Responding to a post featuring a prominant politician proclaiming the gravity of the effects of climate change, I wrote, “pure bunk”. Within moments, someone posted their question. This was my answer.

With regard to “Climate change” I have found nothing to hint that the entire subject is any more than a scam. That view is bolstered by the observation that rather than meet doubt with reason, those with affection for the subject react with scorn, anger, derision, accusation, and belittlement or pick from that menu. They build false studies, hide contradictory data, and carefully avoid dissent.

It has built wealth for it’s most brazen supporters and has brought government types a more solid handle to create subjects. Without regard to the intelligence of lack thereof of anyone who considers whether it is an actual and manageable problem (it isn’t) there is this fact: Truth is knowledge, but it’s specialized. Truth is knowledge of things as they really are, or were, or will be at some future time. Truth is independent in it’s sphere and goes unchanged and unaffected by opinions no matter how fervently believed. Truth is not rumor, it’s not ‘common sense’ and it’s not particularly popular. Truth is something one can actually build with, as opposed to deceptions which are always calculated to do harm to some for the temporal benefit of others.

The world is awash in deceptions and those who like them will generally gravitate toward the crowd that feels the same. From that “safe” vantage, they join in the cheerleading for the cause. I don’t fault you for picking your own response to the issue. It’s your thing. I don’t like being lied to, and so I reject the man-caused-climate-change-we-must-fix hysteria and it’s underlying arguments as being a simple con job. Predictably, there are rabid followers who think people like me should be punished. That puts the climate change religion in a similar category as other malicious religions that excuse carnage against non believers.

I’m not suggesting that you’ve progressed to that point, but the thing you seem sure of is one of a family of divisive issues that all share common origin and common ends, undermining civilized humanity under a banner proclaiming a concern to save it. So the question you asked about how could an intelligent person reject climate change is less a question than a statement. If a crowd can turn on God himself and trade him for a Barabas, then the crowd can never be trusted to get it right. Some other means must establish the right course. I actually believe scripture that commends individuals to be diligent about sourcing their beliefs so they don’t end up as wrong as the crowd who stood by and kept an unthinkable alliance, assenting to the crucifixion of their Savior. They were on the wrong side. They acted accordingly.

I’m convinced that life is full of opportunities to sort things out and get it right. It’s just easy to pick sides and meld in with others who agree and that’s fine if the thing they believe is true. It’s most unfortunate in any other case. So for me, the issue has to be resolved on the basis of learning what is true. We will disagree as to whether my conclusions are correct or yours are but that won’t affect what is actually so in the least. These issues are designed to divide people and generate contention. So arguing about them simply fulfils purposes behind their genesis. Studying them is only helpful to the extent that one examines so called fact with the intent of getting at the truth. Any other approach is just propaganda immersion in my opinion.

I hope this answers your question  : )