Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?


The Holy Father doesn’t agree with us. People call us “deniers” or “denialists”, as if we deny something as accepted as the Holocaust or gravity. Some think we ought to be rounded up and prosecuted in Nuremburg-style trials. Some flat-out wish us dead. In my defense I offer this 12 part series starting here:
Am I unreasonable for doubting the received wisdom from the climate science establishment led by the IPCC and for wishing the Holy Father didn’t place his faith in them?


It’s perfectly reasonable. For me personally, the jury is still out on the issue, and I am used to getting called names by immature people who I happen to politely disagree with on something. I pray constantly that I have patience with them and that they learn some maturity.

The Pope’s pronouncements are not on a matter of Christian faith. To the extent he is simply advocating for good stewardship for the planet and a wise use of resources, I already support those things in other ways and have been doing so for a long time. I also have an open mind and it is possible I may in the future see some evidence, presented without hysteria and preferably not presented by political bodies or the mass media, that makes me less skeptical.


Hi Bear,

Thanks fer yer thoughts and affirmation.

Why don’t you swallow the global warming hypothesis hook, line, and sinker?


I think it is reasonable, in part because of the name calling and bullying tactics used against those who question this political movement.
I think it reasonable to question the conclusions when data has been manipulated and tampered with. I think it reasonable when, instead of arguing their case, they attempt to silence those who disagree (see Heidi Cullen and NY Attorney General Schneiderman).

The computer models can’t predict the path of a storm 24 to 48 hours out, but we are supposed to believe they can predict warming 80 years out.

Yes. It is quite reasonable.


Hi Jon,

Schneiderman is indeed a villain in this drama. Cullen is a hack.

For me, the definitive take-down of the global warming hypothesis is the failure of the computer models to predict the flat-lining of global temps for almost 20 years since 1998, given everything else which makes the hypothesis incredible.


I think a lot of people can agree things are changing-- because change is normal and is always happening-- but don’t agree on the cause, or whether people can do a hill of beans’ worth to change or prevent any of it.

However, because the man-made hypothesis is so politicized, and so many of its most visible proponents profit from it, and because we have memories of multiple decades’ worth of failed predictions, it’s easy to be skeptical, if it wasn’t for all the public shaming that goes along with it. :wink:


First of all, I’ve always been in favor of reducing emissions of pollution and developing alternative energy sources. We are quite simply going to run out of fossil fuels at some point. In a past career I worked on a program developing electric and hybrid vehicles. (The batteries of which present a pollution problem almost as bad as the emissions, but that’s another story.) That development got killed for political reasons, which was also one of the reasons I decided to just go change careers because it was not my first development rodeo that politics cancelled.

Second, I’ve always been in favor of maintaining our forests. Bears like trees. I spend a lot of money keeping a little forest in my yard. Forests are good for the earth. Endless open space or development is not.

So if the climate change bunch would present this issue in a reasonable way as “we are not doing enough to clean up our earth and save the forests”, I would probably be on board.

Instead it is presented in a hysterical, politicized way (have you guessed that I view politics with a jaundiced eye yet?) along the lines of “we’re going to have devastating hurricanes and floods all over the place” (like the world never had a bad hurricane or flood before, especially when people were shortsighted enough to construct a populated area in a place prone to hurricanes and flooding) “and if you don’t go along with the USA spending huge amounts of money to fix global warming then you must just be some uneducated dim bulb who hates humanity, and you probably believe in all that religious hokum too, and you probably voted for that evil man Trump, yada yada yada”. And I am out the door.

I suspect the intelligent save-the-planet approach wasn’t scaring enough people into bandwagon jumping. Heck, I was even concerned when they were pushing the idea that the ice would all melt and there wouldn’t be enough habitat for polar bears. I like polar bears. I read an article that said apparently they decided that approach was not what they wanted.

I’m also aware from some of my past work that there are regions of this planet that have 19th century pollution still going on and don’t want to spend money to fix it because their economy is still developing and they feel that’s more important. China has got pollution like London back in the days of the poisonous fog. Yet the USA is always the guy with the deep pockets who should spend its money to fix everything.

Finally, we have been studying a relatively short duration in the planet’s history to make climactic pronouncements. I think more study may be needed, if only to make sure we don’t spend a ton of money in the wrong direction of fixing matters.

In short - talk about the issue like an adult scientific discussion and I’m happy to discuss. Talk about it like those who disagree are a bunch of stupid idiots who don’t understand science or don’t care about the earth, and I take my football and go home.


Exactly. “Follow the money”. Or follow the candidates who are trying to win an election by pushing some scientific sound byte, often wrong or out of context.

Edited to add, re the post below about statistics: I had a required stats course in undergrad school. And I had more required stats courses in grad school. And then I had several more stats courses in business school. I came away convinced that you can make a number say just about anything you want.


Climate changes. Weather changes. Ages come and go. The salient question is what causes it. We are called to be good stewards of creation, and I gladly do my part. But - look at the agenda behind many of the CG/MMGW crowd: population control. The culture of death. Secondarily, a vast increase in governmental power and control.

Science produces numbers - statistics. It has been said that statistics are used, in the main, by rascals to impress fools.


It certainly seems the minority position.


Hi Schakuhachi,

Yes it is, but does that make that unreasonable?


Is the planet warming up? Seems to be.
Is it solely because of us monkee boys? Not sure.

Will a massive effort to reduce carbon emissions stop or reverse it? Not enough evidence, but not likely.

Is it a threat to humanity? No, we as a species will adapt, that’s why we got the big brains.

Will it be easy and pain free? Nope. There will be reductions in populations, standards of living, but humanity will survive.


Nothing wrong with scepticism. I think one can be sceptical and hedge our bets in a rational way. So…you might not be certain added CO and CO2 into the atmosphere does a lot of harm, but nevertheless, you think it’s wise to pursue alternatives which lessen the amount added.


Try breathing in New Delhi for day. But the folks there would rather breathe the most rotten air in the world, which is fair description of it, than go back to what life was like there 40 years ago without fossil fuels, when people were dying in the streets.

Yes, we are supposed to pay for our fossil-fueled enhanced lifestyle which we realized ahead of the second and third worlds. Well, we, in charity, ought to help our less fortunate brethren and sisthren, but not on account of global warming.


They don’t want to breathe rotten air though. They want their energy systems to meet their needs for energy AND to emit less pollution and/or greenhouses gases. The same is true of the people in London, Beijing and so on. Why paint the options as:

“do nothing”; OR
"die in the streets"

when such is not proposed?


Hi Bear,

I am no longer fearful of running out of fossil fuels in the near or even mid-term future. Here in NoDak, where we are sitting on billions of exploitable gallons of oil and bazillions of cf of natural gas, we aren’t worried. Same story around the world as they discover how to exploit shale deposits.

But yes, alternate energy sources in their due time. But, for now, I lament the vast wind farms being erected. We become poorer with each heavily subsidized tower we erect.


Yer right, of course, but we need to give the people of India, China, etc the right to work it out on their own terms. The alternative seems to be the eco-imperialism which the left would impose on the rest of the world… In other words, deny them cheap coal-generated electricity. Let them have solar collectors on their huts!


Hi Midori,

That climate science has become so politicized was one of the things which made me suspicious of the whole global warming-we’re all gonna burn mentality. Folks would stand up and raise reasonable concerns and yet be branded as akin to holocaust deniers. Something wrong here.


they should have solar on their huts if we are in such dire straits. however china & india will build new plants til 2030. something fishy with the story. it is about globalization and very reasonable to be a skeptic if you follow the actions of the players.

cato on the paris executive order:


What is climate change?

It’s a changing climate, regardless of how this is driven

Do you believe, regardless of what’s driving it. That the climate is changing?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit