Don't follow the Pied Piper [FIMG=LEFT]http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/warmer_antartica.jpg[/FIMG]Chris Skates - CleanMPG - July 12, 2012 This is a op-ed from an author and co-worker who tells the "other side" of the story. --Ed. Let’s say that you own a business. In our hypothetical case, we will make it a newspaper office. I am employed by your newspaper. One day I come to you and say that my family doctor says that I have Improper Temperature Regulation Syndrome (ITRS). You have never heard of this condition in your life but I continue to talk as if everyone has heard of it. I go on to explain that I intend to walk around in the work place from now on with a small digital thermometer attached to my lapel. Using that digital thermometer, I am going to constantly monitor the temperature in the studio. If the room temperature in the studio or office fluctuates by more than + or – 1 degree, I am going to sue you for everything you have as the owner of the paper because I have ITRS. There is some good news. If you will install a new state of the art heating and air-conditioning system (it just so happens that my brother-in-law sells them) then the room temperature will never waver from 68.75 degrees fahrenheit, which my doctor says is optimum for people with my condition. The new system will only cost two-hundred million dollars. The value of your entire paper is ten-million dollars. Would you as owner have concerns about this, or would you just rush out and borrow all the money you could get your hands on and install the new air-conditioner? If I were the owner, I would have some questions. I would ask the following: • Who is your doctor? • What medical reports or information can you provide regarding this condition you call improper temperature regulation syndrome? • Can you prove how this “condition” actually affects your health? • Assuming that your doctor, the condition, and the effects are all legitimate (which you, the station owner, don’t truly believe) ,what is the accuracy of this digital thermometer? • What if the thermometer is in top working order and the accuracy of this cheap little device is only + or – 3 degrees? Then how could you hold me to a + or – 1 degree standard for the room temperature? • Since the new air-conditioner you are demanding is so incredibly expensive, how do I know it will hold the room temperature as steady as you say it will? These are just a few sample questions. I am sure there would be many more if this were a real “emergency”. So why don’t we ask some of these same questions of the global warming true believers? Al Gore and company say that we must panic, and that we must completely alter (and likely devastate) our economy because the average temperature of earth is supposedly rising 1 degree centigrade on average. They base this on the aforementioned computer models, and they compare temperatures now with hundreds of years ago. If their basis for comparison is the average temperature in say the year 1300 AD, should we perhaps as how it is they think they know the temperature of anything to within + or – one degree from hundreds of years ago? Shouldn’t we demand to go over this data with a fine toothed comb before we totally alter our energy supply in this country? Furthermore, while we are at it, how accurate is the temperature data that they have from last week? Remember, we are talking in terms of “global” temperature. How many data points do we need before we can accurately say we know what the “global” temperature is? In our hypothetical case above, our potential plaintiff was going to wear a thermometer on his lapel. What if he had just run up some stairs? Could the heat from his body possibly affect how this cheap little thermometer read the temperature? Of course it would. Right now all over the world, weather stations monitor the air temperature around them. The data from these stations are fed into computer models that, those who believe in global warming (like the IPCC for example) use to determine the magnitude and the affects of climate change. (Let’s agree to interchange the descriptor “global warming” and “climate change” as “climate change” is simply a newer less politically damaged term for the same mythical phenomenon). Setting the dubious accuracy of the models themselves aside for now, what is the accuracy of these weather stations? Are these instruments properly and regularly calibrated? Are they sitting in locations that are representative of the actual temperature of the surrounding area? What if one of them is supposed to measure the temperature of the great prairie region of the West, yet the weather station itself is sitting in a concrete parking lot? Is that a representative sample? This sounds like a far fetched example but in point of fact, anomalies like this are not nearly as uncommon with this data as they should be. I have some latitude. I am not a politician. I am an author. As such, I can state my opinion unequivocally. In my opinion man made global warming or anthropogenic climate change, or whatever the loyalists want to call it this week, is complete and utter poppycock. I am not simply stating this opinion as a political conservative. I am stating it as a professional. I work in industry. In my job, I must monitor chemistry data and decide what chemical changes are affecting the process and how. I have done this for twenty-one years and I understand a little about evaluating data. Reading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and looking at some of their data established the fallibility of creating an accurate computer model of something as complex as the climate evident. I emphatically reject the claim that man made activities are warming the planet. Conversely, I don’t believe we should do anything to limit our CO2 emissions. I certainly don’t believe we should rush to deprive ourselves of the inexpensive and reliable coal that provides so much of our energy in the country. Now if we want to “wean” ourselves off coal fueled power plants for other reasons, that is okay with me. I would suggest however, that we do it in a much more measured and realistic manner and in a much longer timeframe than currently being proposed by entities such as the United Nations. Looking back at our hypothetical case above, we as a society have barely explored any of those types of questions. Instead, the vast majority of the media, Hollywood, and far too many of our government leaders have just accepted climate change as a fact and as an eminent and highly dangerous threat. If the ambiguity of the data and the computer models don’t disturb you enough to make you a fellow “denier” (a terrible pejorative term for folks like me who refuse to run off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings, a term coined by Gore and company who selected it for its ties to the immoral “deniers” that the holocaust occurred), then just take a look at who else is in favor of the United States punishing itself for supposedly warming the planet. Some officials of the Soviet Union, followers of Osama Bin Laden, and the North Koreans, are all for the US signing a treaty that would force us to severely curb or eliminate coal fueled power plants and in recent months have made strong public statements accordingly. The dubious science, the associations of our enemies, and the groupthink mentality surrounding climate change and the proposed regulations that stem from it, should make all of us pause. As a society, we need to step back, take a deep breath, and take some additional time to examine this issue. Chris Skates is a Plant Chemistry Supervisor and Author of the new , critically acclaimed, novel, Going Green: For Some It Has Nothing To Do With The Environment, a novel with a Western Kentucky setting. His role as author has allowed him to be dircetly involved in the climate change debate with United Nations members. The novel has been endorsed by Dr. Roy W. Spencer and The Heritage Foundation among others and is available through bookstores and Amazon.