What If AGW Is Wrong?

I am an AGW skeptic - the theory of man made global warming. I am not an ideolog and I am open to new scientific evidence that is indisputable. That has not happened as yet for me. One of my main concerns is the poor performance of all the climate models. They have failed to predict the climate over the last 25 years. As an engineer, it is just common sense that if my models are wrong, perhaps I should go back to the drawing board.

I am willing to give the scientists the benefit of doubt. Let's assume they are correct in their assertion that increased carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect and lead to global warming. However, as we all know, that is not the only driver of global warming. In order to proof this, you must keep all other variables constant which is totally unrealistic. In fact, the sun is the source of all energy in our solar system. The sun has built in variability that is totally out of our control. We know the sun under goes a cycle of approximately 11 years of sunspots activity. That cycle is not perfect. Over the last few hundred years, we have experienced some cycles that are extremely low called the Maunder minimum. This happened around 1645 to 1715 and caused a mini ice age.

- May, 2015

The big question for climate scientist is this. What if one of the other factors like the sun is driving current climate change? Perhaps their models are incomplete. They have assumed erroneously that the sun is stable and the variability is small and negligible. What if, in recent years, the sun's contribution is much larger than they realize. For lack of a better term, I called this the God factor. Somethings in nature are out of our control. If the sun suddenly turns quiet and reduce its energy output even by 1 percent, our climate will change dramatically.

As I mentioned in the introduction, this is not an outlandish scenerio. It has happened before and there is no reason to believe that it can't happen again. In fact, recent events are pointing to the possibility of another solar minimum.

Another natural phenomenon is volcanic activity. If a major volcano erupts, it would put so much carbon dioxide and dust into the upper atmosphere that the earth temperature will be reduced by a few degrees. How do I know this? It has happened before. Check out the events of Krakatoa volcano back in 1883. It is well documented and it became a worldwide phenomenon.

What is the big deal? The big deal is that our government and individuals have bought into the global warming alarmist's worst scenerio. The environmentalist have also jump on the band wagon. I have heard intelligent people make the mistake of claiming that reducing fossil fuel is a good thing even if global warming is not real. The air will be cleaner and so on... What's the harm.

The truth is a lot of unintended consequence can occur and are occurring because of our futile attempt to stop global warming. The cure is worst than the disease comes to mind. There is also the lost opportunity when tax dollars are spent on something that is missguided.

Here is just a few list of things that have come about due to attempt to affect climate change.

• government incentives on failed renewable energy development
• carbon credits to offset carbon emissions
• CF bulbs replacing incadecent bulbs
• ethenol fuel production from corn
• wind farms affecting wildlife
• electric and hybrid vehicles

The primary responsibility of scientists is to perform good science. After that, they need to be honest about what they know and don't know. They claim to be experts in their fields. They make long term predictions as if they are facts. They are not held accountable when they are wrong. They usually come up with excuses that are lame.

Here is my proposal on experts who make projections. In order to be credible, I believe there are five components.

1. The prediction or expert opinion must be specific and not general in nature.
2. The prediction should apply to a specific time frame.
3. The prediction should come with a confidence factor (0-100%).
4. The prediction should be qualified with certain assumptions.
5. There should be some consequence or "price to pay" if the prediction fail to materialize.

In summary, we need to hit the reset button on climate change and our global response. Before we undertake drastic measures, we need to know all the drivers and long term effects. Any proposed solutions should be evaluated with a cost benefit analysis. If AGW is in fact true, we need to come up with much better solutions. One that will not reduce our quality of life. If AGW is false, the scientists have a lot of explaining to do. "Oops sorry" just won't cut it.

A new book by Mark Steyn "A Disgrace to the Profession" examines the inside comments on the famous hockey stick chart created by Michael Mann. It exposes some of the climate scientists as activists instead of scientists.