“QUIT YOUR JOB & be your own boss! Could you use an extra $21,000/month? Sound impossible? It’s not!”

Be honest. Have you ever clicked on it?

Behind that click lies the age-old cliche: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Those who fully grasp the meaning of that cliche know where that click will ultimately lead: nowhere. It’s a journey through a never-ending maze of lures, hooks, false promises, thousands of dollars spent, and valuable time wasted. It’s all at your expense, and will likely leave you penniless, demoralized, and without any legal recourse.

Any skeptic will take one glance at that ad and, dare I say, “move on.”

Whether learned through life’s experiences or inherited through one’s own genetics, skepticism is an invaluable attribute. For myself, it’s a quality I’ve always possessed.

So when the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming first rose to previously unprecedented heights of the daily news headlines in mainstream media publications, my initial skepticism was typical. And in the years that followed, I continued to read with ever-increasing skepticism, until I decided to take the time and research the matter for myself.

What I came to discover was that the theory of anthropogenic global warming was the antithesis of the age-old cliche:

It wasn’t too good to be true, it was too bad to be true.

The Lure: Playing to Fears and Guilt

My first general observation about the theory of anthropogenic global warming was that it played to one’s fears rather than to one’s hopes. Unlike the “Be Your Own Boss” ad above that promised an ascent to the glittering heights of virtual autonomy and higher income, the theory of anthropogenic global warming ominously foretold of a dark future replete with catastrophic environmental events beyond our wildest nightmares.

Global warming was touted to cause more severe hurricanes until recent studies indicated just the opposite

The melting of the Poles. Rising sea levels. More severe hurricanes. Droughts. Floods. Wildfires. Disease.

Anything that played to fear was worthy of skepticism. At the time, the Y2K disaster that never happened immediately came to mind.

So my initial reaction was that all of these dire warnings read like a modern-day interpretation of the Book of Revelations. The only things missing were a scroll with seven seals and a chosen one worthy of opening it. I will discuss my research of the science supporting these catastrophic predictions later.

I also observed that the theory played to individual guilt. The predominant opinion was that humanity’s daily activities - largely those of the developed world - were contributing to the rising of global temperatures, and thus destroying the climate system. And with that opinion, the theory of anthropogenic global warming was being used as a means to lecture humanity as a scolding father would his own child for his or her irresponsible and selfish behavior.

It seemed that in humanity’s continual desires to improve our daily lives, we had all failed miserably to take the effects on the planet into account, especially in regard to personal energy usage and our unending thirst for fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions from our energy consumption had enhanced the greenhouse effect, and the climate was changing for the worse. Global warming was spiraling out of control. There were even discussions that we were fast approaching a “tipping point” beyond which there would be no preventing the predicted catastrophic climatic events.

As I read all of this and slowly absorbed it, my skeptical mind never allowed any semblance of guilt to self-materialize. Perhaps that was due to something noticeably absent.

Inspiration.

Inspiring messages make people want to take action. The theory of anthropogenic global warming attempted to frighten people into action with predictions that supposedly wouldn’t come to fruition for decades. And the people who talked about it publicly used the theory as a means to criticize people. And for what? Driving to work? Turning on their air conditioners? This wasn’t inspirational, it was insulting.

Implied in the larger overall context of the discussion was the diminishment of humanity’s own importance and uniqueness. The earth was the highest priority. Humanity, reduced to nothing more than an all-consuming and non-unique carnivore, had its needs tossed aside.

Having researched the overall discussion thoroughly, I then dove into the proposed solutions combating global warming.

Proposed Solutions

One of the first proposed solutions I read about was the investment in cleaner, alternative energy technologies. While I didn’t particularly care for the associated government subsidies involved to fund the research & development phase, I still wasn’t overly opposed to it. At least progression was implied.

Or was it?

What I have come to discover since then is that most, if not all, of these alternative technologies would take the developed world a step backwards if implemented en-masse today. Solar and wind power, even when accompanied with government incentives and rebates (which all of us indirectly
pay for), are extremely costly and grossly inefficient. The internal combustion engine still reigns supreme, despite the recent spike in gas prices.

Some of the cleanest-burning coal in the world lies here, and it was inexplicably taken off the market

Until such time that the costs for these technologies become more feasible, we should continue to proceed with the drilling of oil and excavation of coal. One specific proposal I have is to re-open the Kaiparowitz Plateau for coal excavation.

I have also come to realize the growing importance of nuclear energy. In theory, environmentalists should love this idea, as it would be a feasible strategy to combat carbon emissions; however, many of them have gone out of their way to find reasons to oppose it, which reflects upon their motives (to be discussed later).

Another proposed solution I learned about years ago was the idea of trading carbon credits. Simply put, companies that emitted less carbon would be rewarded, while companies that emitted more would be punished. The latter would be forced to buy credits on an open market from the former.

Admittedly, I thought the idea was bizarre. The prospect for inefficiencies and corruption in such a vast system was almost certain, and ultimately consumers would pay more for goods and services. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a zero-sum game.

Beyond these specific proposals was the idea of conservation and sacrificing luxuries. I fully admit to having signed up in a pro-environmental internet forum and having these discussions with proponents of the idea. What I discovered was an eye-opener.

So what qualifies as a luxury? Most of the environmentalists in this previously mentioned forum considered automobiles, home heating & air systems, and the building of homes (which they angrily referred to as “suburban sprawl”) as modern-day luxuries that needed to be sacrificed in order to save the planet.

The conversations I had in that forum were disturbing.

What these environmentalists viewed as “luxuries” were actually daily necessities. I openly defended this view, as well as the belief that very few people would simply abandon their automobile and alternatively choose public transportation because it was far less convenient.

The environmentalists on the forum agreed on the latter point - which is why they believed it was the government’s job to force people to change their habits. If people refused to willingly cooperate in helping to combat global warming, they would have to be forced.

So for environmentalists, participation in assuring that the previously mentioned foreboding climatic catastrophes would never come to fruition wasn’t voluntary - humanity in its entirety would be required to make sacrifices, and if necessary, it would have to be by force. It was the only way to save the planet.

Saving the planet depends on your involuntary cooperation. Sound familiar?

This is where the harsh reality started to set in for me. The theory of anthropogenic global warming wasn’t just being used to lecture people, it was also being used by those who feverishly embraced radical political ideologies as an excuse to restrict individual freedoms. The people I had had conversations with in that forum were nothing more than communists who obstructed any semblance of progress in the modern world. Their idea of saving the planet was more about the redistribution of wealth and government control, not lowering CO2 emissions.

Outside the idea of alternative energy technologies, I didn’t view any of these proposed solutions as feasible; and even the case of the former, we would certainly pay more for the same or perhaps more-for-less until technology took its proper course and costs ultimately fell in line with current energy technologies. The other solutions were costly, inefficient, and in one case, quite scary. And again, something was noticeably absent.

Benefits.

Cost-benefit analysis dictates how we choose to spend our income. If a benefit for a good or service outweighs the cost, we will buy it. However, there were no tangible benefits associated with any of these proposed solutions to combating global warming, outside of feeling good that you may or may not have had a role in preventing, or at least prolonging, a future climatic catastrophe.

The Science Behind Anthropogenic Global Warming

According to the prevailing wisdom at the time I started researching this, there was an overwhelming scientific consensus that human beings were contributing to global warming. The mainstream press coverage on the subject certainly mirrored that wisdom, as some news agencies even had their own reporters completely dedicated to global warming.

So in taking to the internet, I searched for an opposing viewpoint. I had thought that it would be a difficult and time-consuming task.

But it wasn’t.

At this point, I would be remiss if I didn’t include in this section what has transpired over the last five years, as new scientific research on climate is released virtually on a daily basis. A lot of material I
found years ago is no longer relevant for discussion.

And that’s an important point.

Climatology is still in its infancy by everyone’s admission, including scientists themselves. There are new discoveries being made every day, and there is substantial funding in the area of climate research. As of 2008, funding exceeded $5 billion dollars annually.

Yet despite this fact, an enormous amount of weight has been placed on scientific research in this field. Governments around the world have enacted new laws in order to combat global warming with the errant assumption that the science has been settled already. Many of these laws have led to higher costs and reductions in the standard of living for everyone.

In recent years, more and more scientists have taken to the internet to dispute the current “consensus” that global warming will inevitably lead to future catastrophic climatic events. Some have gone out of their way to note the benefits of global warming, especially in regards to agriculture and the food supply worldwide; others don’t dispute the theory, but downplay the idea that catastrophic climatic events will result from an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

As far as what the general public believes regarding the current consensus, this fact should be noted:

There is no scientific “consensus” in the peer-reviewed literature to the effect that “global warming” is an actual or potential “catastrophe”, still less that “allowing greenhouse-gas emissions to increase unchecked is an invitation to catastrophe”. A recently-published peer-reviewed
paper (Schulte , 2008) that surveyed 539 papers in the scientific journals containing the words “global climate change” and published between January 2004 and mid-February 2007 found that not a single paper provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” might be even potentially “catastrophic”. Only one of the 539 papers reviewed even mentioned the possibility of “catastrophe”,
but without offering any evidence.

- Lord Christoper Monckton, Science & Public Policy Institute

Evidence such as this removes the “fear and guilt” from the equation and questions the need to even address CO2 emissions at all.

But there are other scientists who are going far beyond the ominous predictions and are questioning the very foundations of the theory itself. And in recent years, while the mainstream press still portrays the idea that the debate is over, one need only visit a site like this to learn that the debate continues on a daily basis.

In my opinion, the foundation of the theory is starting to crumble under the weight of new discoveries.

The Hockey-Stick Graph

One of the foundations for anthropogenic global warming is the infamous hockey-stick graph which shows temperatures to be spiking to unprecedented levels since the Industrial Revolution. Its very appearance would grab anyone’s attention.

Source: IPCC

According to this study by Mann, et al, temperatures were higher than at any level seen in 1,000 years. But there was one tiny problem:

The conclusions were wrong.

There exists a mountain of scientific evidence that proves the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Dr Roy Spencer notes:

That “warmest in 1,000 years” claim lost much of its support, however, when a National Academy of Science review panel concluded in 2006 that the Hockey Stick study used faulty statistical techniques, and that the most that can be said with any confidence is that the
Earth is warmer now than anytime in the last 400 years.

This important reversal was met with a mainstream media twist. Mann et al released another study, this time concluding it was the warmest it had been in 400 years. The mainstream press negligently omitted the fact that “1,000″ had been reduced to “400.”

The average reader didn’t notice, and still hasn’t to this day.

Nor does the average reader know that oceans haven’t warmed in the last five years, Antarctic sea ice is at its highest level since the late 1970s, global temperatures have dropped since 2002, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has shifted into a cool phase, solar cycle 24 has yet to kick into gear, and recent peer-reviewed research projects global cooling over the next 10-15 years - all while atmospheric CO2 and methane are at their highest levels in 800,000 years. The negative correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature should not go unnoticed, as CO2 emissions have been blamed for driving temperatures upward.

The bolded point made most mainstream publications; the rest of these facts seem to have been conveniently omitted.

The Sun

And on the subject of the sun, one of the most astonishing items I’ve noticed is how quickly it is shot down as a possible source of rising temperatures. The sun is our primary source of heat; and yet, those scientists who firmly believe in the theory of anthropogenic global warming are adamant that the sun has any significant effect on global temperatures.

Meanwhile, global temperatures are cooling during a period of solar inactivity. Currently, solar cycle 24 is about 8 months late. If the pro-anthropogenic global warming scientists have been incorrect in
their assumptions, it is entirely possible that the earth could be entering another ice age. Only time will tell.

Climate Models - A Double-Standard

A significant portion of the mainstream news coverage on anthropogenic global warming has revolved around climate models and their catastrophic predictions. The rule of thumb has been to place emphasis on the results without even examining the model itself.

Part of this is understandable. I don’t expect reporters to possess such scientific knowledge; however, I do expect some type of explicit disclaimer. As an accountant, I am expected to do the same when making financial projections.

Arguably, the mainstream press may feel its disclaimer is explicitly stated in the language and on the printed page, as they ordinarily use words like “may” or “could.” However, such words hardly stand out to any reasonable reader or viewer. Thus, I view their reporting of climate models as negligent at best.

According to three different peer-reviewed studies published within three months of each other (Oct 2006 - Jan 2007), by 2050 glaciers may vanish from the Alps, seafood could be nonexistent, and humanity may need two earths to sustain itself

I’m not a scientist. I cannot possibly fully comprehend the far majority of scientific studies that use climate models. But that doesn’t disqualify me or anyone else from opining on this subject. In fact, as an accountant, I can”t help but notice a clear double-standard between my field and the field of climatology.

Users of financial statements rely on what I produce to make decisions, and users of climate studies do the same; but that’s where the similarities end. The end users of my reports use them for financial reasons, and the decisions they make are largely of a personal nature. The same cannot be said of climate studies. These studies have been relied upon worldwide to generate public policy and
enact laws anywhere and everywhere.

Specifically on the subject of projections, the double-standard is striking. Should I accept an engagement to make financial projections for a client, I am bound by specific guidelines in my final report. These guidelines dictate explicit statements that all assumptions are fully disclosed; that they are, in fact, reasonable; and that they have been strictly followed. Further, an explicit statement is required stating that differences should be expected between the projected figures and the actual results.

“May” or “could” is grossly insufficient; yet, using such subtle terms is the predominant approach for the mainstream media.

As for the studies themselves, there are a number of assumptions that are rarely disclosed. One such assumption is that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives temperature change. It remains disputed whether or not this is true. Some studies have indicated that rising CO2 levels typically precede
rises in global temperatures by as much as 800 years. As such, this should be explicitly stated in every climate study in which that assumption is made.

Another assumption is that the sun, as previously mentioned, has little if any effect on global temperatures. Such a vital assumption should be expressly stated as well.

And there are other disclosures omitted. Let’s revisit the infamous Hockey-Stick graph once again, as this study (MBH98) initiated the global conversation about human-induced climate change.

In a recent article, Dr Timothy Ball notes:

The hockey stick fiasco was unmasked by a basic scientific test known as reproducible results. Other scientists use the same data and procedures to try and reproduce the original findings. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (M&M) attempted, but failed to reproduce the MBH98 findings. A debate ensued with claims M&M were wrong or not qualified climate experts. They replied that Mann had refused to disclose all the codes he used to achieve the results, but even without them the major problem was a misuse of data and statistical techniques. In effect the hockey stick was meaningless.

It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to those of MM. This recreation supports the critique of the MBH98 methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean value of zero.

Mann continues to refuse disclosure of all his codes. He and his acolytes are still fighting a rearguard action claiming the work is valid.

Does this sound like “full disclosure”? Again, consider the importance of this study, the hockey-stick graph, and the fallout that ultimately resulted from it.

As an accountant, I am held to far greater standards — and for end users in matters of admittedly far less importance.

Climate Model Accuracy

One of my most stringent arguments against the use of climate models is the fact that such models are rarely scrutinized for their abilities to produce accurate results. It’s only reasonable to expect models to be thoroughly tested.

Punxsutawney Phil relies on his shadow to make forecasts. So far he has been more accurate than the IPCC.

Many of these models make prognostications spanning decades, even centuries; thus, it presents a problem to compare their projections to actual observed data. However, there have been a few models for which the projected data can be compared, as the time has already passed for their predictions to come to fruition. And in all of the studies I have found, none of them have been accurate.

In fact, none of them foretold of the current six-year global cooling that we are currently living in right now. One recent study by the Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group has attempted to press this issue:

…the value of global warming of the last 4 years fails to agree with the IPCC projections (the values are not even close!). The agrument [sic] that this is too short of a time is spurious unless the modellers can account for where else in their model results the missing Joules went.

Moreover, this is not too short of a time period to compare with the models. Heat, unlike temperature at a single level as used to construct a global average surface temperature trend, is a variable in physics that can be assessed at any time period (i.e., a snapshot) to diagnose the climate system heat content. Temperature not only has a time lag, but a single level represents an insignificant amount of mass within the climate system.

The answer to the question on this weblog “Can the IPCC model projections of global warming be evaluated from just several years of observed data” is YES. The conclusion for the past four years is that the model projections are not skillful on this time period.

Climate models: Water Vapor and Clouds

As friendsofscience.org aptly notes:

Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of
varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and - in the end - are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.

It should also be noted that few, if any, climate models take clouds into consideration — another important (and obvious) disclosure omitted.

Subjective Temperature Adjustments

The surfacestations.org project has also pulled a leg out from the anthropogenic global warming theory at the most basic of levels: the location and current state of
weather stations that record temperatures across the globe. Documenting pictures and on-site surveys by a volunteer audience, the project has revealed thermometers in the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) to be grossly inadequate for its purposes. In some cases, weather stations have been found in poor condition. In many others, the location of the individual weather stations themselves has raised significant questions as to their accuracy in regard to measuring temperatures.

The fewer subjective adjustments that need to be made to the data, the more likely its accuracy. Outside human influences in close proximity to weather stations should be minimized or eliminated entirely whenever possible.

Common sense would tell anyone that a thermometer next to an airport tarmac, a parking lot, air conditioners, above a barbeque pit, or the like might make the data from such thermometers unreliable — and yet, it appears that is exactly what has happened. The defense has been that subjective
adjustments have been made to account for surrounding environmental influences; but to do so with
over 1,200 weather stations in the US alone would prove to be a virtually impossible task, especially considering that these stations haven’t been surveyed in years. It has become apparent that the USHCN has fallen into a state of disrepair; but fortunately, the surfacestations.org project appears to have yielded results already. The response has been to modernize the entire network over the next few
years with more modern equipment so that the collected data will be more reliable.

And it is important to note that climate models often don’t take the effects of land use into account. It is common knowledge that temperatures in the city versus the country can vary significantly because of the heat urban island effect, but there are other land uses (such as a corn field in close proximity to a thermometer, for instance) that can also distort temperature measurements. Land use alterations are becoming ever more prevalent in the scientific debate
currently happening amongst scientists on the internet.

Conclusion

The theory of anthropogenic global warming is simply too bad to be true.

The fear and guilt that the theory attempts to instill in every one of us may not even be warranted; the way the theory is used is both uninspiring and condescending; the benefits of proposed solutions are virtually nonexistent; the catastrophic consequences foretold by climate models may make for good news ratings, but they are questionable at best and have largely done a disservice to both science and humanity; and the very foundation of the theory is crumbling as more knowledge is obtained.

In the grand scheme of things, we still possess little knowledge about the earth’s climate. Further research is necessary, and such research should be conducted with full disclosure of the assumptions made, and with professional skepticism on the part of the scientists involved.

As Thomas Huxley once said, “Skepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the unpardonable sin.” In my opinion, there is far too much faith placed in this theory based on my own research. The idea that that God’s existence cannot be proven by science, but the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a foregone conclusion based on the evidence, is utter folly. The burden of proof rests with those who publicly endorse the theory, and that proof requires a leap of faith in several key areas. After researching this theory and examining the evidence provided, I have reached a far different conclusion. All things considered, I believe this theory is scarcely worthy of mention in any science book.

What bothers me most today is that the current state of the global climate has been largely ignored. Global temperatures have dropped over the past six years. For this reason, we should be far more concerned about the possible effects on our fellow human beings, especially in third world nations. It should be noted that more people die from extreme cold rather than extreme heat; and yet, such a fact is largely ignored in public discussions. I remain immensely concerned about the prospect of another coming ice age and our current denial to face the facts as they currently exist.

I am also concerned about the effects that ethanol usage has had on food prices worldwide. While most of us in the developed world can pay for these increases, most in the third world cannot. And yet we continue to pump food into our gas tanks.

With these two concerns in mind, it is my greatest hope that reason re-enters the discussion on these issues. Otherwise, modern-day environmentalism - which has hijacked the theory of anthropogenic global warming and become nothing more than a means to force radical political changes upon the developed world - may take a few million innocent lives with it to its grave.