Climate change remains an unproven theory

Science is a process, not a doctrine. It asks questions and sets out to test them for answers. But our culture seems to regard science in an animate form, like a guru seated atop a mountain.

We put science on a pedestal and submit to it as the final authority on all of our problems and important questions. We rely on science to give us all of the answers.

We even permit science to be the driving force behind public policy, in spite of the fact that science is a search for questions that remain unanswered.
Take the issues of climate change and global warming.
The predominant theory is that man is the chief cause behind both of these phenomena.
Certainly there is plenty of evidence to suggest man-made contamination has influenced the atmosphere. But nothing has been proven yet. Science has not been able to say either conclusively or by consensus that global warming and global climate change are man-caused and man-made.
Even though the American Meteorological Society (AMS) has endorsed the theory that these atmospheric phenomena are man-made and man-caused, not every meteorologist agrees or is ready to stake his or her professional reputation on that. In other words, there isn’t a consensus among environmental scientists.
There still exists skepticism and doubt, which is what science is really all about. It is about not wholly or solely investing in one finding, but instead demands more tests and asks more questions.
But the few skeptics who dare to express dissent are often silenced by the louder voices who have jumped on board the “blame mankind for everything” bandwagon.
Frankly, I don’t know the answers behind the problems of global warming and climate change. I don’t claim to know, either. But one thing I do know is that mankind tends to display a sort of arrogance in thinking that not only is he to blame for all of the Earth’s problems, but that he alone has the power to fix them, too.

If modern science is correct, and the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old, that means it has existed and evolved over eons of climactic changes to emerge in its present state as a globe bursting with diverse life and the means to support it.

The Earth has weathered cataclysmic collisions with meteors, devastating earth quakes resulting in the separation of entire land masses, life-altering Ice Ages, immense and expansive volcanic eruptions, and many more events that, frankly, eclipse in severity and scope anything that insignificant little man has done in the past two centuries since carbon-based fuel sources began spewing smoke into the skies above.
Mind you, I’m not trying to minimize the impact of air pollution. Clearly, polluted air and water have had negative, even devastating effects on the health of humans and animals alike.
But to suggest that man has the power to destroy the very planet that theoretically gave him life is as arrogant an assumption as a suggestion that man can also save the Earth, which is responsible for sustaining, perpetuating, and even selecting the life within it.
Despite the high opinion that we have of ourselves, mankind isn’t really all that.
Should we be responsible stewards of our environment? Absolutely.
Should we be careful instead of careless in the natural resources we use? Certainly.
And, should we do our part to take care of the Earth that takes care of us? Yes.
But that doesn’t mean it is within our power, or even in our charge, to save the Earth.
I’m suggesting that we approach the science of global warming and climate change with a tad more humility than we have.
Perhaps climate change and warming are a little less influenced by the ways of man than the ways of the solar system at large. Maybe El Nino is more of an historic weather pattern dictated by nature than by little, insignificant man.
And maybe, just maybe, mankind happens to be along for the ride.