An Inconvenient Truth

One article among a very interesting series on global warming...I wonder why this information isn't getting any press? ;-)

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
The Deniers -- Part IX

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post


Friday, February 02, 2007


January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.


NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

- - -

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad.

He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.

The reason this article isn't getting much play is that it doesn't pass the "Common Sense Test"....it has some.

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

I think I can answer your question as to why this info may not be getting much press. I have singled out one part of the article you posted above simply because of its dates. The dates that Dr. Abdussamatov give for the earth to begin cooling are very telling. Basically what he is saying is, just wait until 2012 to 2015 before you start making changes, and you will see that the earth will begin to cool. The reason that the dates he chose are interesting is because they directly coincide with the dates that world oil reserves are predicted to start running out.
"The latest measurements confirm that the world's oil and natural gas supplies are running out too fast. At some time between 2010 and 2020 the world's supply of oil and gas will fall below the level required to meet international demand." - http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423
This is not a single person making these predictions about our oil either. Our own vice president has made the same predictions, and he should know he comes from the oil industry.
"By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]along with, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]conservatively[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], a three-percent natural decline [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]day." - Chenney [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So in other words our demand for oil continues to grow, and yet the production of oil is steadily declining. You should go to the lifeaftertheoilcrash website. It doesn't talk about global warming, but rather the state of our economy based on our dependence on oil.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now back to what we were talking about with the significance of the dates. People may not be aware of this, but Russia has become one of the main suppliers of oil for Europe. Russia is also beginning to revert back to the days of the cold war under Putin. This is no big secret and can be researched by anyone. Putin already took over the business of the biggest oil tycoon in Russia. He had the man imprisoned and now controls the company. A lot of Russia's science is funded by the state (I want to say most of it but would have to research the numbers), and a huge part of the state's money comes from oil revenues. [/FONT]
How convenient is it that Dr. Abdussamatov is saying that the earth will begin cooling in 2010-2015 if we can just wait until then, and the oil reserves will begin to disappear at the same time. If the earth doesn't begin to cool in 2010-2015 it won't really matter to the oil industry because their product will be running out no matter what they do. It is just another sales; tactic. These sales tactics don't really receive much attention by the scientific community anymore because they are seen as just that. The only people they really affect are the public (the buyers), which is who they are aimed at to begin with. All they need to do is put doubt in our minds so we will just carry on with life as usual. It is always a small number of scientists who refute the human caused global warming issue, and they are always linked to the oil industry.
Dr. Abdussamatou----Funded by an increasingly oppressive government
Increasingly oppressive government----Funded by oil
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

I find it interesting that a lot of the people I talk to who deny "human" caused global warming say they refuse to just follow the herd. The irony of this is that they are the herd. They drive gas powered automobiles, use coal powered electricity, and waste waste waste. If you don't want to follow the herd try running your vehicle on recycled vegetable oil, power your home with solar panels, and then you will truly be leading the herd. Until then you are simply lambs being led to the slaughter.

I believe the good Dr. said:" Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015." I haven't seen many links on this thread about solar activity.

He also stated:"Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of
expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." Is this not true? Is he making this up?

Once again, the focus is put on who is saying what instead of what they are saying. Mar's is warming (according to NASA's W. Feldman) ...why? Abdussamatov said the "Martians aren't to blame" but maybe he is just being Putin's hand puppet again and knows better. Damn Martians!

How much does a gallon of veggie oil go for Rev? What kind of mileage are you getting? Would olive oil be considered hi-test? So many questions....

I find it interesting that a lot of the people I talk to who deny "human" caused global warming say they refuse to just follow the herd. The irony of this is that they are the herd. They drive gas powered automobiles, use coal powered electricity, and waste waste waste. If you don't want to follow the herd try running your vehicle on recycled vegetable oil, power your home with solar panels, and then you will truly be leading the herd. Until then you are simply lambs being led to the slaughter.

Baaaa

"The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions."

Okay TripleB, first of all this guys statements can easily be disproved. CO2 emitted from burning oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels is very unique in its structure. Scientists can now determine exactly how much CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere by studying corn. The CO2 from fossil fuels has an isotope unique to only that form of emissions. So as it happens "Humans" are causing global warming, and the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels not solar irradiance causing the oceans to release CO2. Check out this link to see what I am talking about. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070122143110.htm

As for the question of how much is recycled vegetable oil, it is free. That is right, absolutely free. Restaurants have to pay some one to take it away, so they will gladly give it away. If you research the history of the diesel engine you will find that it was actually invented by Mr. Diesel to run off of bio-fuels. The gas industry immediately invented a "diesel" engine that ran off of a gas product to shut Mr. Diesels "freedom for farmers" ideas down. Since the gas industry had the money to advertise their new "diesel" engine nation wide, no one heard much about the peanut oil powered engine. Diesel engines run off of living plant products are much more efficient than engines run off of gas.

I pulled "The Insider" website, here are a few of the "headlines":

Israeli terrorists Murder Iranian Scientist.

Israel wants to start an arms race with China

French goverment said Iran would not be dangerous even if it did build an nuclear weapon.

US regime stops UK inquest seeing friendly-fire video evidence.

US will soon release final pre-war propaganda against Iran

Israel announces international conspiracy against Iran

US regime massacered 200 unarmed pilgrims in Iraq and invented the cover-story about a religious cult.

Its good to see that such a reliable (fair and balanced) publication is being used as a resource.

"The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions."

Okay TripleB, first of all this guys statements can easily be disproved. CO2 emitted from burning oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels is very unique in its structure. Scientists can now determine exactly how much CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere by studying corn. The CO2 from fossil fuels has an isotope unique to only that form of emissions. So as it happens "Humans" are causing global warming, and the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels not solar irradiance causing the oceans to release CO2. Check out this link to see what I am talking about. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070122143110.htm

As for the question of how much is recycled vegetable oil, it is free. That is right, absolutely free. Restaurants have to pay some one to take it away, so they will gladly give it away. If you research the history of the diesel engine you will find that it was actually invented by Mr. Diesel to run off of bio-fuels. The gas industry immediately invented a "diesel" engine that ran off of a gas product to shut Mr. Diesels "freedom for farmers" ideas down. Since the gas industry had the money to advertise their new "diesel" engine nation wide, no one heard much about the peanut oil powered engine. Diesel engines run off of living plant products are much more efficient than engines run off of gas.

Rev...thanks for the link. I read it. What I read was how C02 levels can be measured in corn to determine the variations in different regions. I read that it may prove to be a useful tool in measuring CO2 emmissions. What i didn't read though was that "Humans are causing global warming, and the majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels and not solar irradiance...."

BTW...what kind of "veggie car" do you drive?

Baaaa

Excuse me, copyrights and all.

TripleB you have alluded to the idea that the Global Warming debate may be an attempt to get a democrat into the white house. Today I feel a deep sense of shame, and I will tell you why. I voted for Bush when he was running against Al Gore. That's right I voted for Bush, not the guy who made the movie that I feel everyone needs to see. After hearing Bush's response to the IPCC report I am more ashamed of my decision than ever before. I am not ashamed that I voted republican, but rather specifically that I voted for George W. Bush.

I applaud your courage. :clap_1: In a time when Bush supporters are running for the hills, when less that 18 months ago they were as plentiful as bees on honey, admitting to your fukkup is downright refreshing.

"Go and sin no more".

Um...not to offend anyone, but I was asleep after 10 minutes of this movie.:roll:

Another heretic with credentials:roll: The author's email is at the bottom if you want to send him hatemail.

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 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 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 letters@canadafreepress.com

Um...not to offend anyone, but I was asleep after 10 minutes of this movie.:roll:

You didn't miss much Kimmi. So you won't have to watch the entire movie, I'll give you the details. Its our fault. The End.

Another heretic with credentials:roll: The author's email is at the bottom if you want to send him hatemail.

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 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 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 letters@canadafreepress.com

Yeah. What he said.

Yeah. What he said.

You think a climate expert has more credibility than a failed politician?:nono1:

You think a climate expert has more credibility than a failed politician?:nono1:

Well Skunky...when you've "invented" the internet, your words carry alot of weight.

Another article. The BBC was probably forced into this by their oppressive regime also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

What does it matter if we're right or wrong about the warming of the earth being caused by humans or the sun?

If we sit around and argue about it for twenty years, we're going to really be sorry if we find out we ARE the cause of it. But if we spend the next twenty to fifty years of our lives making better environmental choices, forcing our government to make better choices on our behalf, teaching our children to make better choices, and not treating our earth like poo, only to find out it's that darn sun's fault, what harm will we have caused (except to big oil's bottom line)?

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue; it is a human issue. It's a fact that we are wasteful and entitled. I don't need a scientist to write a report on it.


"...I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

What does it matter if we're right or wrong about the warming of the earth being caused by humans or the sun?

If we sit around and argue about it for twenty years, we're going to really be sorry if we find out we ARE the cause of it. But if we spend the next twenty to fifty years of our lives making better environmental choices, forcing our government to make better choices on our behalf, teaching our children to make better choices, and not treating our earth like poo, only to find out it's that darn sun's fault, what harm will we have caused (except to big oil's bottom line)?

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue; it is a human issue. It's a fact that we are wasteful and entitled. I don't need a scientist to write a report on it.


"...I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

AMEN SISTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I pulled "The Insider" website, here are a few of the "headlines":

Israeli terrorists Murder Iranian Scientist.

Israel wants to start an arms race with China

French goverment said Iran would not be dangerous even if it did build an nuclear weapon.

US regime stops UK inquest seeing friendly-fire video evidence.

US will soon release final pre-war propaganda against Iran

Israel announces international conspiracy against Iran

US regime massacered 200 unarmed pilgrims in Iraq and invented the cover-story about a religious cult.

Its good to see that such a reliable (fair and balanced) publication is being used as a resource.

TripleB, okay so my sense of humor is a little less obvious than yours. TheInsider site was chosen specifically for you. You said I was always focusing on who is saying what instead of what they are saying. I knew you would get a kick out of the site. Did you see the links to the "Illuminati Conspiracy Archive", "Big Brother-Documenting the New World Order", "Freemasonry Watch", and my personal favorite "Return of the Stargods, Un-plugging from the Matrix"? It doesn't get much better than that when it comes to conspiracy theory. I figured the would give away my joke. TheInsider site goes to show exactly why you have to also focus on who is saying something. The site looks professional, much like oh I don't know The New York Times. As for the prediction of the dates Russia's oil reserve will begin to run out, well those were accurate. I couldn't take my joke that far. This article, http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html , is by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and they are a non-profit public educational organization focusing on energy security. The particular article I linked talks a little bit about Russia and its reserves. It is a good article worth checking out if you want to gain insight on where the world's oil reserves are. If you go to the Links tab on the site you will see where they get a lot of their info.

I didn't know they drove SUV's on Mars

Okay, after reading 30A Skunkape's letter by professor Tim Ball I took A Zalace's advice and did some research on the guy. I have to say that he doesn't sound that credible to me any more. Yes, the company he works for is funded by the oil industry. Maybe he just didn't get any real recognition when he was a professor, a job which he quit by the way to do free lance environmental consulting???????? Why would you spend your life building a carrier as a professor, only to quite in order to do "free lance" work. I don't know, maybe the money oil companies pay for free lance is pretty good. I am beginning to feel like I am in the twilight zone here. 30A Skunkape and TripleB who do you work for? The oil industry perhaps?

Here is a blog where someone else did the research for quick reference:
http://worldofspin.blogspot.com/2004/05/good-dr-ball-gets-another-hit-for-big.html

Okay, after reading 30A Skunkape's letter by professor Tim Ball I took A Zalace's advice and did some research on the guy. I have to say that he doesn't sound that credible to me any more. Yes, the company he works for is funded by the oil industry. Maybe he just didn't get any real recognition when he was a professor, a job which he quit by the way to do free lance environmental consulting???????? Why would you spend your life building a carrier as a professor, only to quite in order to do "free lance" work. I don't know, maybe the money oil companies pay for free lance is pretty good. I am beginning to feel like I am in the twilight zone here. 30A Skunkape and TripleB who do you work for? The oil industry perhaps?

You got me Revelnit! I'm the CFO of a major oil company. We were hoping our global warming schemes wouldn't be found out until at least another 5-10 years. I might as well tell you that our long term goal is to make Fla. so hot people would leave. This would free up the gulf for our massive off-shore drilling and make our profits today look like chump change. I guess the jig is up. I better go back to clubbing baby seals.

What does it matter if we're right or wrong about the warming of the earth being caused by humans or the sun?

If we sit around and argue about it for twenty years, we're going to really be sorry if we find out we ARE the cause of it. But if we spend the next twenty to fifty years of our lives making better environmental choices, forcing our government to make better choices on our behalf, teaching our children to make better choices, and not treating our earth like poo, only to find out it's that darn sun's fault, what harm will we have caused (except to big oil's bottom line)?

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue; it is a human issue. It's a fact that we are wasteful and entitled. I don't need a scientist to write a report on it.


"...I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

You're right on the money, Steeleing1 !



.