[Climate Change Dispatch] Very often, when I talk to the public or the media about global warming (a low-frequency positive trend in global temperature in the last 120 years or so), they ask me the unfortunate question if I "believe" in global warming.And I say "unfortunate" because when we are dealing with a scientific problem "believing" has no place. In science, we either prove or disprove.
We "believe" only when we cannot possibly prove a truth. For example, we may "believe" in reincarnation or an afterlife but we cannot prove either.
One may argue that when we are dealing with a scientific problem, such as global warming, for which we cannot obtain unquestionable experimental confirmation as to what is causing it (for the simple reason that we cannot repeat this experiment; we only have one realization of climate evolution), we may form an opinion based on the existing scientific evidence in hand, current knowledge, possible theories and hypotheses.
But we should be skeptical of claims that the science of a complicated and unpredictable system is settled.
Nobody argues that the temperature of the planet is not increasing in the last 120 years or so. Yes, the temperature is increasing overall. But there are a lot of questions regarding why that is.
In the current state of affairs regarding global warming, opinion is divided into two major factions.
A large portion of climate scientists argues that most, if not all of the recent warming, is due to anthropogenic effects, which originate largely from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Another portion is on the other extreme: Those who argue that humans have nothing to do with global warming and that all this fuss is a conspiracy to bring the industrial world down.
The latter group calls the former group "the catastrophists" or "the alarmists," whereas the former group calls the latter group "the deniers."
This childish division is complemented by another group, the "skeptics," which includes those like me who question the extreme beliefs and try to look at all scientific evidence before we form an opinion (by the way, the former group also considers skeptics to be deniers).
In the realm of deniers, skeptics, and believers, science has been compromised. I usually don’t bother with pseudo-scientists, media, and ignorant people abusing the freedom of the Internet by writing and posting nonsense comments.
But what a brilliantly constructed global cause célèbre for the Deep State to exercise control through the media, and funding. The funding (funneled through respected international agencies) would of course be necessary to gain the insights and loyal support of scientists worldwide.
But I have grown wary of what is going on with the debate on the overblown and misdirected issue of global warming ‐ a case in point is "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd saying he will no longer give time to global warming "deniers" and also that the "science is settled."