Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Some scientists deny global warming


Aztec Warrior

Recommended Posts

What was that some of you said....."there's no debate', "everbody agrees there's global warming" or "no reputable scientists disagree with man-made global warming" or "anyone who doesn't agree with man-made global warming is ignorant"....etc. etc. etc.

Well there is another side.

linked-image

The real deal?

Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists

Lawrence Solomon, National Post

Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Aztec Warrior

    5

  • Celumnaz

    2

  • IronGhost

    2

  • Reincarnated

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, interesting, and dissent is always important and a vital part of science. It's alternative vviewpoints like these that keep global warming predictors on their toes and makes them keep re-examining and refining their data.

It's interesting that bottom line is -- both sides now want to do basically the same thing. Here is what the guy int he article says:

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Both sides favor the urrgent need to develop alternative energy. That's good.

Also, what global warming deniers are forgetting is that they are missing an opportunity for a fantastic area of economic expansion to unfold -- there is a huge amount of money and jobs in developing new energy sources. Here is Minnesota -- which I believe is the biggest producer of corn-based ethanol -- it was recentnly determined that the industry has added something like $3 or $4 billion to the Minnesota economy, and has created at least 2,400 new jobs,a nd that's growing rapidly.

Republicans have been resisting global warming primarily on economic grounds -- they say it will hurt business -- but this is false. It may hurt the businesses that contribute the most to Republicans -- like big oil -- but developing new energy sources is going to be one of the greatest boons to the economy in a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you'll find the biggest concern from 'global warming deniers' is not that we stray away from burning fossil fuels, but governments implement kneejerk policy in an ineffective attempt to stop the world from ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what global warming deniers are forgetting

no such animal. Everyone agrees that climate change is real, both warm and cold.

Can bet yer sweet bippy the scientists in the alternative fuels markets are all saying oil is the culprit though (even within big oil companies that divest into alternative fuel markets). They see $$$. Especially if the arab reigons flood the market with cheap oil after we've regulated its use out of the country... we'll be paying 10 times for our alternative fuel... and we're thinking Exxon's oil profits were big, it'll be nothing compared to the alternative fuel markets when regulation is legislated in. All artificial. I have no love for oil companies but the truth is the truth, whether there's concensus on that truth or not, it doesn't change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, interesting, and dissent is always important and a vital part of science. It's alternative vviewpoints like these that keep global warming predictors on their toes and makes them keep re-examining and refining their data.

It's interesting that bottom line is -- both sides now want to do basically the same thing. Here is what the guy int he article says:

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Both sides favor the urrgent need to develop alternative energy. That's good.

Also, what global warming deniers are forgetting is that they are missing an opportunity for a fantastic area of economic expansion to unfold -- there is a huge amount of money and jobs in developing new energy sources. Here is Minnesota -- which I believe is the biggest producer of corn-based ethanol -- it was recentnly determined that the industry has added something like $3 or $4 billion to the Minnesota economy, and has created at least 2,400 new jobs,a nd that's growing rapidly.

Republicans have been resisting global warming primarily on economic grounds -- they say it will hurt business -- but this is false. It may hurt the businesses that contribute the most to Republicans -- like big oil -- but developing new energy sources is going to be one of the greatest boons to the economy in a century.

I completely agree with your comments. Here in Mexico, electricity is expensive and having solar or alternatives that affordable and clean make a lot of sense. The ethanol, which uses corn, has driven up tortilla prices (tripled since Aug) and isn't really what I had in mind. In Brazil, they have Flex Fuel cars and grow the corn domestically for their own consumption. They are mostly energy independent.

Beyond all that, there is the issue of pollution. As you are probable aware, Mexico City is very polluted with smog and drinking water must be purchased seperately from the city based water system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont belive in global warming I just dont the earths temp. has always risen and fallen its perfectly normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you'll find the biggest concern from 'global warming deniers' is not that we stray away from burning fossil fuels, but governments implement kneejerk policy in an ineffective attempt to stop the world from ending.

I agree. I would also add that the implementation of emission controls, capping smokestacks, and alternative fuels is as much a political agenda as anything the energy companies are doing.

This is not to say that I believe that nothing should be done. I would definitely vote for more stringent controls and implementation fo emission free alternatives. What I object to is the general implication that humans, and only humans, are responsible for climate change, and more importantly, the misleading implication that, by implementing controls, we will return to some mythical golden age of climate stability within a few generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mexico it's been cold and raining. There is snow in the mountains. It's supposed to be the summer. I wonder how many low temp records have been broken here and in the US.

Bitter cold grips northern states

By The Associated Press

55 minutes ago

From Minnesota to New York, some schoolchildren are getting an extra long weekend because of the bitter chill that has spread over the eastern half of the country.

Wind chills are minus 25 degrees or lower and some high temperatures today aren't expected to climb above zero.

Experts say exposed skin can get frostbite and school officials didn't want kids outside waiting for buses.

Maine is getting hammered with wind chills forecast as low as minus 45 by tonight in the western mountains.

In Michigan, there could be insult added to injury with winter storm warnings for most of the eastern Upper Peninsula and the northwest Lower Peninsula.

Amtrak shut down passenger train service in upstate New York west of Albany and numerous schools closed due to whiteouts from lake-effect snow and below zero wind chills.

Source

Edited by Aztec Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mexico it's been cold and raining. There is snow in the mountains. It's supposed to be the summer. I wonder how many low temp records have been broken here and in the US.

Bitter cold grips northern states

By The Associated Press

55 minutes ago

From Minnesota to New York, some schoolchildren are getting an extra long weekend because of the bitter chill that has spread over the eastern half of the country.

Wind chills are minus 25 degrees or lower and some high temperatures today aren't expected to climb above zero.

Experts say exposed skin can get frostbite and school officials didn't want kids outside waiting for buses.

Maine is getting hammered with wind chills forecast as low as minus 45 by tonight in the western mountains.

In Michigan, there could be insult added to injury with winter storm warnings for most of the eastern Upper Peninsula and the northwest Lower Peninsula.

Amtrak shut down passenger train service in upstate New York west of Albany and numerous schools closed due to whiteouts from lake-effect snow and below zero wind chills.

Source

Arg! It's tough to have this debate on a day like today here in northern Minnesota -- we reached 38-below-zero Farenheit this morning -- and that does not include wind chill factor! The high yesterday during the day was about -20. We've been in the deep freeze for almost a week, with no end in sight!! On top of that, my wife had a flat tire on her car this morning -- do you know how fun it is to change a tire when the temp is hovering around 30-below? It's about as fun as having a button sewed on your tongue!

I have a new way to make terrorists talk -- forget Guantanimo -- get them up here and make them change car tires in the deep freeze until they cough up their info!!

Anyway, and however, global warming is about long-term averages. Taking a look our your door and feeling the weather on any given day is not a scientific way to judge climate change. You have to look at the data and the long-term trends.

Another thing: Global warming actually means that some parts of the globe could get colder temporarily -- because the ice caps will melt, cool certain parts of the ocean, which will create cold trends on land -- but this is only a temporary cool down in these areas -- the long term trend is for the whole planet to heat up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winter got here very late this year, we had 60's in December which is unheard of. The ski resorts have been suffering the last few years. Now we are getting blasted with one of the coldest, windiest, nastiest winters I have seen in a long time. It is just soo damn windy and it hasn't stopped for weeks. Very weird weather and bitterly cold with well below zero temps from the teeth chattering wind chill. To put it simple, global warming = our weather coming down with a bad case of bi-polar disorder.

Edited by Reincarnated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming? Yes, I think so.

Caused by oil use? Possible.

What are the costs of heating your home? Alot!

Use oil, natural gas, ethanol or wood-burning stove and its all expensive. Do you have any idea how much it costs to produce a gallon of ethanol?

Different folks will be making the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let me get this straight.

Global warming will cool the north alantic current, thereby actually causing a global freeze and killing millions. That explains the weird cold weather. I think there was a movie about that.

So if we have a nuclear winter.(Iran nukes)....a comet explosion or just pinatubo erupting....that will cool the earth about 2 degrees. And then no global warming we have global cooling. But wait we have that now. So we have a warm ice age? I am stumped by that. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

So the Decepticons are to blame for global warming?

Frankly, I don't give a damn who or caused it. The fact is something's up, and we need to adapt as soon as possible. If we're able to stop it, then we need try. If not, we need to consider moving to higher ground....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight.

Global warming will cool the north alantic current, thereby actually causing a global freeze and killing millions. That explains the weird cold weather. I think there was a movie about that.

So if we have a nuclear winter.(Iran nukes)....a comet explosion or just pinatubo erupting....that will cool the earth about 2 degrees. And then no global warming we have global cooling. But wait we have that now. So we have a warm ice age? I am stumped by that. Any thoughts?

What on earth are you talking about? :lol: It sounds like you are just blabbering and saying anything to put off the notion that your opinions on global warming are innaccurate and false. You are making it seem like this doesn't makse sense because you don't want to admit you are wrong. :tu: Edited by Reincarnated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.