Introduction

Climate Change is a bit of a catch all term, and is kept purposefully vague to make it irrefutable. To combat this, I will be speaking towards the layman's understanding of Climate Change that is frequently propagated. The main tenet is that climate is largely influenced not just by human activity, but specific human activities. Thus, if we alter human behavior, we can drastically alter how the climate is changing.

Note, this makes it insufficient to merely point out that temperature trends exist. You must establish a causal relationship, specifically disproving any mere correlation. The end goal is a model with proper predictive power given the set of starting parameters that does not require constant manual/subjective corrections to remain accurate, as the quality of any scientific endeavor is its ability to describe the world.

Now, I could actually not bother with all of this. If Climate Change is truly a doomsday scenario caused by humans, we are pretty much already doomed and there is nothing we can do to stop it. But that wouldn't make for a very interesting blog, and I think this subject deserves a more thorough deconstruction.

With all that said, let's begin.

Part 1: The snowjob

So, to start… the climate change consensus among scientists is a complete lie, and irrelevant to begin with.

First… consider the phrase “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real”. There are a whole host of problems with this. First, the survey was conducted very poorly, and the number was likely lower. But that’s the most minor of concerns, considering how else this stat is wrong. Second, Climate Scientists are more likely to agree that climate change is real given the fact that it is real and man made has a direct effect on their income. This makes them very biased. Meanwhile, non climate change scientists would naturally be less informed on the issue, and would general follow popular consensus. Third, and most significantly…

Since when is science governed by popular consensus?

The entire premise of science is objective research, not assuming any conclusion is true based on what other people have said about it. This was a major point of contention I had in my intellect signaling blog; far too many people spout mainstream scientific opinions as if it makes them smart, not realizing it means the opposite. It makes them group thinkers, pushing that same group think out to the masses. It’s quite a bit different if they include sources, outline their reasoning, and present conclusions… but the people I classify as intellect signalers don’t do this. They push a theory they did not make, and then appeal to the authorities they are citing when others disagree with them. That’s not science, that’s propaganda. It borders on blind religious faith.

Frankly, the dissent of man-made climate change is alive and well. With politicians pushing more and more extreme fixes for the changing climate, and people having their reputations assassinated, I presume there is probably quite a bit more disagreement than is actually visible. Again, consensus doesn’t affect the actual truth, so this is more of a sidenote…

Now, I was recently informed of a Steven Goddard, one of the scientists that disagree with the Climate Change agenda. I have hardly done an extensive background check on him, as I’m not equipped to do such a thing. I will provide a link to his website, and explain what I know as best I can. As always, you should take what someone says on the internet with a grain of salt, and even more so when they are a degree removed from the subject(I am talking about someone else who talks about climate change). I’ve already viewed a couple smear pieces on Steven, but none of them appear to truly debunk him as thoroughly as he has sourced his own findings.

On his site, among other things, he talks about several issues with the science as it is presented in mainstream media. To be rather simplistic and general, there has been a lot of shady dealings with old data being deliberately altered to insinuate there is a trend upward. He outlines several examples of this occurring, with links to original sources. He also outlines several instances of people using this bad data to make bad models which do not have predictive power; which is, quite frankly, the end goal of science. To make models that accurately reflect reality. He also outlines several instances of how and why politicians benefit from these doomsday predictions in trying to gain more control over the population. But this kind of activity is hardly limited to climate science, as I will show in my next example.

Admittedly a very right leaning source, but this story can be confirmed through other avenues. I just found his hysterical laughing to be worth including this specific clip.

What we can see in this video is several patently absurd and poorly sourced papers making their way through the peer review process. In fact, this was so effective and became such a scandal, the authors of these bogus papers are facing legal action from academic institutions. Now, I don’t think this means that all peer review is completely wrong, only that you can skirt rigorous peer review if you produce research agreeing with a political agenda. Anything that does not agree with the peer reviewer will be subject to more scrutiny. That is why the whistleblowers in the video posted videos espousing far left talking points about rape culture, body positivity, and lgbt rights. They knew academia was overwhelmingly to the left, and thus were able to literally publish a feminist version of Mein Kampf as an academic paper with the peer reviewers none the wiser.

Finally, and for what I believe is the biggest reason for general public belief in man made climate change… the media. But for that, let’s just get right into the next section, as it is related.

Part 2: The inconvenient truth(s)

The media really likes to talk about climate change, showing pictures of melting polar ice caps and cute animals as they move closer to endangered or extinction status. But their bias, like academia, is incredibly strong.

When there is a tornado, they talk about how climate change causes this kind of weather. I don’t think I really need to source this that heavily, as I think most people have seen this at least once in the news. When there is a heatwave or extreme storm, the story is very frequently used to bring up talks on climate change.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-tornadoes-form-climate-change-may-make-tornadoes-stronger/

However, when the reverse happens… i.e., the recent polar vortex which goes against the idea of global warming(currently being referred to as climate change, because before that it was global cooling, and they must have grown tired of switching back and forth), they either correctly point out that “weather” can be separate from “climate”, or they still blame it on global warming. This can be frustrating once you notice it, as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Higher temperatures? Global warming. Extreme weather? Global warming. Lower temperatures? Global warming. More moderate temperatures? I kid you not… they call it a global warming hiatus. Yes, this has happened multiple times. Oh, wait… I forgot again. It’s called climate change, not global warming or cooling. Silly me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

But let’s ignore these weaselly tactics for a moment. Let’s talk about what the core claim of climate change is; that human activity is causing the majority of the change, especially through carbon output.

Now, there are several problems with this. One, carbon dioxide is just another gas, and it is one in a dynamic equilibrium with plants(credit to a different minds user for introducing me to the concept, as I realized it applies very well here). Basically, if carbon dioxide levels decrease, plant growth is also able to increase. In turn, the increased number of plants can consume more carbon dioxide. This reduces the carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, it is more logical that carbon dioxide levels will level out rather than increasing out of control, as climate change supporters suggest it does alongside the rising heat levels. The main concern presented by climate change is a rapid acceleration of temperatures rather than a self correcting equilibrium as it is more likely to be.

Probably the single biggest issue with climate change as it is normally presented is the idea that this one thing, human burning of fossil fuels, is the main cause. We have an entire world without an easy way to isolate variables by using control groups. This makes the science more of a guessing game than anything else, as we work backwards from a temperature to guess what may have caused it. Volcanoes produce carbon dioxide, and many of them are underwater. Animals(which includes humans) also generate heat just by being alive. Cows specifically(honestly not sure about other animals, as in how they compare) produce a substantial amount of methane. The sun, with solar flare activity creating more radiation, is cited as having an effect on temperature. Even clouds forming can have a significant impact on temperature by reflecting sunlight back away from Earth. None of these things we have an easy control over, nor do we have an easy way to test all these variables with certainty. This makes any sort of objective experimentation extremely imprecise.

With all of that said… it’s time to engage in a little devil advocacy. Let’s presume that Climate Change is completely real, and take a look at the proposed solutions.

Part 3: My inner project manager.

Believe it or not, I’ve been in leadership positions before. Sometimes in an informal context, and a couple times in a professional context. Though the situations vary, we can abstract them all to be more or less considered a project. We have a desired end result, with many of the specifics up in the air. We have a group of people and some amount of other resources at our disposal, such as time and money.

So, let’s treat fixing Climate Change as a project. For arguments sake, let’s assume that human activity can and does affect the climate. What are the currently proposed solutions?

Well, the main one is the burning of fossil fuels, and thus we need to use renewable energy sources and avoid using cars. But given that the high capacity batteries used in hybrid and electric cars are even worse for the environment in terms of impact, switching to those is counterproductive. High speed rails will similarly take a large amount of initial resources that will create pollution, so unless we are willing to break our commitment to reducing pollution, we can’t go with that either. This also means getting rid of all cars, trains, airplanes, etc. That’s already an incredibly high price to pay, but let’s say that everyone is able to adapt their lives to not require long distance travel. Maybe with exemption to foreign leaders, since a small number of people still having a car and plane could be considered a negligible impact. It doesn’t stop there, as electricity is generated via pollution generating methods as well.

So, electrical usage must also be curtailed significantly. Hard limits would be placed on how much electricity can be consumed by each person, depending on the capacity of renewable energy. That means you will no longer just be paying for electricity, you will be restricted in how much you are allowed to consume, even if you are willing to pay extra. This would be an absolutely enormous extension of government power, and could potentially instigate a civil war. One that is harder to win against an armed population and a military that might be more sympathetic to their fellow citizen, given how America was built on cherished ideals of freedom and liberty. So, while this could all be completely reversed right at its implementation, let’s just assume that civil war doesn’t happen, or that it is unsuccessful.

Consider this cost. It is astronomical. Cars are basically gone, electricity itself heavily regulated. Curfews might be enacted, as the new government power would allow such decree. And at this point, with all of this occurring, we may need to go to war with other countries to have them adopt similar practices, given America isn't even the largest contributor to pollution. So, perhaps we should change civil war to world war 3. Sound a bit hyperbolic? I’m not sure it is. Even best case scenario is a situation where our technological capabilities are rolled back centuries, and individual freedom is almost completely stomped out.

That’s more or less the Green New Deal, though I deliberately left out some of the more ridiculous proposals, such as refurbishing every single building in the United States and providing a wage to those UNWILLING to work. But this solution is just so… terrible. With the full explanation as to why that proposal is so terrible and would likely cause massive suffering(while mainly just staving off the effects of Climate Change rather than stopping it) out of the way, let’s look at an alternate proposal.

We could instead erect white sheets in expansive urban areas to reflect portions of sunlight respective to how much we wish to cool the Earth. Several ideas come to mind, such as weather balloons attach to the four corners along with some counterbalances to keep it from tumbling over or getting too folded up. In flatter areas, we could simply setup massive numbers of tents, and local communities could likely handle this without requiring much funding. Additionally, floating rafts on the ocean could also reflect sunlight, helping to cool the ocean’s temperature. Am I completely sure this will work? Well, not completely, but I think a version of this plan could work. Even painting all roofs white would likely contribute, and doing this in enough places would have a measurable effect.

You might say my alternate plan is silly, but it has one benefit. It doesn’t entirely destroy the economy and enshrined rights to personal freedom. Additionally, it is combating a force directly and can thus be tuned as needed to match the necessary amount of cooling. If this was properly managed, we could run the climate almost like a thermostat. But this plan is really just an example of the way we have always handled issues. Not by changing our environment, but by interacting with it.

When it’s raining, we don’t look into how to make it stop raining. We look into how we can remedy the effects. Thus, we use umbrellas. When we are hungry, we don’t immediately look into how we can get rid of hunger as a reoccurring problem intrinsic to our humanity, we look to obtain food as well as ensure we will have access to food in the future. When I hear Climate Change, I don’t immediately think about how we can reverse the changes in the climate itself. I think about how we can adapt to the climate in a realistic manner.

That’s the problem I have with most Climate Change solutions. The cost is ridiculously high, and they wave it off by saying it is an existential threat. Well, let’s say the sun is setting while you and a group of people are trapped in the wilderness, and you know predators roam at night. One person in your group suggests you build a complete house from the ground up, as that will provide proper shelter from predators. Another suggests you take refuge in a cave and barricade the entrance. Given you only have until sunset, the reasonable people will agree to seek shelter in the less comfortable cave. If you try to build a full house, you will not be able to complete it, and will be eaten by predators inside your incomplete house. If you hide in the cave and barricade the entrance, you might not be as comfortable as staying in a fully furnished house. But the house simply can’t be built with available resources or time, so it was never really a choice to begin with.

Conclusion

I’m not against climate research. I just find the current state of it to be highly politicized, and thus motivated by unscientific goals.

I’m also not against controlling pollution. Pollution is something with much more direct effects than Climate Change, and if we can find a way to cut down on it, I’m willing to listen. But pollution is a tradeoff, a cost associated with generating energy or other goods, and getting rid of all pollution would cause other kinds of the human suffering such an act would seek to prevent.

I’m also not against debate on this issue. I’m against the constant demeaning of detractors as unscientific despite the fact that group think is the very essence of being unscientific. There are two sides, and both sides have evidence. To suggest this issue has already been settled is a complete lie told by those who do not want to face criticism, and who do not practice proper science.

One final note. Similar to the climate change argument, there was an argument made in the past against population growth, one whose conclusions were mirrored in Avengers: Infinity War as the motivation for the main antagonist Thanos. The assertion is that resources deplete as populations grow, and there is a critical mass during which resources run out and the civilization collapses entirely. Academic papers were published that were praised for seeing this future reality, and suggesting that something must be done to avoid this reality(which Thanos sought to do by killing half of all life). However, that reality never materialized. In fact, the exact opposite is what really happens. Human suffering actually decreases as populations grow, as more people means more specialization and more creative technological advances that increase our ability to make use of our resources. Economy, trade, and wealth are not a simple zero sum game.

People can and will believe a lie simply because it sounds plausible. That’s why group think and alienation of unpopular ideas is incredibly dangerous. That is also why science is all about objectively testing popular hypotheses to see if they have merit, or if they only appear to have merit.