By William Gray

I have been studying and teaching weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with comparable experience do not believe that CO2 gas emissions are anywhere near the threat to global climate as the environmental and liberal media groups have led us to believe. Most people are not aware of how flimsy are the physical arguments behind the human-induced warming scenarios. There has yet to be a really open and honest scientific dialogue on this topic among our country’s most experienced weather and climate experts. Most knowledgeable global warming skeptics have been ignored and/or their motives questioned. Many have been falsely tagged as tools of the fossil fuel industry - reminding me a bit of the McCarthy period. By contrast, those harping the loudest on the dangers of CO2, such as Al Gore, typically have little real understanding or experience in how the atmosphere and ocean really function.

The Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically warming influence from CO2 increases. These GCMs also do not properly model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have been observed. Most GCMs indicate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 21st century will lead to global warming of 2-5C. My best estimate of global warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.3-0.5C, 5-10 times less than the models estimate. These GCMs have yet to demonstrate predictive skill at forecasting the next few years of global temperature. Why should we believe their predictions 50 to 100 years in the future?

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The summary statements of the IPCC reports are strongly biased to upholding the human influence on climate. The IPCC summaries often do not conform to the material in the reports. Most known warming skeptics, such as myself and a number of my very experienced colleagues were never invited to participate in the IPCC process or even contacted by the IPCC for our views.

It is impossible to objectively separate the small amount of CO2 induced global warming that may have occurred from the large natural induced global temperature changes which are always occurring. There has been little global warming the last 10 years. Due to recent changes in the global ocean circulation that I and others foresee as the basin for a modest cooling of global temperature in the next 10-15 years. This would be similar to the global cooling that was experienced between the mid-1940s to mid-1970s.

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will not by itself solve any of the globe’s many environmental problems. A slightly warmer globe due to CO2 increases would, in the net, likely be more beneficial to humankind than a slightly cooler globe. Crop and vegetation growth would be stimulated by higher amounts of atmospheric CO2. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into costly CO2 reduction programs of little or no real benefit but much economic detriment.  Read full op ed here.

By Noel Sheppard

Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed...but will they?

To begin with, Proposition 7 would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

Proposition 10 would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:

Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%

Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? We’ll see.

This book is an absolute must read for its thorough coverage of the non-issue that has captured a greatly disproportionate amount of the worlds time and money. A few excerpts: 

By Chris Horner

Greenpeace is Stealing My Trash

It was spring. Young men’s hearts turned to fancy. And Greenpeace started stealing my trash. I noticed that my garbage was getting collected much more efficiently than normal - and late the night before it was scheduled to go. I also noticed that soon, the media revealed a secret cabal I orchestrated from my basement…I had arrived. If they would spend so much energy to, well, trash me, I must be important, right? But I soon learned from others that this is standard operating procedure for the global warming industry. They have tried to ruin careers, blacklisted scientists, knowingly spread lies about dissenters, called for the imprisonment of skeptics, and used government pressure to cut off rivals’ funding. Isn’t it relevant to the debate about global warming that the alarmist side engages in this systematic campaign?

Environmental Catastrophes Sell Papers

All of our national newspapers are deeply vested players in the global warming industry. The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today all regularly weigh in with editorials, in-house columnists, “news” items and human interest stories declaring certain catastrophes, and irresponsibility of those whose politics they do not like. When the series of scandals exposing the flimsy nature of the alarmist’s case emerged in 2007, the national papers proved completely unwilling to directly report on the facts. Substantiated claims that are inconsistent with the prevailing media template of warming-bad-U.S.-worse are typically revealed only well after the fact, for purposes of giving the alarmists a platform to diminish its significance.

A Healthy Environment Won’t Earn Anyone Funding

Rarely, if ever, has the scientific establishment seen a gravy train the likes of global warming. The money flowing into studying the issue is jaw-dropping: federal taxpayer expenditures on climate-related research for the entire panoply of related inquiry is now pushing up against $6 billion per year, more than taxpayers send to the National Cancer Institute and even more than our government spends on AIDS. Now ask yourself this: would this money keep flowing from governments and international institutions if scientists concluded tomorrow that Man’s influence on climate is likely within natural variability or “background noise”? Or that anthropogenic effects on climate change are real but not catastrophic or substantially different than we have faced and will always continue to face? As long as Man-made greenhouse gases really matter, the people who study greenhouse gases and technologies that would benefit from the government action will be flooded with taxpayer money. Understanding this dynamic is key to understanding why science has been corrupted. And it has been corrupted by the global warming scare.

See the book here.

Christopher C. Horner is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. He is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has testified before Senate committees and given numerous addresses in the European Parliament.