Global Warming?

Question

Here's my question. I hear so much about Global Warming and the distruction of the earth. Gore's book and now movie talks about this, yet I also hear the other side of the spectrum where it say it is a bunch of hog wash, Who is right and what link can I go to get information, pro or against the believes of Global Warming. I also want to know if global warming is strickly politcal scare tactic or is it strong scientific backing.

Answer 1

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 [e-mail]

Answer 2

Global warming is backed by scientific consensus. The scientific community discounts any theory that can be disproven, even by one reproducible study, so you can pretty much count on its accuracy unless you're a conspiracy theorist. Gore is not the king of global warming, it's a real problem no matter what you think about him.

The destruction of the earth is a bit of an exaggeration... but we are talking about rising sea levels, which makes things like underground earthquakes and weather-based floodings kill more people on coastlines, and more people are dying on coastlines due to more extreme ocean storms, more extreme storms are causing and will in the future cause more tornados in places where they weren't happening before, stuff like that. Old weather patterns will be less applicable, weather will be less predictable, and there will be some problems with flooding and draught happening in different places in the world. It will by no means destroy the world, but it is arguably responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths already: imagine a cup of water... when it's almost full, you shake it and some water falls, but if it's full, you shake it and more water falls... in the 2004 tsunami, if the ocean level hadn't risen due to global warming, the tsunami wouldn't have reached as far or covered as much populated land and fewer people would have died. not to mention hurricanes and typhoons.

Global warming is very real. It will have more of an affect on people who are caught in natural disasters or who cannot afford to deal with the problems caused by draughts, so if you make enough money and don't buy beachfront property you may not feel too much of an effect.


By the way, "it's cold outside now" is not an argument against global warming. I'm sick of it. It's completely ignorant. Global warming causes extreme weather patterns, and can cause some areas to be colder than normal while making other areas hotter than normal.

Answer 3

As with most things the truth is in the middle somewhere.
The 'scientific findings' are from data sets that are 5-10 years old and every time they re-examine it they seem to see that its over-estimated.

You will see arguments on one side saying volcanos put out more greenhouses gases than people do.
Then you will see someone say no people produce 150 times amuch co2 as volcanos. .. this is a quote from data from the late 90s compiled in 2001 and a re-examination shows they were vastly off and currently about 80:1 ... still alot of co2 but only about half as much as what they said.

Here is my issue. ... Even if you take the worst scenarios side some people put out. What will countries like the USA and most of Europe actually do about it?

The pollution is primarily from China and Russia.

Answer 4

Global warming has a very strong scientific backing. There really isn't any notable scientific opposition to the idea that mankind is contributing to global warming...

There are a number of junk science sites devoted to debunking global warming, some of which are run by the oil industry or somehow paid for by them.

The "political scare tactic" theory is tinfoil hat stuff. What would the objective of that be?

Environmental scientists aren't going to stake their reputations, by and large, for some cash. There's plenty of cash coming from the oil industry as hush or debunk money... why would they compete for grant money when they can take hush money and not really have to work at it?

Answer 5

I have read and read and have found zero facts, every 30 years or so it changes from warming to cooling. I think its all in the money, Need more grants to study something that can't be proven one way or another. I figure if we are putting stuff in the atmospheare then it would block the sun, and make things cooler. But then again i believe the earth has a natural cycle of ups and downs. Mount St Hellens put out more ozone depleating gases than "US" humans ever put out. Want to know who is right? flip a coin.

Answer 6

LISTEN up.
there is NO global warming
it does not exist
i mean...even if possibly there was global warming, we have only been checking our temperature for 160 some years, if the Earth is billions an billions of years old, how would they noe if global warming started back then, they wouldnt!
GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY!

Answer 7

Personally, I think the fact that oil companies pay scientists to say global warming is "hog wash" yet no one pays the scientists who say global warming is happening. Furthermore, it is only US politicians who believe it is not happening, for example in the UK they just said that global warming is happening, it will destroy the earth, and it is caused by humans.

Just my thoughts, I am no scientist though so I can't vouch for anything specifically, i just no I can't trust people like the oil companies who have a clear bias and clear reason to keep the flow of oil going.

Answer 8

You can find supporting claims from both sides of the issue. When you think of the insignificant percentage of time that man has occupied this planet, who knows for sure which side is right. I know that it is cold as hell in the North right know and there are no signs of global warming when it is sub zero. By the way this is not normal.
Perhaps Al Gore should bring his none scientific, journalist self up here and show me the heat.

Answer 9

Global warming is 100% real.. and it's been happening for thousands of years. It's why half the country isn't covered by ice..

Answer 10

Nobody knows. That's the point.

Read the best answer for this question...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhHem1zlm39aWWv3igJsPqfsy6IX?qid=20070202102310AA4ViyM

It articulately explains why the science behind the Global Warming claim is too incomplete to form any conclusions and that those who tout it to be true are the most guilty of deception.

Answer 11

This Wiki is a good place to start. You'll find lots of links at the bottom to help you make an informed decision.