I would argue that the ideas of any one person or group should be treated with great skepticism if the source is also making the effort to silence any opposition. If I proclaim to know the meaning of life, but also describe those who disagree with me as unqualified or outright kooks, then I have little faith in my own position. Legitimate debate in the arena of ideas should be based on the relative strength of the ideas themselves. Has an idea really been defeated if it was never allowed into the arena in the first place?

When science bumps into religion or politics, it becomes difficult to see which is which because the lines get fuzzy. When those who challenge a scientific theory are called deniers or treated like apostates, it is no wonder. Climate change has bumped into the world of politics hard and, instead of maintaining scientific integrity, many of its members have morphed into politicians and fire-and-brimstone preachers of the faith. Even worse, real politicians are now claiming to be scientists and explain to the uneducated what they have learned. Al Gore took several studies and scientific facts that supported his view on global warming. He then wrapped them up in convincing presentation to explain to the rest of us what we need to know about saving the planet. He now goes around the country presenting this information with one assumption that we must all agree to first: “The science is settled”. That very idea implies that anyone who disagrees or challenges his viewpoints are somehow less than worthy.

More and more folks are beginning to speak up and speak loudly that at worst, they simply don’t know what’s happening and, at best, it’s likely the cause of any climate change is unrelated to human activity. I once called them voices in the wilderness. Even that description implies a small number disagreeing with a vast majority. The truth is that the small number is not so small.

Lawrence Solomon has been writing a series in The National Post called The Deniers which walks through the science of several prominent, qualified scientists who simply will not agree to toe the global warming line. He reveals several facts and fields of inquiry that most have never heard of precisely because they do not support the stance that global warming is anthropogenic.

There is Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory who began to suspect something was up when he was invited by the IPCC to study the effects of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes. He was suspicious because a press conference was held mere days after he was due to start his research to announce that the IPCC expected to see a strong correlation. There was no science to back this claim up, only a desire for it to be true.

There is Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who is dumbstruck by those who point to the Arctic ice sheets melting as a disaster waiting to happen. Whether the Arctic ice sheets are growing or shrinking is only important when you take the Antarctic into account as well. Dr. Wingham has shown with satellite data that the Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing. Since it is a much larger source of ice and possible ocean water, it’s growth or shrinkage overwhelms any changes in the Arctic.

There is Henrick Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center who has shown a strong correlation between cosmic rays and low-altitude clouds. These kinds of clouds have a strong effect on the amount of warming or cooling of the earth. Much to the dismay of global warming activists, cosmic rays not caused or affected by humans, so this science is unwelcome.

There is Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory who has observed that Mars is experiencing very similar levels of global warming as Earth. He came to the obvious conclusion that if two planets in the same solar system are warming at the same rate, it must because of something that affects them both similarly. Namely: the sun.

Continue reading these interviews to find the sun seems to be working in cycles and we are currently at a peak. Or, read about how the IPCC seems to systematically deny access to those it has previously praised once their opinions diverge.

As each of these scientists will describe, they do not, in fact, deny the existence of global warming, they simply challenge the idea that it’s our fault and we have to fix it tomorrow. The changes recommended by the other side would mean dramatic economic change and, probably, severe restrictions in productivity and affluence in all parts of the world. They can’t advocate those sorts of changes unless “the science is settled”. It clearly is not and we have no business turning the world upside down until we know what’s going on.

It comes back to an old engineering maxim: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, step one is to actually prove that we’ve broken it. Let’s wait on the fixing.

Sometimes you have to open your mind to understand the truth. If the truth is too painful to recognize, we choose to believe the false front erected by those who don’t want you to know. When enough people buy in to the neatly wrapped story, then any criticism is decried as being kooky and from the lunatic fringe. But, sometimes, a heroic voice cries out and is unafraid to declare the truth. When you can’t avoid the truth, you have an obligation to stand up and join that voice until it becomes a chorus.

Here is one such voice who is unafraid. I join his chorus in asking the uncomfortable question: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

This is a brilliant piece of writing on many levels.