What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know; it's what we know for sure that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain

I hear and read a lot about global warming. It varies from apocalyptic warnings about our self-destructive behavior to accusations of arrogance in thinking that man could have any significant impact on the large systems involved in climate. The behavior of many on both sides of this issue bothers me. Claiming the debate has already been decided and that there is no room for dissent or need for discussion is not very compelling. As new data comes in, are we not to hear it and consider it? Is there no faith in the process to allow examination of the theory and its proofs? Or are we after something other than truth? I apologize for arriving late at the party, but I still need convinced. I need to examine the evidence, not just blindly accept the conclusions.

Similarly, those who say “it can’t really be that bad" present anecdotal evidence that would seem to at least be outliers from expectations of global warming. For example, the Antarctic ice cap has grown over recent years. That doesn’t say any more about overall global temperatures than the fact that we had a mild wet summer in Texas last year while the southeast US endured a hot drought. I must admit I was amused at the cancellation of a global warming hearing due to blizzard conditions, but local and regional conditions are affected by many things and short-term results are not a serious indication of long-term trends. If you really want to refute global warming, I need something more substantial.

I remember the first Earth Day. I had experienced a summer in southern California overwhelmed by smog. For Earth Day, many of us were worried about pollution and a coming ice age. There was some evidence that particulate pollution could shade the earth and result in cooling. It was not the first time there was concern about a coming ice age. It seems that reduced solar activity induced a mini-ice age a few hundred years ago. The impact of man-made shade on a global scale had us a little scared about a repeat performance. Through increased government regulations we got particulate and other emissions reduced. It felt good and seemed like the right thing to do. We didn’t measure the costs, but the improvements in air quality are noticeable even without scientific measurements or expensive equipment. That early success encouraged us to take on additional problems. Now it seems we just didn’t have very solid science for inducing an ice age, or we could offset global warming with increased particulate emissions - something nobody is going to suggest.

I prefer logic and science. However, I see a wide disparity in the science, and a lot of discussion that isn’t science at all. It seems to me that there is no discussion in the media of the true issues. It has become political – almost religious.

The increasingly common media demand to know what politicians believe about man’s role in climate change reminds me of witch hunts and McCarthyism. Belief in global warming has become a litmus test. If you don’t recite the creed that “man is responsible for global warming,” then you are not to be trusted. Are we talking about science or faith? I didn’t know global warming was a religion one had to believe in. If the science of global warming is so certain, then why not overwhelm with evidence instead of pressure to conform. Where’s the faith?

With the argument “it has already been decided” and “all reputable scientists and scientific organizations are in agreement” we are invoking majority rule, discouraging true discussion, and pressuring for conformity. The Flat Earth Society had a consensus. Science and religions have all been wrong before, and the more adamant their demands for conformity without question, the less trusting I am. Anything that cannot stand up to examination is not worth following.

We now have surveys of scientists and lists of scientific organizations lining up to support one side or the other. I am offended when demands for an expanded role of government through more stringent laws to restrict consumption are based on emotional presentations made by people who are not scientists or whose personal choices and lifestyles blatantly ignore their own warnings. And yet, Public Service Announcements tell us that if we save energy we not only save money, but we save the earth. And yet, nobody told me how much I need to cut back to save the earth. Couldn’t we just save the cheerleader? I keep remembering Meryl Streep screaming at congress “What about the children?” to get them to needlessly ban Alar from the apple industry. Let’s quit the emotional discourse and examine the science. Click here to review the Theory of Global Warming.