ChristiansUnite Forums

'Warming' is 'greatest deception' in history of science 
Climatologist says it's not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide

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.

China blames West for 'global warming' 
'Developed countries bear an unshirkable responsibility'

Rich industrialised nations must take the lead in cutting greenhouse gases since they bear the “unshirkable responsibility” for causing global warming, a Chinese official said on Tuesday.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokeswoman underscore China’s determination not to allow international action on climate change to undermine its economic development.

Rapid economic growth, a huge population and inefficient industry have made China the world’s second largest carbon emitter after the US – new data show that power generating capacity in the country in 2006 expanded by an amount equal to the entire capacity of the UK and Thailand combined. But the country’s per capita emissions have remained far below the global average.

“It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per-capita emissions,” Reuters news agency quoted Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, at a briefing on Tuesday.

“Developed countries bear an unshirkable responsibility,” Ms Jiang said.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last week that human activity was likely to cause global temperatures to rise about 3 degrees celsius by 2100, causing water shortages, heatwaves, storms and floods.

Beijing’s top weather bureau official said on Tuesday China was serious about tackling climate change but needs time to introduce the advanced environmental technology available to developed countries.

Qin Dahe, head of the China Meteorological Administration, said Chinese per capita emissions in 2000 were just 0.65 tonnes per person - one fifth of levels in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

There have been recent signs that Beijing is preparing to take a more activist approach on curbing emissions, following a official government enquiry that concluded warming could intensify China’s water shortages and undermine agriculture.

“The Chinese government takes the problem of climate change extremely seriously - President Hu Jintao has said that it is not just an environmental issue but a development issue,” Mr Qin said.

Wen Jiabao, the premier, was also “very seriously” pushing officials at all levels to achieve the government target of improving energy efficiency by 4 per cent a year, he said.

However, the comments by Ms Jiang and Mr Qin offer no encouragement for international critics who feel that China should impose limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

Beijing has been reluctant to discuss what role it might play in carbon curbs after the present provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012.

Along with India and other developing countries, China was exempted from emissions curbs under the protocol, which was anyway never ratified by the US.

Mr Qin made clear that other countries should not expect too much of China.

“As a developing country with a fast growing economy and large population, it will require a great deal of money to completely change the energy structure and adopt clean energy,” he said.

China would “need time” to catch up with the US, Europe and Japan in the use of clean energy technology, he said.

Chinese analysts have in the past expressed disappointment with the level of environmental technology transfer, a key goal of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, Beijing is benefiting from trading schemes set up under the protocol that are intended to find the most efficient ways to cut total emissions by allowing companies and countries to buy “carbon credits” that represent reductions achieved in China.

Deep freeze grips Midwest, Northeast
'I knew we'd have to pay up somewhere down the line for all that nice weather'

After an unusually warm December and a mostly snow-free January, winter returned with a vengeance Tuesday to the upper Midwest and Northeast, dumping heavy snow on parts of New York and keeping temperatures well below zero in many cities.

The bitter cold and bone-chilling winds forced dozens of schools in New York, Wisconsin and Michigan to close for a second day, including districts in Buffalo, Rochester and Milwaukee.

 "I knew we'd have to pay up somewhere down the line for all that nice weather," said Chris Sachel, who owns a drive-in restaurant outside Fulton, northwest of Syracuse.

Cold air from the Arctic stretched from the northern Plains through New England, and temperatures were below zero as far south as the mountains of West Virginia. At least seven deaths had been blamed on slippery roads and the bone-chilling temperatures.

The cold wind picked up moisture from the Great Lakes, creating lake- effect squalls that have dumped 3 to 4 feet of snow this week on parts of New York state at the eastern end of Lake Ontario. Annual snowfall in the area averages more than 20 feet.

The lake-effect squalls continued Tuesday, and meteorologists expected the weather pattern to continue through early next week.

"All we can do at this point is wait it out until Mother Nature is done kicking us," said Randy Bateman, mayor of Oswego, which declared a snow emergency, banning all nonessential travel so plows could clear roads.

East of Oswego, state troopers closed a section of Interstate 81 for an hour to remove cars and trucks that went off the road when blowing snow reduced visibility to zero. Oswego County Sheriff Reuel Todd said hundreds of vehicles slid off the pavement.

"I live about four miles down the road. It took me about 50 minutes to an hour to get here," said Gus Maunder of Parish.

Temperatures began to ease Tuesday in places hit by the worst of the cold air. After Monday's low of 38 below zero, the northern Minnesota town of Hallock reported a Tuesday morning reading of 9 below, according to the National Weather Service.

But pockets of intense cold lingered, including 29 below Tuesday at International Falls, Minn., and minus 20 at Ironwood, Mich.

Meteorologists said temperatures would not rise into the 20s in Michigan until Wednesday and would stay below freezing at least through Sunday.

The cold and slippery roads had contributed to two deaths in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Maryland, Ohio and Illinois, authorities said.