Some people seem bewildered by the idea that Orthodox Jews might be skeptical of climate change or global warming. As their limited reasoning goes, they figure that since we're dupes for believing in matan Torah and show no skepticism when dealing with the unity and antiquity of the Torah's text we'll fall for anything. The idea that some of us might have used cirtical thinking, looked at the sources and concluded that the Torah is genuine and true is incomprehensible to them. But skeptical I am of the claims of the climate change ecofascists that dominate the debate today.
I realize I'm treading into controversial waters by saying that. When it comes to climate change one is either a true believer or an evil pawn of the oil companies, a friend to Mother Earth or an enemy plotting her demise.
As far as I can see there are three possible options as to what's happening in the world right now:
1) The climate is not changing and all this is made up for reasons I'll write about later.
2) The climate is changing but this is a natural process and humanity is not contributing to it.
3) The climate is changing as a result of humanity's activities.
Now, the ecofascist lobby is solidly behind (3), no question of that and no questioning of that. According to them the climate across the planet is changing and humanity is directly responsible for it and only through massive changes in our behaviour can we avert global catastrophe. Certainly they have scientific evidence to back up their claim and if it's true then we have reason to be worried. Shouldn't that be enough?
As a person with some scientific training I have some reservations. Here are the reasons:
1) "The science is settled". This is one of the mantras of the ecofascist lobby. It's four word sentence used to shut down debate. For anyone who is both scientifically trained and intellectually honest it's a loaded statement that indicates the exact opposite and if multitudes of international scientists are muttering it today that tells you where intellectual honest is in today's science community. The science is never settled, certainly not in complex areas like the environment. The science may strongly indicate a trend, it may strongly suggest a conclusion but it cannot be settled. There is always room for questioning and further testing of the data. A scientist who tells you that "the science is settled" is saying that he is only interested in that data which supports his conclusion. That's not real science.
2) "All credible scientists agree". This is another slogan and one which is circular. All credible scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humanity's misbehaviour because to be labelled a credible scientist you must believe that climate change is real and caused by humanity's misbehaviour. You could be an amazing scientist with dozens of publications to your name but the minute you say you doubt the ecofascist lobby's beliefs you are no longer credible.
3) What's is called anyway? When Al Gore began his lobbying efforts back in the 1990's the issue was called global warming. Perhaps he did this to distinguish himself from those 1970's climate scientists who assured us that we were on the edge of a new ice age. We were treated to Michael Mann's now-disproven hockey stock graph and told temperatures were about to shoot up across the planet. The IPCC has recently had to admit that temperatures on average have not significantly risen across the planet in the last 15 years. I'm right now living in what is the tail end of one of the worst winters in memory where I live. It's almost the middle of March but we're still expecting subzero temperatures for another 1-2 weeks. Normally we'd be well into the spring thaw by now. To get around this annoying inconvenience the lobby changed terms, now calling it climate change. This made their job far easier. Was it a colder than normal winter? Climate change! A warmer than normal winter? Climate change!
4) Cilmate change is also a misnomer for the movement because climate change is a normal feature of life on Earth. Ask any mastadon who survived the last ice age (okay, bad example). The climate changes on Earth from time to time and has been doing so since time immemorial. What's more we have recent Medieval Warming Period, an era in which the northern hemisphere became warm enough to support active colonization of Greenland, a desolate frozen wasteland today. Given the small human population and low technological situation at the time one cannot blame humanity for the MWP. This is an inconvenient bit for the ecofascists who either downplay the significance of the MWP or forget to mention it when sermonizing about climate change.
5) The hypocrisy of the leaders. Al Gore lives in a mansion that consumes more electricity than some small towns. David Suzuki trots around Canada in a diesel powered bus. Barack Obama flies everywhere in a jet. The high priests of Green are some of the biggest individual consumers of carbon although this doesn't stop them from lecturing the rest of us on reducing our carbon footprint.
6) Shut up! That's usually the response one gets from ecofascists when their orthodoxies are confronted with contradicting facts. You don't get reasoned discussion. You don't get an alternative explanation of those facts. You get yelled at and insulted. I recall David Suzuki appearing on a right wing readio show and storming off after the radio host began listing scientists who did not believe in global warming and had data to support their point. A strong ideology does not respond to challenges that way, a weak one that knows it's a load of hooey does and that exactly describes the representatives of the eco-fascist movement.
If climate change is real why does the ecofascist movement act like it does?