Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Great informative article by Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.

Excerpts follow. Read the whole article at Canada Free Press.

This is what happens when good science goes bad. It’s the same story with orthodox evolution theory.

This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comments
"The Rare Earth" book talks about green-house gases being released naturally. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with minerals being exposed to sunlight. When the temperature increased, weathering increased. The increased weathering did something to slow down the release of green-house gases. There is a feedback mechanism that controls the amount of green-house gases in the atmosphere. I assume that's been discussed before, but I haven't seen it (probably because I haven't followed this too closely). Are there any comparisons of naturally released green-house gasses vs. man-made green-house gasses? I'm not saying that conflicts with anything said by the global warming proponents. I'm just curious as to how that fits in. Thanks. dldl
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
HOW? Did WE create this universe? Did WE design plant life? That you think we know so much is patently absurd to me. We don’t know jack. Ok Troutmac, let me take this logic to its conclusion. If God is the designer of nature, and humans are part of nature, then whatever humans do is "natural" and reflects the plan of the designer. A "design perspective" thus suggests that human-produced C02 emissions will never be a problem. It is thus foolish to try to curtail C02 emissions. So, following your reasoning, if humans are committing genocide in Darfur, that likewise is a "natural" act, and we should do nothing to curtail it. Your "design perspective" suggests that if humanity couldn't withstand genocide, he wouldn't have designed people with the capacity for genocide, and so either the genocide in Darfur isn't real or we should just ignore it. See, you're ignoring the effects of human agency. We are part of nature, but our will makes us more than mere nature. My expectation, given what I believe about human nature, is exactly that we won't care for creation as we are supposed to, and that this will cause human suffering. (As to "who will stop breathing first" -- um, we're talking about things like power plant emisions, not people breathing).dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
I don't think global warming is happening. Nevertheless, wouldn't you think that if it does happen, that that might reflect a flaw in the design or a lack of foresight on the part of the designers? Just going off of the "priviledged planet" argument.EJ Klone
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Sorry Dave :) To be honest I am wary of saying too much about climate change because I don't know enough about it, and I don't want to give people another excuse to not engage with ID. But I do suspect that part of the modern day obsession with environmental apocalypse, is people's need to believe in something more interesting than a world which slowly changes over millions of years. Maybe environmental apocalypse is to Revelations what Darwinism is to Genesis.Rowan
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Thanks Dave for the solar info.jmcd
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
dopderbeck wrote: "…articularly that plants predate significant human contribution to global CO2 levels by at least millions of years." And oh yeah… I don't buy this either. We don't KNOW that plants predate humans by "millions of years." I think that's another myth.TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
dopderbeck wrote: "We can be pretty darn sure what levels of CO2 plants need to flourish; and we can be pretty darn sure that such levels exist without human input…" HOW? Did WE create this universe? Did WE design plant life? That you think we know so much is patently absurd to me. We don't know jack. Seems obvious to me that if mankind is part of nature, then whatever the CO2 levels are currently, including that which was produced by mankind, constitutes a "natural" level of CO2. And by the way… whos' going to stop breathing first in an effort to reduces our CO2 production. That any part of this argument rests on human production of CO2 when we breathe the stuff out all day long oughtta be enough to send up the red flags. idnet.com.au wrote: "They will now add that ID supporters don’t believe in global warming. I think that this “off topic” is unlikely to advance our cause." Well, I dunno about the AIDS/HIV question, but try to be a bit more optimistic. If you predict from a design perspective that global warming won't happen, and then global warming doesn't happen, then I call that a victory for ID, wouldn't you?!! Besides which, if we, as ID proponents, are wringing our hands about global warming, then we're not being logically consistent. The other side's looking for inconsistency.TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Oh crap. Rowan beat me to the punch on Mars warming. DANG YOU ROWAN! :-PDaveScot
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Sun contributes a *minimum* 10%-30% of global warming since 1980 when solar output began being measured reliably: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html NASA affiliated researcher at Columbia finds "compelling evidence" solar output has been increasing for over 100 years. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html The planet Mars is experiencing global warming. Must be those pesky invisible Martians and their invisible SUVs and invisible coal fired electric generation, huh? :razz: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.htmlDaveScot
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
dopderbeck: How can we be so arrogant as to think that we know what “natural levels” are? This just begs the question, again, of whether mankind is or is not part of nature, does it not? C'mon Troutmac. We can be pretty darn sure what levels of CO2 plants need to flourish; and we can be pretty darn sure that such levels exist without human input, particularly that plants predate significant human contribution to global CO2 levels by at least millions of years. Your suggestion that cutting human CO2 emissions will somehow harm plant life is patently absurd.dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Ultimately, this is the point of my earlier questions: At the very least, we have two competing "streams" of evidence regarding global warming. One stream says man did it and can resolve it. The other stream says man has nothing to do with it and that it is cyclical. Say what you want about which is credible on their 'hard' evidence. (to the extent that anyone has any 'hard' evidence) A design perspective ought to steer you toward accepting one of these streams of evidence over the other, and I'm saying it should steer you toward the latter stream. I'm not saying that the design perspective PROVES one side to be right and the other wrong. I'm just saying that being a 'fan' of the design paradigm ought to align you sooner with idea that this is a non-issue than with the idea that we need to take some sort of drastic actions to avert disaster. Having said all that, I really think I've been more than charitable in implying that the two streams are equal in their credibility. I remember vividly the scare tactics used on me in 3rd and 4th grade (for me, circa 1977) about the coming ice age. I'm still waiting for it… did I miss it? I must have. Must have been some ice age. There is no way anyone can convince me that we have enough reliable information about global temperatures going back far enough into history to be able to reach these sorts of conclusions. DaveScot alluded to this previously and he's right on. These factors and several others all converge in my mind to arrive at the conclusion that global warming is a giant hoax, just as the coming ice age was.TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
I found this NewScientist (2001) article recently that says Mars may be experiencing severe global warming http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660 Obviously there are no humans on Mars, so it is assumed that solar activity is the cause.Rowan
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Wiki cites ID supporters including Phillip Johnson as also saying that AIDS is not caused by HIV. They will now add that ID supporters don't believe in global warming. I think that this "off topic" is unlikely to advance our cause.idnet.com.au
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Allow me to recommend Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear, which illustrates the inherent dangers of politicized science. Crichton draws a parallel between the current debate over global warming and the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.TerryL
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
As soon as the word "consensus" is mentioned in support of an argument the argument is political. There is no consensus in science. There is only truth in science. Democracy is all about consensus. Science is not a democracy. Is there some part of that which anyone here does not understand?DaveScot
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Sorry last post on the thread: Even if we were causing global we still would have no idea how to forecast its economic impact with any certainty other then to say that Gore's predictions have a negligible chance of coming true. We do have an idea of the outrageous sums of money it would take to curb carbon emissions and the dissaterous effect that would have on developing economies. I would suggest there are better and farther reaching ways to spend the money. Providing clean water, vaccinations and treatments for common diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and TB to all that need such services would cost a fraction of the costs to curb emissions, would save so many more lives, and would generate considerable amounts of wealth as economies hobbled by disease recover and become viable members of the global economy instead of its most sorry recipients of charity.jmcd
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Quick for instance: The author of the article states without support that solar output can explain the temperature fluctuations that we have seen. This seems a bit counter intuitive on its face since global temperature warming and cooling trends of the past century have all lasted multiple decades yet the sun's output is on an eleven year cycle. Furthermore we only have readings of solar output for about thirty years. After some brief checking into the solar output claim I found that both NOAA and NASA think that hypothesis is incorrect. That does not of course mean that Dr. Ball is wrong, but I would not be willing to blindly accept expert statements without evidence from either side of the debate. If anyone knows more about how solar output can be linked to the longer periods of global warming or cooling I would like to hear it. I will look into it more later when I have more time.jmcd
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
dopderbeck: How can we be so arrogant as to think that we know what "natural levels" are? This just begs the question, again, of whether mankind is or is not part of nature, does it not? Since ID cannot, strictly speaking, identify the designer or identify the motives of the designer, it's true that there would have to be some room within ID to consider the possibility that the designer MAY HAVE failed to consider certain eventualities. Although I would say that given the complexity of biological systems and given the extent to which they appear to have been "thought through," it seems safe to speculate that this designer thought this issue through as well. Also, concluding that global warming is essentially a hoax (as I have) does not automatically provide me with justification for the abdication of my responsibilities under God's dominion mandate. Conservation is a good thing, but it can be taken to a harmful extreme. When it begins to infringe on basic human freedom, then it's time to re-evaluate.TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Whether man is part of nature in some philosophical aense seems to be irrelevant. Man is most definitely part of nature in the sense that we are dependant on it to sutvive and we have demonstrated the capability on grand scales to make nature incapable of continuing her support albeit on a local to regional scale. Environamental management has been a crucial are of investigation for humanity since the dawn of civilization. our lack of understanding for the environment has many times led to great human peril. Whether we are currently leading ourselves into such peril is still very much in doubt. That said there still seem to be plenty of reasons for at least some concern and certainly more research. I would suggest that people interested in investigating the matter for themselves read nothing but the actual relevant studies. I wouldn't rely on either Gore or Inhofe for the interpretation of evidence. Nor would I rely on ANYONE'S naked pronouncements.jmcd
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
TroutMac: No one suggests reducing CO2 below natural levels. The idea is to stabilize and reduce the amount of excess CO2 produced by human actities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Concerning design and warming, I don't think it follows that if life was designed, it must have been designed to take whatever abuse people can dish out. If I jump out the window and break my neck, it might suggest I wasn't designed to fly, but it says nothing about whether I was designed for anything at all. More particularly, within the context of Christian theology, people were designed to care for and excercise stewardship over creation. If we abuse that trust and continue dumping pollutants into the biosphere at masive rates, we shouldn't be surprised that problems result.dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
One more question: Is mankind part of nature, or isn't he? I can't help but think that the global warming crowd has been duped into thinking that man is an interloper, like man was dropped into nature as an outsider, that nature never had or never will have the capacity to support or tolerate mankind. If mankind is part of nature, then even from a secular/Darwinist perspective, the whole idea that we should be freaked out about global warming seems utterly ridiculous to me.TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
If examples can be shown of science being used to advance the public policy agenda of extreme environmentalists, then it opens the door to skepticism when science is used to advance materialist philosophy in the evolotion/design debate The problem is that criticisms of the consensus on global warming are being used to advance the public policy agendas of commercial interests, including the oil and energy industries, which are aligned with the hard political right. Thus, siding unequivocally with the global warming skeptics opens the door to skepticism about the political motives behind the ID movement. There are politics to go around on all sides. It simply is not the case that all the science supporting anthropogenic warming is corrupt and all the skeptical claims are benighted. Nor is it the case that all the science behind the consensus is just "hand waving"; the "hand waving" claim is itself hand waving. Personally, I'm skeptical of the more extreme claims of global warming advocates, particularly the farther out in time they extend; however, it's naive to simply blow off every claim about anthropogenic warming. It should also be noted that significant segments of the religious / Christian community, including many centrist evangelicals who might otherwise support ID, accept the consensus about anthropogenic warming (see, e.g., the Evangelical Climate Initiative: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement). Further, one of the co-chairs of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, far from being an "extreme environmentalist," is a devout Christian who bases his views on a Christian theology of creation, not on materialism (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton). Of course, there are also religious people who reject the consensus about anthropogenic warming. The point is, it is by no means only a pet issue of extreme environmentalists. This particular example, then, it seems to me, is at best a very muddy one and at worst a very bad one.dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
I have a few questions. If we were to successfully reduce our output of CO2, would this NOT have a negative impact on plant life? Animals consume oxygen, and produce CO2. Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen. If there is less CO2 available to plants then does it not follow that there would be less oxygen available to humans? Wouldn't Intelligent Design theory predict that the Earth, as a system, would have been designed with the capacity to absorb or otherwise deal with whatever mankind (or even nature itself) produces? Isn't fear over global warming much more compatible with a naturalist/Darwinist paradigm than an Intelligent Design paradigm?TRoutMac
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
"But it seems to me that the credibility of ID is likely to be damaged by tying it to criticism of other fields of science that have nothing at all to do with ID — particularly when the science in question is another hot-button issue for conservatives and the religious right." - Dopderbeck I think Dave Scott's post serves the role of "character witness" testifying on the credibility of science in it's politicized state. If examples can be shown of science being used to advance the public policy agenda of extreme environmentalists, then it opens the door to skepticism when science is used to advance materialist philosophy in the evolotion/design debate.russ
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Dennis Prager had an expert on his show discussing this recently. I only heard a few minutes, but the jist was the doom-and-gloom crowd were overplaying their hand for political reasons. The official UN report on Global Warming was revised recently to say that sea levels were expected to rise by less than 12 inches. Compare that to Al Gore's claim of 20-feet (or thereabouts).Lurker
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
If you want the data just go here and follow the links. None of you will of course. Facts don't get in the way of preconceived opinions on global warming. If you want to use your intuition a bit just ask yourself how global average temperature can be measured accurately before we started keeping records of it? The biggest part of this myth is the big bluff about knowing what the global average temperature was beyond about 50 years ago. In that 50 years the earth was cooling up until about 1980 then started warming for 20 years and now it's cooling again. The output from the sun varies enough to account for ALL global heating and cooling. The earth has been cycling between warmer and colder global climate for hundreds of millions of years. There's no evidence that mankind is having any effect. It's all smoke, mirrors, and wild waving of hands. Twenty-five years ago it was global cooling that was going to destroy civilization. Spare me.DaveScot
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Why would you want to jump into this fray? It isn't clear at all that the critics of global warming are right on the science. Some of the science is just intuitive: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we're pumping lots and lots of it out there; absent other major causes, a reasonable inference is that some of the recent warming trend is man-made. How much is man-made, to what extent accurate future predictions can be made, what if anything is a proper political response -- all debateable. But it seems to me that the credibility of ID is likely to be damaged by tying it to criticism of other fields of science that have nothing at all to do with ID -- particularly when the science in question is another hot-button issue for conservatives and the religious right.dopderbeck
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
My guess is that many people in the public who are skeptical of global warming are so because of political opinions rather than any informed opinion on climatology.
All things being equal, I would agree. However, the problem is where to go and get an informed opinion on climatology. It seems like everyone, scientist or otherwise, has a politcal agenda attached to their interpretation of any scientific findings. How is a non-scientist layperson supposed to know which data is correct and which isn't, let alone which interpretation of the data is correct and which isn't. This becomes a critical point since all of those laypersons are also taxpayers who expect their government to spend their money wisely. Who and what are they supposed to accept as being close to the facts and how are they supposed to know?DonaldM
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Mjb2001, "Personally, I don’t care if we are warming or cooling; we should be reducing our impact on the environment because we should always be attempting to reduce our impact on the environment." I wholeheartedly agree. Just last night I was watching a show about lake Erie being cleaned up. It reiminds me of so much other evidence we have seen of man's activity being destructive to our own back yards, our playgrounds. I support any move we make that gives man a lighter footprint on this planet. On the economic front, I don't buy the doomsayers who suggest that "going green" will be economically desasterous. I am sure it will be economically desasterous for some, but it won't be disasterous for the guy who is at the forefront in green technology. My plan is to be at the forefront in green technology, if only as an investor.bFast
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
I agree with bFast that the argument from authority is often misused in these debates. It's of little relvence that such-and-such a guy with qualifications disagrees with the consensus; maybe he's actually got a pretty daft theory. Simply because "consensus" scientific opinions have been wrong in the past, doesn't mean we should give equal weight to all opposing views. Scientific views that butt up against the consensus view should face an uphill battle simply because most of them are wrong. Global warming and evolution are no different in this respect from any other scientific sub-field; except insomuch as they have an unfortunate criss-crossing with public policy. My guess is that many people in the public who are skeptical of global warming are so because of political opinions rather than any informed opinion on climatology. Personally, I don't care if we are warming or cooling; we should be reducing our impact on the environment because we should always be attempting to reduce our impact on the environment. You don't have to be a Ph.D. to realize that massive excavation and burning of fossil fuels is doen't *something* to the environment and since we can never be sure if that something is good or bad we should probably be erring on the side of caution. Which is (ironically, given the political lines usually drawn in this debate) a very conservative position.mjb2001
February 6, 2007
February
02
Feb
6
06
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply