(117b) Global Warming: Who Do You Believe?

The average citizen has almost zero chance of standing up against the tidal wave of inputs on the global warming (GW) issue. This presentation will offer some arguments and defenses against this situation. Several witnesses for the defense of the skeptical perspective will be cited.

The first section in this talk provides inputs from four key authors. While these are primarily non-scientists, they still offer important opinions. The first of these is Michael Crichton and his book ?State of Fear? (SOF). This view is reinforced by inputs from your speakers book: ??Acid Rains' on Liberal Propaganda? (?AR'). Comments and observations by George Will are added. While the ?warmers? scream that SOF is a ridiculous book, and hence not worth reading, Will called it a political broadside woven into an entertaining story. The views of a fourth author, Judge Alex Kozinski, are also reviewed.

George Will noted that there are two major themes in SOF. First the ?warmers? are striving to convince society that we have moved into an era of catastrophic climate change(CCC). This issue is no longer just a claim that GW is real, and we are in for hotter, more unpleasant days, but a future now of CCC. In such a future the claim takes a rather incredible leap from ?unpleasant? to ?terrifying.? This claim is addressed and refuted.

The second theme is that we live in an era where conventional wisdom (CW) is routinely manufactured. Today, global warming, has become CW, and the ?warmers? repeatedly claim that the science is done, the debate is over, and all scientists agree with their position. They barely admit that a very tiny minority of marginal scientists disagree. This claim is also addressed and refuted.

Next the views of eleven ?Distinguished Veterans? are noted. These are primarily scientists, with very high horsepower capabilities. Most are retired, all with long records of achievements, and many with emeritus in their current title. The eleven "DVs" selected are all skeptics.

Additional inputs are provided on: (1)active scientists (very briefly); (2)on broadcast meteorologists and (3)on state climatologists.

Finally the four key assumptions on GW are examined: (1) the Earth is warming; (2) society is guilty; (3) it will be terrifying; and (4) we, the ?warmers?, know what needs to be done to stop it. All four assumptions are shown to be either not met, or only partially met.

I would argue that never in the history of forecasting have more claims been made on forecasting capability. Not only have the ?warmers? predicted that we are moving into a future of hotter and more unpleasant days, but more heat waves, more extreme downpours, more hurricanes, more droughts, more insect driven diseases,etc, etc, etc. In short their claims have taken an incredible leap from unpleasant to terrifying. Furthermore, they also claim that our climate is changing so fast and this future is so imminent we have no time to contemplate, we must act.

Thomas Huxley stated that for him, skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin. There is little question that I am a "doubting Thomas" on this issue. To me the global warming issue and the Kyoto Treaty, at best are premature, and at worst an outright fraud. Our society needs time to assess and think this through.