The argument over global warming is a clash between true believers and skeptics. As believers, the Global Warming alarmists are convinced only one world government can control the climate and in doing so save the planet from itself. They believe that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is real and a huge threat, thus it is a religion. “Believing” in AGW is by definition a faith based enterprise – a cult if you will. Skeptics, on the other hand, or “deniers” if you prefer, simply say that there is no settled science and the science is woefully lacking in the AGW camp. They also question many of the purported proofs presented by the alarmists. That is the way science works.
Why would they say that? First, the science of climate change is the realm of scientists, not politicians, yet the most virulent advocates are political hacks like Al Gore, Al Sharpton, and a host of actors and actresses. Most of those hardly got out of high school, yet lecture men with Phd’s about how they are wrong.
First, computers model. They have modeled dozens, perhaps hundreds of different climate models and then compiled them all one on the other for a composite graph. The every notion the models may vary by 5% or more, begs the question. Has the mean annual world wide temperature varied by 5%? No. It means the variation in nature is less than the margin of error of the models. Thus nature is well within the margin of error. OTOH, daily, weekly, monthly variation can be substantial.
Second, most damning, is the failure of predictions. James Hansen predicted Manhattan would be awash in water by 2000 plus a host of other claims of reaching a tipping point. Ehrlich, author of the Population Bomb, in the 1960s claimed Britain would not exist by 2000. Others predicted the Arctic to be ice free by 2014, there would be no snow in Europe, on and on. None of this is true. And the changes in temperatures are so small, it is incredible to think it would have an huge consequence on wildfire, floods, hurricanes, or drought, all which has been claimed to be the result of climate change.
In the 1950s atomic bomb testing in Nevada was blamed for drought in the region, never mind the endlessly long history of drought in the greater Southwest, including a 70 year drought in the Pueblos of the Four Corners that sent the Anasazi elsewhere. People are simply geared to blame weather events upon the flimsiest links to human activity.
For a brief exploration of how Dr. Hansen’s predictions have held up…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
Finally, more and more evidence is that the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun has a huge impact upon temperature and that varies not only annually, but over a long period of time, but cyclically. And carbon dioxide is not the climate control knob. Water vapor overwhelms any small contribution of carbon dioxide.
And on a practical matter, Bjorn Lomberg, a liberal economist, points out that the huge sums of money spent of achieving a very limited if even measurable impact upon temperature, would be better spent on education and vaccination in the third world. Too true.