Global Warming: A Convenient Lie by Andrew Marshall

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4, entitled "The Great
Global Warming Swindle", which challenged the prevailing political
understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The
movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current
changes in the Earth's temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of
many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the
man-made theory. After all, that's all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to
state that "the debate is over", beware, because the fundamental basis of all
sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and
answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what
exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global
warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only
planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact,
many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global
warming , and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's
seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun.
We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly
has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve.
In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive
hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate
change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by
10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in
temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a
natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further
explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have
been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical
observatory in Russia declared that, "the Mars data is evidence that the
current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun". They
further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories,
experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion.
NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn , which indicate a
climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA's Hubble Space
Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's
largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen
nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that
satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an
increase in the sun's temperature , meaning that the sun itself is warming up.
Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to
the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited
this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists
who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our
current climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first
scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years
ago, now believes that " increasing evidence indicates that most of the
warming comes of natural phenomena". Allegre said, "There is no basis for
saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global
warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the 'great dangers' that it
supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the
President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the
recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
that global warming is man-made, " Global warming is a false myth and every
serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel.
IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of
non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral
scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized
scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided
assignment." And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be
saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, "Other top-level politicians do not
express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness
strangles their voice". Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote
an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, "When politicians and
journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a
regrettable ignorance about how science works." He further stated that,
"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one
particular hypothesis". And in reference to how the media is representing
those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, "they often imagine
that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be
in the pay of the oil companies", which is exactly what I believed up until I did
my research. He also wrote, "Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also
ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as
this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are
relegated to the business pages".

For those who saw Al Gore's "documentary", it was very convincing of its
hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the
potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with
graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let's just get something straight here, Al
Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any
kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth.
However, as Al Gore's popularity grows and with his recent winning of an
Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for
quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and
challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the
research behind Al Gore's film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases
causing global warming, is "a sham". They claim that in fact, there is very little
evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an
increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore's movie,
he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core
samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2
being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state
that "warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before
rises in carbon dioxide levels", meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows
a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2
emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by
about 800 years. The group also mentions that, "after the Second World
War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global
temperatures fell for four decades after 1940." They also claim that the report
given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds
leading scientists, "was a 'sham' given that this list included the names of
scientists who disagreed with its findings."

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently
wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to
scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by
writing, "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". He continues, "We are wasting time, energy and trillions of
dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with
no scientific justification." Then he mentions how Environment Canada is
spending billions upon billions of dollars on "propaganda" which defends an
"indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations
and failing to meet legislated pollution targets." Then Dr. Ball brings up a very
interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30
years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about "global cooling" and how
it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival
depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian
politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it
is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the
changes in the Sun's temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving
what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles
with changes in the climate. That's what climate does and is always doing,
changing. Dr. Ball claims that "there is nothing unusual going on," and that he
"was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming."

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for
scientists who speak out, that, "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." He also mentions how he
"was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil
companies." He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to
speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as
author Michael Crichton, who's book, 'State of Fear', explains the inaccurate
science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of
Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at
MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems
to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics
of global warming are "treated like a pariah" . The article begins, "Scientists
skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under
attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present
contrarian views about global warming." He cites an example of this by
mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by
the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most
skeptics don't claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree
with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded
study in 2003 found that, "Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output --
are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth."

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore's movie, an Australian
professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, " Gore's
circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply
incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In
response to the use of images in Gore's movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr.
Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine
researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, "The breaking
glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal
advance of a glacier." Makes sense, especially since history tells us that
glaciers move, after all, that's what helped form our valleys and reshaped
mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago.
Maybe my memory isn't very good, but I don't think people were driving
SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts
that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a
piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct
because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this
assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of
Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, "the region of the Arctic where rising
temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since
1940 but no overall temperature rise." Secondly, if the polar bear is in such
danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in
Canada show that they are not declining , but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear "stranded" on a small block of ice is in
itself misleading for Gore's argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers
and according to Sea World, "They can swim for several hours at a time over
long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km
(62 mi.)" Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade,
said, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine
practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his
propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Even if Al Gore was
telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which
most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would
still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn't exactly
practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award
acceptance speech, "People all over the world, we need to solve the climate
crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue." Well, in that case, why is it
that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that
one of Al Gore's mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the
average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice
as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in
one year .

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion
that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of
the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to
expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact,
there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made
theory as having received death threats . There has even been talk of relating
those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as
being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the
Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman
wrote, "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with
Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the
present and future." This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there
is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is
a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all
rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel's judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare
that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this
action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in
the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after
Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a "new world order" to combat
the threat of climate change. So let's have a look at this New World Order
that's being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major
thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN
recommendation that we impose "a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions" .
Most people will hear this and think, "Good, polluters need to be taxed".
Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to
Al Gore, when you drive your car, you're causing global warming. This is no
joke, as an article in the UK's Guardian Newspaper reported that, "The
government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would
force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads". That
is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in
transportation and infrastructure found that, "a Birmingham commuter might
end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles." That's equal to
about $3,000 per year. I don't know about you, but I don't know many
people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to
impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently
proposed to "raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20%
over the next seven years". This, they claim, is to help protect the
environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just
excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years
knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the
concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According
to the Transport Secretary in the UK, " Every vehicle would have a black
box to allow a satellite system to track their journey". This has been raising
concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government
programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, "
Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps ", mirroring
plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that
Toronto "Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support 'region-wide'
road tolls", to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs ,
replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect
within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU's member states to
switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some
problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed
energy-efficient light bulbs "have to be left on all the time, they're made from
banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet
Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old
ones." They also are "up to 20 times more expensive" than conventional light
bulbs . They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady
stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special
"efficient" light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs,
which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I'm sure that this
won't inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In
Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being
included in Stephen Harper's clean air act. This discussion was recently
brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light
bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has
introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a
similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics,
one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they
would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive
cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their
money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by
without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a
recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans
to make the UK the world's first green economy. Part of this plan is that
every home in the UK is to be 'carbon neutral' within 10 years, making every
house updated to "green" standards. The government said they would
provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of
spying on homeowners to make sure they go green . Blair Gibbs, a member
of the Taxpayer's Alliance and critic of the plan stated, "It's bad enough that
politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to
intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further
is simply unacceptable."

I am not saying that it isn't a good idea to take action to help the
environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data
points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a
tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause
climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al
Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature
increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions?
That's like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their
grey hairs. It's not grey hair that causes people to age; it's ageing that causes
grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how
long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be
stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate
change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this
man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty.
Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our
freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this
lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for
those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it's
inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the
problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we
expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax
won't clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting
waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won't
stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the
whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about
the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to
achieve any sort of solution.

Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser
University, V ancouver, British Columbia (BC).

Global Research Articles by Andrew Marshall