Global Warming: It’s A Myth

August 29, 2009

Global Warming: It’s A Myth Martin McCauley writes: Where has our summer gone? Last August in Britain was the wettest on record. And the winter of 2007 had proven to be the coldest in North America for the last 30 years.

So why is there still all this talk about global warming which is supposed to put our planet in mortal danger? The facts would suggest the exact opposite. I know it is politically incorrect to challenge the established view, promoted by our politicians and many scientists, that global warming exists. However, a good scientist is aware that knowledge always evolves: today’s wisdom becomes tomorrow’s nonsense. And as for politicians, they have an uncanny ability to get things wrong.

Why, you may ask, do I reject the concept of global warming or anthropomorphic climate change? There is simply no hard scientific evidence to prove that it is happening. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its so-called ground breaking report in November 2007 argues that global temperatures have risen by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1880. The problem with this is that there were not many thermometers around in 1880 and, even more importantly, they were not standardised. Many assumptions were made in calculating an average.

In order to ensure that their calculations are reliable scientists aim for a P (probability of error) of 0.05 or 5 per cent. If they are under 0.05 it means the results are not due to mere chance. In the case of global warming the P value is 800. This means that there is no direct link between the data and the conclusions that were made. This renders the IPCC study useless from a scientific point of view. But even despite this many scientists proceed to lay down instructions for policy makers.

What evidence do the doom and gloom mongers present to support their argument that global warming is taking place? Well, they say that the Arctic ice is at its lowest level for thousands of years. This has led to the Northwest Passage in Canada becoming free of ice. The problem with this is that the Northwest Passage was open in the 19th century and in the 1930s. The Canadian government is about to launch a search operation for two British ships, captained by Sir John Franklin, with 128 men on board, which sank in an attempt to sail through the Passage in 1845-48.

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2). Mankind produces about 4 per cent of the atmospheric CO2 in any given year. The natural variation in CO2 is higher than the total CO2 production of humankind. There is no evidence that CO2  causes temperatures to rise.  Indeed, the evidence points to elevated temperatures raising CO2.

What about the question of the shrinking ozone layer? We are told that there is a huge hole up there and that it is growing all the time. Actually, the hole in the ozone layer may always have been there. Who knows when it first formed? There is no reliable scientific data to answer this question.

The IPCC study is careful not to claim omniscience about global warming. Its conclusions are full of statements which begin: ‘It is likely’ or ‘It is very likely’. This is science speak for ‘we don’t know’. It attempts to estimate the global economic effects of climate change. Here again the scientists are in the realm of pure speculation. Economists have a dismal record when attempting to predict what will happen in the near future. Hence one can safely say that predicting what effect climate warming will have in two or three decades is not worth the paper it is written on.

But, you may say, our climate is changing. Of course it is. Climate is always changing. A few years ago a huge mammoth was detected in the permafrost region of Siberia. How could such a huge beast survive in that inhospitable environment? Prior to permafrost, deciduous forests and grasslands had predominated in northern Siberia. Even more striking, in northern Canada remains of deciduous trees have been found. Again such forests had covered the region centuries ago.

No one disputes that pollution is a real problem. But does it induce global warming? Does it even affect climate change? Some experts believe that climate change is independent of environmental factors. There is no proven scientific way of determining at present if there is a link between our present lifestyle and climate change. It is almost impossible to destabilise the equilibrium of the environment, including the oceans. So the good news is that you can relax and get rid of your guilt complex that you are contributing to climate change and global warming.

The myth of global has another side to it: scientists can only obtain official funding if they subscribe to this myth. Before Galileo no one dared argue against the view that we inhabited a heliocentric world. In other words, the sun revolved around the earth. There has always been political correctness. If one were a cynic I would say that many scientists have discovered that global warming is, in Arthur Daley’s immortal phrase, ‘a nice, little earner’. Scare everyone with some scientific babble and the money will roll in.

Global warming is bad science. We can only hope that good science will eventually discredit bad science. And the sooner the better.

– End –

  • Robert Henry

    It is designed to foster an UNDEMOCRATICALLY APPOINTED United (Untied) Nations TAX to further their agenda of global dictatorship and enslave humanity.
    End of story.

  • Bill Wismer

    Right on Martin! The US Govt is actively Gore ing us. As they say…follow the money!

  • http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/ Scott A. Mandia

    Global Warming: Man or Myth – The Science of Climate Change

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

    Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states “Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies.  If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter.” 

    Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming.  The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.

    The only plausible explanation is that today’s warming is primarily due to human activities.  The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming.  There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming.  There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change.  People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses.  Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media.  Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

    It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist.  A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information.  A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not.  Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind.  Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.

  • Paul

    Sorry Scott

    The overwelming majority of scientists of any stripe most certainly do not support your assertion. In fact I am aware of no properly conducted surveys that draw that conclusion and of several that have the opposite conclusion.

    The actual surveys such as that of the members of Japans geophysical society last month are shifting farther and farther the other way with each passing year, I believe the one in Japan actually publicly labeled your position “fraud”. Though I don’t read Japanese so I am relying on a translation.

    Saddly it is the folks who believe in massive CO2 caused warming who fit your definition of denialist. By the standards normally accepted for hypothesis testing in science this hypothesis is at this time failed.

  • james gay gardiner

    i think global warming is a myth.

  • Jim Simpson – Land of Oz

    Well said Paul.

    Spot on ! We’re being conned by the Climate Change alarmists (like Al Gore who should be shown up for his fraudent Hockey Stick claim).

    Thanks to web sites like this, there’s at last a growing worldwide community of “Climate Realists” (rather than skeptics) who’ve taken the time to read the UN’s IPCC Reports claiming global warming to be caused by AGW & found them to be less than convincing.

    I’m open minded & prepared to listen to both sides of any argument. To date, I find little to convince me of the AGW theory.

    The UN & those politicians representing their respective countries in Copenhagen later this year to revisit the now outdated Kyoto Agreement, must be fully exposed to the views, arguments & importantly latest scientific evidence presented for all to debate in open forum BEFORE taking next steps.

    To do less would be irresonsible.

  • Chuck D.

    Edited:

    This is an exercise for the two days that I been investigating the findings regarding Global Warming. Prior to this, I was also assigned to work with my group in EE183-Engineering Ethics to research on solutions that mitigate and counter Global Warming. I assumed the position of verifying if Global warming is an actual problem to be concerned about. It would be quite pointless to think of a solution for a fictitious problem, don’t you think? It appeared that within a class of 30 students, I was the only to cast doubt on the issue. But it was a class project, in term of ethics, my need to get the assignment done was more important since the topic was to research for solutions, not verifying the problem. I did compromise, so I took the part of researching the background of the issue. With the time constraint, I had to suppose that Global Warming is real in my report.

    My little story does show a point: we each have our agenda, whatever that might be. In this day and age, it’s very difficult to believe in anyone, especially people you never have contact with, be it the IPCC, NOAA, or any government for that matter. I don’t think that level of skepticism is unreasonable, partly because beside personal gain, there is still personal and social constraint, as I demonstrated, so that I can doubt a lot and still expect society to function on some level, instead of turning to chaos.

    So what did I find, now that I just renewed my research seriously to find out whether Global Warming is any problem that we should be concerned about now, as they often suggest? Its true that my main source is the internet, to a skeptic such as I, books and journal does the same job (If a group of people can lie, what prevent them from doing so through a book?). Besides, many publications are available online now. The key is really to read as much as you can from both side, and apply logic to determine if fact is consistent with the overall theory.

    Seemingly facts (yes, its not too far to even doubt all of these “facts”):
    1. IPCC data shows a warmer trend in recent year (since 1970), which the NOAA also agrees.
    2. CO2 has direct correlation with increase in temperature.
    3. Historically, there were times that the planet was warmer than now. (E.g. Holocene – about 6kyrs, Last Interglacial – about 140kyrs)

    I have the utmost respect for science and scientists, but true science doesn’t require a consensus to be credible (there are countless examples in history). Thus, I can careless about mass agreement. But, just in case these facts are true, attributing warming to CO2 to recent climate change is merely speculation, and should be treated as such.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to call Global Warming a myth. I would call it a hypothesis, not yet a theory, unlike gravity or evolution which have far too strong evidents to support. What I can agree also is that we don’t have to depend on fossil fuel so much, if there is another and more efficient way, by all mean, develop it for future use. All government should do is encourage research and motivate business to get involved, instead of fooling the public and/or attempt to put unnecessary regulations on private business. Human real problem is actually over population. We all know resources are scarce. We wouldn’t fight each other all the time if we live in land of plenty, or simply just enough of us. But that wouldn’t be Nature, wouldn’t it? So far, human can shape much of the world, but not their own impulses. Something to think about, besides a theoretical problem like Global Warming.

    (Note: I am a college student study for my BA in math. In fact, I do this not to convince anyone, just to improve my English and prepare for my coming assignment in speech class. Yet I think the art of persuasion is lame, being honest is what really makes what one say credible. All of you should go and research thoroughly before taking a stance. If it seems like too much work, at least don’t buy into this theory too fast without reminding you to be skeptical; the worst that can happen is we all die and either go to heaven, for theists; free from suffering, for Buddhists; and be one with the earth, for atheist. Either which way, its even more desirable than life, which is filled with unwanted BS, as you can see, since there are two opposite sides to this issue, someone ought to tell a lie! )

  • http://www.globalwarming360.net Global Warming Facts

    Initially I also believed that carbondioxide was a cause for climate change as its properties to absorb heat are well documented. However, the fundamental argument of AGW theory is that this trace gas (at slightly less than 0.04% or 400 ppm) is THE key ingredient to controlling a massively complex system such as climate.