Opposing views 
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.
