They are convinced the earth is heating up. They are convinced this is man’s doing. And, they are convinced the government must lead the charge and fight against this beast that they are convinced will be our doom sooner rather than later.

Why are they so certain? Why do they presuppose the premise of their argument and dismiss, resoundingly, the existent contradictory evidence?

Yes, regardless of what most schools and nearly every media outlet present, there is contradictory evidence.

For example:

• The earth hasn’t actually warmed in 15 years
• Evidence that some scientists lied about their global warming research
• Contrary to reports of massive arctic ice meltdown, the latest study shows that ice levels in the arctic circle are at their highest levels in seven years
• Not only is there more ice, but in contrast to the cries of environmental extremists, there are more polar bears too
• Evidence shows that the earth heated up in medieval times. Yet, there were no CO2 emissions, so it couldn’t have been human-caused
• Challenging the notion that extreme action should be taken to “decarbonize” our economy

When factual certainty is replaced with agenda-coinciding theory, science very quickly becomes religion.

When the liberal media or world of academia attempts to persuade its audience of the dangers and impending doom of environmental changes, we are witnessing the theory of manmade global warming, not a factually-based scientific conclusion.

They claim science, but their claims lack inarguable certainly. As a belief or unbelief in God requires faith, the belief in global warming, manmade or not, requires a faith in something that has not been proven. Their hypotheses reside in agenda and scheme, not verity.
Science is something that can be studied, observed, and tested. Global warming, and especially the presumption that man is to blame, is none of these things.

This is not a declaration of definitive evidential analysis for one side or the other, it is merely a challenge to consider why some “scientists” and their political pushers are so certain of something so uncertain.

Is the globe actually warming? Is there any actual substantive climate change? Is it caused by man’s activity? If so, can anything be done to curb the affects?

Conservatives are inclined to answer “no” to these questions, citing large amounts of evidence (such as the arguments provided in the links provided above) that says the earth and her inhabitants are just fine and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Liberals, on the other hand, promise that global warming is real, manmade, and disastrous.

Perhaps you are engaged in this discussion, and unsure how to combat your liberal counterpart who insists that manmade global warming will be our demise. Remind your foe that a mere 25 years ago liberals swore up and down that the globe was cooling, and we were headed for another ice age.

Ask them why their unfounded argument is so impassioned and why they cling to shoddy evidence with such fervor. Their answer will either be a regurgitation of questionable science or some form of tree-hugging, “Don’t hurt Mother Earth!” environmental radicalism. This approach – that of placing the environment above human necessity and reasonable use – mirrors closely the replacing of hard science with hopeful religion that global warming activists must necessarily adapt in order to justify their activism.

The real answer? That the politicians and enviro-lobbyists brutally pursue their agenda, and they have a whole lot of average folks fooled into thinking that the evidence for massive manmade climate change is conclusive.

Don’t be one of them.

You can follow the author on Twitter @brady_cremeens.

P.S. For a harsher, yet critical commentary on the reasoning behind the global warming extremists, I urge you to read this piece by James DelingPole, entitled “Why I Am So Rude to the Warmists“.

While many Americans were filling up their tanks with $4 gasoline this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was enjoying Major League Baseball’s opening game on a taxpayer-funded trip to Tokyo. Taxpayers were also footing the bill for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to spend a few days in Paris.

Chu was outed by The Washington Gaurdian’s John Soloman when he discovered a picture sent by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s official taxpayer-funded twitter account of a baseball game in Tokyo Japan. Meanwhile, Lisa Jackson, she of this EPA-fame, was in Paris France, to “meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability.”  Global government, when coupled with so-called urban sustainability and climate change fear-mongering propaganda, are basic anti-capitalistic stealth forms of Socialism, which is dependent on the Marxist principles of wealth redistribution through the overthrowing of established governments to enact social justice fraud.

Lisa Jackson, the lifelong global warming political activist fits right in with the urban sustainability pimps of Europe, which by the way, is in the middle of the worst economic crisis in modern history. All of these anti-capitalist mandates coming out of these types of U/N European Socialistic programs are dependent on one thing for survival: The blatant theft of American wealth to be “redistributed” to the less productive societies of the world through dishonest fear-mongering from globalists and environmental terrorists posing as green-earth saviors. Thus the Obama administration uses taxpayer dollars to fund Jackson’s lavish Paris gig… to further undermine American sovereignty and take away her freedom that has made American freedom the envy of the world for centuries.

Do Americans really want four more years of watching Obama-appointees fly around the world to promote the injection of these types of freedom-robbing European Socialism here in America?  When Americans go to the polls in November they have a simple choice: Either vote for American freedom and prosperity through voting for proven conservative politicians, or vote for Obama and the Democrat’s poverty-inducing European Socialism-style insolvency.  The choice is that simple.