Text 27028, 164 rader
Skriven 2007-02-05 23:14:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Global Warming Critic
=============================
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? 
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007 

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the 
only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But 
few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in 
Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, 
especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate 
change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though 
I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, 
England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. 
For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is 
why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is 
flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media 
and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists 
who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans 
are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the 
Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of 
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the 
history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars 
while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no 
scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about 
spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change 
almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific 
position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to 
meet legislated pollution targets. 

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if 
we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. 
That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or 
could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, 
Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world 
come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling 
was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the 
Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, 
political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten 
thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of 
ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our 
species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling 
engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me 
stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has 
warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age 
(LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes 
are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by 
changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. 

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of 
London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate 
cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's 
global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a 
scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed 
and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another 
cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global 
temperature trends now indicate a cooling. 

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks 
and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal 
life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose 
not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in 
University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are 
supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. 

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, 
from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was 
saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that 
universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. 
This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding 
from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David 
Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he 
thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if 
Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only 
truth and enlightenment? 

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a 
civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They 
usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, 
they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has 
become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the 
evidence. 

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-
known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the 
scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, 
"State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, 
the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined 
environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an 
atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned 
for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. 
He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held 
positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. 
Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global 
Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific 
method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book 
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain 
assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the 
assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an 
atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was 
then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, 
the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before 
testing had started, and effectively became a law. 

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the 
research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the 
prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact 
they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening 
levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with 
all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific 
method is effectively being thwarted. 

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them 
have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of 
climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a 
policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, 
using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm 
rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how 
nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt 
to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation 
exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book 
"Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York 
University and realized how science was being influenced by and 
apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an 
assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly 
publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found 
there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for 
the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings 
occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in 
the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I 
have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, 
however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we 
are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project 
(www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former 
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached 
at letters@canadafreepress.com

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)