I have closely followed the anthropogenic global warming debate for over 20 years. I began collecting a huge file of global warming articles and scientific studies in 1997. A major component of obtaining my doctorate degree in physical therapy in 2008 was analysis of scientific papers to determine what level each paper ranked in the hierarchy of validity.

A doctor in any field of science should have skills to assess scientific research validity. I have been astounded to have observed that the mainstream media has reported on virtually none of the research that disproves the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory. I have, therefore, researched, authenticated and compiled a large document of much of the information in my file that provides a skeptical view of the theory. It is only proper that both sides of a controversy be studied before a thoroughly educated opinion can be made on that issue.

In this guest column, I include some evidence from that document, and plan to share other parts in future regular letters to the Public Forum. Dr. John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville, has shown through multiple data sets that there has been a “lack of warming over the past 17 years,” showing that all 73 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change computer models made inaccurate predictions (CNSNews). The UN IPCC reported in 2007 that shrinking of the Antarctica ice sheets was causing consistent sea level rise from 1993 to 2003. They reported greater sea level rises in 2013 from Antarctica melting. However, in October 2016, NASA reported that ice across Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades. According to NASA, the Antarctic ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001. Between 2003 and 2008, Antarctica gained 82 billion tons of ice annually (https://go.nasa.gov/1kZnsw2). At the December 2015 Paris climate change summit, President Obama said that the sea was already swallowing villages (referring to his Alaska trip and the village of Kivalina, which is located on a barrier reef. Barrier reefs by nature are constantly changing. In 1990, the National Park Service moved the Hatteras Lighthouse because its barrier island had moved. The migration of these Outer Banks has been ongoing for 10,000 years. Incidentally, the NOAA tide gauge station closest to Kivalina shows no sea level rise in that part of Alaska (google: CFACT, Fault Found in President’s Presentation). If the entire Arctic ice mass were to melt, sea levels would not rise, because Arctic ice floats and is not considered a continent. It would react just as your glass of ice water.

The Antarctic is a land mass continent covered by over a mile depth of ice. Antarctica average annual temperature is — 57 degrees Fahrenheit. Antarctica average temperature would have to rise by 57 degrees Fahrenheit to cause any significant melting that would noticeably raise sea levels. Although we know that undersea volcanoes have caused some glacial melting, human-induced sea level rise should not be a concern. (Hiserodt & Terrell, The New American, 4 September 2017).

What is the purpose of global redistribution of wealth with billions to trillions of dollars to reduce global warming by only a few tenths of one degree by 2099? This is a statistic that scientists agree is the realistic expectation from emissions reductions pledged by nations at the Paris accord. This question is posed by Dr. Judith Curry, who has received appointments and awards from the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Richard Lindzen is emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, receiving awards from AMS, National Academy of Science, AGU and others, has been a consultant to NASA and lead author of the UN’s IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change in 2001. Regarding human-caused catastrophic global warming, he stated at a November 2015 climate summit: “It’s just nonsense,” and, “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best, and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.” (See Climate Depot 19 Nov 2015).

“None of the climate models designed to predict future climate have been successful in explaining these past fluctuations of the climate. If you can’t model the past … how can you model the future?” (Dr. William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton university before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives, 20 May 2010).

“Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum” (Bond et. al. 2001 Science: 294:2130-36). Check-out Dr. Judith Curry’s updates on the global warming issue at judithcurry.com. She states: “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Tim Juett is a 30-year Roseburg resident and retired doctor of physical therapy who has followed pro and con studies on global warming for 20 years.

React to this story:


(1) comment


There is a fundamental flaw in your entire argument. One of, if not the pre-eminent determinants of validity is having your work peer reviewed. Sadly Dr Christy’s only supporting peer reviews are from other notable skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer. The claim of 97% of the world’s scientists supporting Climate Change is no accident, but congratulations on finding members of that 3%.

Christy’s work, like Lindzen’s is built on a house of cards, based on a hypothesis that does not conform to observable evidence.

Personally I believe that anthropogenic climate change is a complete red herring anyway. There is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing, and arguing as to the cause is irrelevant. If you see a hurricane coming you don’t sit around discussing the cause or the genesis of the hurricane, you run. So rather than looking for blame we have to decide whether it is worthwhile trying to mitigate its effects. Sadly mankind isn’t altruistic enough to do this meaning at some point in the future, whether 100 years or 1000, we are doomed as a species because of it.

That altruism is perfectly understandable. Why should the average person put money into something they or their grandchildren will likely see no benefit from. That’s just who we are as a species.

One last question, whatever happened to that hole in the ozone layer? You know the one we created thanks to our use of CFC's.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.