“The end is nigh! The world is headed for a global ecological catastrophe! Telltale signs are everywhere and we need to make a change, now!” These are some of the prominent ideas from the 24 June 1974 issue of the Times Magazine.  My attitude towards global warming, or global climate change, is one hundred percent skeptical.   Looking at the data, there is only one right answer to whether global warming exists: “We don’t know.”   My belief is that there is too much uncertainty in our knowledge of weather and climate change to make definitive interpretations on future global weather patterns.

 What has helped install the idea of global warming is the measured increase in global temperatures since the 1980s.   While it is clear the temperatures did rise, this climate trend could have multiple interpretations. Scientists supporting the global warming theory state that the cause of this temperature rise is the increase of greenhouse gases, especially from industrial sources.  However, I believe this is just one interpretation of the data. An examination of global average temperature estimates for the past several hundred years reveals that temperatures have been rising and falling for hundreds of years.   Some scientists suggest that a rise in greenhouse gases may be a side effect of the earth’s natural climate fluctuation toward a season of higher global temperatures rather than the cause. Other scientists propose that the temperatures correlate more closely with the behavior of sunspots than the emission of greenhouse gases While our consumption of fossil fuels has significantly increased, I believe that it cannot be concretely correlated with the increasing temperature.  

Because of the uncertainty of climate science and the variety of interpretations from the data, I believe that it is foolish to decide to follow one theory of thought without concrete evidence.   It is irrational to make political and legal decisions affecting the livelihood of millions of Americans based on one interpretation of climate data, especially if the suggested interventions are unlikely to make much of a difference.  Many people blame the perceived global warming on other human beings consumption of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.   While our consumption of carbon dioxide has increased, the majority of carbon dioxide (97%) comes from forest fires, decaying plants, and volcanoes.  So, if seven billion people in the world (which includes all the factories in the world), why the huge focus on the three percent?   How much of the three percent is America?  

The cost is all too high.   Global warming enthusiasts want us to give up our way of life and many of our comforts for something that may not be happening.   Therefore, our government has no right to enforce businesses and individuals to change their way of life, likely causing many Americans to become bankrupted and jobless, based on one interpretation of climate change data. While minor policy changes may be permissible, such as giving tax credits for “green” construction and business practices, extreme policy changes are inappropriate until we have more concrete evidence that global warming exists. In my life, I will make personal changes to my lifestyle dependent upon the cost of the changes.

Another concern is that I’m convinced the global warming issue is being used as a spearhead for political agendas supporting global governance.  Redistribution of wealth has been a phrase commonly used with environmentalist.  A news story from 18 November 2010 stated that Ottmar Edenhofer said, “climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth,” and “it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”   Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay for climate change that may or may not be happening, especially if climate change policy is being twisted to be used for political aims.  

 It comes down to the question of how does one take control of a county whose population is ingrained on idea liberty? Consensus science holds the key. Through mass media global warming supporters relay their ‘scientific’ message of global warming as a fact rather than one of the theories. Their message in one of hate, fear, and danger; not a message of dispassionate reason and logic which considers all the evidence.    Scientists who question their wisdom is removed and mocked.  Global warming supporters have settled the facts and have come to a consensus, but they forget consensus is not science.