Text 27039, 176 rader
Skriven 2007-02-06 08:57:58 av Bob Sakowski
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Binkley
Ärende: Re: Global Warming Critic
=================================
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:14:00 -0500, Jeff Binkley wrote:


I wonder if he is one of the "professional" climatoligists bought by
EXON/MOBIL?

> 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)


-- 
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good 
legs who, however, has never learned how to walk 
forward. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)