by Arjun Walia. 5 Comments.
Considered by some to be one of the world’s most eminent climate scientists, who has supported the theory of global warming for decades, has now shifted his opinion and become a skeptic of it.
Yes climate change is happening and it’s to be noted. But climate change is often linked with global warming, if there is a dramatic shift in our weather then our corporate media instantly attributes it to global warming. The idea of global warming has been marketed and pushed on us so much so that anybody who questions it is made out to look like a fool.
For other skeptics out there, you are not alone, in fact, you are joined by hundreds of renowned scientists all over the world, including Professor Lennart Bengtsson who was recently added to the list. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Bengtsson is a researcher at the University of Reading, he is a Swedish climatologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. He is most likely the most distinguished scientist yet to change his perspective on the global warming issue.
Four of the world’s top climate scientists (one of them being Bengtsson) had their recent research rejected by one of the world’s top academic journals. The journal states that the paper contained error and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria. They say that the paper is harmful “as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”
The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out to reduce the underlying uncertainty. He isn’t the only one who’s discord this, that will come later in the article.
“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist. It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. I am worried about the gradual influence of political views on science. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the computer models.”(2)(3) - Professor Bengtsson
Bengtsson also mentioned that climate journals are suppressing research. He claims that his research on global warming is being covered up. For someone (like many others) with such a great reputation in the scientific community, to make a statement like this is quite profound and eye opening. Something many people have been suspecting already for a long time.
Bengtsson has also become affiliated with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which is a charity that rejects arguments that climate change is manmade. This is an organization that is supported by various individuals. One for example, is Lord Lawson, who is the chairman and former Secretary of State for Energy in the 1980′s. Another is Lord Donoughue, Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister. It is supported by a number of ‘prestigious’ individuals and scientists from all over the world. You can find out more about them, and their supporters HERE. For a list of their academic advisory council, you can click HERE.
Again, if you are a global warming skeptic, you are not alone and in the company of some very prominent people. I would like to emphasize that they are not climate change skeptics, they are skeptics with regards to the impact humans are having on climate change. There are many factors that should be considered when studying climate change that go far beyond human activity (I will get into that later in the article).
Not long ago, NASA was blasted by approximately 50 of their own personnel regarding their global warming stance. (6)(7)
The founder of The Weather Network, John Coleman, has also expressed similar beliefs when he slammed the global warming theory on national television. (8) It’s clear that much of the scientific community is split on this subject, yet all we hear in the mainstream media is how global warming via human induced activity is a fact.
“I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show. I have a great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.” (2)(5)
I personally don’t believe that global warming skeptics should be attacked, and I don’t think this debate is ‘put to rest’ as so many mainstream media outlets continue to have us believe. That alone is no basis for truth. There are other factors that play a role in climate change, and human emissions are probably one of them, but might not be as impactful as we have been made to believe. No doubt, emissions are indeed destroying our environment and eco-system, but is the push of human induced global warming being used for a political agenda? I’ll let you answer that one in the comment section. Bottom line, change needs to be made because human activity is indeed contributing to the destruction of our planet and loss of life.
Again, we know very little about Earth’s climate, climate change and what triggers it. The pollution we create doesn’t help, but so much emphasis has been pointed towards human activity (which we must change right away, it is destroying our planet) that we don’t look at other factors that play a key role.
Take the Sun for example. The Sun goes through an approximate 11 year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back to stormy again.
“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature, which becomes slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimums.” (9) - Thomas Woods, University of Colorado in Boulder
Massive bodies flying in and around our solar system also have an effect on the weather of all the planets in our solar system. It’s well documented that solar activity has a direct effect on weather here on Earth, and that comet activity has a direct effect on solar weather. (9)(10)
Research results presented at the 2012 Fall American Geophysical Union illustrated that comets help highlight the intensely dynamic environment of the sun’s atmosphere. As a result they have a direct effect on the weather of all the planets in our solar system, and the Earth’s own magnetic field.
A recent report by Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) Martin Mlynczak alongside NASA tracked infrared emissions from the Earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a solar storm last March. They found that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this coronal mass ejection was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into Earth’s lower atmosphere. The result of this was an overall cooling effect because carbon dioxide and nitric oxide (greenhouse gases) were reflecting heat energy rather than absorbing it. This study suggests carbon dioxide is in fact cooling the atmosphere. These findings correlate with the Vostok Data. (11)(12)(13)
The Vostok data refers to an ice core sample that was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. The Vostok data showed that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, according to this data. (11)(12)(13)
With all of this information out there, I find it hard to believe why there is so much fuss when one questions our current understanding of climate change. Regardless, it’s time to live in ways that are more harmonious with the planet and all that live upon it. It doesn’t have to be like this, we have solutions, we have better ways to generate energy.
There is no need for geoengineering, atmospheric spraying and other techniques to combat the effects of global climate change.
Related CE Articles:
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment