Are we about to go into Global Cooling? If so why?
quote:
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.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.
Edward Teach said this in post #1 : Are we about to go into Global Cooling? If so why?
Unlike the politically motivated junk science of the MMGW agenda, true science has proven that there is a regular, worldwide, 1,500 year (plus or minus 500 years) warming / cooling cycle that goes back at least one million years. This is confirmed in ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagtites, tree rings, and human records. There is no proof of what is forcing this 1,500 year cycle, but the best evidence points to the sun as the cause.
In recent times, there was the Roman Warming followed by the Dark Ages, followed by the Little Climate Optimum (or Midievil Warming), followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by the Modern Warming which we are now in. The Little Ice Age lasted until the late 1800s.
The Little Climate Optimum was warmer than today's warming cycle. If manmade CO2 is causing global warming today, how does one explain how the LCO was warmer without any manmade CO2?
Moreover, the scientific eveidence shows that it is the coolings that afflict the world with famine, disease, death and destruction, whereas the warmings have been benificial. The primary characteristic of the coolings is bad storms and erratic weather, unlike the warmings which produce more food and bring stable weather.
According to this long range, 1,500 year cycle, there is no question that we are in a warming, and will once again enter a cooling. This transition can happen in as little as one or two decades. Therefore, the next cooling cycle could be right around the corner. The so-called whacky, or wild weather that the global warming proponents and news media love to highlight as evidence of their cause, could actually be evidence of entering the cooling cycle. Such weather is the primary destructive attribute of the cooling cycle.
if last year was the cooling cycle i want to know why we had record breaking heat waves in central plains area. it was 115 + humid for about a month. We broke a heat record every other day or few days the entire summer.
Dreamzwalker said this in post #5 : if last year was the cooling cycle i want to know why we had record breaking heat waves in central plains area. it was 115 + humid for about a month. We broke a heat record every other day or few days the entire summer.
You can't judge by any given weather event. The global warming phennomena, whether man caused or not, is only based on a measurement of average temperature increase that is less than 1 degree per century.
It seems to me like an enviromental issue that has become partisan. If so, neither side is going to win. At worst the Global Warming theory/fact is accepted and we start treating the environment better. What's the matter with that? Lessen the dependency on oil, save electricity, all that jazz.
HECK! said this in post #8 : It seems to me like an enviromental issue that has become partisan. If so, neither side is going to win. At worst the Global Warming theory/fact is accepted and we start treating the environment better. What's the matter with that? Lessen the dependency on oil, save electricity, all that jazz.
-HECK!
The "all that jazz" part is fine, but there is a huge price to pay in order to offset the threat of the theory of manmade global warming. I doubt anybody wants to pay that price. They certainly don't want to pay it if the theory is wrong.
Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
I think there are a lot of better reasons to question the validity of the theory of manmade global warming besides the contention that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970’s. During the Roman Warming and the Little Climate Optimum, the climate was warmer than it is today, yet nobody was producing CO2 (except for exhaling).
It is easy to determine whether the climate is warming or cooling by measuring temperature over time. Determining the cause or even quantifying the total CO2 on earth is practically impossible. The strongest evidence for today’s popular theory of MMGW is computer models. Yet there is much to question about their validity because of their observed failures, including their inability to hindcast weather conditions that have already occurred.
The "all that jazz" part is fine, but there is a huge price to pay in order to offset the threat of the theory of manmade global warming. I doubt anybody wants to pay that price. They certainly don't want to pay it if the theory is wrong.
But my question is what's the worst that can happen if we do take those steps?
But my question is what's the worst that can happen if we do take those steps?
-HECK!
There is nothing wrong with treating the environment better aside from the issue of MMGW, but the problem of MMGW has been specifically defined by its proponents, and that definition also defines the specific, required solution. And a country that thinks $3.00 per gallon gasoline is painful, cannot possibly understand what level of sacrifice will be required if they are willing to move ahead with a cure for the alleged threat of MMGW.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at "moderate" levels might require cutting fossil fuel use by 60 to 80 percent worldwide. Kyoto member countries might have to cut much more in order to balance the rising emissions of developing countries such as China and India, which Kyoto exempts from compliance.
Most people want to do what is reasonable to protect the environment, but to achieve the goal of reversing the alleged effects of MMGW, the following sacrifices must be made:
1) End the use of industrial nitrogen fertilizer, which is produced by fossil fuels, and revert to 100% organic farming, which would cut food production by 50% and raise the price accordingly.
2) End the burning of coal, and revert to wind and solar for the generation of electricity, and raise the price accordingly.
3) End the consumption of meat and dairy products.
4) End private personal automobile transportation.
5) Replace the use of gasoline and diesel with ethanol.
Obviously these changes would be extreme, but we are talking about ending the use of fossil fuels. Of course, these sacrifices do not have to happen overnight, but they certainly MUST happen within ten years.
Edward Teach said this in post #14 : Still there is no scientific proof that Global Warming exist. However there is a lot of scientific proof that it's a natural occurance.
I absolutely agree. But it does not have to be proven in order to make a remedy to it the law of the land. All that is necessary is for enough people to believe that it is a proven scientific fact. Once that critial mass of belief is reached, we are all going to sacrifice for the remedy whether we want to or not. All of network TV is promoting MMGW as if it were a proven fact. They say the debate is over. And they say the proponents have won.
The proponents of MMGW obviously want to alarm us about the threat. People ought to be alarmed about the cure.
The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of deciding whether CO2 must be regulated by the Federal Evironmental Protection Agency. If they decide that it must, they will have essentially decided that the THEORY of MMGW is no longer a theory, but proven scientifc fact, and that we must all take action to combat it. Imagine that! The highest court in the land deciding the validity of a scientific theory that some of the most brilliant scientific minds cannot agree on.
02-09-2007 09:03 PM
