Ten Questions for Global Warming Alarmists

For a few years, I've had this list of questions regarding the alleged Man Made "Global Warming" a.k.a "Climate Change" and I've continued to elaborate on it and expand it. These are questions I like to ask warming alarmists who enjoy scaring people into submission on this issue, and who feel this is a proper tactic. I'm still awaiting answers.

My questions about Man-Made Warming/Climate Change:

1.   What is the OPTIMAL temperature for human survival and comfort? Is it the climate we have this year? What about the climate of 1820, during the pre-industrial Little Ice Age? Is it the arbitrary 1990 date selected by Warming Alarmists? Is it 2005? 1750? 1200? 4000 BC? The fact is, our climate ALWAYS changes, and always has changed. There is no "perfect" climate for humanity and never has been. But if there is one, shouldn't Alarmists be required to tell us what date that is, exactly, so we'll have a solid and clear goal?

2.   Why are some scientists attempting to cover up and/or minimize the Medieval Warming Period - a time during which it was FAR WARMER than today, and when humans were productive, and actually thrived like they never had before? In fact, it's also been far colder on Earth - during the Little Ice Age, for instance, or during the 6^th Century, which was the middle of the Dark Ages and is a period of devastating drought and poor growing conditions. Warmer climates often signal greater prosperity for humanity, not doom and extinction. Why, then, should we fear a warming earth?

3.    Isn't adapting to change and accepting change as a constant BETTER than foolishly thinking humans can change eons of Climate Changes in just a couple of decades (for good or ill)? If vast swaths of farmland open up in the Dakotas and in Canada in the 2080's, is that not positive? Who are we to say? The Sahara, 12,000 years ago, was a rainforest. Again, changes happen and always have. Shouldn't we focus on adapting, rather than blaming ourselves or our political foes for changes that are clearly far out of our control?

4.    Rising sea levels have been cited as evidence of warming. But the estimates by the world’s climate change body (IPCC) for sea level changes have continually been revised DOWNWARD, from 20 feet (forecast in the early '90s) to just a few inches over 100 years (rising OR falling) in reports from the 2000s. (Most reasonable climatologists now admit they simply do not know, even as the most recent report goes hysterical again with outlandish predictions.) But even if we grant that sea level rise is the default symptom of warming, again, what is the OPTIMAL level of the sea? Today’s sea level? Who are WE to say this? Do cities like Venice - built IN the water – not to mention people who settled in nations located on islands in the Pacific Ocean that are at or below sea level - have a “right” to live there forever, despite the certainty that sea levels in the past were far higher, and also far lower, than today, and that new islands are ALWAYS forming and  old ones submerging back into the ocean?

5.    How much, exactly, are human beings responsible for the climate changing? 10%? 30%? 100%? (that last one being impossible.) If we don't know with certainty – and no scientist does – how do we know by how much we must decrease our emissions, and which ones do we decrease? Or is it all guesswork, as skeptics suspect?

6.    Are CO2 emissions the SOLE or MAJOR cause of warming? Or does it have marginal effects? Or, as some scientists suggest, do CO2 emissions FOLLOW climate changes throughout history?

7.   Why are the government-funded scientists working on the "Man-Made Warming" Theory ignoring or downplaying the role of sunspot activity, which directly correlates to past warming/cooling cycles, and does to this one, too? (In fact, sunspots have been “off” a bit this cycle – clearly not a man-caused event, but tellingly, the weather patterns have suggested this change perfectly.)

8.    Are scare tactics the best way to talk about science? Is the phrase "the argument is over" and the tactic of shutting down debate EVER acceptable in a scientific discussion? Is it healthy to politicize science, and compare opponents who question models (which were clearly wrong) to Holocaust deniers? Science isn't a religion, where there are "heretics" who must be shouted down. Why is it even necessary to remind Warming advocates of this basic fact?

9.    Why didn't scientists and Al Gore loudly and persistently condemn the film, "Day After Tomorrow," which depicted an overnight change in the Earth's climate, something that is literally impossible, but which fed into the worst kind of hysteria and panic, especially among the impressionable young?

10. NO European nation ever met the CO2 standards laid out in Kyoto. Why, then, are they seeking to impose NEW, tougher standards on the Western World? And if limiting emissions of CO2 is critical to ending climate change (and assuming that this is possible, and that this is, indeed THE problem) why are the world’s biggest spewers of CO2 and pollutants – China and India –being allowed to bypass any new standards with which Western nations will be forced to comply, at a cost of trillions of dollars in lost jobs and productivity as well as retrofitting costs? Note that this is a time when the West’s economies are collapsing and China’s and India’s have been growing rapidly.