I would be weary by now of being declared a climate change denier if not for the fact that I typically do not value the opinions of those who attempt to just hand out labels of derision upon others in lieu of using well researched facts to convince people of their errors. Call me what you like, being called names can be a badge of honor. Call me names, and I might ignore you, but give me facts, and I will listen - just make sure your facts are really facts, not talking points from some group or guru with an agenda.

First off, regarding climate change, fine, I am not a denier. The climate does change. If the climate did not change, we might be living in an ice age still, and if it does change, we might live in one again!

If I am a denier, it is denying several things. For example, I am not convinced yet that we know enough about climate science to be making scary predictions that call for huge changes in our habits, though I do believe we should take the issue seriously and learn what we can about it, and then act in accordance with what we discover.

I am also not convinced that if there is a problem with the climate or that mankind is the cause, though I do believe that the population of the world is large and the demand for high standards of living combine to provide a credible threat that needs attention.

I also am not remotely convinced that we live in the perfect climate now. Maybe it is great, maybe cooler would be better, maybe warmer would be better. How do we know what is optimum, and should we be messing with trying to achieve that? The earth has been warmer in the past, and colder in the past, so what is the panic about?

People say "I believe the science". That is fine. I depend on science being right. When I walk into a room, I turn on the light switch because I have faith that the science is correct, and the light will turn on.

Do I believe science? Sure I do. Science is knowledge. What I do not always believe is scientists. Scientists are just like me. They are human. Humans make mistakes. 

Did you know that prior to the 20th century, it was common among the science community to believe that the universe had no beginning, that it was infinitely old?  Well they have since changed their mind. Instead we have a big bang theory!

Did you know that there was a time, when scientists believed that people could not determine the direction of the source of a sound? I find that one absurd, because pretty much everyone experiences turning toward the source of a sound by instinct. We have left and right channels on our stereos, precisely because we can hear direction! You probably don't believe me since the notion is so dumb that people cannot determine the direction of a sound by listening. The point is that as I said, scientists are humans, and humans can be wrong. Being a scientist does not make one right all the time.

Scientists (and other people) are inclined to be influenced in their beliefs and assumptions by the people they admire and trust. That might be their government, their parents, their spouse, their boss, their professors, or the agency paying the grant they received to study a certain topic.

To illustrate what I mean by the last thing about grant money (or other forms of support for research) I am going to use a ridiculous, made up example, because it works for the purposes of illustration.

Suppose I were to offer 1 million dollars for evidence that plastic straws are endangering the wild sea turtle population. There might be some takers on that. Some of them would be very professional and do a good job. The best researchers will find the truth, and report their findings. If sea turtles are endangered by plastic straws, then evidence will likely be found and reported.

However, as I said, people are human, and some humans are dishonest. Someone could go out and find a sea turtle, and use an adhesive to glue a straw into a turtles' nostril, and perhaps even do things to cause that to become infected. "Here is my report, and here are the photos, now where is my 1 million dollars?"

Now, if a researcher discovered that straws attract mates, and because of straws sea turtles are multiplying, would that person get money for that? In my opinion, they would not. Would their findings get publicized? I doubt it.

Now, they could let the Plastic Straw Manufacturers Research Foundation know about that, and perhaps they could get a grant there!

This sort of thing, the "Who is behind the money?", is worth considering.

I started this to be about the climate change issue. Returning to that context, we could note that the petro-chemical / fossil fuels industry, might like to discover it their products are a danger to the climate as many say they are. They would of course be thrilled to discover that their products even help the environment and climate situation.

Now in the history of the climate change debate, it was once referred to as global warming. This was largely brought to the attention of the world due to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. They helped to get that bandwagon started, and in hindsight, I think they were off base.

As a political conservative (as they were) it pains me to admit that conservatives can be wrong. Back in those days, I read a book called Climate and the Affairs of Men. One of the co-authors was a guy named Iben Browning. I became sort of a disciple of his, subscribing to his newsletter. I have been watching the global warming issue  since the 1980s when most people then did not even know there was an issue.

Back in the days of the hippies (I was there) the end of the world was being predicted because humans are bad for the ecology, and mother earth would not tolerate us forever.

There was a Stanford University biology professor who claimed it was too late to avoid the extended world wide famine that would be the most disastrous ever, and it would come by 1975.

In the 1970s, the big deal was going to be an ice age by the 21st Century, I am still waiting!

I recall when we were panicked by the hole in the ozone layer. That resulted in some UN resolution or something, that I think may have been the only one where the whole world agreed! The Ozone Hole is mostly gone now, but I will admit that it is possible that the actions of the world to reduce chemicals that contribute to ozone destruction may have been effective. However, a hole in the ozone lets more ultraviolet light through. Ultraviolet light reacts with oxygen, to produce ozone, so maybe it is a cycle that heals itself. I sure do not know, but I am not sure anyone else does either. It did not escape my notice, that the ozone hole was in the Southern hemisphere, while most of the polution was in the northern hemisphere. There might be a good explantation for than, but it made me go "hmmm".

Let's see, what else was there? Acid rain! That was going to kill the fish in our lakes and such, and strip the paint off of our cars and houses, and ruin the soil Ph for farmers. Again, a no show. However, it is true that paint jobs on cars do not last like they used to, but that is because we made automotive paint more environmentally friendly. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I sure wish we had better paint, maybe the scientists will think of something.

In 1988, the Maldives (Islands) were going to be completely underwater by 2018. Guess what, they're still there! At the same time, it was predicted that they would have no drinking water there, by 1992. That also has not happened! Go figure!

In 1988, a NASA scientist (Jim Hansen) testified before congress about the green house gas effect. Over the years Mr. Hansen has produced a great many graphs, showing us from computer modeling all of the things that would happen due to Global Warming. I do not think a single thing he has ever said on the topic has come to pass, though I may be wrong. In any case his track record is so miserable, I do not know why anyone ever would quote him as an expert, and if not for the fact that he was a government employee, he likely would have lost his job to to incompetence in my opinion. In 1989 he said the West Side Highway (AKA the Joe DiMaggio Hwy in New York City) would be underwater.

https://worthychristianforumscore-h45go6maxh5rpepgu.netdna-ssl.com/uploads/monthly_2021_08/wsh.jpg.08b90fefeb9ef50adce8fece3026778f.jpg

It looks ok to me!

In March of 2000, the Independent (A British Newspaper) proclaimed that snowfalls are now just a thing of the past, and children will not even know what snow is.

Now the Guardian (another British Newspaper) said in 2002, that "Britain will have a Siberian climate in less that 20 years". Now, for those that think that will be the case, you should buy stock in companies that make warm clothing.

In 2008, Global Warming genius Al Gore told us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013! Again, last I knew, the polar ice cap is still there! In case I missed it (maybe I am behind the times since I pay little attention to the news) please let me know if I am wrong!

There have been others, and there have been worse. However, is it really any wonder why there are those of us who are skeptical of the media, academics, scientists, and governments? The real question should be (I think):

"Considering this track record, why do rational people believe any of this?"

It is it just that too many of us are irrational and too lazy to check facts and keep the memory of all the failed predictions?

As it happens, I can recall seeing a documentary (or was it propaganda?) in the 1990's called "The Greening of Planet Earth. As I recall, it was mostly about how more CO2 means more plant life, whether it be wild plants or crops, and therefore cheaper fruits and vegetables, and less malnutrition worldwide, that sort of spin. 

Were the facts true? I don't know, that is not my expertise. What I did notice though was that there was a lot of reaction in the form of "You cannot trust this, it was funded by the coal industry!"

That argument is worth considering, as there was a motivation to find benefit is rising atmospheric CO2 levels. However, just because those who produced the film had a vested interest in getting a better reputation for CO2, it does not follow that the facts presented were not true. maybe they were. What I do know is true, is that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is naturally occurring (we exhale it ourselves) and it is a benefit, a nutrient to plant life. Life depends on it. Humans (and other animals) are either eat plants, or they eat animals that eat plants, CO2 is important. More CO2 causes food plants to produce more and bigger fruits and vegetables which mature faster. Plants, in consuming CO2 for photosynthesis, produce as a "waste product", oxygen. We breathe oxygen. I want the plants to have CO2 so I can have oxygen!

It is disingenuous, even deceitful, when people and institutions show photos and videos of car exhausts and factory smokestacks "spewing forth pollution". 

Type CO2 into Google Images and see what you get! <-That is a link if you want to see!

CO2 is invisible, you cannot see it, it is just as transparent as air on a remote mountain top. I wish they could stick to facts and cease trying to appeal to emotions, especially the emotion of fear that they are intentionally causing.

I have wanted for a long time, to have an aquarium with plant life, augmented by adding that extra 'pollutant', CO2!

https://worthychristianforumscore-h45go6maxh5rpepgu.netdna-ssl.com/uploads/monthly_2021_08/co2tank.jpg.b5c4d76d022788ed46ca49dc278d4564.jpg

Aquarium with the deadly CO2 added!

Bottom line for me, yes, I believe in science, I just distrust scientists who are not critical thinkers and who have an agenda apart from facts and who operate outside of their current understanding. I especially an not fond of how many scientists who opine on this issue, which is outside of their expertise. How much should we care if an expert in toenail fungus, is certain that the climate is changing dangerously? Do we go to an astrophysicist, to learn how to clean up an oil spill? You get the idea!

This is just a blog. That means it is my thoughts, they may not be accurate, but to the best of my knowledge, they are. You do not have to like it, you do not have to agree. I am not even out to change anyone's mind. However, I do hope you might have learned something you did not know, and perhaps have at least thought about it a bit.

Thanks for reading my long winded expression!