Over decades a worldwide movement unparalleled in scope and intensity, has been mobilized to confront the perceived threat of future climate disaster. The asserted threat is that man’s use of energy is forcing the temperature of the Earth to increase, unnaturally. The argument is not about “warming” which has come and gone over all of history. No, the argument is: “is warming man-made?”
It has been alleged that man-made industrial emissions of CO2 are increasingly trapping heat which would otherwise escape from our atmosphere, thus causing global warming. I will refer to this premise of “man-made global warming” as MMGW The seeds of fear have been sown, namely that such heating will result in sea-level rise, flooding of coastlines, interference with agriculture, and even the spread of disease.
Extraordinary political policies for regulating worldwide power usage are aggressively promoted in a crusade to save the planet. Critics argue that such policies have potential for negative economic impacts, and will have no significant effect upon global climate. Skeptical scientists assert that relatively modest increases and decreases seen in global temperature (T) over the past century result from natural processes, and that possible influences of industrial emissions are greatly exaggerated.
Many scientists are dismayed, for they cannot reconcile readily available scientific observations and theory with the strident claims of forthcoming catastrophe. Also, they cannot accept the repeated pronouncements that “all scientists agree”…. that climate change is a threat and that man can regulate it. Though many reputable researchers have attempted to question the notion of MMGW as unfounded alarmism, their views have been generally disregarded, and sometimes suppressed. The “political incorrectness” of even questioning the doctrine of man’s destruction of the climate has naturally caused many scientists to hesitate to speak out.
Normally, it would be expected that a thorough debate of the issue, including a fair hearing of the best of scientific inputs would have long since been held and publicized. But that has not happened! Even though the U.S. President Obama has personally declared that “the Debate is Over…scientists agree…and it is now time to move forward on legislation to cope with the threat of climate change.”…no meaningful “Debates” have occurred! Instead, some activist scientists, the media, and crusading politicians have persisted in presenting disaster scenarios. The short-hand buzz words “Global Warming” have permeated global society, invading all areas of communication.
Fortunately a very significant number of scientists have courageously spoken, in public and in print. Some have identified errors in observations and unfounded interpretations of data. At least one highly placed scientist has been forthcoming in characterizing particular representations of climate change as fraudulent. Many have published refereed articles in scientific journals and also written very responsible and informative books, discounting the alarms of the activists. Yet serious opposing views are generally not widely publicized, and the public is not well informed.
Less than six months prior to President Obama’s proclamation, on June 4 2009 ex- Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul made a presentation to the House of Representatives. It was an appeal to defeat passage of Cap and Trade legislation. Paul submitted a petition signed by over thirty thousand scientists, nearly one third of which had PhD degrees. The Petition stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement…There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is, or will cause, disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
I am a research scientist and have published many refereed journal articles. I have encountered and successfully confronted the degradation of science by shoddy research and even fraud. I am thus naturally intrigued by what I perceive to be unjustified perpetuation of the climate change crusade. I am thus motivated to try to assist in calling attention to the opposing science. In this review, I will present some critical issues addressed in each of six outstanding books which present “the other side of the story”…one that you very likely have not heard. I emphasize that even though I use the term “other side of the story” for convenience, climate is a complex process and thus the other side of the story has, of itself, a number of sides.
Though I am persuaded by the historical record that Nature presides over climate, I will not attempt to convince you of any particular theory. I will offer my own opinions and philosophy but I will try to make that clear. This report is not for publication, nor for gain of any kind. I simply offer you a research scientist’s perspective of some the views of credible professional scientists who are persuaded that Nature rules Climate.
The Books and their Authors are identified in Section 2. Each of these books presents worthy arguments from past and ongoing studies of natural processes linked to the climate of the Earth. They are filled with information, and references. I will reference each author each time their words and or Figures are used. In general I will refer to them as “our authors.”
I applaud the great efforts of our authors. Understandably passionate in some cases, I believe they are serious, thoughtful, and respectful of the complexities of the controversy. Perhaps by learning a bit about the other side of the story, you will appreciate that the MMGW crusade has been inappropriately biased and that balance of perspective has been missing. Most are aware of MMGW claims; few are aware of the reasons for skepticism.
As Roy W. Spencer, one our authors, states: “It is not a question of whether bias exists – – for we are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.” Please keep that in mind as your read this review. You’re being informed is important, no matter which side of the issue you may favor!