news-record.com

I have a confession to make: I am a "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptic."

These are the terms British Prime Minister Gordon Brown used last month, on the eve of the Copenhagen climate confab, to describe those of us who decline to participate in the mass-hysteria popularly known as "global warming" or "climate change."

The Associated Press, hardly a bastion of disbelievers, has noted that some climate change enthusiasts show "a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics." Prime Minster Brown also told The Guardian newspaper, "We know the science. We know what we must do." Apparently, what the self-appointed saviors of the planet must do is fly to Copenhagen aboard 140 private jets, then motor around Copenhagen in 1,200 limousines. These numbers were reported by The London Telegraph. Diminishing one's "carbon footprint" is a task confined to the lowly masses. The anointed, gathered in Copenhagen, intend to "save the planet," but not if it means sharing aircraft with smelly commoners.

What irks the prime minister and his fellow climate change disciples is the Flat Earth Society's stubborn insistence upon sound evidence and our desire for an open debate on the merits of global warming theology. The science, according to the hysterics, is "settled." In their view, "consensus" in the scientific community means there is no need to debate the matter. The time is now, they insist, for decisive action.

Presumably as a result of the "consensus," Al Gore, the high priest of global warming, refuses to debate the matter. (John Stossel is the latest challenger to be ignored.) When William Kovacs, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, recently suggested that we hold public hearings to "put the science of climate change on trial," the Environmental Protection Agency scoffed at the idea as a "waste of time." Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the Chamber was "making a fool of itself." But if the evidence in support of man-made climate change is so overwhelming, why do Gore and his disciples refuse to debate?

Granted, the global warming phenomenon is a convenient target for the contrarian and the curmudgeon. There is a masochistic pleasure to be taken in swimming against the (perilously rising!) tide, and in countering whatever passion becomes the latest fashion. The topic is worth addressing on those grounds alone; still, the case for global warming is decidedly flimsy.

* First, consider the meaning (and limited ramifications) of "consensus," which Webster's defines as "solidarity of opinion," or "general agreement or harmony." There is some question as to whether there is a consensus on global warming among scientists. In 2008, 31,000 scientists signed a petition rejecting the claims of man-made global warming. Of course, consensus does not mean absolute agreement.

* Second, even if we concede that the alleged consensus exists, that is not sufficient grounds to stifle debate on climate change. Opinion polls reveal, for instance, a consensus among the American people in opposition to gay marriage. Yet we continue to debate the matter, and this is as it should be: we live in a republic, not a pure democracy. Consensus may be sufficient cause for action in the "international community," but Americans are more sophisticated, thoughtful and nuanced; we do not bow to mere majority rule.

* Third, the action encouraged by the saviors of the planet (primarily, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions) will do nothing to alleviate climate change. Carbon dioxide, the alleged sinister force behind global warming, is probably not the cause of rising temperatures -- and there is dispute as to whether temperatures are rising.

Historical records reveal that temperatures rise first, and carbon dioxide levels increase later. The climate change alarmists have it backwards: higher temperatures increase carbon dioxide, not vice-versa. If the planet is warming, carbon dioxide levels will increase, no matter what economy-crushing policies we enact. Warming and cooling has taken place for millennia, and will for many more, regardless of human activity. The most likely cause of those alternating cycles, according to scientists David Legates and Willie Soon, is the sun. There is a direct correlation between temperatures on Earth and sun-spot activity.

Perhaps an entrepreneur, sensing an opportunity, will print T-shirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers emblazoned with Prime Minister Brown's characterization of global warming skeptics. They could be issued to naysayers as modern versions of the "scarlet letter."

Imagine the horrified reactions from your fellow pedestrians as you stroll through the nearest university campus, sporting a black T-shirt adorned with bold, red letters proclaiming: BEHIND-THE-TIMES, ANTI-SCIENCE, FLAT-EARTH CLIMATE SKEPTIC. As the commercials say, "Priceless."

Charles Davenport Jr. (cdavenportjr@hotmail.com) writes a monthly column for the News & Record.