What's a skeptic? The definition can be looked up easily enough, but what, really, is a skeptic? What makes a good skeptic? Is it enough to just snub your nose at views with which you disagree?

Is Ken Hughes a global warming skeptic? Yes, but only in the most technical sense, as he scoffs at the notion that mankind can change something as vast as the climate itself. But is scoffing enough? No, not really. To be a real skeptic, a good skeptic, Ken must first get acquainted with the issue and the evidence involved. The science of global warming has a set of evidences, reasons and rationales that it presents to us. Judging from his writings on the matter, he has some reading to do. We know Ken watches Internet videos against, but has he watched any videos for?

Could the reason that most youtube global warming videos support global warming be because global warming is real? And if this is the case, would that be bias?

Global warming is now accepted by mainstream science. Like it or not, love or hate science, that is the way of things.

There are examples we could site of lone geniuses who come up with something amazing that flies in the face of accepted wisdom, Einstein and his alternative view of gravity which included some corrections to Newton's laws is a good recent case. Einstein had some trouble at first in getting his views taken seriously, but it was mostly an issue of culture. He was an official nobody. Yet, his work was sound and once other well-known types got a hold of it, and after the greater scientific community skeptically analyzed it, it was accepted.

It had to be; this is science and his work was, quite simply, valid (to keep it simple). It doesn't matter if preconceived notions were swept away; that's the way modern science works.

The anti-global warming crowd doesn't have any lone geniuses. The world's scientific institutions are intimately familiar with their work and have, frankly, rejected it. Three times now, each time with greater unity and confidence (and evidence), have the world's scientists publicly agreed to the major tenets of global warming.

One can always, for any idea, find someone with an opposing view who is otherwise credible and credentialed. Such people don't introduce balance by default, however, anymore than folks who deny bacteria and viruses somehow balance the researchers studying bird flu. Championing the views of such people, if done at expense of the greater science for political reasons, also isn't known as good skepticism or logical thinking.

This is the policy of our other current top anti-global warming guru, Edward Abraham. Recently he wrote about carbon offsets and attempted to write a humorous article poking fun at Al Gore in that respect.

The Gore family buys so called carbon offsets, buying the moral right, if you will, to personally emit more carbon into the atmosphere. Ed simply missed the point and his analogies are flawed, but before I delve into that, I'll address Al's wealth.

Al was rich before the current global warming consensus. Al could make more money than most of us will ever see just on speaking engagements just for having been a vice president without ever mentioning global warming. Gore's friends are wealthy. His wife is wealthy. He lives a wealthy lifestyle as do most wealthy folk. If I had the money for a private jet, I'd buy one. If I had the money for a yacht, I'd buy one. If I had the money for a ticket into space, I'd buy one, knowing full well that the Space Shuttle pollutes an amazing amount each trip. If I could afford those luxuries, I could also afford carbon offsets to keep my reason and evidence-based humanistic karma in check.

And that leads me to the point that Ed missed or, ignored. Carbon offsets aren't analogous at all to any of the examples Ed provided. If I want to speed at 95 mph, the notion that I can pay someone else to drive slower is rather silly. It doesn't matter how fast that other individual drives - my speed in and of itself is still dangerous! The negative overall impact hasn't really been lowered, merely shifted.

Now let's use an environmental analogy: mercury. One couldn't buy a mercury offset in the same way as carbon, because mercury does local damage and presents a danger just like driving recklessly does. If I bought the right to dump more mercury into the local river, in exchange for someone else dumping less or no mercury, the locals and the wildlife near that river face a much greater chance of serious illness. As with the speeding example, the negative impact has been shifted, but not really reduced. Mercury is toxic. It has to be treated in special ways before being disposed of, and that's the key.

Carbon doesn't work that way - carbon is not toxic. With carbon, all that matters is the total emitted. It doesn't matter where that carbon is released. 500 megatons of carbon does the same damage if it's released over Kansas or over Iceland.

So when Gore buys these offsets, the net emission of carbon is reduced, probably below the levels of the non-mansion owning crowd; let's say that he buys 1000 tons worth of offsets and then emits 500, and that an average middle class home emits 100 tons (keeping in mind that his house has solar panels and is probably more efficient, foot for foot, than most of our homes). The carbon that he bought is emitted in different physical locations, near Gore's house or out of his airplanes at ten thousand feet, but unlike mercury, location doesn't matter. Gore really can claim, logically, morally and scientifically, that the net impact is lower or neutralized.

That would be enough show the flaw in the various analogies that Ed used, but, that's not yet the whole story. There are other aspect of these offsets which are a bit harder to measure. The companies that handle these things also spend money on education and other green-ventures. Here's a somewhat contrived analogy that attempts to be accurate, apples to apples: Let's say that Ed needs to move two tons of hay to his fellow elephants, but he has time constraints.

He has one car and a good stretch of his journey has a 50 mph speed limit, but he'd ideally like to move that hay at 100 mph and make two trips. Since he doesn't want to break the law or add danger to the road, he needs to solve his problems and offset the potential negative effects. If Ed followed Gore's example, Ed might pay for a second car and drive both loads at the same time and save a return trip. One could possibly argue that some additional danger was added to the road (even though everything is legal and moral), since car accidents are a major cause of death and injury, the less cars on the road is in generally better. But Ed also promised to be a better driver and took a defensive driving class. He also had both cars tuned, spent money on programs that teach good driving skills to teens, and fought actively on a campaign to introduce more public transportation in his area.

Unlike Ed's analogies, at no time was immorality, illegality or danger allowed or merely shifted; the negatives were either lowered or eliminated. There are some folks who say that Gore shouldn't be emitting carbon at all. But what if Ed needs to haul that load? What if Gore wants to travel? This amounts to a straw-man argument; Gore and indeed, most of the scientifically oriented environmental movement do not advocate giving up modern conveniences! It isn't necessary and many in the green movement are working to fill the cracks and gaps. While we couldn't totally eliminate our carbon output yet, we could drastically reduce it without affecting our standard of living.

I'm pretty sure Ed knew better, he seems like a smart feller. I wonder what his motivations could have been? For a skeptic, he, like Ken, has some learning to do.

There are other conservatives here who write about this issue from time to time, and my message to Ken, Ed and all the rest is this: before you are bestowed with the honor and title of, "skeptic", you must repeat the following:

I, a conservative of sound mind and body, do understand that science as an institution now agrees that global warming is happening and that mankind is responsible. While I may have personal biases against this view, I concede to the evidence and to the experts. I realize that nothing is for sure, but understand the direction in which the evidence clearly points using the best possible means and by the best method yet known for acquiring information. I understand that it took science several decades of work in many fields and that this consensus wasn't formed lightly or easily. I also understand that in order to analyze opposing views in their proper context, I must do more than merely appeal to authority. I must remember that using only the views of one or a very few highly biased individuals puts me on the path of this logical fallacy, something not at all the same as appealing to experts, something every non-expert must do when discussing something beyond the level of common knowledge.

Further, I realize that if I am to successfully put forward a conspiracy as a counter argument to show motive, one involving old-style communists, science bodies from virtually every relevant nation and Californian tree-hugging pot-smoking hippies, that I must first have good, independently verified evidence, including a fair amount of the following: memos, verified names of involved high-ranking officials, various paper-trail items and records, leaked recorded phone calls, emails, sweaty sun-bleached sandals complete with foot funk extracted DNA, and leaked secret meeting notes.

I swear this in the name of truth.

Please memorize and recite that daily, preferably before you read, listen to, or watch the news. Do this for one month and then send me $20 along with a personalized thank-you note, and I'll mail you your very own, official, "I am a good skeptic" certificate.

------------

About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys.

I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link:

fredsuberview.blogspot.com/

About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;)

Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all...

Email: dahlek65@gmail.com

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).

	Web useless-knowledge.com