| Subject: He's a brave man. Bravo!!! |
Author:
Curmudgeon
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:06:50 02/05/07 Mon
In reply to:
Oropan
's message, "The truth comes out!" on 13:26:45 02/05/07 Mon
>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.
>
>
>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.
>He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 