Who would tell you if the models are wrong?

At its heart, global warming theory is based on computer models that show that raising the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the Earth's temperature. There has been attempts to reconstruct temperatures prior to modern records but these are based on computer models also. So, are the models right? Consider this:

World temperatures showed warming from the mid-19th century to the end of the 20th century but, according to the same monitors used by the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) world temperature peaked in 1998 and has been fairly stable since then (except for the last few months when it lost a good deal of the previous century's warming). Global warming experts have an explanation for this. The temperature is still rising. The oceans are absorbing the heat but this will end soon when the oceans disgorge all of that stored heat and the atmosphere heats rapidly. That's what the models say but actual measurements fail to find any warming.

Then there is the effect of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. The models say that this water vapor will absorb even more heat than CO2 leading to enhanced global warming. This is where the more alarming estimates of warming come from. According to NASA satellites, this prediction is also wrong. More water vapor leads to more clouds which reflect heat away from the Earth instead of trapping it. This means that water vapor is part of a negative feedback instead of a positive one. The climate tends to regulate itself. In fact this article says that the head of the IPCC has accepted this fact.

So, who will tell the rest of the world?

Think about it. We are already turning corn into fuel in the name of sustainable energy. This has caused record food prices. Planned power plants are being stopped or switched to less reliable gas turbines. In the near future we will experience power shortages and increased gas prices because of these decisions. Europe is considering sanctions against the US and China unless we cripple our manufacturing capabilities. Cars will soon become more expensive as new technologies are added to improve fuel economy. Britain has proposed replacing over half of its housing with more energy efficient buildings. The list goes on and gets far more expensive in the future.

If there is some doubt about the validity of the global warming computer models, shouldn't someone say something? And who would be believed?

Al Gore won't say anything. He considered it settled science since he wrote Earth in the Balance nearly 20 years ago. Warning people about global warming has made him hundreds of millions and won him a Nobel Peace Prize.

We aren't likely to hear much from the IPCC either for several reasons. They were created specifically to prove that global warming exists. It would take a lot to convince them. Most of the IPCC members aren't even scientists specializing in global warming. They cover a wide spectrum of fields. Most of them are there to shed light on how global warming will affect their specialty. They never deal with the computer models so they would be unaware of problems in them. Also, they are under a great deal of political pressure to emphasize unity on global warming and to stress the potential damage. Beyond all of that, think of the repercussions if they reversed themselves. Governments have been setting policy based on their predictions.

It is possible that some members of the IPCC could realize the truth and make statements on their own. The track record of previous IPCC members who have gone this route is not encouraging. Through his organization, The Climate Project, Al Gore has been training people to denounce anyone who questions global warming. If you are labeled a denier then some link will be found between you and "big carbon". As an example, the left-libertarian web site Punch was labeled as being in the pocket of the oil companies. After some effort they tracked down the allegation. It seems that a few years before they had jointly sponsored a conference with the right-libertarian web site TechCentralStation (now TCSDaily) and their founder had received a grant from an oil company. With links as tenuous as this, anyone can be denounced as an oil company mouthpiece.

This is exactly what happened a few weeks ago when a group of global warming skeptics held a convention. Rather than cover the content of the papers presented, most press concentrated on their funding.

Even if a number of unimpeachable scientists do gather together and announce that global warming is not happening, the press is not likely to cover it. Polls show that reporters feel that they have to be advocates for the environment. Science reporters seldom understand what they are writing about. They go to sources they trust for advice. In the case of global warming, these sources are advocates trained by Gore's people.

Then there are politicians. Some believe in global warming. Others feel that anytime there is a problem, they have to be seen doing something to solve it. In some cases, they have to be seen solving a problem before it can be proved that the problem does not exists. Nearly 20 years ago Congress rushed legislation into effect to deal with acid rain. They had to hurry because a major report that they had commissioned showed that the threat of acid rain was overstated and very little actual harm was coming from it. Rather than wait for a report that suggested that they do nothing, they implemented restrictions against high-sulfur coal among other things.

Given that many voters will believe that global warming is a problem that has to be solved, no matter who says otherwise, politicians will feel obligated to act, regardless.

So how do we stop this runaway train?