Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane

There's an interesting article over at The Blaze, called Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

Of course, he means "climate change denier", not "climate denier", as the article explains. But enough about them This my blog, and this is all about my opinions.

I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. Huge difference. Climate change may or may not be happening. We have, or can get incontrovertible data that will confirm or deny it (although it seems rather inconclusive and open to interpretation at the moment. And it depends heavily on what you choose as initial conditions -- a very common concern for anyone who has ever even dabbled in science).

The thing that I am skeptical about is the hypothesis that there is a strong causal link between human activity and whatever is happening in the climate today. Hear me now and believe me later: The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. As I see it, the burden of proof is nearly overwhelming, because there isn't even any real consensus about where the data is trending. Until that is sorted out, all we have is some weak correlation, which is a huge leap from establishing a cause.

Reproducible experiments are most likely impractical, which means anything we do to counteract whatever it is, would have to be based solely on faith. Without scientific evidence, the watermelons want to invoke the precautionary principle. But without reproducible experimental results, we have no clue what will really work. Whatever random straws we grasp would be no more predictable than religious incantations.

According to Wikipedia,

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

Notice the use of the word "consensus". I always wondered where that came from. Science is based on experimental evidence and proof, not consensus. Now we have a deeper understanding of the narrative. Oh, and see what they did there? Look at the convenient shift of the burden of proof! Welcome to the Church of Our Lady of Anthropogenic Global Whatever.