Courtesy of Victor J.Yannacone, Jr., and Lee C.Gerhard

It is incomprehensible to me that the print media continues to splash global warming across its pages inextricably linked to the mantra that human activity is responsible.  It is obvious that the media believes that greenhouse gases coming from energy production and consumption change climate. But...

There is no excuse for reporters who refuse to conduct elementary fact-checking.

The fact is, it is getting colder. Forecasts by objective scientists (those whose incomes or tenure aren't dominated by adherence to social policy) are nearly unanimous that the next twenty or more years could be nasty cold. The Russians are even forecasting sixty years of global cooling, and even the NSF is publicizing papers that argue that the next ice age could be soon upon us. Which isn't necessarily true either.

Anti-science in the United Nations is rampant. Its IPCC of Nobel Prize fame has a simple charge: to document human impact on climate. That's not a scientific mandate! Real rational science tests ideas and theories about how climate changes, it does not pre-ordain the result and ignore any information that is contrary to the received dogma. Real scientists change or modify their earlier conclusions when data negates their hypotheses and invalidates their models, requiring new hypotheses and construction of new models. Measurements dominate, not algorithms.

Simple tests reveal the fallacy:  today's climate is well within parameters of the last 1000 years, and is cooler than the 1930's.  Computer models fail in "back tests".  Rates of change are well within historical ranges.  There is absolute nothing in the temperature records that is inconsistent with recent history. Exclamations of "the hottest year ever" and "least ice ever" cry out for some definition of "ever".  For temperature, it means warmest since 1934, for ice, least as measured since 1979.  How long is "ever"? Not very long to those who accept as an article of faith the hypothesis that human industrial activity and the carbon dioxide it emits to the atmosphere are responsible for "global warming". Climate change is best measured in centuries.

We are starting the down-hill slide from the apex of the 1935-2000 Gleissberg solar cycle. The Russians may be correct in their concern that the cold will last for many decades.  

The real climate change "deniers" are those who refuse to acknowledge the correlation of earth temperature with solar activity. This correlation can be back modeled and is a useful forecasting tool.  There is no correlation between carbon dioxide and earth temperature. Current computer models cannot back-model temperature history and thus are useless for forecasting. Yet the mass media and many concerned citizens who should know better continue to prattle on about human industrial activity causing global climate change?

In the coming colder earth, we are going to need all the energy we can muster to keep poor nations and poor people from starving and freezing.  The only solution to global warming, according to those seeking quick profits from mass hysteria is to reduce the supply of energy in the developed world. If, as the same pundits predict, we will have to accommodate a nine-billion-person world in less than fifty years, how will we feed all those people?

Media now sells entertainment rather than truth. Are you happy being part of that?

Victor John Yannacone, Jr.
vyannacone@YannaLaw.com