"The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming"

Michael Crichton does a top-notch job of presenting the skeptical case in his National Press Club speech here.

If you're still a believer in catastrophic global warming, I think you owe it to yourself to give this entire speech a careful read.

It's very clear to me that just as in the Ivory-bill case, the skeptics here have the data and logic squarely on their side.

Here's just one excerpt from Crichton's speech:

Another factor that could change the record is heat from cities. This is called the urban heat bias, and as with solar effects, scientists tended to think the effect, while real, was relatively minor. That is why the IPCC allowed only six hundredths of a degree for urban heating. But cities are hot: the correction is likely to be much greater. We now understand that many cities are 7 or 8 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside.

Some studies have suggested that the proper adjustment to the record needs to be four or five times greater than the IPCC allowance.

Now what does this mean to our record? Well remember, the total warming in the 20th century is six tenths of a degree.

If some of this is from land use and urban heating (and one studies suggests it is .35 C for the century), and some is solar heating (.25 C for century), then the amount attributable to carbon dioxide becomes less. And let me repeat: nobody knows how much is attributable to carbon dioxide right now.

But if carbon dioxide is not the major factor, it may not make a lot of sense to try and limit it. There are many reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and I support such a reduction. But global warming may not be a good or a primary reason.

So this is very important stuff. The uncertainties are great.