Ticking Time Bomb

Home arrow News arrow Latest arrow Alternative Argument
Alternative Argument PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is one of many notable scientists who state there is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity.

They claim ice core records show that temperature increases have preceded, not resulted from, increases in CO2. They suggest that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As the global climate cools, the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide and as the climate warms, they release it. Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the oceans, which is why changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in global temperature.

As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far more important than CO2. Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and water vapor is not within our control.

The skeptics say that current warming is likely to be part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been traced over a million years and because the likely cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun.

No one is denying that the Earth has got warmer, but how do we reconcile warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Almost every planet is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does not this suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?

Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer models. Individual models differ widely according to the input assumptions. To the untrained, computer models look impressive and give appearance of rigorous science, but the modelers themselves acknowledge that they are unable to predict future climate, preferring the term 'scenario' to describe the output of their experiments. Models predict what will happen in 50 years time. They are only proved wrong long after people have forgotten about them, therefore they produce an outcome that is interesting or alarming.

Nonetheless, environmental groups and many government reports still claim unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of the cause that climate change is primarily man-made.

This has led climate change campaigners to affirm a consensus and say "the time for debate is over……any criticism no matter how scientifically rigorous is illegitimate, even worse, dangerous". They argue that the world needs to move to a 'post-carbon' economy as quickly as possible in order to curtail drastically the CO2 emissions that they allege are causing warming. Yet it is only invalidated computer models that suggest dangerous warming will occur

Typical of this, is a statement by California Governor Schwarzenegger "The science is in, we know the facts, there's no longer any debate as to global warming".

This is a delusion because the science of climate change has never been more uncertain. Furthermore, science is about facts, experiments and testing hypotheses, not consensus. Science is never 'settled'.

Those who believe that the science is 'in' and those who believe that the global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but is in fact not science but propaganda, has given rise to overheated rhetoric on both sides.

George Monbiot, when commenting on the skeptical view, stated "the same old conspiracy theory that we've been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years".

Environmental groups, many government reports and the media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. They maintain that the majority of climate scientists agree that the warming is primarily the result of human activity. Yet this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

Supporters of global warming theory have similarly accused their opponents of being motivated by financial or ideological interests.

Some adopt an extremist position. "We can't afford to have this debate" they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

On the other hand the 'deniers' claim that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization and therefore its reports are purely intended at achieving a political agenda.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a myth and every serious scientist says so. The IPCC is not a scientific institution, it's a political body of a green flavour made up with politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment".

US Senator James Inhofe asked the question: "With all the hysteria, all the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the people"?

Skeptics emphasise the point that the environmentalist movement is more about a socialist political mission than scientific inquiry, sharing those same instincts, faith in big government and the distrust of private enterprise. Like socialism, it marches under the banner of a superior morality. They benefit from instilling fear into millions of people over the still unproven theory of man-made global warming.

How has this been done? By political activists, who have, over time, infiltrated the environmentalist movement. They have learned to use 'green' language in a persuasive way which has more to do with being anti-growth, anti-capitalist and anti-USA than it has to do with climate science. They have been hugely successful at an international level and have turned the theory of global warming into a full blown campaign. They have successfully stifled debate and dragooned politicians into line.

And the result? It is now treated as sacrilegious to even question the dogma that leads the environmentalists to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media.

Could it not be that people are labouring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception?. Both the environmentalist movement and mainstream political parties, through the IPCC, have declared 'case closed' on the man-made origins of global warming.

One doesn't have to be a climate change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject.

Given the many uncertainties and inadequacies in our understanding of climate science and the lack of empirical evidence for human causation, how has it come about that some public opinion in western nations has become convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the media through a relentless repetition of dire climate messages.
 
< Prev   Next >
© 2019 The Environmentalist
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.