"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

--Mark Twain


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...


I began this thread because I happened upon the ISPM report after
listening to a radio talk show while driving home from work a few days
ago. The radio talk show was discussing global warming. The host said
that there are some opposing views about the cause, and said that there
are those that feel that it is not man caused, but may be a cycle that
our planet is going through. This intrigued me, because all I've been
hearing is CO2, fearing how man is destroying the planet, and at times
thinking that truely the end is near.

So I did a little digging around and happened upon the ISPM report, and
wondered why I haven't heard of this before? I posted the link on the
Environet thinking that it would make for some good discussion.

Gordon Davy responded with; "Expect to see responses impugning the
motives of the authors and their source of funding, based solely on its
failure to adhere to orthodox doctrine.
Expect to see attempts at retribution, such as cutting off research
funding, too."

To be honest, I thought that might be a little harsh, but Brian's reply
came very close to that in my opinion.

I have no agenda, I am not a climatologist, and I don't want to do
things that may be contributing to the problem (although just by living
I may be doing that!). I am simply trying to understand in simple terms
the issue; is man responsible for global warming or not?

Again to be honest, I have seen what the politics of fear can do to
people, especially over the last 5-10 years. I can start to see that
this may be happening with global warming the more I read about it.

I've pasted an article that was written by Dr. Timothy Ball which
describes the attacks and resistance he has experience just because he
has a different opinion (along with many others).

-Steve Gregory-


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 [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...

I didn't say the oil companies funded them. I said it was a possibility.

Please don't read into my words what isn't there. Why don't they publish
in the report who their main contributors were?

At least we know who funds the IPCC, as it is intergovernmental. And no
government really has any vested interest in acting on it, have they?
It's a stick they break over their own back.

The summary report was written and wordsmithed largely by scientists.
There is even at least one Nobel Prize winner in the list of authors,
one of the leading atmospheric scientists in the world.  Next month's
report is scientific and written/peer reviewed by >1500 scientists
around the world with no government intervention. And it will be fully
referenced. The ISPM should have waited for the full data before
criticising it on the base of a 20-page synopsis.

Brian
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.