The Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

      The most serious inconvenient truth about Global Warming is that the conclusion advanced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the primary culprit for planet warming is not a consensus of the scientific community.  A significantly qualified group of climate scientist disagree.  For example, read "No Need to Panic About Global Warming: There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy," from the Wall Street Journal. 

       In September 2012, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew because I cannot live with the statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
       Whereas, the evidence is overwhelming that the climate is changing (it always has), it is uncertain what the primary causes are.  The problem for the IPCC predictions is the climate has not cooperated with their models.  It appears the planet has not warmed significantly in the last 17 years.
      David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation  points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.”
      He notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.
      The other inconvenient truth that the public is not aware of is the IPCC models that provide the current dire predictions are not based on first principles.  They are parametric models.  The authors plug in all the basic science they understand and then tweak the results (aka parameters) to match history.  CO2 alone can not account for the historical changes, so the modelers have introduced unproven and unverified positive feedback based on assumed impact of CO2 on the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere, which overwhelms the influence of all the other greenhouse gases (including CO2!) combined. (Notice how they have been careful not to call water vapor a pollutant as they have called CO2.  Both are absolutely necessary for the dominant life forms on earth.)