Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
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.
|
|
