Why I’m A Denier (Hint: Because It’s Crap)

Why I’m A Denier (Hint: Because It’s Crap)

Given that it’s Earth Day, I thought I’d re-release an article I wrote about four years ago explaining why I’m a global warming skeptic.

Originally published June 10, 2011 in Front Page Magazine.

 

Why I’m A Global Warming Skeptic

By Evan Sayet

Let’s begin by acknowledging that the science of global warming is beyond the vast majority of us.  Nonetheless, this does not mean we turn off our brains and simply accept the pronouncements of those sounding the alarm and offering their remedies.  I am a global warming skeptic (to say the least) specifically because I have thought through the issue and the claims of the alarmists just don’t add up.  What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.

First, I am skeptical because skepticism is the scientific starting point.  Not cynicism but skepticism.  This is especially true when the remedy being proposed is so drastic — in this case requiring the near-total dismantling of society as we know it.

I am not overly impressed by talk of a “consensus” as there are enough good and serious scientists who reject the claims of the alarmists to make the pronouncement of “consensus” simply untrue. Besides, every wrong theory that had previously been embraced by society – such as the “fact” that the world is flat – was embraced by a “consensus” of scientists at the time and obviously that consensus was very wrong.

My skepticism is only increased with the knowledge that the science of climatology is relatively new, little tested and since its claims about consequences are decades and even centuries in the future, never proven by having had their predictions come true.  In fact, many of the alarmists’ most hyped claims have been proved by time to be patently wrong.  As one leading alarmist wrote in an email he thought would remain private, global warming has been on a fifteen year hiatus that he felt needed to be covered-up.

My skepticism of this new science is furthered even more by the knowledge that the “facts” upon which their models are created are based almost entirely on numbers that are not easily verified and which require great speculation to determine.  If these “facts” are wrong then the models are useless (to say the least.)  Remember, the whole global-warming theory is based on only a couple of degrees of change over many millennia. Do scientists really know what the temperature was in northeast Siberia in the year 802?  Do they really know that number down to a single fraction of a degree?  I’m skeptical and you should be, too.

My confidence in the conclusion of these alarmist scientists is further weakened because I’ve been here before.  For as long as I can remember the “experts” – many the very same people pushing global warming hysteria today – have been predicting one ecological disaster after another.  In the 1970s and virtually every year afterwards, we were doomed – doomed!!! – to global cooling, global wetting, global drying, mass starvation, acid rain, an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS, Mad Cow and, just the other day, a deadly pandemic of Swine Flu.  Alarmism seems to be a tactic employed by scientists to draw attention to their causes, garner major funding and make a name for themselves and hyped by a willing news (and publishing) media because hysteria sells.

My trust in the conclusions of the alarmists is even further diminished by the unscientific methods the alarmists are using in their efforts.  Not only are we now privy to leaked documents emailed back-and-forth between those at the head of the “climate change” research detailing the destruction of their work and their underhanded methods of preventing Freedom of Information laws to allow others to double-check their supposed findings, but the campaign to slander other scientists – those whose work sheds doubt on the alarmists’ claims – reeks of the kind of cowardice shown by those who know they are lying.  Slander is not a scientific practice.  Dubbing anyone who challenges their hysterical campaign as being like Holocaust deniers is an ad hominem attack with no scientific merit.  In fact, it is anti­-scientific, a means to discredit the man rather than the answering the opposing science.

Another of the alarmists’ ad hominem attacks – that anyone who questions their conclusions has been bought off by “big oil” (as Al Gore proclaimed in his testimony before Congress) – is not only a lie but a completely illogical claim.  Whatever grant money a scientist may receive from the “evil” folks at Exxon/Mobil, etc. is nothing next to the tens of millions of dollars pocketed by folks like Al Gore.  If one believes that all questions can be answered by “following the money,” then the scientist with a fifty-thousand dollar research grant from “big oil” (who must then weather the hate-mongering of the global warming establishment, put his job at risk and condemn both himself and everyone he knows and loves to a global catastrophe unequaled in human history) is not the guy to be questioning.  If the “denier” is lying, he dies.  If Al Gore is lying he gets to live into a ripe old age spending millions, jet-setting around the globe and showing off his Oscar and his Nobel Prize to the beautiful people in Hollywood and Cannes.  If science is to be determined by who has the more obvious motive, it’s pretty clear that the Al Gores are the ones who are lying.

And it sure doesn’t do much to bring me to the alarmist’s side to witness Mr. Gore (and his fellow “scientists”) flying all over the world in private jets, caravanning with his entourage in gas-guzzling SUVs (leaving the motors running so that when they return the temperature will be in their “comfort zone”) and spewing pollution from his mansion at rates many times that  of the average citizen he and his ilk so disparage for their “consumption.”  If Mr. Gore (et al) truly believed that catastrophe was imminent, one would suspect he would attempt to lead by example, not luxuriate in his newly-gained and fabulous riches while screaming “the world will end tomnorrow!!!”

I also recognize as unscientific the creation of and adoration for Mr. Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.  This film, produced by Laurie David (ex-wife of Seinfeld creator Larry David), is filled with “facts” well-known to be (and acknowledged as such even by scientists employed in the making of the movie) hyperbolic at best and often out-and-out lies. That this is “documentary” – created by a D student in earth science and a Hollywood leftist whose greatest prior accomplishment was marrying a very funny man – is the “educational” tool being used to promote hysteria speaks volumes about how little there is to be truthfully said.  The fact that those who continue to promote this propaganda effort, fully aware of the half-truths and out-right lies, makes clear that science (i.e. truth) is not, to them, sacrosanct.  When scientists recognize that they cannot use the science to prove their science then, well, it’s probably not science.

Nor does the campaign to brainwash small children – frighten them – with a propaganda film do much to earn my confidence.  Leave the children alone.  When scientists recognize that they can’t win the day with adults so they attack small children with fear-mongering, chances are good the science isn’t.

And just as their “science” fills me with doubts and their methods increase my skepticism, so too does their proposed remedy. Under the Kyoto Protocol the most egregious polluters get to continue to pollute unabated while some of the most ecologically advanced nations face draconian punishment.  If we were really as close to doom as the hysterics attempt to convince our children, everyone would be asked to sacrifice.  Instead, it seems that the “remedy” being proposed is really nothing more than your usual Leftist efforts to redistribute wealth along the lines of an affirmative action program.  Successful nations will be shackled, failed nations will be rewarded and, well, think global socialism and suddenly the Kyoto Protocols make sense.

And lo and behold, the very same folks who are screaming “the world will end tomorrow” and then destroying the evidence, pocketing millions, flying around the globe to pick up their rewards and honors are exactly the same people who support every other leftist, socialist, punish-the-successful/reward-the-failure policy.

No matter how you look at the issue – which is why the alarmists are so determined to never allow you to actually look at the issue – anyone who thinks must be skeptical of the claims of the hysterics.  The science is new, its models based on utterly unverifiable numbers (i.e. the temperature in Guam in the year 8), the accuracy of its long term predictions obviously impossible to know, its short-term predictions having utterly failed to come to be (e.g. that decade-and-a-half long hiatus in global warming.)  The behaviors of the hysterical scientists are unscientific, the behavior of the hysteric’s favorite celebrities contradictory to those someone who truly believed would be engaging in.  If you follow the money it is almost entirely into the pockets of the hysterics while the proposed “remedy” does not seem to be those that would be proposed by people who believed the end is near.  In fact, what the remedy does suggest – what the entire industry of the hysterics suggests – is that “manmade global warming” is a leftist farce being perpetrated by cynics who recognize there’s riches to be had, along with power and fame.

 

Evan Sayet is the author of the bestselling book The KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks.  His lectures to the Heritage Foundation and the Conservative Forum are legendary and are, in fact, by far the most viewed and shared talks in each of their histories.  Evan is also considered by many to be the nation’s leading political satirist.  You can get tickets to see Evan on tour in Phoenix, Chicago, Boston and New York by clicking the appropriate city.


Subscribe to Get More of Evan!

⇦ Grateful for America (not so much for France) ⇨ Evan returns to Phoenix February 17th

  • Freedom?

    I’m a denier because it just isn’t true, as even the scientists who do the climate research said themselves.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Not “denier–” SKEPTIC.
      When sketicism is called denial, the science becomes superstition.

      • Bill Jeffs

        Politicians are using the word “denier”…..and criminalizing it. Skepticism is the theory that certain knowledge is impossible….but politicians don’t like using that word…sounds too honest, something they aren’t.

  • Mavin Swapp

    Yes, most scientists agree that the earth has been warming, but only 0.3%
    of climate scientists agree that people are the cause. Not one scientist has
    empirical proof that CO2 will cause the earth to warm! The only scientists that
    try to proof CO2 is bad, do it for government money. And please do not talk about pollution at the same time as CO2, CO2 is not a pollution, it is a clear clean gas that is necessary for plants and all life on the planet.
    Everyone wants a clean unpolluted earth, and CO2 does not pollute, but makes a
    clean green earth. Democrats hate green plants, they want to take away the only
    gas, CO2, that plants need to live and grow green. Fact, doubling the CO2
    produces 30% more green plants, plants love CO2.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      The Earth is always either warming or cooling; there’s no such thing as a “stable climate.”
      Therefore one can always claim that the globe warming, by simply selecting a period of history which contains more warming than cooling; just as one can claim that it’s cooling by doing likewise.
      This type of intelletual dishonesty personifies the AGW alarmism, indicating an emotional foundation that selectively cites information to support its narrative, since the raw science does not support the stated conclusion.

  • Observant_One

    The whole nonsense came about because the greedy globalists needed a “‘scientific” reason to create a carbon tax. It’s all BS folks, one good volcanic eruption creates more atmospheric mischief than all the hot air from the global warming lemmings.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      More like communism failed, and so they needed another rainbow to chase in order to maintain power.

  • Arationofreason

    This should not be a ‘denier’ one sided rant, let the advocates have a word and speak for themselves.: (spoiler)

    Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

  • Garwoodv6

    Fantastic presentation, Mr. Sayet!
    A lawyer would have a hard time countering this.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      A GOOD lawyer would never TRY, knowing the burden of proof to lie with the proponent.

  • Garwoodv6
  • Greg Burton

    “What follows is my thinking and what it is that has led me to conclude that global-warming is a leftist farce
    which is being perpetuated for both financial and political reasons.”

    Sorry, Sayet. This is more than a leftist farce. It is a farce, a fraud perpetuated by the Satanic oligarchy now running rough-shod on the planet, using concocted paid for science for a global warming premise, now being re-branded as “climate change” because the Maunder Minimum has become so apparent, that only imbecile would continue to buy the “warmista” crap.

    The fraud being perpetuated conceals the cynical agenda of the oligarchy paying for this science clap-trap: profit and depopulation. Profiting from the people’s of the planet by transferring the economic responsibility for real multinational induced environmental damage to the world (Fukushima, plastic ocean islands, Gulf oil spill), profiting from the privatization of the public’s assets and resources; and depopulation (Global 2000) as the policies engaged by world governments, world bank, and trade organizations to “relieve” this phoney condition will result in increased mortality rates and global genocide.

    This is not a left-right issue, but an issue of the 99.99% versus the 0.01%.

    • moresnare1970

      So, by ‘satanic’ you don’t mean the ‘biblical’ version of ‘satan’, right? I mean, ‘satan’ isn’t real, so, yeah… Most thinking people know that.

      • Greg Burton

        Read this book, make up your own mind. You are surrounded by its imagery, its acolytes, yet you do not see…

    • Sarah Goodwich

      “This is not a left-right issue, but an issue of the 99.99% versus the 0.01%”

      So it IS a left-right issue.

  • RoHa

    I keep seeing this “leftist” label, and it is true that a lot of leftists treat the global warming story as a sacred cow (I’ve no idea why) but it was brought into international prominence by Margaret Thatcher and boosted by ENRON and BP. The policies based on it have made a lot of rich people richer (usually at taxpayer expense), imposed greater burdens on the poor, and left the wretched with even less hope than before. All solid right-wing achievements.

  • Sarah Goodwich

    While I normally ignore idiots, the term “denier” makes my blood boil when used in a so-called “scientific debate.”
    Quite simply: THE SCIENTIFIC BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PROPONENT!

    This 9 little words show that the very use of the term “denier” proves one’s ignorance of not only the science of climate, but science ITSELF; i.e. science does not “deny” ANYTHING, but it either simply supports an alternative hypothesis against a null hypothesis, or it does not.

    Likewise, supporting an alternative hypothesis requires statistical evidence in excess of a clearly-stated margin-for-error.This is similar to the system of jurisprudence; i.e. a null hypothesis is presumed correct unless the alternative hypothesis is proven likely beyond a reasonable margin-for-error, i.e. at least 90%.

    But AGW-proponents don’t want to do this, so they flip science on its head and accuse the scientific method of being some conspiracy; it’s like calling a court a “denier” for not presuming a defendant guilty.

    It seems that education has failed us, and thus the people are led like sheep to the slaughter.
    Or oat-bran.

  • jfmoris110

    When I first studied AGW and concluded it was a scam, I set about a thought experiment – to devise an apparatus to demonstrate the feeble effect of CO2 increases. I am an electronic hobbyist with an interest in instrumentation.

    Too complicated, and it would only convince those who fully understood the physics and electronics of infrared absorption and re-radiation measurement.

    BUT, there IS a simple demonstration available to all: Clear nights cool off rapidly. Cloudy and humid nights hold onto the days heat much longer.
    – Deserts cool off rapidly at night because of the dry air.

    Water vapor is distributed unevenly in the air, but CO2 spreads out evenly. This rapid loss of heat in dry air shows that the effect of water vapor is very significant and the effect of CO2 is trivial.

    The warmists belittle the effect of water vapor by saying the effect of CO2 is a big factor in most of the atmosphere ( by volume, implicitly). The atmosphere extends as much as 62 miles out, but the DENSITY decreases rapidly – this is why the air pressure at 20,000 ft. is half that of sea level. The air at high altitudes is always bitterly cold (even on hot days) because there is very little water vapor above the level of the clouds (max height ~ 25,000 feet). There is nothing but that feeble CO2 effect holding the heat in. This deliberate distortion seems like proof that the informed AGW fanatics are lying, not mistaken

    I think this accounts for the fact that weathermen are so skeptical of AGW – they pay a lot of attention to the weather. Humid = small heat loss, dry = rapid cooling overnight. Most of our large cities are near bodies of water (humid air). If most of our population lived in the desert, this AGW farce would have been laughed out of town quickly.