Climate change debate promises confusion for Pontius Pilate

Of the questions posed throughout human history few are more pertinent to contemporary culture than one from Pontius Pilate. Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who presided over Jesus Christ’s trial, uttered the far-ranging query: “What is truth?”

Varied opinions are the norm concerning Jesus Christ. Some people see him as a good man, a wise teacher, or an extraordinary prophet. He is Savior to others. Despite such divergent opinions few people argue against Jesus being a keen judge of humanity. If Pilate failed to recognize this truth, face to face, how could he distinguish truth in today’s climate debate?

Governments, scientists and journalists have declared the global warming debate settled. It’s happening; man is the culprit and regulation is the cure. But journalists are generally sympathetic to an expansive government. The global warming scientific community receives funding from government organizations. And government itself stands to strengthen in scope and influence with each environmental regulation.

The climate debate is an example of supplying half the story while silencing opposition. And half of a story is misleading at best. At worst, it’s a lie. Could Pilate grasp truth in the media/science/government climate triumvirate?

Not even the title, global warming, has survived the spin machine. Global warming evolved into climate change until the current White House dismissed both terms in favor of global climate disruption. Each title sounds menacing. But do any of the three carry a substantive meaning? Or, would they leave Pilate asking, “What is truth?”

Following the climate debate in the traditional media, print or broadcast, leads the non-scientific observer to accept global climate disruption as settled fact. Every expert in climate-related scientific fields, reports claim, accepts the idea of climate change. Science is of one accord, human activity is driving this world toward an apocryphal environmental calamity. That is the truth, settled and sure. Yet Pilate would do well to retain his skepticism.

Earth’s temperature and climate hasn’t remained static through the eons, having ranged from ice ages to tropical periods. And who’s to say if Earth has deviated from its optimum temperature, or what that prime temperature should be? Furthermore, there are credible scientists questioning the “consensus” regarding climate change. In fact, there are many who shun the theory that modern living is the instigating factor in what climate and temperature fluctuations may have occurred previously, are happening now, or will in the future.

The late physicist Frederick Seitz initiated a petition that netted over 30,000 signatures from scientists skeptical of manmade global warming. The signers represent diverse scientific disciplines, from climatologists to medical doctors. But with few exceptions the signers are credible professionals representing scientific fields. Yet such climate change skeptics are assailed or ridiculed. Their professionalism is impugned and their opinions are dismissed with rolling eyes and deep sighs.

“What is truth?”

Skeptics are labeled shills for “Big Energy” and “Big Oil.” Their views are declared biased, since energy and oil interests stand to profit from debunking climate change theories. However, climate change proponents receive funding from government interests. And governmental organizations, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, expand their influence with each anti-global climate disruption initiative.

So scientists are in total agreement. Mankind is the global warming culprit, except that a large number of scientists don’t accept the manmade climate change theories. And skeptics are ridiculed as stooges if they receive one dime from energy interests while green church apostles are considered unbiased even though governments funds their research.

What would the Judean governor make of “truth” now?

Climate change centers on the carbon dioxide generated in fossil fuel combustion, ranging from coal-fired power plants to grandpa’s wood stove. Carbon dioxide is treated as the most noxious gas since methyl isocyanate (of Union Carbide fame). The Environmental Protection Agency has even declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as the most dangerous element known to man, a veritable death sentence for anyone exposed. Yet no one can escape its presence, for humans produce CO2 with each exhale. Are we then healthier when we aren’t breathing?

Let’s examine the scorecard. All scientists agree that manmade global warming is settled fact, except for the scientists who disagree. Climate change science is prejudiced when the research funds come from energy interests, but are pristine and unbiased when funded through governmental entities. Finally, carbon dioxide is the hazard of our era, a lethal pollutant that must be controlled. Only CO2 can’t be controlled because life doesn’t exist without its production.

Pontius Pilate could rightly ask, “What is truth?”