More and more people are becoming skeptical about the theory of human caused climate change. And no wonder. The theory's proponents have consistently made extremely dire predictions about what will occur if their demands aren't met. They've also been determined to silence debate, often publicly smearing their opponents and using other intimidatory tactics.

Yet increasing numbers of very well respected scientists are expressing their rejection of the fundamental theory that man is heating up the planet. And even if they do accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, they disagree about the extent of the damage it will cause. Some even say it might be to our benefit.

But the doomsayers keep attacking, often even more aggressivly. One of their favorite tactics is to call anyone who is not yet completely convinced by their arguments a "denialist". It equates skepticism -- which is a healthy thing, particular when it comes to scientific issues -- with Holocaust denial. The clear message is that you are a bad, hateful person if you don't go along with their agenda. This technique is a very effective way to silence dissent. After all, who wants to be called the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer?

And while global warming zealots repeatedly invoke the idea of science, and have lots of expert opinion on their side, they are not being as rational as they claim. They like to say that "the science is in" and that the "evidence is undeniable". But the evidence and science they cite is not primarily meant to establish something in the present. It's used to argue for massive cuts of emissions all across the world so as to prevent something from occurring in the future. And by definition, you can't prove something that hasn't actually happened yet! Ultimately, we'll only know for certain if they were right several decades hence.

They also use deceptive language. Take for example the repeated use of the word carbon (as in "carbon footprint"). It's notable that they use this word on its own, when they really mean carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide doesn't sound very scary. As we all know, it's a natural gas people and animals breathe out, and one that plants need to live and produce oxygen.

Carbon, on the other hand, has different connotations. We immediately think of black sooty material. The thought of spewing that into the atmosphere is much more disturbing. Which is exactly why they use it. They want to keep people feeling guilty and ashamed about the issue.

Speaking of guilt, and shame: Many of the most well known climate change activists show no shame or guilt whatsoever about their massive carbon footprints. Hollywood celebrities are among the worst. They fly all over the globe in jet planes (sometimes ones they own), keep massive houses and often possess several gas guzzling cars. Yet they tell everyone else to cut their carbon emissions!

The fact that so many of these activists don't practise what they preach is highly damaging to their cause, and creates as much resistance to it as the other above mentioned factors. These celebrities' hypocrisy is astonishing. Most people are disgusted by it and think, "Well if they can't be bothered changing their lifestyles, why should we?"