Climate Change Skeptics aren't Skeptics

When it comes to science, skeptics are people who question beliefs as the result of scientific scrutiny.

On the other hand, people making political arguments professing skepticism about climate change are more likely to be non-scientific in how they reach their conclusions.

So what does a true skeptic conclude about human-caused climate change?


First, let's define some terms.

When I say "climate change" I mean warming temperatures as the result of human pollution, particularly emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. The planet has the ability to reprocess a certain amount of CO2, but human industry, particularly power generation, emits more than the planet can recycle. Thus the overall average global temperature is increasing.

When I say "skeptic" in the context of science, it means someone who tests the reliability of claims by subjecting them to analysis through empirical scientific study. If analysis is found to apply the scientific method improperly, it is "pseudoscience" and is not true skepticism.

A 2013 study published in Environmental Research Letters examined 11,944 climate paper abstracts published from 1991 to 2011. Of those papers that stated conclusions about human involvement in climate change, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it.

But this is not a popularity contest.  These studies present a "convergence of evidence" from multiple data sources, such as global average temperature, historical and present CO2 levels, arctic and antarctic ice melt trends, melting glaciers, ice cores, sea-level rises, archaeological pollen, tree rings, corals, and ecological shifts.

All of these data sources point consistently to humans as the source of CO2 in quantities greater than the planet can recycle without resulting in global warming.

So what do the findings of the remaining 3% say about whether climate change is real, and the cause?

According to a 2015 paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and colleagues, analyzed the papers rejecting climate change and found methodological flaws and a pattern of common mistakes that is not obvious from looking at individual papers.

But maybe even more important than the flaws and mistakes is that these dissenters present no consistent alternative explanation for the observed warming trend.  They each have their pet hypothesis, but there is no consistent explanation among the "it's not human-caused" crowd.  Collectively, they are all over the map, often contradicting each other.

So to answer the original question about what a true skeptic would say about climate change.....

A skeptic would conclude, after scientific investigation, that there is extensive and consistent evidence from multiple sources that human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses has surpassed the natural ability of the planet to recycle the CO2, which has resulted in an increasing global average temperature, which in turn is melting glaciers and polar ice, elevating the sea level, and affecting ecosystems.

The skeptic would conclude that there is no consensus about an alternative explanation among those researchers who disagree.  

People who deny that humans are causing climate change have motives other than skepticism.  It may be discomfort with change, fears of financial losses, or basic "I have to go along with what my friends (or political party) say."  

But if you don't apply scientific principles and analysis, you're not a skeptic.