Temperatures have been flat for over a decade, and temperatures are threatening to invalidate the IPCC's forecast model at the 95% confidence level, but like an unwanted house guest, this global warming issue just won't go away. The imminent crisis du jour making the rounds on the financial media is that the melting arctic ice will release a huge amont of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere creating a spike in global temperatures and costing the globe $60 trillion. Apparently CO2 wasn't panning out, so now the focus shifts to how current green house gases aren't causing warming, but melting Arctic ice may release some methane in the future causing the global warming CO2 was thought to be causing...but data has proven it isn't. The problem I have with this theory is if the IPCC data shows there is no warming for over a decade, what is causing the Arctic ice to melt?
I like to think of the climate scientists as a bunch of novice investors that are seeing a dead cat bounce or suckers rally for the first time. In the 1970's a short cold spell resulted in the coming ice age hysteria as the climate experts made all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios where the world would soon be covered in ice if governments didn't act. Then in the mid-1990s a short spike in temperatures exaggerated by the cooling of Mt Pinatubo followed by the warming of El-Nino, resulted in the global warming hysteria. Once temperatures started to flatten, the focus turned to "climate change." Changing climate by the way is the normal condition for the earth. Ask a climate change expert when the Earth's climate hasn't been changing and watch how fast the conversation changes to another topic.
The facts are the Arctic ice had a rapid loss this summer due to Arctic storms, and has since been rapidly recovering. There is nothing man or the government can do to prevent naturally occurring storms and bad weather, nor should we even try.
The storminess of late July has continued into early August. A large storm has consumed a vast section of the Arctic this week.
"I just spotted what appears to be a massive cyclone - bigger than all of Greenland
Finally I get some help exposing this nonsense, as NASA has rushed to support my skepticism. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, strongly disagrees with the methane theory is and is quick to point out that there have been geologically recent events that most likely resulted in the complete loss of Arctic sea ice, and ice core data proves no such warming spikes occured. It is a bad day for climate science when a scientist at NASA is no longer silenced by the threat of being labled a "denier" or "flat earther."
One line of evidence Schmidt cites comes from ice core records, which include two warm Arctic periods that occurred 8,000 and 125,000 years ago, he said. There is strong evidence that summer sea ice was reduced during these periods, and so the methane-release mechanism (reduced sea ice causes sea floor warming and hydrate melting) could have happened then, too. But there's no methane pulse in ice cores from either warm period, Schmidt said. "It might be a small thing that we can't detect, but if it was large enough to have a big climate impact, we would see it,"
Facts are global sea ice is at or near a normal levels, with no real discernable trend caused by global warming.
While the Arctic has lost some ice, the Antarctic has gained ice, so the net change has basically been zero. I find it difficult to understand how global warming can cause loss of ice in the North and ice gain in the South. Maybe too many cows in the North are producing too much methane? But if that is the case, why are we attacking "Big Oil" for causing global warming? We should be attacking McDonalds.
While 2012 did fall outside normal levels of Arctic sea ice loss, 2013 is within the norm, even after a severe storm season.
Arctic temperatures also haven't shown much if any warming over the last 10 years, and current temperatures are way below the temperatures of the early 1980s.
Sea Ice concentration is actually greater than it was 5 years ago.
In conclusion, the next time investors see portfolio managers hyping up global warming on the financial channels, they should take their comments with a grain of salt. Climate experts are legendary for their constantly wrong forecasts, and endless "tipping points" that get passed without notice. The facts are the investments support by the global warming theory are awful investments, even by their supporters own admission, and anyone that takes the time to actually look behind the curtain of the "science" backing the climate hysteria will soon discover why so man of their forecasts have been wrong, climate science is simply very very bad "science," and investors should avoid using it as a basis for building a retirement portfolio.
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.