Curious Skeptics of Global Warming


It isn’t always the case that everything about a hoax is false. Skeptics of Western global warming are really aware of obvious mistakes that fall within their particular areas of expertise and most skeptics take issue with the picture of impending calamity that global warming fearmongers always try to paint. Climate scaremongering may win a few headlines but facts are facts. The truth always has appeal and no matter how well-funded, a hoax finally dies when lying lynx are finally spotted and the public sees it has been lied to and feels tricked, manipulated and deceived by supporters of the hoax.

In a world where those in power glorify atheism as True Believers of the need to find those who have robbed us of our stable climate we can only expect next the horrible but familiar sight of ideologues just around the corner looking for Jews to burn. The West’s global warming hetairoi have become True Believers of Thermageddon and in the process have betrayed both science and country.

Skeptics are not afraid of nature. The curious skeptic respects nature and gains strength by understanding limitations and breaking down barriers to the unknown. It is superstition and fear that freezes the weak — logically and spiritually – and, fear of climate change has frozen Western academia to death: government funding of global warming alarmism is a fraudulent inducement to deceive the public and academia has been a willing accomplice.

The Fire-Ready-Aim C02 policy of government scientists in the EPA is a dramatic realization of self-defeating bureaucratic authoritarianism. What shall we call government-funded global warming fearmongers who would condemn the third and developing world to misery, poverty and death if not an army of Liberal Fascists who would deny nature to spread their secular, socialist doomsday?

Facts are facts: free market capitalist economies have lowest emissions due to efficient production. It is not possible to reduce CO2 even if those in government demand that everyone else must go poorer and dirtier. The null hypothesis has never been rejected—that all global warming is natural. Use of the null hypothesis is how science works! And, we all should have learned by now that when science doesn’t work neither does society.

Did you know there’s a 100-year supply of recoverable natural gas in the US? In the Leftist world of Liberal Utopians and an activist EPA the sacrifice of truth and honesty in science and spending money you do not have are not alarming. Only CO2 is alarming. The aggressive tactics against CO2 show that the EPA and a Liberal Utopian government policy is an anti-business enabler of a hard line Leftist takeover of US energy and industry.

In such a world, scientific skepticism is sanity; skepticism becomes the only reasonable course while all belief becomes mindless dogma.


About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Curious Skeptics of Global Warming

  1. Wagathon says:

    …Abandoning the null hypothesis in science sends a signal to flimflammers everywhere: you’ll believe anything—even global warming. Something that has been happening on Earth for billions of years is by definition, reality. And we have a word of it: Nature–See, e.g.,


    Global Warming Vaporware and the Perpetual Motion Machine


  2. ryan59479 says:

    Mathematically speaking, there’s no way to “prove” a null hypothesis.

  3. Wagathon says:

    We need to be speaking the same language. You might start with whatever source you trust for simple and impartial facts about how we look at the world, scientifically–e.g.,

    “The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, statements that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect.” (Emphasis added, see–e.g., Wikipedia)

  4. ryan59479 says:

    Ok…the existence of climate oscillation BEFORE the modern industrial age doesn’t prove that industrialization doesn’t contribute to climate change anymore than saying that since people died in car accidents before seat belts were invented that seat belts don’t save lives since people still die in car accidents.

  5. Wagathon says:

    What we know:

    On secular, millenarian and larger time scales astronomical oscillations and solar changes drive climate variations. Shaviv’s theory [2003] can explain the large 145 Myr climate oscillations during the last 600 million years. Milankovic’s theory [1941] can explain the multi-millennial climate oscillations observed during the last 1000 kyr. Climate oscillations with periods of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years during the last 10,000 year (the Holocene) are correlated to equivalent solar cycles that caused the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods [Bond et al., 2001; Kerr, 2001]. Finally, several other authors found that multisecular solar oscillations caused bisecular little ice ages (for example: the Spörer, Maunder, Dalton minima) during the last 1000 years [for example: Eddy, 1976; Eichler et al., 2009; Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2009, 2010].

    (Scafetta N. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. JASTP 2010 Apr.)

  6. ryan59479 says:

    Btw, a null hypothesis is a mathematical, and statistical, model. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

  7. ryan59479 says:

    So then the answer is no…a gallup poll is not scientific evidence. Is there any scientific data to support that climate change is a natural phenomenon or not?

  8. Wagathon says:

    I would direct you to the scientific method. It is the only reliable way to prevent becoming a mark for hucksters and scam artists. The null hypothesis has never been rejected—that all global warming is natural. Everything else is dogma… That is how science works!

    In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, ‘Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.’ In the real 1992, however, Gallup ‘reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.’ Seventeen years later, in 2009… Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny before might indeed be a little rotten.

    ~Jay Richards

  9. ryan59479 says:

    Well then, as far as I can see, there are only two alternatives. Either a) global climate change is a natural phenomenon and our actions do not contribute to us, or b) the entire thing is a sham fabricated by a group of people. Could you direct me to some evidence for either of these alternatives, other than the fact that people profited off of it? (which really isn’t evidence of a hoax…)

  10. Wagathon says:

    Government has spent billions demonizing oil companies. Government scientists and willing Leftist-liberal journalists blame evil Big Oil and the productive for global warming and hypocritically proclaim industrialization to be bad news. Al Gore expects us all to pay more and more taxes just to be told we cannot live like Al Gore who has made millions pushing his climate porn.

    If we didn’t know better, we’d think the operative rules were: Never seek logical or alternative answers, if you can blame a phenomenon or problem (like decreasing frog populations) on global warming. Do whatever it takes and fund whatever research is needed, to advance the goals of ending hydrocarbon use, increasing government control and `transforming’ society. And always include the terms `global warming’ or `climate change’ in any grant application.

    ~Paul Driessen, Willie Soon, and David R. Legates (Cause for alarm, May 2010)

  11. ryan59479 says:

    I guess my follow up question would be do you believe that global climate change is happening, but it’s just a natural process, or do you believe that the whole thing is an outright lie?

  12. ryan59479 says:

    So Al Gore and a cadre of scientists invented global warming for money?

  13. Wagathon says:

    There are simple explanations for everything we see. And mostly, the simple explanations are the right explanations–e.g., follow the money.

  14. ryan59479 says:

    Regardless of what you and I define as science and academia, I still don’t understand what’s gained by such a hoax.

  15. Wagathon says:

    Don’t confuse Western academia the vast majority of the scientific community. Outside the West, climatology has been likened to the ancient science of astrology.

  16. ryan59479 says:

    So the vast majority of the scientific community is perpetrating a giant hoax about global climate change? once again, what do they possibly have to gain?

  17. Wagathon says:

    When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to gain a seat at the ‘big tables’ where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

    ~Judith Curry

  18. ryan59479 says:

    So Al Gore is the loan perpetrator of a global warming hoax?

  19. Wagathon says:

    Do you mean, what other than personal gain was the motive for Al Gore?

  20. ryan59479 says:

    I guess my question is what exactly would be gained by perpetrating such a hoax?

Comments are closed.