What if the world’s oceans, atmosphere and land masses aren’t warming? It would demand answers of those waging an expensive war against anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. That is the nexus of Global Warming: The Great Deception, a book by Guy Mitchell, a successful business leader and student of scientific history. He is no science denier – not at all. He’s a skeptic of climate alarmists after finding “no significant warming” of the planet “since accurate satellite measurements were initiated in 1979.”
Mitchell is a champion of the scientific method, which freed observers and theorists from the dogma of papal Rome; thereby making possible every cure and gadget mankind enjoys today. Thus, Mitchell was free to observe “the triumph of dollars and politics over science.” Thus, you are free to learn “why you should care” about AOC’s Green New Deal. His book is a credible rebuttal of the runaway train of climate politics, with theories better thought out than AOC’s.
Mitchell rebuts the “scientific consensus” of climate alarmism with three credible theories: (1) the geometry of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun and the Sun-spot cycle are fundamental and the primary cause of climate change, (2) natural oceanic cycles are the cause of melting polar ice caps, and (3) empirical evidence of global warming relies too much on local atmospheric conditions. He doesn’t deny man has put CO2 in the atmosphere, but he does doubt the Green New Deal can impact climate change.
For example, worldwide CO2 emissions actually increased 32% during the term of the Kyoto Protocol. The EPA reported (under Trump) that US CO2 emissions were reduced by the shift from coal to natural gas – not the Paris Accord. Legitimate earth scientists are called “science deniers” for suggesting the “average temperatures” cited by the UN are an abstraction. Businessman Mitchell smelled a rat, and his nose for money took him to the UN, certain politicians and global investment firms.
The Great Deception is politics, which obscure the real drivers of zero-carbon life on Earth: research funding, political careers, and green economics. Mitchell writes that, despite $1 trillion invested on global warming research, climate models still cannot predict future results. He questions the geopolitical impact of abandoning fossil fuels (how apropos with $5.00 gas and Putin’s need for petrodollars), and is suspicious of the folks trading $200 billion in carbon credits every year.
I think we all want a sustainable planet, but disagree on how we get there. I think I’ll drive an electric car one day, but cannot say the end of gas-powered cars will have a measured impact on the climate. I don’t know if my friend Guy agrees with those statements, but I do know he’s alarmed – and rightly so.
Every American should be alarmed by UN climate treaties “transferring wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations” to end “socioeconomic inequalities” in the world. Does trading carbon credits reduce CO2 emissions, or just enrich those who engage in the activity? Mitchell addresses these issues in detail and helps you understand how politics and profits triumph over science. You can buy his book on Amazon (click the golden link).