With his new book Global Warming: The Great Deception, author Guy Mitchell has one goal in mind – to disprove every science-based claim made by climate scientists and the proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis. At a time when many are questioning the value of science in the face of potential climate change, this is quite the eye opener.
First off, Mitchell explains that the world’s temperature databases depict no significant warming of the world’s atmosphere, land mass or oceans. This is through a number of research items, including NOAA measurements of the increase in the temperature of the land mass over the last 140 years, as well as a closer look at NOAA’s satellite readings and Argo Float program.
He also notes how the concept of an average temperature of the Earth is merely a figment of the imaginations of climate scientists, merely put together to prove a fraudulent hypothesis. “The temperature of the Earth is different at every point in time and space,” he explains, stating that attempting to add the temperature of various locales around the world is merely a “non-sensical exercise.”
So what does it come down to? Money, says Mitchell. He noted that over $1 trillion has been spent on climate research worldwide, but there’s little to nothing to show for it now.
Mitchell now joins us to discuss Global Warming: The Great Deception.
Q&A:
- First off, what inspired you to write this book? Did you just feel that the facts about climate change needed to be told, or did something else inspire you?
I was challenged by a friend at a dinner party in 2017 to accept the claim that 97% of the world’s scientists believed that man had caused global warming. What started out as a casual investigation of that claim turned into a four-year project involving scientific research into the subject of anthropogenic global warming which resulted in the writing of the book.
- You note that the cost of all energy sources could be seeing an increase, though their availability will also decrease. How do you think energy companies will attempt to explain this to consumers? Are there alternatives it may try to introduce?
The law of supply and demand is a fundamental precept of economic theory. If the supply of a good commodity like coal for generating electricity is artificially constrained by government edict, the price of substitute goods like natural gas will rise because of the increase in demand for natural gas to replace coal in electric power generation and short term supply limitations in the energy industry. Energy companies may try to explain to the consumer that their operating costs are rising due to the need to expand production capacity to meet that increased demand. Therefore, they need to raise prices to cover those cost increases.
Unfortunately, there are essentially not readily available, reliable energy sources to replace fossil fuels in the generation of electricity or to power agricultural machinery, construction machinery, construction machinery, aviation, or rail locomotives. Wind and solar power are unreliable in adverse weather conditions and lack the scale to replace the loss of coal-fired power generation. While electric motors can replace internal combustion engines in certain applications, they still need electricity to recharge the batteries.
- You note that the world doesn’t seem to have any sort of replacement for fossil fuel-powered electric plants or modes of transportation. What does this say about the future of electric cars and other similar technologies, you think?
The world will quickly learn that it is not possible to severely reduce or eliminate the use/supply of fossil fuels in generating electricity in the short term (10-20+ yrs.). Europe has learned this lesson very quickly in the case of the war in Ukraine, the embargo on Russian oil and the resultant increase in natural gas prices to replace the oil. The US has also had a similar learning experience since the Biden administration declared war on the US energy sector and placed an embargo on Russian oil which caused prices to rise worldwide. I think that electric vehicles are a good idea, especially for large urban areas. However, their batteries still need to be charged with electricity; and wind and solar generating capacity is many years away from meeting that demand.
- You talk about the possibility of energy shortage and the effect it could have on this country in the future. How do you think consumers will react, and what do you think corporations may do in an effort to fix this, if anything?
Consumers will be very unhappy with the rising cost of gasoline, electricity and rolling blackouts that result from insufficient capacity to meet the demand for gasoline and electric power. I expect that companies that engage in the business of supplying solar voltaic panels for residential and commercial use will see an increase in demand as well as those companies who provide backup electric generators for residential and commercial end-users. Large power consumers such as heavy manufacturers will have fewer practical options and the cost of manufactured goods will increase as energy costs rise. Availability will be an issue. Go long on oil futures and buy Saudi Aramco stock.
- Why do you think so much was spent on climate research, with extraordinarily little to nothing to show for it? Perhaps a lack of proper tools to do the research? Maybe funneling to other funds?
Global warming assumed a cause célèbre; being concerned about it was the fashionable thing to do. European governments, influenced by their Green parties, funded it. President Obama embraced the euro-centric movement to save the world from thermal destruction. Global investment firms saw the huge financial market for trading carbon credits and promoted the hypothesis. Young climate scientists entering the field in the 1980s and thereafter realized that opposing the consensus was tantamount to career suicide. The research produced nothing of scientific value because it was flawed. It departed from the scientific method and started with the premise that man had created global warming and then attempted to prove it. One cannot prove a false hypothesis. Scientific research that does not adhere to the scientific method cannot produce valid results. In science, must follow the truth wherever it leads you.
- There’s word that the United States could face some form of recession in 2023, thanks to the increase the price of electricity, housing, gas, food, and other services. Do you see any relief from this? If so, where?
Economic indicators and logic would point to an economic downturn. A quick end to the Ukrainian war and multilateral agreements among the US and European countries as to how to re-integrate Russia into the world economy would ease the pressure on oil and natural gas prices. An overwhelming victory by the Republican party in November 2022, along with a thorough repudiation of the Green New deal proponents in the Democrat party by party centrists would help. However, the world must renounce the war on the carbon atom and the fraudulent global warming hypothesis and return to sane energy policies based on proven science.
- Certain states seem to have a “power grab” over consumers, acting as the only electrical resource within their area and implementing whatever fees and services they can as a result. Would you say this is contributing to a “bigger picture” problem when it comes to the potential energy shortage we face?
No. To the best of my knowledge, every public utility in the US has oversight from some regulatory authority that sets rates based on financial targets like return on assets, investment, etc. However, the purchase of electricity is not a free market per se. If I live in Alabama, I cannot buy electricity from Duke Power without paying a fee. The impediment to creating a free market is distribution; that is, if I want to buy electricity from another producer in the country, I (or the seller) have to pay a fee to the “local utility” to use their transmission lines to obtain their electricity. Another, somewhat more complicated issue is “stranded costs” for an electric utility if a large customer wants to buy electricity from another producer, but, I won’t get into that here.
- What kind of overhaul do you think needs to be done in order for proper climate change research to be done? Or is it too little, too late?
It is not too late. In my book, I propose a “Way Forward” in the concluding chapter. The world needs to disband the UN IPCC and convene a Solvay Conference-type group comprised of the most preeminent scientists in the world in the fields of thermodynamics, spectroscopy, quantum mechanics, atmospheric physics, and other pertinent disciplines to study the subject matter employing the scientific method of inquiry. I explain how the scientific method works in a chapter in my book and how it should be applied to climate science research.
- Where can consumers find out more about your book, Global Warming: The Great Deception?
- It’s available for purchase on Amazon here, and there’s also a Kindle version available here.
About Guy Mitchell:
Guy Mitchell is a member of Pi Tau Sigma, the International Honor Society for Mechanical Engineers and was elected a Distinguished Engineering Fellow by the College of Engineering, University of Alabama, in 1995. His book, Global Warming: The Great Deception, explains what he believes to be the flawed claims of global warming caused by human activity.
CONTACT: Jerry McGlothlin 919-437-0001 jerry@specialguests.com
MORE for longer interviews:
Question 1: In the introduction to your book, you state that you want to provide the reader with the scientific evidence to refute the “pseudoscience that underpins the man-made global warming hypothesis”. What would you like the readers of “Global Warming: The Great Deception” to learn about the current state of climate science?
- It is fraudulent; the scientific methodology and analytical methods employed in current climate science as practiced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) have been designed to promote a false narrative. They depart from the scientific method and the first principles of the scientific disciplines involved.
- The world’s temperature databases depict no significant warming of the atmosphere, land mass or oceans since accurate satellite measurements began in 1979. The historical and current raw data for the temperature of the land mass is “adjusted” by climate scientists to depict global warming trends that have not occurred. The narrative that significant global warming has occurred in the last 100 years is false.
- Climate models fail back testing, or, the ability to predict historical changes in temperature using historical data. The models consistently predict temperature increases substantially in excess of what occurs. Assumptions are made in climate models that have not been proven. Analyses begin with the premise that man has caused global warming and then manipulate the process in an effort to prove the false hypothesis.
- There is no “average temperature of the Earth.” The concept of an average temperature of the Earth is a figment of the climate scientist’s imagination conjured up in an effort to prove a fraudulent hypothesis. It has no meaning in scientific analysis. The Earth is never in thermal equilibrium; that is, the temperature of the Earth is different at every point in time and space.
Question 2: In your introduction, you also state that an important objective of your book is to “expose the true motivation behind the promotion of the global warming hypothesis by the UN, global investment firms and certain world politicians.” Could you elaborate?
- It is all about the money. In the case of the UN IPCC, it is money for research and to effect worldwide socio-economic change. Since the inception of the issue of man-made global warming, over $1 trillion has been spent on global warming research with nothing to show for it. The stated goal of the UN IPCC is to transfer wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations under the guise of addressing global warming in an effort to address socio-economic inequalities.
- Global investment firms stand to make billions of dollars of profit in the trading of carbon credits and promoting “green investments.” In 2004, the global carbon trading market was about $10 billion; in 2019, it was about $200 billion. It is projected to reach $1 trillion in short order.
- In the case of certain politicians, it is about power. The power to create legislation that benefits “green investment” and the resultant political contributions that promote that effort.
Question 3: When did the global warming issue formally begin; who is promoting it and why?
- It officially began when the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) in 1988.
- The stated goal of the UN IPCC is to transfer wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations under the guise of addressing climate change.
- Over $1 trillion has been spent on climate research with nothing to show for it
Question 4: What mechanisms have been developed to facilitate the wealth transfer?
- Cap and trade agreements contained in so-called climate treaties that permit governments and other entities to buy and sell carbon credits to meet their emissions limits. Trading carbon credits do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
- The Paris Climate Accord (“PCA”) established the Green Climate Fund (“GCF”) as a mechanism for developed countries to fund “green investments” in developing countries to combat climate change. The PCA calls for developed countries to contribute $100 billion/yr for five years to fund the GCF.
Question 5: Do so-called climate treaties result in the reduction of carbon emissions?
- No. During the failed Kyoto Protocol that was in effect from 2005 to 2012, world-wide emissions increased by 32%.
- The Kyoto Protocol introduced the concept of “cap and trade”-the trading of carbon credits
Question 6: You mentioned the importance of the role played in trading carbon credits in the promotion of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Could you elaborate?
- In 2019, the worldwide market for trading carbon credits was reported to be $200 billion and increasing rapidly. It is projected to reach $1 trillion within a few years.
- The UN allots carbon credits to countries based on certain criteria. Countries or entities within those countries can sell their unused carbon allotments to entities who could use them to offset carbon emissions as well as global investment firms that trade them.
- Entities who use the carbon credits they purchase to offset carbon emissions do not reduce their carbon emissions. They merely subtract them from their emissions to report a reduced “carbon foot[print.” The process does nothing to reduce the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.
- Global investment firms buy carbon credits from various entities and then sell them to other entities who want to report a “net reduction” in carbon emissions. They profit from the buying and selling of the carbon credits
CONTACT: Jerry McGlothlin 919-437-0001 jerry@specialguests.com
