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
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
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: that 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
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 libelous, 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
Another cry in the wilderness 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
I think it may
be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn
so skillfully 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 skeptic,
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
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