Explaining the doubt about climate change

I am responding to “Many legislators doubt scientists’ climate consensus” (Idaho Statesman, Jan. 1). The “consensus” would be far easier to believe if it were pure science and not tainted with politics, and if science were occasionally right in its predictions. First, I am not a denier. I believe Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, and I believe that climates change. But I remain a skeptic on the impact of human activity on climate.

Let’s roll back to the 1970s and the oil shortage. I lived through the Oklahoma oil and gas boom and subsequent bust. Gas rationing, pump prices near $5 a gallon, and science telling us we had only 10-20 years of oil remaining under the ground. They conceded there was “some” oil left but it was dirty and stuck in rock and shale and useless. We had to conserve and move to alternative energy.

The war against the SUV was on. This just fit the bill for the left. No one needs a nine-passenger personal vehicle any more than we “need” a 20-round magazine for a firearm. It was an early clarion call from the restrictors, those who demand a society based on need, not on liberty and achievement.

But science was wrong, and free thinking and industrious people learned to extract the oil.

Science subsequently taught us that fat was bad, and we all moved to skim milk. Now, fat is back and 1 percent is healthier. Eggs would kill you; now they are part of a healthy diet. Coffee was bad, but now reported in the Scientific American, 4-5 cups daily is good for our health. Science hammered the harmful effects of diet sodas, yet a current study in obesity shows they are safe and can help maintain weight loss. Science was wrong each time.

Women were encouraged to get regular mammograms. But the left fought to control costs for forced health care for political gain, so new scientific studies conveniently emerged suggesting a decreased need for mammograms. The same for men and the PSA test. My doctor still recommends it. Which science are we to believe?

And belief is an important issue here. We are represented by a president who told us if we liked our doctors we could keep them. He lied. Now he tells us that climate change is our greatest enemy. This president told us he had the terrorists on the run, and that Islamic State was a “JV” team. He is a denier that we are at war with Islamic terrorism. Why should we believe him on climate change?

This president told us that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” His administration told us the massacre of our embassy team in Benghazi was caused by a video, when he knew then it was a lie. Why should we believe him on climate change?

Climate change skepticism is a problem of the left’s own making. They are the restrictors who brought us toilets that don’t flush fully, ugly light bulbs that won’t light a room, and in New York City bans on large servings of soda.

While we all know that climates change, as elementary school field trips to fossil beds show, we also see that the vast oceans dried up — before humans, SUVs, light bulbs and functioning toilets could have affected it. The problem with climate science is that in today’s political “climate” of restrictors, it is easier to extract oil from shale than it is to extract true and believable science from politicized science. That is why we doubt.

This story was originally published January 19, 2016 at 8:56 PM with the headline "Explaining the doubt about climate change."