Author note: I'm only calling myself a climate change denier because I think that's what people would call me, I don't actually know what it implies.

I don't know what climate change is...

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the phrase “climate change” means. I have a few cro-magnon friends/peers that believe themselves to be intellectuals who like to go around scoffing at straw-man arguments and making vague comments about how climate change deniers are nut-cases (I never liked people use of the phrases like “straw-man” in a debate because I feel like its a diversion from any true meaning and dialogue. Here I use the phrase to specifically suggest that climate change proponents (again what does that mean?) are choosing to argue against ACTUAL idiots rather than an intelligent person that simply doesn't share their own view).

I don't know what "their" argument is...

I've never heard an actual argument from Climate Change “protesters” (I don't know what to call them because I don't know what their stance actually is). Here I'm not suggesting (yet) that their argument is not fact based or even that I haven't heard any facts (a lot of statistics and graphs get thrown around but with no proper context), rather what I am suggesting is I have never heard an actual thesis or “point” to the climate change proponents cries.

It always seems that the people that are the most vocal about climate change feel that their argument and especially the thesis for it, implies itself. I think perhaps this is a not so clever way of simply avoiding giving a statement that can be refuted (such as we will all die in 10 years because of climate change).

What is Science?

And so we come across one of my first major points in regard to the battle versus ignorance. It is the previous paragraph that sheds light on what it means for something to be scientifically based, and that is that the claim must be falsifiable. I know that some of these vocal proponents of climate change (?) would now present a bunch of graphs and facts and suggest that they are falsifiable claims, but graphs and data do not make claim-the are (supposed to be) objectively collected observations.

A graph that the world temperatures are rising does not actually prove any thing in regard to the seriousness or not seriousness or urgency or non urgency of (what ever we feel the implications are of) climate change.

I have yet to hear any loudmouth proponent of this propaganda do anything but scoff at these points.

“A study says...”

Starting a sentence or discussion with the above would be a second clue that you are not having a discussion with a real scientist (here we can note that by usage of the word “scientist” I am thinking of persons that are versed in (and so naturally act in line with) the proper use of science, rather than, for example, someone like Bill Nye (the so-called science guy), who might technically be a scientist but has moved far into the political rhetorician field).

Confirming bias with links to "a study" (or worse a news piece ABOUT a study)

Much like how finding a news story to support your beliefs on how the world is unfolding, finding a study that can be bent to support your claim (or the claim you refuse to make but are implying) is not at all an act of science. Sending a link to your adversary, especially one you probably didn't read (or worse sending a news article written by a journalists that links to the study that the journalist probably didn't read) is not at all a form of basing your argument on science or scientific reasoning.

Studies not only need to go through a formal peer review process, but they need to be discussed over time in the public. Attempts to refute or re-create experiment must be done. Eventually papers are written based on, or around, a study in order to support it, extend it, or refute it. And these papers themselves also need time to propagate into the general (academic) consciousness.

If you are discussing climate change with someone who seems super short about the whole subject and they reduce their argument down to a study they link to you, you should probably stop the discussion-that person is an idiot. You are arguing with someone that has a distinct and deep misunderstanding of logic. If their teachers and peers couldn't set them straight, how might you?

On protesting industrial companies

I'm not sure what the protesters collective argument means to be. Or rather, to not be guilty of “straw-manning”, I wish to speak to what ever the most logical “climate change” argument is that exists. However, in speaking to those protesting (we can certainly including facebook social justice warriors) it must be that in regard to apocalyptic climate change, that they feel our time is better spent fighting each other through meme's and picketing signs rather than innovation that might help us “solve” this “problem”.

I think perhaps some people might go so far as to claim such innovation, or technology, is actually the cause of “climate change” (otherwise who are we blaming anyways?). I don't know if I am straw-manning here (I've never actually heard anything but scoffs and spitting coming from these irrational persons mouths and facebook posts) but I wonder if these people would be against using technological advance to end the threat of climate change.

From here things just get silly and obvious.

Protesting these companies becomes irrational because doing so just slows technological progress (well honestly it doesn't really but IF the protesters were ever successful all they would be doing is hurting their own cause).

To deny mankind of advancing technology is not to solve a problem at all, but rather to impede our progress in regard to the optimization of the distribution of commodities. That is to say, we live in a plane of scarce resources and each of us as individuals cannot procure any meaningful freedom if we cannot get along (or it could be said we can have more freedom if we work together to create advancing technology to procure it).

This is of course much of the conclusion and thesis of Adam Smith (and FA Hayek!).

Why carbon tax is irrational and counter productive

Here we can also point out that a carbon tax can never actually do what it is intended to do, but instead just incentives “cheating” in the pollution markets. The tax also ends up being wasted in the hands of governments. That is to say we could make far better and more secure gains if we spent our energy on shrinking the influence of governments on our markets and letting them run freer (thus allowing for more technological innovation).

Conclusion: Climate Change debate is the real pollution!

Lastly (although I could probably go on a lot longer at the logical fallacies involved in this red-herring debate) we should understand that humans, collectively, actually are (observably and obviously) VERY good problem solvers (although life and evolution probably are the real heroes here). Our society, and especially our market behavior, is made up of the collective of all the individuals knowledge in it. That is to say that society as a whole is always more knowledgeable than the individual (there is a caveat here that I must leave out and it will cause some lazy thinkers to run way with this).

When an individual decides that society is going the wrong direction and society won't listen or change its course, what is really happening is that the individual's subjective view is not being believed by the bigger collective. Does the individual know better than the collective?

Perhaps, but where is the individual basing their reasoning on?

I think what is really happening is that climate change is not at all the major and urgent problem of the day (or year). That if climate change becomes an urgent threat of immediate and impending doom, then we will simply use it as a focal point for co-operation. Society doesn't care because society is smart, and "climate change" is a hoax.

Some people might argue that is exactly what is happening with the “debate”, that people are finally waking up to the impending doom. But its really rather silly to suggest that RATIONAL people are sending memes to each other with no basis for an argument (they ARE doing so, but it can't be said they are "rational" in doing so). That movement doesn't at all tell me that climate change is getting serious and real. It tells me that most people were too lazy to do their homework, and that our school systems don't teach us what science is.

If climate change is a problem, then technology and entrepreneurship, discovery etc. is the solution. This happens to be my same recommendation to a world in which climate change also ISN'T problem. What is more likely “impending” and “worrisome” to the people is procuring security for the future, as we do that we can THEN begin to discuss long term and bigger issues.

Running around like "chicken little" sending memes about how the sky is falling (or snow is melting) is not attending to any social problem that is useful to solve.