Proponents of man-made climate change theories claim that deniers "don't believe in science." Let's examine that statement.
The scientific method is as follows:
You make an observation.
You come up with a theory to explain that observation.
Then you test the theory with other observations or experiments.
Finally, if the theory withstands all these tests, it is settled science or a scientific law.
Here's an example: A major scientific law states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If you electrolyse one ton of common salt you get one ton of a combination of sodium plus chlorine. The sum total is exactly one ton, proving that matter is neither created nor destroyed -- only a supernatural being (God) can create.
How does this relate to man made global warming? That theory must withstand all tests to prove that it is reliable. Here are a couple of tests.
First, here's the observation: during the last ice age scientists tell us that the polar ice cap reached as far south as places like Green Bay, Wisconsin. Also, a land bridge existed between Alaska and Siberia. Now the test: how do you explain that the earth has continually warmed since the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago? What started that melting? It certainly wasn't mankind. If it wasn't then, and during the thousands of years since, why is it now?
Second test: Does natural pollution cause much greater production of greenhouse gases than anything man produces? What about forest fires that have resulted from lightning strikes through the centuries? Do they overwhelm and dwarf all of our conservation efforts? Similarly, what about volcanic gases? Has any man-made climate change proponent ever made a serious study of these effects? If so, I haven't seen it.
Before we spend trillions of dollars on proposals like the Green New Deal, why don't we determine if the scientific basis is sound? It only is so if it can answer these and other tests.
A few days ago Beto O'Rourke said, "You've got 10 years left to combat climate change or it's all over for all of us." That alarmist statement is typical of many made by GND proponents. But, it's not new. In 2006 Al Gore said in “An Inconvenient Truth” that we have just "10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our planet into a tailspin." Well, 10 years has come and gone, and we're still here. Also, 11 thousand years ago Hiawatha Kitchi said, "If the natives down south don't stop barbecuing those buffalo, then this land bridge we are on will soon be covered by the ocean!"
All right. I invented Hiawatha. But, geologists and anthropologists tell us that the Alaska land bridge was covered about 10 thousand years ago. So the test remains: How do you explain the rise in the oceans that scientists tell us started way back then? If you believe in science, you must have an answer for these questions.
Peter Gilderson, Madison.