Reasons to doubt
the common beliefs about Global Warming

The science simply does not add up, predictions do not match observations and the whole issue is loaded with a huge number of unproven assumptions, distortions of facts and outright lies.

1. Historic variations in temperature correlate poorly with changes in carbon dioxide levels. Temperatures supposedly rose from 1915 to 1945, fell from 1945 to 1976, rose until 1998, then fell for a few years and then increased again, but during all this time the concentration of carbon dioxide was supposedly increasing.  (At first the absence of an increase in temperature until 1976 despite an increase in carbon dioxide from 1958 was explained as the heating going into the water, but then the reason became sulphates in the atmosphere, but no conclusive proof has been shown for either option.) 
2. The above paragraphs says "Temperatures supposedly rose" because there are plenty of reasons to doubt the accuracy of the estimated average global temperatures based on near-surface measurements. The mean temperature being used is the average of the minimum and maximum temperature but this is easily distorted by a few hours without cloud when most of the day is cloudy. Temperatures at sea are taken from a few metres below the waterline but on land they are taken in air and above the ground. Temperatures are estimated in regions where no direct observations exist, but the agencies that provide this data use different methods which unsurprisingly produce different results. For the last 10 years 20% (i.e. one-fifth) of the Earth's surface has been beyond the reach of even the methods of estimation but prior to 1960 the figure exceeded 50%. Satellite based measurements provide data which is more easily calibrated to other methods of measurement and this data indicates a peak for the 1998 El Nino and a slight rise in 2002 and no subsequent fall. This data does not show the sustained warming that exists in the averages derived from near-surface thermometer measurements and it is suspected that the latter is greatly contaminated by the Urban Heat Island effects that are caused by cities and towns.
3. Extreme weather is less common, not more common, although weather paranoia may suggest otherwise. If the strength of hurricanes is directly related to the difference in temperatures between the poles and the tropics the recent warming in the Arctic is reducing this difference and reducing hurricane strength. The financial impact of extreme weather may be worsening but that is due to the increasing population in areas prone to such events. An expanding population has increased the infrastructure (buildings etc.) in those areas but also the cost of that infrastructure continues to increase.
4. Computer models used for climate predictions have never been proven to be accurate in their programming and in there results. None can predict El Nino events but 1998 showed that global temperatures are susceptible to these events. The IPCC would like us to believe that these models are accurate and yet the IPCC reports consistently show that many climatic factors are poorly understood.
5. The IPCC tries to claim that a consensus has been reached on the cause of global warming (but as shown above, the existence of this warming is debatable). A consensus belongs in law and politics, not in Science because there are numerous examples of one person successfully challenging the scientific consensus of the day.  The recently released IPCC reviewers' comments make it clear that substantial dissent did exist but chapter authors rejected much of it, sometimes without any reason.
6. Fundamental assumptions about the warming power of carbon dioxide have been shown to be false. The theoretical warming caused by carbon dioxide will reduce as the concentration increases. We are at the point where an increase in carbon dioxide of 100ppm (from the current 385 ppm) will theoretically cause warming of slightly less than 0.1C degrees and every subsequent increase of 100 ppm will cause less and less warming. But this is theory and no-one can be sure whether the climate system will balance itself (e.g. by increased cloud causing more shading and therefore cool the planet) or if other forces will increase the amount of warming.
7. Climate changes vary greatly between regions and localities. This sits badly with the notion that carbon dioxide is dispersed relatively evenly around the entire Earth. Observed temperature increases are often a consequence of the local environment (eg. expanding towns and cities) and changes in local heat generation (eg. more traffic).  At the other end of the scale cooling is reported for central Greenland and for the 90% of the Antarctic which is not in the Antarctic Peninsula, which seems rather odd when carbon dioxide levels in those places continue to increase. 
8. Research continues into many aspects of climate because, as the IPCC readily admits, the level of scientific understanding of many climate factors is still low. In particular researchers are finding strong correlations between meteorological observations and solar activity and human activity can hardly be driving the sun. The actual mechanisms have not yet been determined but there's a very strong possibility that climate has little or nothing to do with human activity except in a very localised sense of cities, town and land-use changes.

Last update: 9 July 2007