My Global Warming Skepticism

I am a skeptic when it comes to global warming. I am suspicious of the science for several reasons. One, I distrust the political arm of the United Nations. The U.N. is pushing for radical changes in the way we live, all in the name of saving the planet. They are using fabricated junk science to impose taxes and regulations on free societies in order to bring them under the control of a global government. (I realize that makes me sound like a conspiracy lunatic. However, if you've been reading anything coming from the U.N. lately you will know that the topics of "global economy" and "global initiatives" are being talked about more and more.)

Please don't misunderstand me... I'm all for taking better care of earth. I’m in favor of being better stewards of what God has graciously entrusted to us. That makes sense to me – that we should appreciate the gift of creation and not be trashing it like we often do. I'm just not reading to give Al Gore's science project a passing grade.

As in the theory of evolution, if you state a theory long enough, gullible people, who are more about inclusion and acceptance, jump on the bandwagon of popularity. The unproven theory picks up momentum and is quickly accepted among the mass media and academia elite as being true ("Oh my, look at all the smart people. It must be true."). The theory, then, is carried along by the "consensus science" of press releases, magazine articles, books, thesis, school projects, and propaganda by zealots who carry a hidden agenda. It then grows into a beast so big that no one dares stand in its way -- Warning: Naysayers will be professionally persecuted.

Lord Monckton is one who is boldly standing in front of the global warming beast, waving the cold hard truth in its face. Here is an excerpt from Lord Monckton’s written testimony (his full statement can be found here). Okay, I admit that the math is beyond my understanding, but the last three paragraphs are worth reading and heeding:

Warming at the very much reduced rate that measured (as opposed to merely modeled) results suggest would be 0.7-0.8 K (1.3-1.4 F°) at CO2 doubling. That would be harmless and beneficial -- a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase yields of some staple crops by 40%.

Therefore, one need not anticipate any significant adverse impact from CO2-induced “global warming.” “Global warming” is a non-problem, and the correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

However, ad argumentum, let us assume that the IPCC is correct in finding that a warming of 3.26 ± 0.69 K (5.9 ± 1.2 F°: IPCC, 2007, ch.10, box 10.2) might occur at CO2 doubling. We generalize this central prediction, deriving a simple equation to tell us how much warming the IPCC would predict for any given change in CO2 concentration.

ΔTS ≈ (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/Co) F°

Thus, the change in surface temperature in Fahrenheit degrees, as predicted by the IPCC, would be 6.7 to 10.3 (with a central estimate of 8.5) times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. We check the equation by using it to work out the warming the IPCC would predict at CO2 doubling: 8.5 ln 2 ≈ 5.9 F°.

Using this equation, we can determine just how much “global warming” would be forestalled if the entire world were to shut down its economies and emit no carbon dioxide at all for an entire year. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 388 parts per million by volume. Our emissions of 30 bn tons of CO2 a year are causing this concentration to rise at 2 ppmv/year, and this ratio of 15 bn tons of emissions to each additional ppmv of CO2 concentration has remained constant for 30 years.

Then the “global warming” that we might forestall if we shut down the entire global carbon economy for a full year would be 8.5 ln[(388+2)/388] = 0.044 F°. At that rate, almost a quarter of a century of global zero-carbon activity would be needed in order to forestall just one Fahrenheit degree of “global warming.”

Two conclusions ineluctably follow. First, it would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt to any “global warming” that might occur than to try to prevent it from occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.

Secondly, there is no hurry. Even after 23 years doing nothing to address the imagined problem, and even if the IPCC has not exaggerated CO2’s warming effect fourfold, the world will be just 1 F° warmer than it is today. If the IPCC has exaggerated fourfold, the world can do nothing for almost a century before global temperature rises by 1 F°.

There are many urgent priorities that need the attention of Congress, and it is not for me as an invited guest in your country to say what they are. Yet I can say this much: on any view, “global warming” is not one of them.

I predict that we will continue to see “global initiatives” taken in the name of “global warming” even though the data does not support the theory (or falsehood or lie or whatever you want to call it). There are simply too many people, powerful and influential people, who are unwilling to eat crow.