A New Global Warming Skeptic

“Global Warming” has become the latest political football with the politics ignoring the science (on both sides of the issue).  There are several questions that need to be answered scientifically, not politically. First, is “Global Warming”, i.e., an increase in global average temperature, really happening?  Second,  if the global temperature is actually rising, is it due to anthropogenic causes, such as the increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide?  Has the concentration of CO2 really increased to the extent claimed; i.e., from 280 ppmV to 370ppmV?  What about the “hockey stick”?  Is it possible to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels enough to have an effect on CO2 concentrations without causing a worldwide catastrophe?  Would global warming be harmful or beneficial?  What is the maximum extent of possible warming, whether anthropogenic or otherwise?


I agree with efforts to be more fuel efficient and to attempt to be independent of Middle East oil, but “Global Warming” is not an appropriate means of accomplishing that, and a legislative mandate will result in shortages and high prices.   I’ve heard several people ask “What’s the harm in mandating conservation based on Global Warming, even if global warming is not occurring or that all of the causes are natural?”  After all, conservation efforts have many other benefits including reductions of other environmental contaminants, cost savings for most people, etc.  We have already seen a few very detrimental effects; first, the diversion of corn from food use to fuel production (ethanol) has resulted in increases in the cost of both fuel and food; second, the ethanol program has diverted land use from other agricultural uses and forests to grow corn; and the emphasis on mitigating Carbon Dioxide has diverted resources away from legitimate environmental efforts.


Even worse than the above is the probability of very expensive lawsuits and expensive settlements; the detrimental effect on First Amendment rights through the call for prosecuting skeptics and deniers as criminals making good science impossible since science depends on skeptics; and one of the worst things I’ve heard is the encouragement of children to be climate cops (which is very close to the NAZI youth programs).


If CO2 is proven to be benign in terms of global warming, the push for conservation on this basis loses credibility along with the Agency and all of those pushing for reductions (“the boy who cried wolf”) and it’s an extremely expensive misdirection of effort.  If the real anthropogenic contributor is something else (such as an increasing area of asphalt and black roofing or soot on glaciers causing them to melt), the emphasis on CO2 wastes resources which could be used to eliminate these other effects.


3 Responses to “A New Global Warming Skeptic”

  1. Jeff Id Says:

    Welcome to my world. Originally I was concerned but over time I have been suckered into hundreds of hours of reading on the subject.

    I am a scientist in an unrelated field so it took forever to weed through the crap. I have only two weeks ago started a blog on the subject. I am trying to condense the information into a reasonable format with references so people who don’t want to loose hundreds of hours of their lives can figure it out.

    Here is the link


    It starts with the IPCC which is the main organization pushing the agenda and continues through the temperature reconstructions.

    I need to warn you though it isn’t finished, but you might be pretty surprised what an open minded scientist found.

  2. dmchatham Says:

    Jeff Id:
    Thanks for your comment. I am brand new to blogging and am still groping around trying to learn how this works. I have written a position paper on global warming and my intention is to post the different sections on this blog site to encourage comments to help improve my paper.

    I will review your blog as I have time and post comments there.

  3. Jeff Id Says:


    I have learned some very important things about global warming science. When they measure temperature in tree rings they don’t have any evidence that the data is actually temperature.

    Why is that important, this is how they make the hockey stick graph.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: