global-warming-cartoon1Ladies and gentlemen. Below is what is described as the “accepted science” and in today’s world, if you question any of this line of thinking, then you are a denier, so get ready for me to call you a denier if you do not immediately swear fidelity to … the Ten Commandments of Anthropogenic Global Warming (though I do like this list even better):


These make up the AGW central question. In order for AGW to be scientifically “settled” ALL FOUR of these must be true:

1. The planet has been getting warmer for the last 50 years.

2. There is an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

3. Human beings are responsible for the lion’s share of the increase in carbon dioxide.

4. A/the primary cause of the planet’s warning is the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (i.e. (2) is the cause of (1) )

Nobody on the planet has ever denied number 1, though it has become evident that the rate of increase has become slower over the last 20 years…almost negligible. Numbers 2 and 3 are also not in question. Number 4 however has never been answered clearly by the IPCC scientifically (the singular body which represents scientific consensus on climate change)… at all. Think through what that means.


These make up the “call to action” and “sense of urgency” that is required to get us to do something to save the planet. Even if numbers (1) through (4) are true, if either of these are not true, the sense of urgency goes away, and the need for action in general (especially the kind of action proposed below) is greatly diminished.

5. The results of the [projected] temperature increase will be necessarily negative and catastrophic.

6. Humans can stop it/prevent it appreciably and demonstrably if they drastically reduce the amount of CO2 they are pumping into the atmosphere. (corollary: if they do nothing, then global tragedy and catastrophe will occur) 

Even those who have proposed (5) to be true, but not (6), and thus wish to focus resources on mitigation alone … are largely ignored. It should be further noted that this is essentially, for all intents and purposes where the “science” ends, so it is likely proper to separate this from the rest…but who cares?! We soldier on!


These combined establish the foundation which will make oil, coal, and other “fossil fuels” more expensive and sustainable energy more affordable, and thus will usher in a “new economy” where humans will live more harmoniously with the environment with more connected, loving communities and cleaner energy. It is here where classical and rational environmentalism, concerned with protecting the integrity of water, air, and soil is merged in with “economic development” through the externality of “climate change.” Even if you concede points (1) through (4), and concede the remote possibility of (5) and (6) then you must buy into these points, or you are a “denialist” or “skeptic” and probably “anti-science.”

7) The most effective way to prevent calamity is to prohibit /tax /restrict /reduce carbon dioxide through government control, including ending decades long “oil subsidies” enjoyed by Big Oil, as well as reduce the opportunities they have in developing new sources of oil and gas. 

8) Also, governments must subsidize and support through grants, loans, and tax incentives “green energy” solutions which will make it easier to develop new “sustainable energy” technologies.

9) State and local governments need to enforce strict planning tools, encouraging higher density “mixed use” developments and public transit solutions which will take more cars off the roads, and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and meanwhile, will protect wildlife areas.

Even economical analysis to determine whether (7) to (9) are worth the investment are verboten, lest you lose the good graces of whatever university or government grant funds you. IF you stray from this line, and wish to continue studying environmental science, then you must take the funding of evil, right wing, Koch Brother apostates — filled with people who want to reform social security or promote more school choice and less government regulations in general (GASP!) — or go do something else for a living. Maybe open up a restaurant at the end of the universe, if you can get a permit.


Number 10 is the singular, defining purpose behind which the IPCC (The “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” was conceived, created and developed, with the basic assumption that points (1) through (9) are gospel truth handed down by Mother Gaia herself, while spouting computer models — which have never been shown to be anywhere near accurate, ever — in lieu of actual experimental evidence, as proof:

10) Since the U.S. particularly, and the West generally, is responsible for so much GHG emissions, it follows that we should:

     option a) Form an international agreement where the developed world pays the price for not only its own CO2 excesses, but also for the necessary improvements (development) of the third world, preferably through a “carbon credit” trading mechanism (CCX), which would make the sheisters behind credit defaults blush. OR…

     option b) Simply take it upon ourselves to tax the living bejesus out of CO2 emissions.

…and thus the Western (or more accurately, Northern minus China) countries must be convinced to sign something like the Kyoto Protocol.

And lastly, as a bonus, the 11th Commandment:


This is my favorite. I’ve heard similar arguments for seeking to save one’s immortal soul, and there is possibly less rationality here than the “what if you are wrong” call to God, since the latter is individually decided, and costs way less:

11) Even if we can’t prove most or any of this, and thus even if the narrative is not true overall, we must be bold enough to implement (7) through (10)…just in case, because the cost is too high (even if we don’t really know the cost, nor are interested in studying the cost of doing what we seek to do, thus we have no opportunity cost at all.)

This is the worst excuse for “science” ever conceived, while simultaneously being completely stupid economics, and horrendously bad public policy.

Why Bother?

It’s true that those who are convinced of AGW will likely not even make it through this, which should shed a little light on who are the real skeptics, and who are simply the holders of a religion. (Hint: “denier” is not a term one would use who is… open… to new ideas and questioning established tradition…in general.)

SO, for those who did make it through, and have historically found yourselves supportive of the AGW “party line,” if you will…:

a) How many of the above points 1 through 10 do you BELIEVE to be true/proper/right? How many of the 10 points have been PROVEN true/proper/right, or even have a preponderance of evidence in support of them? 

b) Does the difference matter? AT ALL?

c) If the lists don’t match up…if you believe something to be true, and there is scant evidence for it, who is the denier of science?

d) If the IPCC doesn’t even take the position, technically, that all 10 of these things are objectively true…why have we been led to believe that to deny them is heresy (literally heresy, in every sense of the word) by the purveyors of the approved climate science point of view.

e) Most importantly, take your time. Take each point one by one. Do the research…read the IPCC statements, read the skeptics’ statements. What you’ll find might surprise you: that nobody on the planet ACTUALLY believes these ten things to be true. However many WANT them to be believed… WHY? What do they have to gain?

That’s it. Hopefully this is the beginning of a rational conversation and not the end of one. But this is the way a “skeptic” sees it, and the way anyone at all touched by Enlightenment thinking should see it. Call us anti-science if you want…but enough is enough. If you can’t answer the questions honestly, then the onus is not on us.

(The author of this article receives no money from oil companies, oil interests, fossil fuels foundations, or anyone who has anything to gain from continuing to burn fossil fuels…He does drive an SUV, though).

The Ten Commandments of AGW
Tagged on:                             

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *