There is no true consensus

In your Sept. 15 editorial on climate change, you ask why so many distrust the science supporting man-made climate change.

As a manmade-climate-change skeptic, there are several good reasons for my distrust. One is the substantial body of well-regarded scientists affiliated with well-regarded institutions who disagree with the conclusions emanating from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Of course anyone relying exclusively on the mainstream media for information on climate change is probably not aware of the substance of these disagreements or that they even exist. Much of the information is quite convincing, but the IPCC ignores it. Real scientists realize they must always defend challenges to their hypotheses.

There is scientific evidence revealing that at one time the earth became so warm that both polar ice caps melted. This happened long before human activity could have been the cause. So what was the cause? Was it even related to carbon dioxide, or was it some combination of other factors that are known to influence climate change?

Then there is the infamous "emailgate" of several years ago which exposed certain "scientists" of the IPCC discussing the manipulation of climate data to support their desired outcomes. Really?

I would encourage those with a sincere interest in climate change to engage in some independent study and original thinking. Download the IPCC assessment reports and read them, particularly the executive summaries. You don't have to be a climate scientist to discover areas of the IPCC argument that are inconsistent or contradictory.

So, no, I have not cast my lot with the supporters of man-made climate change. I will remain skeptical until there is a scientific approach that considers all data and comes to a true consensus, not one contrived by the mainstream media and the politicians.

George Barney

Mundelein