Scott Adams has asked climate sceptic Tony Heller for his top five reasons for disbelieving that there’s any real threat from global warming. He wants to be persuaded one way or the other about it. And he’s proposing a kind of “trial” in which the arguments and counterarguments are put forward one by one.
Adams says he’s genuinely undecided on the matter, because he thinks that “both sides seem to be lying”.
And Tony Heller has duly come up with this five top arguments against climate alarmism:
1. Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather. This concept is deeply rooted in human nature, and has its roots in ancient stories of giant floods, famines and plagues – caused (of course) by man’s sins. Climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, and pushing the same idea of extreme weather and floods caused by mankind’s carbon sins.
2. Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world’s millions of scientists.
3. Academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades. All have failed miserably, yet they keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again. Had their forecasts been correct, we wouldn’t be here now to have this discussion.
4. Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people. The graphs are generated through scientifically corrupt processes of data tampering and hiding data.
5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless. They were made without consulting engineers, and have zero chance of success. A robust discussion about our energy future is needed, but that discussion is censored in favor of propaganda.
None of these arguments addresses the science. In sum, they would seem to all boil down to saying: Don’t believe a few self-styled experts. I’ve said as much myself quite often.
But is that persuasive enough to ignore the climate alarmists? I’m not sure that it is.
I think the reasons that I’m unpersuaded by the climate alarmists are:
- Climate alarmism is highly politicised. Who has been the principal protagonist of climate alarmism? Al Gore. And Al Gore is a politician. He’s a one-time US vice-president. I more or less always discount what politicians say, even if I generally agree with them. If you want to lose credibility, become a politician.
- I’ve always found it hard to believe that CO2, which only exists in the atmosphere in a few hundred parts per million, could exert a controlling influence on the Earth’s climate. It sounds to me like homeopathy. Homeopathic practitioners repeatedly dilute medications, believing this will make them more potent. And CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have homeopathic concentrations.
- Climategate. And “hiding the decline.” The climate scientists lost a lot of their credibility in 2009 when a lot of emails between them were published. They may have lost all credibility.
- In my personal experience the world doesn’t seem to be any warmer than it was 71 years ago when I first arrived in it.
- Climate alarmism is a synonym for global warming alarmism, We’re told that the world is getting warmer, and the poles are going to melt, and there’ll be 60 m flooding. But over the past 10 years ago I’ve begun to think that it’s far more likely that we’re going to experience an ice age fairly soon, given the historical record that has been found in the Vostok and EPICA ice cores (at right, click to enlarge), which show brief interglacial periods of a few thousand years sandwiched between 100,000 year periods of glaciation. If we’re going to be alarmed about anything, shouldn’t it be this?
I’ll be interested in whether any climate alarmist scientists pick up Scott Adams’ challenge. I bet they don’t. Al Gore for one will never debate anybody. So I suspect that Adams’ “jury trial” will only see evidence presented for the sceptical position.