Global
Warming
The Cold, Hard Facts?
see
also
Climate Change Swindlers
and the Political Agenda
see also
Global Warming
Swindle
(Video)
By
Timothy Ball
http://www.canadafreepress.com
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
FAIR USE
NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. This website distributes this material
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C
ยง 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author or owner of an article
or video that I have made available through THEINFOVAULT.NET
and you do not wish to have your article or video posted on
theinfovault, please contact me and I
will remove the item.