It is accepted that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-caused global warming is an established fact. What this means is “end of discussion."

Yet there are unanswered questions. Who are these scientists? This figure comes from a review of published literature and not an actual survey of these scientists. There are many other eminently qualified scientists who do not support this premise and went on record. Why has much of this research not been peer reviewed and linked to government grants that promotes a certain conclusion?

Future prediction of climate is based on computer models. How were these models constructed? I used a computer model to predict fireline intensity for wildfires for years before I learned that the model was designed in the laboratory and not the real world. As a result the predicted results could be off by a huge factor.

Another question — what was the mechanism that caused the ice sheet that was over a mile thick and covered most of Canada and much of northern U.S. to retreat to the arctic before the advent of cities, factories and cars? What is behind the shrinking Martian ice caps? What about the historical information about the mini-ice age and warming intervals when Greenland was farmed and Newfoundland was called Vinland? What about the climategate scandal where evidence of recent global cooling was hidden?

I see evidence of the effects of warming. I visited the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau and it has definitely retreated since the 1930s. But man-caused? If global warming will bring on the catastrophe we are told then it is ridiculous to spend money on measures that may reduce temperatures world-wide by 10 degrees Celsius and spend it rather on mitigating measures like higher sea walls, relocation out of critical seacoast areas, etc.

Jim Luse


(6) comments


Why is it so upsetting to consider that global warming is caused from human activity ? The increased carbon build-up in our atmosphere through burning fossil fuels has been determined as the main cause, starting in the early 1800s with the burning of coal. To know that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit, should help us in curbing our emissions through other technologies for energy production. Why is that so difficult to admit? I don't understand the angry need to deny.


Ben - Sorry, I didn't add any references for the "tropical hot spot". Those of us who have studied AGW for many years are well aware of this. You must be fairly new, (or perhaps young) to be unaware of it. You can find the details easy enough. Sorry, I don't know what FOX or Breitbart mean. I get my temperature data from GISS, Hadley Centre, UAH. I correspond with NASA re their data. I also get direct data on CO2 concentrations around the world, and the same for sea levels. I use these for my data analysis. (which I admit is difficult when the change the data). I also monitor ice area and extent in both the Arctic and Antarctic (funny how the media often refers to the polar ice, but actually mean Arctic ice.)


Anyone who has seriously looked into this 97% figure knows that it's false.

There are many more facts that make us question the CAGW hypothesis. For example :
1.what happened to the hot spot above the tropics that was going to settle the question - the so called "signature" of global warming - it isn't there.

2. What caused the start of recent warming in about 1910, well before significant human emissions? Why did the temperature increase pause in the period1940 - 1970?

3. Why did scientists deny the pause after 2000, but at the same time come up with about 50 theories to try to explain it.

4. Why does GISS and Hadley adjust their data (eg by including previously ignored data) and why does every adjustment boost recent warming? Only in climate science can data be adjusted to fit the hypothesis.

5. Why have previous record high temperatures been ignored because they don't fit the hypothesis (eg Australia 1896, Albany 1933 - 51.2 degC). It has been suggested that they weren't accurately measured. However, records show that that there was extreme care taken to ensure accuracy. If they were low temperatures, would they also have been ignored?

The list goes on and on. There are too many unanswered questions to take the hypothesis seriously. Let's also be clear that the hypothesis isn't about CO2 causing warming. It's about positive feedback (warming due to increased water vapour) dominating cooling (eg increased cloud density). There's no real data that substantiates this hypothesis.

Ben Bass
Ben Bass

r..s, 1. Your tropical "hot spot" is as murky as it gets (truly: No references, no locations, no delta T's, no specifics whatsoever). GW predictions have always been that the polar regions are to see most of the global warming induced temperature rise, and currently that rise is truly a whopper, well MORE than ever predicted.
2. Let me remind you that the industrial revolution started around 1800.
3. On the recent "pause": Any statistician with half a stripe on the shoulder can tell you that the "pause" claim had no merit whatsoever. The claim had no statistical relevance given the very noisy dataset. I was always very puzzled that the UN ever even responded to that and picked up that false claim in their commentary. A much clearer "pause" happened mid 1900's, a pause that disappeared when people changed their ways and less soot was pushed out the chimneys and tailpipes.
4. Any and all measurements have their issues. In particular when the methodology for taking the data is changed, causing a change in reference levels, etc. One needs to carefully analyze what the appropriate correction is, and then apply that. Anyone with half a reputation in data collection and analysis knows this.
5. As for previous "highs": Yours is a perfect example of cherry picking, which has no validity as to worldwide temperatures.
Given that these 5 were your best-ranked arguments, I recommend spending time studying the topic in the scientific literature rather than consulting the misinformation centers, i.e. FOX, Breitbart and the like.

Ben Bass
Ben Bass

Jim, Your letter is well-intended, but bares the signs of not having done the homework. The mile thick ice sheets on Canada were part and parcel of the major ice ages. Currently we are in an interglacial, epochs which by comparison with the glaciated epochs tend to have a short duration. The epochs are known to be caused by the Milankovitch cycles, longterm periodic orbital variation and well described almost anywhere on line that you find a hit (loads of them available, try wikipedia, or
On this point the picture is sooo abundantly clear that it is hard to justify making public statements like yours.
About that 'Martian warming': NASA has spent its time trying to educate people that such stories are without merit, and as well they are without any plausible causation.


Whether man-made or not the climate is changing. Your comments regarding mitigating its onset are what should be addressed, but there are many more significant changes happening than simplifying it to 'people should move' or 'build sea walls'. With climate change (up or down) comes mass life-form extinction, massive changes in agricultural viability and available of arable land, which have flow on effects such as mass migrations that disrupt both geo-political and economic conditions around the world. Whether people like it or not this IS a global issue. The questions should not be about man-made or not, the questions should be about how do we solve it.

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.