Skeptic, "So-Called Skeptic", Denier

People who express doubts about global warming are referred to by several terms. I prefer "skeptic." Scientists are by nature and training skeptical. New facts must be demonstrated to be true by the scientific method before they are accepted. Everything else is conjecture about which skepticism is not just acceptable but necessary.

Former Vice President Al Gore uses the term "so-called skeptic" in his award-winning movie. I'm not sure where he's going with this term. There's nothing so-called about our skepticism. We are self-described skeptics. It's about as impolite as if one were to refer to him as a "so-called climate science expert."

The most pejorative term is "global warming denier." This conjures up an image of a narrow, close-minded person who has already made up his mind and is not willing to listen to rational, factual arguments. There is a world of difference between this and a person skeptical of new theories which are unsupported by solid, scientific evidence. The term "denier" may also be an attempt to link global warming skeptics with infamous deniers, like Holocaust deniers. In fact, one somewhat rabid global warming advocate directly states that those who express doubts over global warming are in fact worse than the Nazis, because the damage that global warming will impart on the earth will exceed the damage the Nazis perpetrated.

Consensus? What Consensus?

An oft repeated line by global warming supporters is that a consensus already exists on the existence of global warming and its relationship to greenhouse gases.

First of all, scientific fact is not determined by consensus. Rather, is it established by the scientific method, by the performance of irrefutable, reproducible scientific experiments that prove a theory. Scientific consensus is often wrong. Major advances in science often challenge and disprove the existing consensus. Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein all challenged orthodox thinking and moved science forward.

Of course, merely saying a consensus exists doesn't make it so. When a true consensus exists, it is not necessary to constantly remind people of it. On a recent trip to my local public library, I looked under call number 363.73874, books about climate change. Of the 22 books on the shelf, 2 books espoused global warming as fact (including Gore's An Inconvenient Truth), 2 presented pro and con arguments, and 18 expressed serious doubts about the existence of global warming.

When a true consensus exists, it isn't even necessary to mention it. For example, I looked in several sections containing books about geography and earth sciences, totaling several hundred books. Of the first 100 books I skimmed, all made direct or indirect reference to the fact the earth was round. Not a single book espoused a flat-earth theory. There wasn't even a pro-con round-flat discourse. No one even referred to the possibility the earth wasn't round. One may therefore conclude that a true consensus exists that the earth is round.