Some politicians suggest that the motor car is a major source of CO2 pollution that this pollution is responsible for global warming and that therefore severe restrictions should be placed on the use of private cars. We know that CO2 emissions by road transport as a whole contribute just 0.6% to atmospheric CO2. Now scientists question not only the whole global warming theory, but the motives of its proponents. ABD Chairman, Brian Gregory, reports on a book published in March 1996.
A recently published book(¹) by the European Science and Environment Forum challenges the scientific foundation of Global Warming predictions which are now reaching near hysteria levels, and casts doubt on the scientific integrity of many of the theorys chief proponents.
If you arent concerned about the predictions of global environmental mayhem made by the supporters of the now widely-touted Global Warming Theory (GWT), here is a book that should give you serious cause to be so; particularly in respect of the true motives and aims of the individuals behind GWTs wide, virtually unthinking, acceptance (in the face of an extremely substantial body of totally contrary scientific evidence that is receiving little or no media coverage).
Here are just some of the books frightening revelations:
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire.
More worryingly, however, is that those scientists who legitimately question the IPCC- imposed consensus on GWT find themselves subject to marginalisation and withdrawal of funding.
The hard scientific evidence shows that the alleged c.0.5C change in average global temperatures over the last 100 years (based mainly on Northern hemisphere ground-based measuring stations) being used by GWTs proponents to justify drastic action now can be observed due to random variations over timescales as short as two weeks. To ascribe temperature changes of this magnitude over the course of a century to GWT is therefore highly inadvisable.
Meanwhile, satellite plus ground data evidence shows no evidence of global warming over the period 1914-1993; i.e. over the last 90 years.
The computer models being used to predict global temperatures based on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when applied to historical atmospheric concentrations of the gases global levels, do not accurately predict the observed historical global temperature variations. How then can one expect them to accurately predict future temperatures?
The CO2-based atmospheric warming mechanism proposed by GWTs supporters is not scientifically valid, and the atmospheric warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would be no more than 0.2C.
The case for GWT rests on evidence that current atmospheric CO2 levels (c.350ppmv) are 26% higher than those in pre-industrial times. It is assumed that pre-industrial levels are accurately reflected in the CO2 concentrations in entrapped air bubbles extracted from glacier ice.
Yet no experimental study has thus far demonstrated that greenhouse gas concentrations in old ice, or even in air from recent snow, in any way accurately reproduce atmospheric concentrations.
Three further incredibly sweeping assumptions concerning the mechanism of air absorption into glacier ice are made:
Ice-core data unsupportive of the GWT hypothesis are regularly ignored: some workers in this field have excluded up to 44% of the collected ice-core CO2 concentration data-points to ensure that only those supportive of the GWT proposition are reflected in the final analysis.
Taken from the point of view of chemical exchange processes between sea and ocean; the partition coefficient for CO2 between atmosphere and ocean is 1 is to 50. This means that to sustain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration of double todays level (as predicted by the IPCC by 2010) requires a 50-fold increase in the aquatic concentration of the gas.
This would require a quantity of carbon significantly in excess of all known terrestrial fossil sources of the element.
But perhaps the most damning scientific endictment of GWT is provided by workers investigating the influence of variation in sunspot cycle lengths on global temperatures.
Separately, Friis-Christensen & Lassen in Finland & Butler in Eire have concluded that there is a very strong correlation between sunspot activity cycle lengths and global temperatures.
In the July 1995 edition of the Journal of Applied and Terrestrial Physics(²), Friis-Christensen & Lassen have demonstrated that some 75% to 85% of global temperature variation between the last decades of the 16th century and the present day can be accounted for through variations in the length of sunspot cycles: the longer the timespan between periods of high sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperatures, and vice versa.
Perhaps the most telling (& undoubtedly the most cynical) summation of the whole GWT roadshow was made by Matt Ridley in the Sunday Telegraph on December 10th, 1995:
Imagine that you have been toiling away at atmospheric physics for 30 years and suddenly along comes global warming. Next thing you know the United Nations is paying you hundreds of pounds a day to sit in Madrid sampling room service and appearing on Newsnight. Would you admit that the whole thing was nothing to worry about?
Well, would you?
(¹) The Global Warming Debate: The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum, 73 McCarthy Court, Banbury Street, London, SW11 3ET.
(²) Lassen, K & Friis-Christensen, E, J.Atmos. and Terr.Phys., 57, 835-845.