Let me say up front that there is ample reason to be a global warming skeptic. Especially if one is skeptical about the anthropogenic affects. There is no doubt that earth has undergone huge climate variations in the past. From a “Snowball Earth” to a mostly tropical climate through the Jurassic.

With that said, “What the frak are skeptics thinking?”

Really?

Dogma once held that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Then a guy comes along and says, “You know, I have this model of the solar system that works pretty darn good with the Sun at the center of the solar system.” (*Note: that’s not completely accurate.)

Dogma responds, rather vehemently, that dogma is correct because it’s dogma.

Some might call that a circular argument. But a dogmatist would respond to that by saying, “You’re being inconsistent because you think that it’s okay for planets to go in circles but not arguments.” This is the sort of statement that really stupid people fall for.

Another guy had a fairly simple idea that would explain the wild diversity of nature based entirely on who gets laid. He loosened a shit storm that is still raging despite an overwhelming body of evidence. I mean if evidence had mass then the theory of evolution would collapse into a black hole. Going along with that analogy, skeptics must have some exotic method of reasoning that is not effected by data.

What else? Space travel is not possible; heavier than air machines won’t fly; heart surgery can’t be done not to mention brain surgery; Everest can’t be climbed; continents don’t move; God does not play dice with the Universe . . . I could go on, and on.

Skeptics have such a horrible batting average that if skepticism could be measured it would count as scientific evidence for a theory. I can see the headlines now, “Engineers build space ship capable of faster than light travel powered by skepticism that it can’t be done.”

One might say that skeptics keep people from being overly gullible. But how many gullible people fall for the argument of the skeptic only to eventually end up feeling gullible?

After much thought I have come up with a theory to explain skepticism. Most people don’t want to believe things. And they certainly don’t want to understand things. They want to Know things - with a capital “K”. How do you know something? You listen to an authority figure talk. They tell you what you there is to know.

Where do authority figures get their knowledge from? Simple, they figure out what it is that they need to get people to know so that they can get what they want.

So if you don’t believe in my theory then I’m going to argue that that is evidence to support my theory.

Ha! Take that you skeptic.

*The Copernican model was not as accurate at predicting planetary movements as the ruling Polyatomic model because Copernicus used circles instead of ellipsis. Once Kepler fixed the Copernican model it worked much better than the Ptolemaic.