diverge from observed stable temperaturetrend in the last years, so the skeptics state that the models are unable toprovide accurate climatic forecasts.Figure2. An interpretation of changes in global average temperature from 1800 to2012. The temperature in the vertical axis is for reference scale. An insertabove the yellow box is a detailed version of data shown in the yellow (Akasofu,2010). Comparing with what? Anotherpoint made by the skeptics is that all models compare current temperatures withthe period between 1860 and 1920. However, 1860 is considered the end of aperiod called the little ice age. According to Akasofu (2010), the Earth isstill recovering from this cold period, one of the coolest in the last 8000years, while the computer models use to predict global temperature trend relyonly in a short period beginning in the 1970s. This choice of data and itslinearization suggests a more accelerated warming trend than that we can getfrom the linearization of the entire period since 1860, as we can observe infigure 2. Nowadays, we are in the cooling period of the Pacific Multi-decadalOscillation, which enhance the difference between measured temperatures andcomputer models results. Therefore, any observed warming trend is probably partof this recovering process, instead of an effect of the anthropogenicactivities.Who benefits from global warming? Globalwarming is a biased topic, not only academically speaking yet also economicallyand politically. Some skeptics see a hidden agenda behind global warmers people that advocate the global warming - position. Assumed skepticalresearchers face difficulties in obtaining research funds, and the media havebeen giving more space to warmers than to skeptics. Warmers usually accuseskeptics of being financed by the oil industry, while skeptics state thatwarmers work against the developing countries, since the restrictions of fossilfuel could jeopardize its development. Companies that make money from carboncredit earn billions of dollars by implementing mitigation actions(GlobalClimate Change Facts, n.d.). Surprisingly, most of those action are notfocused on reducing fossil fuel consumption or planting trees yet on buildingpreposterous CO2 absorbing machines, cultivating algae by launching ironoxide in the ocean, trading questionable carbon credits, or even launchingorbital mirrors in order to reduce suns incidence. Those questionablestrategies are amazingly expensive and can be a heavy burden to the taxpayers.The Occam's RazorAs we could see,bad data quality, confuse methodology, improper computer models interpretation,improper climatic history interpretation, and biasing are widespread in climatechange theory and among its defenders. This questionable scientific behavior maybe causing us to miss something important. Our incapacity of properlyunderstand what is really happening with the global climate can put allhumanity in danger. What if the climate is cooling instead of warming? Will webe prepared? What if while trying to prevent a catastrophic global warming we arecausing a catastrophic global cooling? In order to really understand ourplanet, science must be skeptic and unbiased. The search for elegant scientificmodels, the pressure over researchers to produce scientific papers, and thetendency of provide grants only to researchers that get economic results areprobably in the kernel of the current bias.According to theWilliam of Occams Principle of Parsimony,if you have two explanations to the same phenomenon, choose the simple one.There are several natural processes that can be