I’ve been wanting to write on this topic for a while, but of course, other topics got in the way, and because I didn’t save the relavent article I wanted to use (which includes multiple other links), I haven’t been able to write about Climate Change in any significant way. Let me say that I am terrible at Internet queries. Sometimes, I find exactly what I’m looking for on the first attempt, othertimes, I cannot seem to find the reference at all, even though I know I’ve seen and read it sometime before. Today  though, I finally discovered – on the first attempt! – the article I had read some years ago.

The article I’m referring to comes from a conservative online publication. There may be some (many) here that will automatically dismiss the article because of that, but being from whatever ideological position should never be the standard for which we judge the truth of something. I personally read articles from both liberal and conservative points of view simply because it’s important, to me, to have different views (possibly) on a subject before I make any attempt to come to a conclusion.

I remember when the 97% of Climate Scientists Agree story hit the papers and the airwaves. It was a story that should have been preceded by: Case Closed, because that’s exactly the way it was presented to the public. At the time, not having read any of the relevant studies that were barely quoted by the media itself, it seemed like a forgone conclusion. I had been a skeptic up to then but after hearing, reading two or three news articles, I decided that I was in fact wrong. Not the first time, and probably not the last time. Of course, it was after this pronouncement that anyone remaining skeptical were referred to as Climate Deniers, even referred the same as those who are Holocaust Deniers. That to me was a little over the top, but if the data are there, then there’s no reason, to doubt it. Or is there? None of the stories I read bothered to explain in any detail, the methodology utilized in determining that particular percentage.

This article, the one I mentioned above, fro National Review, although short, does in fact show how the 97% had been determined and, if believable to anyone, the statistical malfeasance as well as the lackadaisical reporting on the same. Not a single reportewr did  the smallest part of due diligence to determine whether or not what they were reporting as true, was indeed. Well, we’ve become used to that and of course it’s not unreasonable, in a general way, for anyone to believe what they are told based on ideology. It’s unfortunate when it affects science though because many times, these lead to policy changes by governments, who are more than lax at investigating anything.

Before anyone starts referring to me as a “Climate Denier”, let me state outright that yes, climate does indeed change. There’s lot’s of evidence, historically and before of periods of warming and cooling of the planet. The argument seems to be how much human activity contributes to climate. Not “if”, but how much. There’s an entire field of study, Paleoclimatology, that uses geology, biology, and chemistry to study ancient climates. For instance, these scientists are able to determine the gasses within the atmosphere during a period from deep ice cores, collected from places lie Greenland and the Antarctic.

So yes, Climatology has evidence from the past as well as more recent times. What we cannot be certain of are the longterm effects as some scientists are now claiming the models used for prediction are flawed. Take it or leave it, but the discussion is not over and the science is “not settled” as many would like us to believe. We should all be a little more skeptical of what we hear or read in the media because it doesn’t always tell the entire story.