I am a climate skeptic (for lack of a better term) simply because I have considered both sides of the issues of global warming and climate change and have decided that the arguments made in favor of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) or catastrophic global warming are not credible. This is the result of my thinking that much of the arguments making the case for human activity being the predominate cause of global warming and climate change are nothing more than a Leftist fantasies being furthered for political reasons in order to regiment and control people.
Questioning conclusions, however, is the starting point of science. Scientists form hypothesis based on testable data and observation of natural occurrences and then culminate their ideas into written studies that are scrutinized by fellow scientists via the peer-review process. This is the result of criticism, counter points, and alternate observation. I have not ever been impressed with the so-called consensus on global warming especially when Al Gore and (then) California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the debate is over and the science is settled with the help of their friends in the media back in 2005-6 in hopes of being able to silence those who dissent on the issue.
My confidence in climate alarmists was further diminished when I saw how they intentionally lied in areas of research as highlighted by the Climategate scandal. That incident demonstrated how scientists associated with the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit not only manipulated research data but also intentionally destroyed their work. The CRU scientists also knowingly attempted to undermine Freedom of Information efforts to have access to their findings so as to avoid scrutiny of their work while slandering scientists who dissent which is a practice that continues to this day. Such activities to destroy another person's reputation while avoiding review of their formulas and hypothesis reeks not only of cowardice but shows that people who conduct themselves this way avoid reality by lying which they know inside the depths of their soul they are wrong. According to basic physics increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) warms the Earth's surface in which the effect is tantamount to each doubling of carbon dioxide increases in global temperatures by a fixed amount of 1.1 degrees centigrade per doubling all else being equal.
There is no doubt among climate scientists about the increases in carbon dioxide. In a system as complicated as the Earth's climate, however, all else is never equal. The warming caused by increased CO2 results in other changes to the planet's climate system that add to or counteract warming. The argument between climate skeptics and alarmists is whether the net effect of changes in carbon dioxide is if they increase or decrease warming and by how much. The entire debate on the issue of global warming and climate change is about the size and direction of the feedback loops which is an increase or a decrease of a weather-related events resulting from temperature elevation.
In 2001, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (aka IPCC) issued it's Third Assessment Report which stated that feedback loops were adding to the warming (positive) and the effects would multiply the warming three to six times the 1.1 degree centigrade. The three to six estimate came from the UN as per unvalidated computer models which are not evidence and the organization's assessment was later invalidated due to multiple errors. Climate skeptics state that the IPCC has never presented evidence to justify the conclusion that the multiplier is three to six times the 1.1 degree centigrade and some predictions that we should have already seen have not come to fruition.
Recently there have been mathematical and even climate observation arguments that the feedback multiplier can't be much over one times the fixed 1.1. If the feedback loop multipliers were as high as six we would have weather catastrophes. But they are not that high which is why we are not. Some of the consequential changes from warming or increased CO2 are beneficial. For example, as a result of CO2 increases have resulted in major increases in crop yields which means upticks in the food supply. Forest growth is up worldwide in which trees are growing at a faster rate than ever and more algae is present in oceans which means more fish are being produced. Of course, CO2 increases have resulted in reduced storm activity too.
Though not all of the effects of increased CO2 are beneficial the alarmists are claiming that increased carbon dioxide is all bad but if the above examples I list point out it clearly is not. The most important point about this whole issue is not about the climate at all but political control. Back in the 1970's, Dr. James Hansen went on record stating that the Earth was on the brink of another ice age and that government action was needed to prevent it. When the globe started warming, the statements with global cooling were replaced with global warming. Despite most of the arguments for catastrophic global warming having been discredited some groups in the UN still push to have the international body take over most if not all aspects of industrialized society.
For example, during the last IPCC conference held in Doha, United Arab Emirates, a proposal was made that UN approval would be needed before any new product manufactured or industrial process could be used anywhere in the world. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now set up regulate every aspect of the U.S. economy. Two years ago the agency affirmed the link between fossil fuels and increased CO2 levels, are a hazard to human health and is now justified in regulating any use of fossil fuels in the United States. The agency has issued standards on the construction of any new coal-fired plants and forces the shut down of existing ones. Obama made this point in his 2008 campaign in which he stated that coal-fired plants could be built but they would have to pay for the increased carbon dioxide they emit. These policies are the result of political findings, not scientific ones.
What I deny is the catastrophe being put forth by climate alarmists as to what will happen if no action is taken. I further deny the hypothesis that the Earth’s climate system will increase the initial warming from CO2 in multiple instances, resulting in Earth's temperature going from a manageable less than or to one degree Fahrenheit over the next century to three, five, or even ten degrees which, in turn, will result in weather catastrophes on a global scale. The Earth is warming but any human activity (including the usage of fossil fuels) is not-significant enough to result in temperature increases nor contribute to global warming or changes in Earth's climate.
Earth's climate is always changing due to alterations influenced by solar activity (such as magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares). A leaked IPCC report in 2013 confirms this in which the study states that the sun's activity and its link to Earth's short and long term climate changes is stronger than they originally thought. I do think, however, that when temperatures rise due to solar activity it results in increased CO2 but any increases in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases (like water vapor) from warming of the globe will not be influenced by increased carbon dioxide levels nor will any warming be any different from previous decades, such as the Medieval Warm Period when European civilization thrived.
All environmental doomsday predictions with human-influenced global warming and climate change studies are religion and not science. The role climate scientists who state the affirmative on human-induced climate change act nothing more than white-coated priests who twist or pervert climate data in order to rubber stamp environmentalist group claims that are used to guiltify the populace into altering or scaling back their lifestyle which is tantamount to an attack someone's quality of life resulting from their prosperity. Regardless of how much environmentalist groups (like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace) disguise their religious beliefs with scientific jargon or claim that their stances on specific issues are grounded in science, their statements should be treated as religion as nothing more.