Editor’s Note: Last month I wrote an article on global warming and the dishonest way in which it has been presented by the mainstream media. As well, some in the scientific community seem to have much to gain by the furtherance of this argument. While there are those who truly believe in the evidence that has been uncovered, I believe that there are many who simply distort the truth, or only report the findings that support their theory.

It is not so much that I have my head stuck in the sand, but more the feeling that the scientific community is not being totally honest. These pieces, therefore, are simply meant to produce some facts that contradict the information that is presently flooding the arena of thought. We need to be honest and consider all of the facts, as well as try to discern why so much of the information being espoused as fact varies so greatly. After all, a fact shouldn’t have more than one version.

We are led to believe by the coverage we watch with regards to the theory of global warming that this belief is unanimous. The reasons for this are simply that opinions to counter it are simply not touted to the rest of us. There are many studies and many fine scientific minds who have not climbed aboard the S.S. Mansfault.

There is a wealth of evidence that the main driver of our weather could very well be the sun, which of course will not be affected very much by man’s actions. Jan Veizer, one of the foremost Earth scientists in Canada, recently published findings that concluded “empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers.”

There is the letter from Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University. In it he refutes false claims by another researcher that were published in the journal Science. Upon duplicating the study, Mr. Peiser proved without a doubt that the results published were totally inaccurate. A letter stating such was sent to Science, but was rejected as too long. It was rewritten to Science magazine’s liking, and resubmitted. It was then rejected outright. The letter and response is viewable online.

A recent survey of some 500 international climate researchers found that 25% of respondents were still not convinced global warming was the result of anthropogenic causes, or in English, human activity. We are led to believe that the theory of global warming and its cause being us is universal. While no one has said such, by not publicize dissent or alternative viewpoints, this is the conclusion that one would naturally draw. The American Association of State Climatologists, as well as the distinguished Russian Academy of Science, still remain skeptical. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an international organization of more than 30,000 earth scientists, have formally rejected the idea that humans are the cause of global warming.

It is vital for our future, and indeed for that of the scientific community as a whole, that all available data be flaunted for our perusal, not just that which supports a one sided scare mongering campaign. Science is an incredibly powerful and helpful tool. Indeed, we would have nowhere near the life of luxury that we now enjoy without it. However, if those making the decisions try to flagrantly misrepresent the facts surrounding this issue, they could very well do science the greatest harm.

30 years ago, the National Academy of Science was publishing warnings of a coming ice age. The hysteria reached the point of the idea being flaunted of covering the icecaps with dirt to promote their melting. We were told that there was so much evidence to support the claim, that climatologists were finding it next to impossible to process it. What happened to all of that proof? How could the scientists been so dead wrong with all of that evidence? Can you imagine the damage that would have been caused were the skeptics not able to post their ideas and views?

While it should be important to all of us to address serious problems that we can indeed affect, the public is starting to no longer heed the rhetoric. With Hollywood’s backing, the most sensational scenarios are being exaggerated to the point of being ridiculous. It does science, nor society, any good to preach a constant menu of doom and gloom. Any good to be had is lost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *