Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.
University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
0
-
Thanks,
I can use this next week when I attend my seventh graders parent teacher conference. I am going to ask them why they felt it was necessary for my daughter and other students to have to watch the Al Gore movie Inconvenient Truth. My daughter's science teacher at this public school is teaching global warming from the movies point of view like it was fact, when actually it is junk science.[}:)]
Trinity +++0 -
Here is another one:
A report compiled by scientists at the Danish National
Space Center, maintains that the Earth's climate is
strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded
stars.
The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high
levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while
lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures,
according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc
Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the
committee's Web site.
"Cosmic ray intensities - and therefore cloudiness -
keep changing because the sun's magnetic field varies
in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the
galaxy before they reach the Earth," the Danish report
by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center,
explains.
Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray
intensities were high and the climate cooled, most
recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years
ago.
Several scientists cited in the report believe that
changes in the Earth's climate are linked to "the
journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way
Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters
with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense."0 -
and another:
'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are
"lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.
`The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent
scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus
that climate change is being driven by humans.
The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday
March 8, will see a series of respected scientists
attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the
world's poor.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is
shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged
to burn more CO2.
Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse
effect theory, as it claims that climate change is
natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling
from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as
normal as leaves falling in autumn.
A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a
polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but
this is the controversial programming that Channel 4
is renowned for."
Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can
see the problems with the science of global warming,
but people just don't believe you - it's taken ten
years to get this commissioned.
"I think it will go down in history as the first
chapter in a new era of the relationship between
scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people
with qualifications - are the bad guys.
"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.
"It's very rare that a film changes history, but I
think this is a turning point and in five years the
idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason
behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.
"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for `An Inconvenient
Truth', but the film is very misleading and he has got
the relationship between CO2 and climate change the
wrong way round."
One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global
warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which
show that for hundreds of years, global warming has
been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere.
In `The Great Global Warming Swindle' Al Gore is shown
claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist
Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it
actually shows the opposite.
He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the
Earth's history actually came an average of 800 years
before the rise in CO2 levels.
Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are
because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He
says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans,
which dissolve the gas.
When the temperature increases, more gas is released
into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool,
more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of
the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with
climate trends, and this `memory effect' is
responsible for the lag.
Scientists in the programme also raise another
discrepancy with the official line, showing that most
of the recent global warming occurred before 1940,
when global temperatures then fell for four decades.
It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend
of rising temperatures began.
This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory,
because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2
and should, according to the consensus, have meant a
rise in global temperatures.
The programme claims there appears to be a consensus
across science that CO2 is responsible for global
warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to
disagree.
He said the influential United Nations report on
Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible,
was a sham.
It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading
scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of
scientists who disagreed with the findings and
resigned from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by
government appointees.
The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that
billions of pounds is being provided by governments to
fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of
scientists know their job depends on the theory
continuing to be seen as fact.
The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing
Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home,
causing cancer and lung damage, because their
governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar
panels that are not capable of supplying the continent
with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning
power stations that could.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying:
"Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but
this is anti-human.
"They are saying the world's poorest people should
have the world's most expensive form of form of energy
- really saying they can't have electricity."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is
featured in the programme, and has just released a
book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind
climate change.
`The Chilling Stars' was written with Danish scientist
Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper,
claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing
the global temperature. The theory is shown in the
programme.
Mr Calder said: "Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness
varies according to how many atomic particles are
coming in from exploded stars - when there are more
cosmic rays, there are more clouds.
"However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays
and the sun is currently in its most active phase,
which would be an explanation for global warming.
"I am a science journalist and in my career I have
been told by eminent scientists that black holes do
not exist and it is impossible that continents move,
but in science the experts are usually wrong.
"For me this is a cracking science story - I don't
come from any political position and I'm certainly not
funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager
would like me to be.
"I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and
Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes
up with a different story.
"So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the
skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are
themselves getting billions of dollars of research
money from the government.
"The few millions of dollars of research money from
multinationals can't compare to government funding, so
you find the American scientific establishment is all
for man-made global warming.
"We have the same situation in Britain The
government's chief scientific advisor Sir David King
is supposed to be the representative of all that is
good in British science, so it is disturbing he and
the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against
the greenhouse effect being the main driver against
climate change."
The programme shows how the global warming research
drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to
scientists to `prove' burning coal and oil was
harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at
the School of Oriental and African Studies in London ,
who also features in the film warned the issue was too
complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2
or clouds.
He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from
the start because you can't say that just one factor
can have this effect.
"The system is too complex to say exactly what the
effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or
indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It's ridiculous to see politicians arguing over
whether they will allow the global temperature to rise
by 2C or 3C."
Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where
scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory,
began to lose the argument.
He continued: "It is a brave programme at the moment
to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is
just the beginning.
"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement
in science where the greenhouse effect is like a
puritanical religion and this is dangerous."
In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse
effect is seen as a religion and if you don't agree,
you are a heretic.
He added: "However, I think this programme will help
further debate and scientists not directly involved in
global warming studies may begin to study what is
being said, become more open-minded and more
questioning, but this will happen slowly."
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary0 -
and:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of
Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
And I am not the only one trying to make people open
up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen,
despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D.
in Climatology and I have an extensive background in
climatology, especially the reconstruction of past
climates and the impact of climate change on human
history and the human condition. Few listen, even
though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the
University of London, England and was a climatology
professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some
reason (actually for many), the World is not
listening. Here is why.
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. For
example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7
billion in the last five years dealing with climate
change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an
indefensible scientific position while at the same
time closing weather stations and failing to meet
legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with
governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are
lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I
insist on saying that there is no evidence that we
are, or could ever cause global climate change. And,
recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United
Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the
world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago,
that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter
of faith. "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.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom
global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made
about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying
the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed
since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the
Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to
the present. These climate changes are well within
natural variability and explained quite easily by
changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going
on.
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.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer
personal attacks and makes career progress easier.
What I have experienced in my personal life during the
last years makes me understand why most people choose
not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals.
Even in University, where free speech and challenge to
prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged,
academics remain silent.
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?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in
a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider
them from what they imply. They usually indicate a
person or group is losing the debate. In this case,
they also indicate how political the entire Global
Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of
or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
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.
I think it may be because most people don't understand
the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully
and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain
assumptions and then produces a theory which is only
as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global
Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse
gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then
theorized that since humans were producing more CO2
than before, the temperature would inevitably rise.
The theory was accepted before testing had started,
and effectively became a law.
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.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even
though most of them have no knowledge or understanding
of science, especially the science of climate and
climate change. Hence, they are in no position to
question a policy on climate change when it threatens
the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating
hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational
decisions about issues needing attention.
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.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron
Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author
taught political science at a New York University and
realized how science was being influenced by and
apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate
students an assignment to pursue the science behind a
policy generated by a highly publicised environmental
concern. To his and their surprise they found there
was little scientific evidence, consensus and
justification for the policy. You only realize the
extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you
ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it
in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it
was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult
question to ask in the real world, however I firmly
believe it is the most important question to ask if we
are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources
Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a
Victoria-based environmental consultant and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com0 -
and:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from
cars
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 10 December 2006
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It
is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it
is the cow.
A United Nations report has identified the world's
rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat
to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are
blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from
acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from
producing deserts to creating dead zones in the
oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to
destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural
Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also
surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and
goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5
billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are
responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases
that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and
all other forms of transport put together.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to
produce meat and to transport it - and clearing
vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all
emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common
greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more
than one third of emissions of another, methane, which
warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting
gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's
emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid
rain.
Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of
deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a
fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also
soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering
990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow
their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke
all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and
hormones used to treat them get into drinking water
and endanger human health.
The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral
reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is
up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of
the waste from US beef production is carried down the
Mississippi.
The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are
made, the massive damage done by livestock will more
than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It
is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it
is the cow.
A United Nations report has identified the world's
rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat
to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are
blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from
acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from
producing deserts to creating dead zones in the
oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to
destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural
Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also
surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and
goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5
billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are
responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases
that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and
all other forms of transport put together.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to
produce meat and to transport it - and clearing
vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all
emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common
greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more
than one third of emissions of another, methane, which
warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting
gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's
emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid
rain.
Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of
deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a
fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also
soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering
990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow
their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke
all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and
hormones used to treat them get into drinking water
and endanger human health.
The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral
reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is
up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of
the waste from US beef production is carried down the
Mississippi.
The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are
made, the massive damage done by livestock will more
than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments