Over the next century, mean temperatures worldwide are projected to rise by as much as six degrees Celsius, leading to severe environmental damage. Polar ice caps will melt, releasing billions of gallons of water that will raise global sea levels and flood coastlines for miles. Ecologically vital estuaries will be destroyed, causing the extinction of thousands, if not millions, of plant and animal species. Coastal forests will perish under saltwater, impairing the earth's ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, thus increasing greenhouse gases and intensifying planetary heating. Some speculate that the massive water flow from poles to equator could stress earth's tectonics, potentially increasing earthquakes, volcanic activity, and even shifting the earth's axis. Humanity will face dire consequences, including the spread of tropical diseases, reduced arable land turning into desert or seabed, heightened skin cancer risks from decreased ozone, unbearable heat from desertification, and dramatic changes in weather patterns with unprecedented natural disasters. Despite these alarming predictions, skepticism surrounds the global warming narrative. Just thirty years ago, fears of global cooling and a new Ice Age dominated environmental concerns, predicting starvation and receding shorelines, only to be disproven by scientific evidence. Environmentalists then shifted focus to global warming, leveraging slight upward trends in mean temperatures for political ends. Critics argue that the environmental movement prioritizes political outcomes over facts, pushing for restrictions on free enterprise, extensive government regulation, and funding for environmental causes. The science supporting global warming is often labeled as unreliable, with the issue framed more as political than scientific, evidenced by the Bush administration's wavering stance and the contentious U.S. refusal to sign the 1997 UN Kyoto Treaty due to its perceived bias against American industry and exemptions for other polluting nations. Many scientists, including 19,700 who signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, dispute the certainty of global warming, asserting that the data do not conclusively support these dire forecasts.

Global warming is portrayed as a hoax, supported by an objective examination of climate change facts. The environmental movement's shift from global cooling to global warming is described as a strategic pivot to achieve political goals rather than being driven by scientific evidence. The science behind global warming is criticized as being unreliable, with international scientists challenging the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They argue that these projections are based on extreme scenarios and that historical temperature variations and carbon dioxide levels do not support the link between human activity and climate change. Furthermore, temperature data from the last sixty years show no significant warming since 1940, suggesting that solar activity has a more substantial impact on climate than human-induced greenhouse gases. It is estimated that even full implementation of the Kyoto treaty would only minimally affect global temperatures.

Global warming, attributed to human activity, is presented as an undeniable fact, despite evidence suggesting the earth has not experienced overall warming since 2001. The assertion that the debate is over is seen as audacious and dismissive of opposing views, labeling dissenters as climate-change skeptics and stifling their opportunities. Recent weather patterns contradict the claims of the global warming advocates, with Lord Christopher Monckton reporting a rapid cooling trend equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century over the past four years. Despite humanity's pollution, the ability to cause catastrophic climate change through routine activities like driving or mowing lawns remains unsupported by facts. Instead, the sun's activity, currently at a historic low with minimal sunspots and solar flares, is identified as the primary driver of climate shifts. John L. Casey warns of a new cold climate, potentially a solar hibernation lasting decades, bringing the coldest weather in over two centuries. Yet, the environmental movement, seemingly more focused on money and control than nature, persists with its agenda, shifting from global warming to climate change to maintain initiatives like cap and trade, despite scientific data indicating cooling. Claims of rising sea levels and shrinking icebergs continue to be promoted, ignoring contrary evidence, as a means to influence public and political action.

Global warming remains a contentious issue, with debates centering on whether human actions can influence the climate. While small-scale efforts like planting trees can cool local areas, and historical deforestation in regions like North Africa and Palestine has led to hotter, drier conditions, mankind cannot effect global climate changes. Fluctuations in average global temperatures correlate with solar and supernova activity, factors beyond human control. Yet, many scientists promote the anthropogenic hypothesis, claiming that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, release hydrocarbons and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, enhancing the earth's greenhouse effect and causing worldwide temperature increases. Skeptical scientists, however, challenge this global warming thesis, arguing that their dissenting views are suppressed by a closed-minded scientific and political community. Historical data and scientific tools such as tree rings, ice core samples, coral growth, and isotope data reveal past climate fluctuations unrelated to human activity. For instance, the Medieval Climate Optimum from AD 800-1300 occurred during a time of low population and before industrial fossil fuel use, indicating other causative factors for warming trends. Current global warming is undeniable, but human activity is not the cause, nor can it reverse the trend. The Kyoto Treaty, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, would have minimal impact on global temperatures while imposing significant economic costs. Even signatories like Europe and Japan struggle to meet reduction targets, while major emitters like China and developing nations are exempt or do little to curb emissions. Professor Derr argues that higher global temperatures and increased carbon dioxide levels are beneficial, fostering plant growth, expanding forests into arid regions, and promising fewer storms, more rain, better crop yields, longer growing seasons, milder winters, and reduced heating costs in colder areas.