http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Global Warming, humans, 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 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 
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
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
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.
But natural or manmade, is global warming even happening? Astronomy magazine reported last year that the 20th century was not the warmest century of the past 1000 years, but only average.
If mankind is causing warming, I don't want to ignore it, but I do realize that a group of people who I call "the sky is falling" crowd are eagar to jump onto the global warming bandwagon. This drags down the credibility of the real scientists. This same group of people brought us Y2K, and backed it up with support from computer professionals.
I'm not trying to claim that global warming is not happening, but if it is, it makes me wonder why:
The waves at the beach near my house don't break any further inland than they did 30 years ago when I was a small kid. Since the beach gradually slopes to the water, a small difference in sea level makes a huge difference in how far the waves break. A 6 foot difference between low and high tide can make a 600 foot difference in where the waves break. I know this because I got trapped on a small beach with my dogs, when we walked past some rocks, and on our return, the rocks were under water. But returning at a different time during low tide, I've witnessed the waves breaking about 200 yards from these rocks. So even a 1 inch rise in sea level should cause the waves to break an average of ~8 feet further inland.
A warmer global temperature should raise sea level. As water heats, it expands, and parts of the world where water temperature is teetering around 32 degrees farenheit should be rapidly melting and raising sea level too.
I also wonder why vegitation is not doing better today than 30 years ago. Greenhouse gardeners heat their greenhouses and pump in extra carbon dioxide to make their plants grow better. If we've really increased C02 levels and temperatures worldwide, the plants should be loving it.
The highest temperature ever recorded was 136 degrees in Death Valley, California in 1913. If the world is warmer today than back then, you'd expect that the highest temperature ever recorded would have taken place in the 90 or early 2000s.
I find myself wanting to jump on the global warming bandwagon every time we have a heatwave, or hear of record heatwaves elsewhere (like Europe last year). But then I realize that the world does not seem any warmer to me now that it was when I was a kid. And heat waves happen even in an ice age. Back when wooly mamoths roamed the Earth, there was still one day per century that took the prize of being the hottest day of the century.
Also, all the consequences of global warming seem to be negative. More violent storms, destruction of habitat... I've even heard one person say that there will be no more coral reefs in 50 years because of global warming. To me this implies that the "sky is falling crowd" has got their teeth sunk deep into this one. If the world were 5 degrees colder on average, and warming up, would these same people be talking about how everything was getting better? I doubt it.
I've also noticed that every time a large chunck of ice breaks off Antartica or somewhere in the Artic, everybody screams global warming. Haven't large icebergs been dropping into the sea for millions of years? And why is it always ignored when it snows in Antartica's interior, where the fallen snow will stay trapped as water ice for thousands or millions of years, balancing the icebergs that break off.
Again, I think wheather or not the world is warming, and whether or not mankind is fully or partially responsible is something that should be fully studied. But it is important to seperate the real science from the theories put forth by "sky is falling" crowd.
.jpg)
0 komentar:
Post a Comment