible. Yet it is easy to see that there are hundreds of alternatives which would be better than robbery. What they believe is that if you are hungry and the store has food, the only option is to take it with your gun.

To take this analogy one step further, the climate-change believers would argue that everyone needs to buy a gun because you will need it if you ever get really hungry. But we know that the scenario outlined above should not lead to such a conclusion because there are many ways to solve hunger besides robbing a store, and even if robbery were the only way, it does not give a hungry person the right to steal and to possibly kill someone else in order to feed themselves.

People who believe the climate-change narrative are convinced that, say, recycling your used paper and plastic is going to reduce global warming, or that if we stop drilling for oil, we will reduce the burning of fossil fuels. These are not facts, they are wishful thinking. I question the logic of this thinking but anyone who does so is labeled by the Left as a "denier" or someone who doesn't believe in science.

People who believe in the complete climate change narrative are more like religious zealots, because they refuse to logically question their beliefs. They insist on false statements like "99% of scientists agree" which is complete hogwash. And they rely on such statements to prove their points. When questioned about anything specific, however, they quickly retreat to the next known "fact" which is equally unprovable.

So let me give an example. The Left argued that if we build that Canadian Keystone pipeline down to the Texas refineries, allowing Canadian crude oil to more easily reach markets, we would be contributing to global warming. For that reason, the Left opposed the construction of the pipeline and President Obama blocked it. But is their claim true? Absolutely not.

Oil is a valuable commodity and the pipeline merely speeds up the processing. In the long run (say over the next 10 or 50 years) the pipeline would make no difference to the amount of oil drilled or burned. It just might take longer to get to market. So they opposed the pipeline based on the fear that it's construction will lead to more global warming, which is false. Yet the Left managed to convince the U.S. government to deny the permit, costing thousands of jobs in construction, oil refining, and transportation. Until Donald Trump reversed the decision.

Many of the claims and suppositions in the climate change "chain" are similarly flawed or questionable. But unlike real scientists, the global-warming hoaxers don't use the scientific method to analyze them. Instead, they take it on faith that "99% of scientists can't be wrong." Who are the real science deniers?

Subscribe to the Acton Forum and get our newsletters emailed to you -- FREE! Click Here!



That 99% of all scientists agree that you refer to is quite a hyperbole. You know as well as I that it's only 97%! Seriously though, global warming (aka goebbel warming) would have benefits - significantly more crops for example. Global Cooling would stifle crop production - as has happened in the past, causing significant crop failures and famines. Indeed, from folks alarmed by goebbel warming, I'd like to hear how they can fluff off the impending cooling that is more likely to take up the next century by explaining why the evidence of a dearth of sunspots and change in the Sun's output will not produce a Dalton-like effect, or perhaps a Maunder-type effect. These phases of lower sun activity caused significantly lower global temperatures and occurred around 1790 thru 1830 for the Dalton Minimum and 1645 thru 1715 for the Maunder Minimum.