Skepticism.

Olivia L Franzen
Nov 7 · 4 min read

I’m currently taking my first science course in my college career. On my homework it read, “The energy is coupled with several million tons of carbon dioxide, which is a major Greenhouse Gas and particulate matter.”

Curious, I Googled what Greenhouse gases are because I wasn’t sure what it meant. In the results it gave the definition of how certain gases absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range. However, what struck me as interesting is that water vapor, too, is a greenhouse gas. Yet, people are not rioting about removing water vapor from the atmosphere the way that they are about Carbon Dioxide. It made me question whether carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas is an effective argument against carbon emissions.

Turns out, carbon dioxide is essentially, “plant food.”

An independent researcher by the name of Indur Goklany published an independent study that has proven that, “ the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.”

I began to wonder about why I believed that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. Who told me this? Why did I believe it immediately? I have not had any formal training in science, so it is virtually impossible for me to find out for myself without investing a large portion of my lifetime. So, who can I trust?

Should I trust the scientists that the politicians in Sacramento and Washington D.C trust? Or the independent scholar?

A wise man once told me that the most evil is found where the money is.

So I began to question: Who is being paid more? The scientists being touted on corporate media broadcasts? Or the independent scholar?

This is the first time I have ever been skeptical of the scientific community.

Have our scientists really been bought and sold to the public in order to push an agenda?

Well, we know for a fact that the US Government has bought and sold terrorism overseas to advance their own agenda, so how would this be any different to the people at the top (of government, etc) with enough money to end poverty, repay everyone’s student loans, and feed the hungry, globally?

“Skepticism is something that needs to be built up over time, it’s a skill. It’s something that needs to be practiced, or you can think of it as something that needs to be developed through exposure. It’s kind of like a radiation poisoning, but in a positive way. It’s when you start to realize inconsistencies, or hypocrisies, or lies. And, you notice them, and you give somebody the benefit of the doubt, or you trust them, or you think its alright, but then over time you see that its not an isolated incident. It’s a pattern of behavior, and over time that exposure to inconsistency builds and builds and builds until its something that you can no longer ignore.” -Edward Snowden

To me, the argument that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as a way to influence the public into thinking that it is a bad thing is either inconsistent or hypocritical, I haven’t quite decided yet.

But wait, would that make me a climate-change denier? Would that make me an idiot?

Does my distrust of the narratives pushed onto us by the wealthy and powerful make me delusional? To those indoctrinated into believing that anyone who questions the things offered to us as fact are indeed delusional; I am.

If I were a well-known author or public figure I would be ostracized and slandered by everyone and anyone for questioning if the climate-doomsayers are exaggerated. (I do not believe that climate change is out-right false)

Luckily, this is the second article I have ever published, though it is not completely without risk. I am confident that there are friends, family, future employers and colleagues of mine who would read this and immediately assume I am a climate-change denier and justify to themselves that I (their friend, family, etc) am “crazy.”

“I am not a climate change denier, I am a skeptic.” -Founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman

Skepticism has been socially engineered to be a bad thing by terming skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.”

We have been lied to about the assassination of JFK.

We have been lied to about Jefferey Esptien’s death.

We have been lied to about the WMD’s in Iraq.

Some people denounce these as “conspiracy theories” as a way to discredit anything offered by these sources.

Although I would like to beg the question; what are the implications of the things above are true?

To go further than that, what are the implications of climate-change evidence has been exaggerated?

This means that if climate change is, indeed, being politicized in order to increase the amount of income for the government because the taxes and other policy imposed by the government on the argument of “we need to save the planet” is now baseless.

However, if the governments are acting in climate-friendly altruism, I would still argue that these implications of climate change should be paid for by those causing it, not the working class.

The government seldom acts in altruistic manners because that’s not where the money is.

And so my skepticism remains.

(P.S. Help clean up our oceans tho)

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade