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 one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. 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, is a Victoria-based
environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of
Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
This page printed from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm