by Lewis Loflin
Global warming alarmists often reject the scientific method, particularly through the secrecy surrounding government-funded climate research, as seen in the 2009 Climategate scandal and Dr. Michael Mann’s refusal to disclose data. This lack of transparency undermines the empirical foundation of science, fueling distrust and highlighting the influence of politics over objectivity in a $400 billion-a-year industry. As a Deist, I emphasize the need for verifiable evidence, recognizing the cyclical nature of climate and the reality of CO2’s role, while advocating for practical solutions over ideological narratives, as I’ve explored in my previous articles.
Antonio Zamora outlines the scientific method: 1) make observations, 2) create a hypothesis to explain them, 3) predict outcomes based on the hypothesis, and 4) verify predictions with further observations (*Zamora*). If predictions fail, a new hypothesis is needed, and the process repeats. A hypothesis becomes a theory only after rigorous, repeatable testing, and all methods and data must be published for verification. This excludes supernaturalism, spiritualism, and political activism, which compromise objectivity, as I’ve argued in my spiritualecology article.
In climate science, hypotheses like human-induced global warming must account for past climate changes unrelated to fossil fuels, such as the rapid warming 12,000 years ago that ended the last Ice Age, or the Arctic’s ice-free periods over the last 10,000 years, which allowed whale migration (*Whale Fossils Unlock the History of the North*). These events, driven by natural causes, cannot be tested under controlled conditions, making the human-induced climate change hypothesis difficult to verify. Alarmists often bypass this rigor, relying on opinions rather than empirical proof, a trend exacerbated by the secrecy in government-funded research.
The 2009 Climategate scandal revealed a disturbing trend in climate science: secrecy and manipulation. Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit showed researchers refusing to disclose raw data and methodologies, even to critics, claiming peer review should be limited to selected scientists. This opacity, as I’ve critiqued in my lovelockbacktrack article, undermines public trust, especially since much of this research is taxpayer-funded (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). Alarmists complain about the public’s “lack of faith” in science, but science is not about faith—using terms like “deniers” smacks of religious fundamentalism, as James Lovelock noted, “It’s become a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts” (*The Guardian*, 3/30/2014).
Dr. Michael Mann, formerly of the University of Virginia, exemplifies this secrecy. His “Hockey Stick” graph, which claimed unprecedented warming in the 20th century, has been widely criticized, yet Mann refused to release his data and methods. In 2010, Virginia’s Attorney General subpoenaed Mann’s records, prompting the university to resist, citing “academic freedom” (*AP*, 5/27/2010). Regardless of the politics, this refusal to disclose publicly funded research erodes credibility, as I’ve argued in my swva_environmentalism article. The scientific method demands transparency—without it, claims remain unverified hypotheses, not theories.
Climate change is a scientific fact, as I’ve documented in my climateshifts and hypsithermal articles. The Hypsithermal (9,000–6,000 years ago) saw temperatures 2°C warmer than today, enabling agriculture (*Earth System History*, p. 508), while rapid shifts during the Ice Age occurred within decades (*Earth System History*, p. 468). The Arctic has been ice-free three times in the last 10,000 years, and the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) followed periods of cooling like the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715). Modern warming, a net 0.15°C since 1940 after a 0.6°C cooling (*NASA Earth Observatory*), is part of this cycle, as I’ve noted in my Southwest Virginia article.
Alarmists often ignore these natural cycles, focusing on human-induced CO2 (0.04% of the atmosphere) while downplaying water vapor (40,000 PPM), a far greater climate driver (*NASA*, 11/17/2008). CO2 plays a role, but its effect is secondary to natural factors like solar activity, as NASA confirms a 0.05% per decade increase in solar radiation since the 1970s (*NASA*). Alarmist models fail to account for events like record Antarctic sea ice in 2014 (7.78 million square miles) or the 2016 Polar Ocean Challenge halted by Arctic ice (*Washington Post*, 10/7/2014; *The Daily Caller*, 7/20/2016), as I’ve critiqued in my spiritualecology article.
Climate science, a $400 billion-a-year industry, is deeply politicized, as I’ve explored in my spiritualecology article. Government funding, which rose from 10% of university research budgets in 1930 to 60% of $51.9 billion in 2008, distorts priorities, often demanding predetermined outcomes (*The Academic-Governmental Complex*). In Southwest Virginia, tens of millions in public funds for green energy research produced nothing, driven by money, not science, as I’ve documented in my swva_environmentalism article. This mirrors the broader trend of climate research, where secrecy and politics trump transparency.
Alarmists rely on computer models that cannot be verified, violating the scientific method, as I’ve argued in my homeostasis article. These models ignore natural causes, focusing solely on human-induced factors, and are often proprietary, preventing public scrutiny (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). The 1975 National Academy of Sciences study notes a 0.6°C cooling from 1940 to 1975, yet modern narratives start at 1979 to exaggerate warming, a tactic I’ve critiqued in my lovelockbacktrack article. Adjusted data by NOAA and NASA further erodes trust, as Senate hearings have revealed.
CO2’s role in climate is real but overstated, as I’ve noted in my homeostasis article. Ancient periods with CO2 levels 10 times higher than today’s 0.04% saw no runaway warming, thanks to Earth’s self-regulating mechanisms like plant growth and ocean sequestration. Modern CO2 concerns must be addressed affordably—communities like those in Southwest Virginia cannot prioritize environmental ideals over survival, as I’ve argued in my greenreligion article. Practical solutions, like nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing, which Lovelock supports, offer a path forward, reducing emissions without economic devastation, as I’ve advocated in my naturalfission article (*Science Under Siege*, p. 356).
Environmentalists’ technophobia, rejecting nuclear power, and their quasi-religious alarmism, as I’ve critiqued in my ecoreligion article, hinder progress (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). The Oklo reactors, operating naturally for millions of years, show that nuclear processes can be safe, yet alarmists perpetuate fear. Affordable energy, as I’ve noted in my lovelockbacktrack article, enables pollution controls and a high standard of living—key to addressing real environmental issues, not spiritual ecology’s ideological goals.
As a Deist, I approach climate with a focus on reason and empirical evidence, rejecting the dogmatic narratives of alarmists, whether environmentalists, Christian fundamentalists, or radical atheists. Climate change is normal, as I’ve documented in my climate studies—historical records show its impact on human history, from ancient times to the Vikings in Greenland. The science is clear: climate cannot be tested under controlled conditions, and hypotheses like human-induced warming remain unproven. Alarmists, driven by politics and self-interest, refuse to admit uncertainty, as I’ve critiqued in my spiritualecology article.
Debating entrenched opinions is futile, as I’ve learned from engaging with radical groups. The information is available for those who seek it, but alarmists’ rejection of transparency—seen in Climategate and Mann’s secrecy—makes reasoned discourse impossible. We must adapt to climate change, as humanity always has, using science to guide practical solutions, not ideological fearmongering.
Global warming alarmists’ rejection of science, through secrecy and politicization, undermines the pursuit of truth. By prioritizing empirical evidence, transparency, and the cyclical nature of climate, we can address environmental challenges with practical, affordable solutions like nuclear power. Science must be severed from politics, religion, and ideology, ensuring it serves humanity with reason and purpose. With Earth’s resilience as our guide, we can adapt to climate change without succumbing to alarmist dogma, fostering a sustainable future for all.
Updated 2025 by Lewis Loflin.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
