Monday, February 05, 2007

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

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 that for 32 years I was a Professor
of Climatology 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

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

Hmmm... You mean we have a right to think for ourselves? I thought the Newspapers and TV news told us what to think. I mean who wouldn't trust Al Gore? If Enron was pushing for Kyoto, it must be good, right? I am glad we survived global cooling 30 years ago- whew, that was a close one!

Natural Health - We Won't Tell You What to Think

No comments: