This is a follow-up to my last commentary about how a social influencer found the light regarding the Climate Change issue — after she had fully bought into the alarmist narrative for many years…

I thought that a logical next step would be for me to write a brief layperson version of the Science perspective on Climate Change. Here goes…

A genuine scientist is a person who is inquisitive — i.e., they ask a lot of questions. Further, a genuine scientist is a person who is skeptical — i.e., they don’t just lemming-like accept answers given to their questions. (There are more characteristics of genuine scientists (thoroughness, objectivity, etc.), but this is enough for this commentary.)

Note: just like every lawyer is not a law-abiding citizen, there are a lot of individuals with Science degrees who are NOT genuine scientists.

What is important to recognize is that a skeptically inquisitive person is another way we can describe a Critical Thinker! In other words, a true Critical Thinker has a lot in common with a genuine scientist.

What does this inquisitiveness look like? It means asking probing questions — like What? How? Who? Why? etc. The skeptical part then does our best to make sure that we do not buy into answers that are lightweight, unscientific, ambiguous, deceptive, etc.

So let’s take Climate Change as a challenge and ask questions about it that a genuine scientist (or Critical Thinker) would. Let’s start with: WHAT?

The “WHAT” is about determining the core issue that Climate advocates (aka alarmists) are pushing. The answer in a nutshell (this is a layperson’s version): Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a harmful pollutant.*

Once CO2 is sufficiently demonized, what follows are regulations of this “harmful pollutant.” LOTS of regulations! ENORMOUS impacts on our daily life! TRILLIONS of dollars of expenditures! Etc., etc.

Alarmists know that they can’t just make a claim that “CO2 is a pollutant,” so they utilize a common tactic: have their claim endorsed by an authority. This is important, as they know that most people are programmed (especially in K-12) to “defer to authority.” (Think Dr. Fauci!)

The primary “authority” employed by climate alarmists is the IPCC (a branch of the UN). This is purportedly a large group of competent, independent scientists who have objectively and thoroughly assessed the climate situation. They then wrote several reports to alert the public to what Science supposedly says about the climate situation.

Unfortunately, the independent, objective, and thorough parts are simply not true. Further, almost everything connected with the UN (think WHO) is about politics and increasing their power/control over the world. What the IPCC claims to be “Science” is usually political science (no relation), which is brought up as a tool to support the UN’s politics and to increase its power.

The bottom line here is that this appeal to authority is bogus. (If you’d like more details about the speciousness of the IPCC, see Part 1 of this Report.)