They call global warming skeptics “anti-science.” The term is inappropriate, however, because skeptics are not really against science, they are simply skeptical of the claims of their believers. Here are some of the reasons for their skepticism:

• Apocalyptic predictions. Future climate forecasts for virtually all regions of the world tend to be apocalyptic in nature. If you live in a dry area, it will only get drier. Areas of tremendous rainfall will only get rainier. More floods will flood flood-prone areas; The heaviest winter snowfalls will cover areas traditionally affected by heavy winter snowfall. Even in the short term, nothing ever gets better. You can assume that the growing seasons in Siberia or Canada could be lengthened due to warming, and they could receive bumper harvests for a few decades. Perhaps the Sahara desert receives more rain and becomes a more hospitable savanna. These changes are never predicted. Instead, we hear nothing but catastrophic scenarios. In my opinion, this is intentionally designed to scare the public into action. Politicians are understandably involved in such hyperbole, as most politicians tend to stretch or exaggerate the truth, but scientists should be above spouting pseudoscience.

• Scientific neutrality. Scientists claim to be neutral, only tell the truth, and are above personal politics. Ironically, this may not be the case, as I have heard scientists who accept climate change label scientists who question climate change as dishonest or as tools of Big Oil or Big Tobacco (yes, Big Tobacco! They can’t kill enough kids with their cigarettes, so now they want to destroy the entire planet!). Skeptics sometimes point to a late blizzard or cold snap as evidence against global warming. Climatologists, meteorologists and other scientists denounce such evidence, explaining that an atypical storm or meteorological event does not disprove a climate theory. They are right. Unusual local or regional weather incidents and weather are not necessarily connected. Furthermore, climate change will occur for decades and may not be observable for a season, a year, or even several years. Yet when climate change advocates use that same storm as evidence to confirm their scientific beliefs, the scientific community is eerily silent. An honest and unbiased scientist would be quick to denounce both the last claim and the first. However, their silence, coupled with the apocalyptic scenarios mentioned above, shows that many scientists are just as inconsistent and biased as the skeptical and non-scientific scientists they condemn.

• Climate change is responsible for everything. Whether it’s Tropical Storm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, or a brutal winter snowstorm, they are all attributed to climate change. A cool day in the middle of summer? A hot day in the middle of winter? Sleet? Wind? Freezing rain? There is no need to accept off-season weather, blame God, or even blame “Mother Earth”, because climate change is the real perpetrator. Some also attribute tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity to climate change. Apparently none of these “natural events” occurred prior to human-induced (anthropogenic) Climate Change. By the way, this all-encompassing guilt is the reason they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. It allows its promoters to blame man’s activities for any “act of God”, unwanted weather, or abnormally cold weather.

• Storm damage and loss of life. Every major blizzard, hurricane or storm comes at a tragic cost in human lives. We all mourn the loss of life and must continue to do everything possible to minimize these seemingly senseless deaths. However, all claims that storms are getting more costly and deadly are misleading. Real estate in general is worth more today than it was decades ago. Buildings and structures also cost more, and construction often takes place in precarious areas, such as floodplains, near earthquake faults, or even below sea level near the ocean. Furthermore, the population has increased significantly in a very short time. In the last fifty years, the US alone gained more than 120 million more people; The population of Canada and Australia has practically doubled; the UK added almost 10 million people; The populations of China and India have increased by more than 600 million each; and the world has added over 4.5 billion MORE people. Any major storm will inflict greater monetary damage and tragically claim more lives, simply because the cost of real estate has risen and the world’s population has grown.

• Carbon footprint. It’s the epitome of hypocrisy when the wealthy fly in private jets to global warming conferences, eco-conscious celebrities are driven in gas-guzzling limousines to movie openings and award ceremonies, and performers fly in and transport staff and team from city to city in a plane. world tour, while preaching eco-friendly topics during his performances. Perhaps when they heat, cool, and light their mansions with genuine renewable energy sources, and walk, bike, or at least carpool to their destinations, skeptics will start to believe. What happened to leading by example? Imagine a rally to save a local park from development. Celebrities, politicians and other speakers lament what would be the loss of pristine beauty. They ask that the community come together and do whatever it takes to save the park. After the rally ends, paper bags, empty water bottles, plastic bags, flyers, and other assorted debris litter the park. Could anyone really believe that the speakers and their followers were serious? And why is it acceptable to exclude the rich and famous from practicing what they preach, simply by virtue of their position?

• Carbon credits. This brings us to carbon credits. Paying a company to invest in green energy could be a good investment; Using that investment as an excuse to continue a carbon-wasteful lifestyle is a duplicity. Many climate change leaders claim to be “carbon neutral” simply because they bought carbon credits. The easiest way to see if this works is by asking a simple question. What if everyone bought carbon credits, technically became carbon neutral, but went on living regardless of their lifestyle? Clearly, this would accomplish very little in the fight against climate change. We do not have the technology to make the entire world or even entire nations become carbon neutral. Carbon credits are a way for the very wealthy to “buy” a way not to alter their lifestyles. This gives the impression of a true sacrifice for the cause and allows them to continue to denounce those who remain skeptical of Climate Change. During the American Civil War, the wealthy avoided fighting battles by paying a fee or finding a replacement. They may have contributed to the cause, but everyone knows that they were not involved in the actual fight.

• Kyoto Treaty. During the Clinton administration, the Kyoto Treaty did not win a single vote in the United States Senate. Among its many proposals, the Kyoto Protocol attempted to establish a global standard for carbon emissions. Not even the “environmental senators” voted in favor. Almost all greenhouse gas emissions proposals globally exclude China (the largest “carbon polluter” country) and India, the two most populous countries in the world. The argument against their inclusion is primarily economic. Emission cuts will paralyze their economies and lead to increased poverty. If this is true for the economies of China and India, it is also true for other countries. Furthermore, proponents argue that those two countries, and Third World or Developing countries, should be exempted, because they did not cause the problem. The blame lies with the western industrial countries. Even if this is true, exempting countries from emissions only makes the problem worse, as they will continue to emit greenhouse gases. Is the goal to alleviate our western guilt or to save the planet?

• Satellite evidence. The large storms recorded by meteorological satellites are visually impressive. Experts point to videos of major storms and say their enormous size reflects the impact of climate change. They have a similar argument with Arctic sea ice. Through satellites, we can now accurately measure summer ice melt each year, and science can confirm that the polar ice cap has shrunk in recent decades. However, although these observations could indicate a change in climate, according to NASA, the first successful geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1964. Polar satellites did not exist until the 1970s. We simply do not have any satellite data before that. date. Therefore, from a climate perspective, most of this scientific information and observation, while valid, is very recent.

• Al Gore. It certainly doesn’t help a scientific movement when the person most associated with that company is a politician. People undoubtedly have different views on the politics and personality of former Vice President Al Gore. But what is not debatable is that he does not have scientific training. I would also say that he does not understand scientific arguments or methods, and he is an incomparable cheek when he questions the scientific experience of those who disagree with him. If you don’t mind having a former politician like Al Gore as the face of the fight against climate change, then imagine that face is Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, John Howard, Stephen Harper, or even Sarah Palin.

• Transfer of wealth. It also does not help the cause of Climate Change when there is an official discussion at the international level about the transfer of wealth from rich countries to poorer countries. Remember, the stated goal of climate change fighters is to reduce carbon emissions around the world. That goal is sensible and desirable. However, transferring money from one group to another is social engineering and, once again, an attempt to appease Western guilt. It certainly has little to do with reducing global carbon emissions.