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....'Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?', Global Warming Is not due to human contribution of CO2, Timothy Ball, Canadian Free Press, 2/6/2007
Of the many crimes of the Bolshevik regime, one was attempting to force scientific results to match ideological expectations. Arthur Koestler in several books, including Darkness at Noon and especially The Case of the Midwife Toad, exploded this false science. Timothy Ball seems to be trying for that mantle.
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....('Global Warming'....continued)
A leading climatologist, Ball joins the head of the U.S. Metereorological Bureau in decrying the "consensus" on global warming. Do these scientists merit attention in the face of a "consensus"? Global warmingists don't think so:
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...('Global Warming'...continued)
Consensus in the sciences is generally highly conservative. There was a consensus regarding Newtonian physics in 1905. One researcher, building from generations of suggestive work by others, overturned that consensus. His generation of physicists in the next two decades created the new consensus in physics, relativity and quantum mechanics. But consensus in global warming is not conservative; it is instead a mask over a blatantly political agenda, which Dr. Ball is clearly aware of.
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?...('Global Warming'....continued)
"No right to say what he was saying?" In what science would such a credo apply?
You guessed it: political science.
Read the whole piece. Then put on another sweater because, as Dr. Ball says, and so do others, "the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling...."
Brrr...
Luther
No comments:
Post a Comment