The “Global Warming” Myth

Until more recently I was like many others, just accepting the mainstream opinions presented by the media.

Over time, I became uneasy with some of the arguments presented and the science used.

I began to do my own intensive research. The result was a shock. I came to the conclusion we are not getting the full story from Governments and Media.

Very recently, Senator Steve Fielding, (Australian Member of Parliament), has also become a public spokesperson for the need to re open debate on these issues. I have included some links to his site, and several reports about Global Warming. at the end of this article.

Here is my opinion presented in article format. Feel free to agree or disagree with me. I would certainly encourage you to do your own thinking and come to your own conclusions.I just think it is time the debate was genuinely reopened.

Global Warming – Bring it on!

I am frequently reminded about global warming. The evils of fossil fuels, the importance of Kyoto protocols, roles of government policy. Carbon trading, carbon taxes and the like. Television is generous with graphic images of shrinking ice bergs and growing deserts, rising sea levels and falling rivers.

The resounding point: humans are doing it.

But is this argument sound? Have we in fact become so caught up in a solution that we have not made certain we have the right cause?

The issue? Is it man’s fault or something else? Certainly, if it is our fault – we must try to fix it – at all costs. If it is not – we must seek to understand the cause. If we determine the cause, let’s see if indeed we can do anything about it. But this central question seems virtually lost from the public debate. The position that our greenhouse gases are causing global warming has become virtual reality. It is the cause against which every effort is focused. Most assume this reality has been proven. There is compelling evidence it has not.

No one questions whether in fact the planet has warmed up during the recent decades or so. The cause is the issue.

If we have identified the wrong cause, could in fact governments, corporations and individuals collectively be spending billions of dollars annually on a wrong solution? It would seem an indescribable waste of effort, cost and hardship.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the task of evaluating the state of climate science and its reliability for government policy and action. The information used by the IPCC is based on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.

This role gives the IPCC more power and influence than any other entity on the planet, and raises a crucial question: Is the climate science used by the IPCC reliable?

Naomi Oreskes in BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, available at examines the charge that climate science is in fact highly uncertain. Oreskes attempts to deal with the valid point that peer pressure may push out dissenting views. In defense of the IPCC position, and to prove such is not the case, she states:

“That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” .The conclusion drawn: “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Or is it actually evidence of the very peer pressure Oreskes is trying to disprove? How could a review of peer reviewed material test the validity of the IPCC position?

During that ten year period there most certainly would have been many other articles submitted for publication in those scientific journals. To seriously assess the issue, would it not be vital to evaluate the printed and submitted material. Sure, these submissions may have been rejected because of shoddy work, or other reasons, but it is quite possible that peer pressure acted as a block before material was accepted for publication. After all, why would the “accepted consensus” only begin downplaying legitimate dissenting opinions after printing? Surely this possibility renders the test invalid.

The complete absence of dissenting views in published material used by the IPCC may in fact be powerful argument that the referees and peers involved have shut out opposing points of view.

Could we really be on the wrong track? The TIMESONLINE, presents an article written by Nigel Calder, former editor of The New Scientist. It appeared in the UK Sunday Times, February 11, 2007, titled “An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change”

Calder believes that the global warming is caused by variations in solar activity and challenges the IPCC position that global warming is likely due to man made greenhouse gases. He suggests that “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases.

He suggests that, since then, those willing to pursue innovative and trustworthy science have been hindered in their work and research. Lack of funding and suspicious media included. As a result he believes that “key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported”.

Here are a few practical comparisons he makes:

  • heat waves make headlines, but billion-dollar crop losses due to unusual frost don’t. (Just look at Australia in early 2009 with record heat and fires, while Britain had a virtual froze over!)
  • The early arrival of migrant birds in spring (USA) is used as evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands, but east Antarctic Adélie penguins and Cape petrels arrive at spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago.
  • Sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, but Antarctica is getting colder and ice has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean!
  • The most reliable measures of global air temperatures come from satellites. They show a leveling off with no overall change in almost ten years.

According to Calder the solar hypothesis suggests the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than do greenhouse gases. The sun did become a lot more active during the 20th century, but is now staying at a level state of activity. He points out that rather than global warming, “Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.”

Calder then presents some compelling historical points.

Here’s a snapshot:

  • historical and archaeological data suggest the 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, is the latest in a long string of similar solar events.
  • The last such event was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled and in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Evidence of earlier events have been found in the Swiss Alps, “with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.”

The medieval warming started just prior to 1000 and ended around 1400. Of special interest during this period is the Viking colony in Greenland. Historical evidence indicates that from around 1000ad to 1400ad Greenland was so warm, a colony was able to establish with up to 5000 residents at its peak. Farming, cropping and agriculture developed. By 1400, a rough beginning of the Little Ice Age, they had been frozen out!

The Little Ice Age came to an end around 1800, and while it is debated whether the Little Ice Age had a global effect on temperatures, it is clear that during this time global average temperatures dropped. Possibly by as much as 2 degrees. Ice sheets advanced, and of course Greenland re-froze.

Today, Greenland is again thawing out! Speigal Online International gives a snapshot in an article by Gerald Traufetter, “Global Warming a Boon for Greenland’s Farmers”.

Here is his introduction:

Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island’s growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.

He goes on to say that temperatures in Greenland are expected to rise almost twice as much as Europe. This warming is nothing new. Even though it is the first time in hundreds of years, it is a return to what it was a thousand years ago!

But what about the rising sea levels? Shouldn’t we find evidence of higher oceans during the time things were thawed out? True, but I cannot find it.

There is also evidence that these warmer times in earth’s history tended to precede higher CO2 levels. Put another way, historically, global warming was the cause of higher CO2 levels, not the result! And yet the IPCC clings to the view that our higher CO2 levels are causing the warmer climate. If this is the case, in the past higher co2 levels should have come before the warmer periods. They don’t. Should not history have more voting power than computer models and the like?

Let’s get back to Calder who asks what the IPCC does with this type of historical “evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policy makers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

For over 10 years the IPCC has ignored research by Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen describing possible powerful solar mechanisms which lie behind these periods in history.


Meteorologists believed this was impossible. Despite lack of funding, by 2005, Svensmark and his team at the Danish National Space Center were able to replicate the process in an experiment!

In spite of this evidence, according to Calder “…journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.”

The fact that journals declined to publish is evidence that IPCC peer pressure indeed operates long before such work can even get into print. Again, this suggests that Oreskes’ dismissal of the problem was inadequate, and in fact highlights the problem.

Similar criticisms can be brought forward about rising sea levels. “” has an abridged version of a fascinating interview with Dr Nils-Axel Morner conducted by the Executive Intelligence Review. The full version, Sea-level Expert: It’s Not Rising! Why coastal dwellers should not live in fear of inundation, appeared June 22, 2007.

Morner: “So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.

So how does Morner explain all the “evidence” used by the IPCC? He bluntly suggests they are selective and biased in their use of data.

Where do these things leave us? Are not historical events powerful evidence we may be on the wrong track? Sea levels have not risen beyond normal ranges, and may show no trend. Greenland is getting warmer, but no inundation occurred last time that happened.

The question remains, are our greenhouse gases causing global warming? Should we look again? Of course, looking for a cause is difficult because we may not actually know what we are looking for, so we cannot afford to be selective in gathering evidence. Perhaps these type of historical events can prompt us in a direction, and add weight to solar theories for example. Certainly, if we believe we already know the cause we are at high risk of favoring information that supports our presupposition!

History would suggest last time our planet was warmer, the sea levels did not rise. Agriculture potential in many areas increased. CO2 levels rose as a consequence, and plant and animal life flourished.

Today there is already evidence that higher CO2 levels are enabling plant life to grow faster. Crops grow better and can get by on less water. What a bonus to agriculture and food production! Yes, we may be experiencing more disasters: Floods, fires, storms, cyclones, tornadoes…but are we causing them? That is a different question!

And if solar physicists are right that we may in fact move toward a cooling planet, the warmer it is to begin the better. Perhaps we should keep it warm! It may be time to stop spending billions on what may indeed be a monstrously expensive solution to the wrong cause.

Unfortunately, the faults of one generation are most obvious to the next, and least so to themselves: Are we courageous enough to re-ignite the debate that must be had?

Copyright:  1. 01. 2011

Site Menu :

Comments are closed.