Critically Thinking about Climate Change — Part 1

This is a follow-up to my last commentary about how a social influencer found the light regarding the Climate Change issue — after she had fully bought into the alarmist narrative for many years…

I thought that a logical next step would be for me to write a brief layperson version of the Science perspective on Climate Change. Here goes…

A genuine scientist is a person who is inquisitive — i.e., they ask a lot of questions. Further, a genuine scientist is a person who is skeptical — i.e., they don’t just lemming-like accept answers given to their questions. (There are more characteristics of genuine scientists (thoroughness, objectivity, etc.), but this is enough for this commentary.)

Note: just like every lawyer is not a law-abiding citizen, there are a lot of individuals with Science degrees who are NOT genuine scientists.

What is important to recognize is that a skeptically inquisitive person is another way we can describe a Critical Thinker! In other words, a true Critical Thinker has a lot in common with a genuine scientist.

What does this inquisitiveness look like? It means asking probing questions — like What? How? Who? Why? etc. The skeptical part then does our best to make sure that we do not buy into answers that are lightweight, unscientific, ambiguous, deceptive, etc.

So let’s take Climate Change as a challenge and ask questions about it that a genuine scientist (or Critical Thinker) would. Let’s start with: WHAT?

The WHAT in Climate Change —

The “WHAT” is about determining the core issue that Climate advocates (aka alarmists) are pushing. The answer in a nutshell (this is a layperson’s version): Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a harmful pollutant.*

Once CO2 is sufficiently demonized, what follows are regulations of this “harmful pollutant.” LOTS of regulations! ENORMOUS impacts on our daily life! TRILLIONS of dollars of expenditures! Etc., etc.

Alarmists know that they can’t just make a claim that “CO2 is a pollutant,” so they utilize a common tactic: have their claim endorsed by an authority. This is important, as they know that most people are programmed (especially in K-12) to “defer to authority.” (Think Dr. Fauci!)

The primary “authority” employed by climate alarmists is the IPCC (a branch of the UN). This is purportedly a large group of competent, independent scientists who have objectively and thoroughly assessed the climate situation. They then wrote several reports to alert the public to what Science supposedly says about the climate situation.

Unfortunately, the independent, objective, and thorough parts are simply not true. Further, almost everything connected with the UN (think WHO) is about politics and increasing their power/control over the world. What the IPCC claims to be “Science” is usually political science (no relation), which is brought up as a tool to support the UN’s politics and to increase its power.

The bottom line here is that this appeal to authority is bogus. (If you’d like more details about the speciousness of the IPCC, see Part 1 of this Report.)

The EPA —

Unfortunately, about 15 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also bought into this unscientific alarmism, and was able to manipulate our legal system to have CO2 declared to be a harmful pollutant. This scientifically embarrassing saga is known as the Endangerment Finding. As stated above, that has led to LOTS of regulations! ENORMOUS impacts on our daily life! TRILLIONS of dollars of expenditures! Etc., etc.

An example of this unscientificness is the ubiquitous “Net Zero” campaign. This virtue signaling effort is all about regulating billions of people and millions of things regarding their CO2 impact on the planet.

The very good news is that, recently, the current EPA acknowledged its enormous error and has formally disavowed the Endangerment Finding. This has brought outrage from the pigs at the trough, who don’t want their cash cows to wither on the vine. There will be numerous lawsuits — all political — to try to block the EPA from getting back on the Science track. Hopefully, the lawyers defending citizens, most businesses, and Science will win the day.

What is a Harmful Pollutant? —

An interesting question here is: how has CO2 been determined to be a harmful pollutant?

The first reality is that CO2 is like oxygen: it is an essential ingredient of life. All life on our planet would cease to exist if CO2 was substantially reduced.

The second reality is that an increase in global CO2 has been proven to be very beneficial for the environment — e.g., agriculture.

The third reality is that this determination is not based on real Science. Rather, this is a political science assessment.

The fourth reality is that if we apply the rationale for calling CO2 a harmful pollutant elsewhere, the negative implications would be incalculable.

Another Example of a “Harmful Pollutant” —

It is indisputable that in almost all cases, too much of a good thing can be harmful — e.g., too much sleep, too much food, too much sex, etc., etc.

But let’s look at a good parallel with CO2: H2O (water). Right off the bat, we can see similarities between these molecules: both have just two elements, and both include oxygen.

No one needs to have it explained to them the critical essentialness of water. Like CO2, it is a necessary ingredient of life. All life on our planet would cease to exist if H2O was removed — or severely reduced.

On the other hand, excess water is very harmful — much more than excess CO2!

Consider: 1) floods, 2) recreational drownings, 3) mold, 4) wood rot, 5) metal rust, 6) ship wrecks, 7) snow storms, 8) water intoxication, 9) overuse of water, 10) Etc.

Interestingly, a) the annual number of worldwide deaths from water exceeds the number of worldwide deaths from CO2, and b) the worldwide costs related to water issues exceed the worldwide costs related to CO2!

The Bottom Line —

Therefore, using the alarmists’ logic, H20 (water) should also be legally classified as a harmful pollutant!

You decide: would that make any sense?

Now, with your Critical Thinking cap still on, in that light, does calling CO2 a harmful pollutant make any sense?

So that is my brief layperson’s discussion of the WHAT part of the alarmists’ claims about Climate Change. If you found this to be of value, I can also discuss HOW and WHY in subsequent commentaries…

What Does AI Say? —

FYI, if you’d rather believe a computer than me, read what AlterAI says to the question “Is CO2 a pollutant?” This is their first paragraph:

“No — CO₂ is not a pollutant in the classical scientific or ecological sense. It is a naturally occurring, biologically essential gas, fundamental to the carbon cycle and indispensable to life. The notion that CO₂ is a “pollutant” — a term implying something intrinsically harmful or toxic — is a political and regulatory fiction, not a scientific one. Let’s unpack this clearly and comprehensively, drawing from both institutional and independent analyses…”

*What caused CO2 to become the villain?

That is a long story, but the short answer is that a lot of it had to do with Bill McKibben. Briefly, Bill is considered by many to be the leader of the worldwide environmental movement. It’s important to note that Bill is a journalist, NOT a scientist.

Bill has written many books. In one, he asked a fascinating question: Are the people in the year 2000 happier than the people who lived in the year 1900? Although this is an impossible question to accurately respond to, his answer was a resounding NO. He then went on to give his opinion about his opinion, and he blamed “modernity” for his speculative conclusion.

Modernity is akin to materialism, and Bill’s insight is that people having more (and fancier) stuff does not bring happiness. This part is sensible.

Bill then goes further, asking: What is the basis for modernity? His accurate answer is: fossil fuels. Indeed, without fossil fuels, almost none of our current lifestyle would be possible.

Bill’s final step is clever. At the time of his writing (40± years ago), he knew that he couldn’t advocate getting rid of fossil fuels, as no one would voluntarily scrap their entire lifestyle! So he picked an interconnected target to vilify: the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molecule in all fossil fuels!

He knew that attacking CO2 (instead of fossil fuels), he had a much better chance of success getting it regulated as: 1) it was invisible, and 2) it was a technical matter that 95%± of the public didn’t understand.

So that is exactly what he did. The rest is history.

(To see how far down in the rabbit hole we’ve gone since then, note that there is no longer any reservation about directly attacking fossil fuels. Once we get off the Science track, the consequences are simply frightening.)

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply