7 Reasons Why I Don't Trust Climate Change

7. Anecdotal evidence. When it is 70 degrees in the northeast in January, people claim it is global warming. When it is 50 degrees in the southeast in July, people question global warming. Al Gore uses a photo of a polar bear standing on a small floating piece of ice to scare little kids about the future of the earth (and polar bears). I read where they found the photographer who took that photograph. The photographer said that they were surrounded by all kinds of ice. The polar bear was basically on a joy ride, which made for a fun photo. The photographer had no idea that his photo would eventually be used to sell global warming. The reality behind the image would have told the exact opposite story. I remember hearing an 18 year old student from Alaska testifying before Congress a couple years ago. She was in tears because of all the climate change she had witnessed during her lifetime. Are you kidding? That is the kind of testimony being given before Congress? Anecdotal stories should not be used in the selling of global warming.

6. Where is the real science? Actor and activist Ed Begley says we should follow the peer to peer reviews to get the most accurate scientific information about global warming. With the release of the thousands of emails from Climate Change Alarmists (CCA) a couple months ago, it is clear that people with power in the scientific world were out to "politicize" the data and research, even tainting the peer to peer reviews. Scientists with opposing data, research, and analysis were routinely dismissed and trashed. The central tenet of Al Gore's movie was the hockey stick graft, showing a dramatic rise in temperature over the past 100 years, backing his contention that global warming is man made. Without that graft, Al's argument loses a lot of its punch. Many mathematicians and scientists have made their case disputing the data behind that graft. Al refuses to talk about it. The leaked emails seem to indicate a systemic move to block any data or research that would question what the CCA crowd wants to protect. That is not science.

5. Economics. There is the science side of climate change, which has been politicized with suspect data; and then there is the economic side of climate change. The U.S. economy is carbon based. We need energy, good energy, to be productive and prosperous. Right now that energy comes from things like oil, coal, gas and nuclear means. Relying on wind or solar simply won't cut it. The arguments against carbon based energy is that 1) it damages the earth, and 2) in the U.S. we rely too much on foreign sources for our energy. We pay out too much to these other countries. Of course the people who make this argument are the same people who refuse to let us explore and mine our own oil and coal. Imagine what a boon to the economy it would be if we could go after our own resources? I believe one of the things that is holding back our economy is the government and the CCA crowd putting a stop to anything sensible that would free up our energy needs, which gets to the first point, that carbon based energy is damaging the earth. Here it would be nice if the science was reliable. On the contrary the evidence for man made global warming is just not there, at least not to the degree that it should be trusted or that trillions of dollars should be wasted chasing the possibility of making a half of a degree difference. When it comes to spending money, there are certainly much better ways to enhance the quality of lives, or indeed to save lives.

4. So what is "normal"? Normal body temperature is considered to be 98.6 degrees, One of God's imprints on man is that temperature. It doesn't matter where you live or when you lived, your normal body temperature while alive is 98.6. Now there are slight variations, depending on whether the temperature was taken orally or through the ear or through some other means, but a person doesn't have to worry about variations until they are more pronounced. At that point, when you feel awful, a doctor can come in and help diagnose why your temperature is now 104, and hopefully help heal it. So what is the normal temperature of the earth? Climate change alarmists seem to believe that there is such a thing. The problem is 1) there is no normal universal global temperature that fits no matter where or when you live, and 2) even in a static place like Virginia, climate changes day to day, week to week, year to year. This leads to my next point:

3. Climate changes both fast and slow. I certainly can remember times when it was near 70 degrees out one day and the very next day it snowed. On the opposite spectrum, we have not experienced an Ice Age in my lifetime, but in the lifetime of the earth there have been several variations of Ice Ages. Significant climate change can occur over stretches of thousands of years, just as easily as it can occur overnight. Now, let's figure that an Ice Age is not a good thing for humans, but the warming age that follows is good. Now let's imagine that Al Gore was around during the tail end of an Ice Age. Wouldn't we be hearing the exact same message from him: the earth is warming, the ice is melting, the poor polar bears, the world is coming to an end? All of this gets back to my previous point: what is "normal"? Perhaps the earth is warming to a previous normal, or to a new normal. Who are we in the year 2000+ to say that our time in the earth's existence is the correct normal?

2. Evolution? It is at this point that I am mystified by evolution minded people. The basic tenet of evolution is the survival of the fittest. Another tenet is that species adapt to their changing environment, evolving into something else. If the climate is changing, shouldn't we just let evolution take its course? Maybe the evolution gods have something better in mind for us.

1. The debate is over? If I could ask Al Gore one question, it would probably be this: "Please provide us with the transcripts, either from video or audio, of the public peer to peer debates that you and your fellow alarmists have engaged in with those who disagree with your data and the interpretations of that data? As I see it, Al Gore put out a movie that gave his side of the argument. In that movie he used data, research, video and photo images . . many of which have been disputed and/or shown to be false . . to make his case. With the release of the movie Al declared that the debate was over, which was understandable because at that point Al was ready to reap his millions from this "scam". He didn't want to waste valuable time with debates. It was time to cash in while the cash was flowing. I'm thinking those transcripts don't exist, primarily because those debates never occurred. So what exactly is Al talking about when he says the debate is over. What debate? This is where the media has been lazy. I just don't recall witnessing a series of real peer to peer public debates regarding climate change. Al, did I miss something? Please show us the transcripts. I would love to catch up on what apparently many of us missed.