A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming


I learnt about this from Is It Getting Warmer?.

A short but excellent explanation of all the various arguments and evidence against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, global warming paranoid alarmism, and politically/financially motivated support for AGW.

Like the title says, it’s easily understandable for non-advanced science educated readers. Call it a beginner’s guide to why many people do NOT believe in human-caused glbal warming doomsaying.

Worth a few hours reading and careful contemplation. In just 82 pages, the author really gets to the bone of many of the complaints and protests the AGW skeptics have againts the bullying, arm-twisting, facts-biasing juggernaut that is the AGW supporters.

Many of his points agree with my own dislike of the AGW crowd’s non-objectivity and truth-hiding tendencies.

For example, he complains that GW skeptics are always accused of being sponsored by oil companies and erronous reasearch – but at the same time, public-funded GW proponents are portrayed as unbiased and never seem to be subject to the same scientific parameters as they hold the skeptics to.

If the accusations he makes about climate science are even partly true – such as computer models having been pre-set to suit the preferred conclusion (page 34); or the flawed and nonsense economic forecasts of the IPCC used to predict CO2 production (which say that Libya and North Korea will surpass the US economically by the year 2100, page 36); or the very limited selection of tree rings used to estimate temperature which could also be affected by other factors such as sunlight and nutrition, page 23) – Then we are being played for brainless suckers by the IPCC.

Whether global warming is human caused and a serious threat or not, I cannot agree with intentionally misleading the public to achieve any goal.

When you sacrifice the turth to further a cause, you sacrifice the integrity of that cause.

Click the image below to be taken to the author’s blog, where you can download the 2.68 mb PDF file for free. Spread the word – global warming is more politics than science!

                                      agw_cover_front_small

Definitely a recommended read for newcomers to the global warming debate. If nothing else, it serves as a counterbalance to the media domination of the IPCC and other AGW panickers.


2 Responses to “A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming”

  1. Poetry Says:

    Local, city, county, state and the federal governments should be first to “go green.” Politicians should not be elected to public office unless they agree to convert every government building and vehicle to renewable energy. There are at least three reasons why this should be so.

    When all levels of government are taken into account, they control 40% of the economy. With that kind of economic incentive anyone who wants to sell to the government will hasten to meet the demands of its largest single buyer. Government will no longer have to pass laws to enforce cafe standards for instance. Rather the Government will simply tell auto companies, we want to replace our fleet of vehicles but will not buy anything that does get at least 50 mpg if it is gasoline based, or it must be a hybrid, or it must be fueled with renewable fuels.

    Another reason Government should go green first is national security. Part of every oil dollar paid for Middle Eastern oil goes directly into the pocket of terrorists. If we convert to renewable fuels that we control, we defund terrorism and protect ourselves simultaneously.

    Yet another reason to heed Al Gore’s clarion call on global warming is economic security. OPEC can not ruin our economy if we convert to renewable fuels that we control.

    And finally, suppose Gore is right? When anyone hypes anything as much as AL Gore hypes global warming, I have my doubts. But I can’t see what is harmed by going green so why not? The military is doing some research on alternative and renewable energy. Whoever is the next president of the United States should institute a “Go Green or Go Home” policy for the military. Those who come up with energy saving devices or methods as well as those who implement alternative or renewable fuels should rise quickly through the ranks. Those who don’t should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. As resourceful as marines are, for instance, I would bet they could make surprising advances in fueling everything from jeeps to an entire base through alternative means if left to their own devices. The military has through it’s contractors developed the most effective weapons in the world. If this same level of effort is turned toward greening the military we will be a safer, more secure, and more independent nation. We will create new jobs and industries and the air and water will get cleaner as a benefit.

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    I agree on many of your points, particularly that we should be improving green tech and energy provision, and that reducing dependence on Mid East OPEC terror oil is an excellent result of weaning off fossil fuels. (Al Gore should play up this aspect if he wants more Republican support for the IPCC’s measures)

    I totally agree that incentives, not coercion, is the best and fastest way to green the economy. It has the added benefit of not killing the economy, nor will it stop progress towards a cleaner civilization.
    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-sun-the-star-green-carrot-compromise/

    On new energy technology, have you heard about the Bussard clean fusion reactor? 200 million and clean energy for all our needs could be a reality! That’s a miniscule fraction of what Kyoto will cost the economy. If I were a rich energy company, I’d jump on this research and reap the profits. Unfortunately, real life energy companies would probably just patent it and hide it away so that it never can replace oil… Sigh.
    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/03/mr-fusion.html

    I disagree with the idea that the military should lead in green research. The role of the military is to defend the homeland and crush the enemy. When it comes down to a choice between a heavier but greener engine or a gas-guzzzling supermotor, you know what the Army will lobby for. However, ie (far future) technology emerges that removes the need for constant refurling, the military will have a huge advantage, so we’ll see what transpires. At present, green energy is too unstable for wartime needs (nuclear power excepted).

    Besides, meritocracy has no foothold in politics, the military included. Promotions are all about connections and influence. Military spending is closely tied to senatorial support and Congress votes. The grunt on the battlefield knows what he needs, but the guys at the top are likely fighting for their own pet projects like more stealth superfighters.

    I also disagree on the point of ‘what if Al Gore is right’. Look at the flip side, if he is wrong we will have hamstrung our economy FOR NOTHING. Al Gore is not focused on new green tech or better clean energy infrastructure. He is pushing for carbon reductions without setting up the necessary cost-effective green energy first, which will cause prices of electricity and manufactured goods to skyrocket. See what happened to Europe after a period on Kyoto – $9 billion for Germany’s electricity bill!
    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/the-star-opinions-kyoto-will-creep-up-on-us/

    We should not rush to cut carbon emissions. It wouldn’t do much at all. Rather, we should assume the IPCC could be right or could be wrong, and go for the moderate-term Green Carrot Compromise mentioned above instead of choking off our cash flow with knee-jerk carbon taxes.

    And I personally am not convinced of 3 things:

    1) The realness of global warming as caused by humans, caused by CO2, and a threat to the world. The guide at http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/a-skeptical-lay.html contains much of what we need to know.

    2) The efficacy of focusing on preventing global warming. There may be many beneficial side effects, such as reducing pollutant levels or stopping deforestation or cutting off oil money to terror-sponsoring states. But the focus on an unproven threat may also divert resources to futile red herrings, such as pumping CO2 under the ground that achieves nothing!

    3) The integrity, truthfulness and heart of the IPCC, Live Earth music stars and Al Gore. From their lifestyles, doctoring of data, incomplete research passed off as fact, and bad-mouth discrediting of skeptics, I am bluntly struck with the feeling that all these champions of stopping global warming care about are money, power and fame. How can I believe that the Earth is really in crisis from CO2 when the pundits don’t act the elast bit concerned, with their mega-mansions and private jets? (Talk alone is cheap.)
    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/al-gore-high-priest-of-global-warming-hypocrisy/

    In conclusion, the world would definitely be better off with new green tech. I just don’t agree to using global warming lies/misguidedness to achieve that result. When the truth is sacrificed to achieve a cause, the integrity of that cause is sacificed.

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: