Climate Change and a Convenient Untruth - Part 2

A campaign of deception or ignorance?

In the first part of our look at the controversial theory of man-made global warming the issues presented by both those who believe in this theory - the Scaremongers - and those who don't - the Idealists - were analyzed and compared. Looking at the Scaremonger's position the question needs to be asked: are they scientifically ignorant, or are they engaged in deception?

Better quality data needed before a trend can determined

The whole position and argument put forward by the 'Yes' case to support their position comes from data collected over the past 50 years. This data is then compared with data collected since the 1890s - when climatic data first became of interest to scientists - and from the changes a wholly unrealistic assumption is made.

There are two major issues with this:

Firstly, the instruments and equipment used today to measure such factors as air temperature, sea temperature etc. are considerably more accurate than those in use 50 years ago, let alone 110 years ago. So that raises the question - how accurate is any data collected more than 10 years ago? The 'Yes' case needs to clarify this point.

The second issue concerns the number of years over which the current data has been collected. 110 years may provide a start, but it's nowhere near long enough from which to predict the future . Realistically though, 110 years in comparison to the scientifically recognized age of the earth - 4.5 billion years - is meaningless.

To get a valid and significant understanding of the recent changes in the worlds' temperature - if indeed there has been any abnormal changes - and to try to determine future trends in the area of climate change, the absolute minimum period from which such data is collected should be no less than a thousand years.

Of course this is not possible, but it doesn't give the 'Yes' case the right to give credibility to the limited data they have by suggesting something that can't be proven. All this approach does is give ammunition to the emotionally immature.

Whilst all of this may point to an incorrect and highly contentious interpretation of the available facts, the role of the UN could be considered as blatant deception.

The role of the UN in this deception

Recent reports issued by the UN's committee on man-made climate change laid the blame for this perceived problem clearly at the feet of the industrial western world. Two reports presented in early 2007 pointed to the damage being caused by the burning of fossil fuels leading to an increase in greenhouse gases, and an imbalance between the CO2 and oxygen in the worlds' atmosphere. The UN said quite clearly that this problem was caused by the ever-increasing expansion of industrial activity by the established western nations and the emerging industrial countries, notably China and India.

The other factors that could be responsible for this atmospheric imbalance - factors that could have a profound influence - were not mentioned at all or were given little attention.

Firstly no mention was made of the practice prevalent in third world countries of mass deforestation by burning thus emitting carbon dioxide into the air. Also as trees emit oxygen and take in CO2 they're able to help keep in balance the relationship between these two gases.

The other factor the UN failed to mention was the explosion in the worlds' population over the past 50 years. In that time world population has grown from 2 billion to over 6 billion and third world countries have been responsible for the greater part of this.

If the increase in greenhouse gases has been caused by man's activities then all of man's actions should be taken into account. The UN do themselves no justice by highlighting only the actions of the industrialized and emerging nations. If the UN is to enjoy any credibility on this issue, then it must mention that deforestation and an unregulated population explosion may also be to blame.

Scaremongers: Our proof is strong and convincing

That's what they insist on, but closer examination shows otherwise.

Most of the 'proof' they offer is weak and totally unconvincing.

Why do they continually repeat the lie that of the ten hottest years on record, six have occurred within the past 10 years? This has been seen to be false - it's recently been reported that the 10 hottest years occurred before 1950, with the hottest decade being the 30s.

But what's so important about the last 110 years, the number of years that climatic data has been collected? Now if those years had been the hottest in the last 1000 years, then that would have greater importance.

Why does the 'Yes' case refuse to ignore the one question that would give their theory credibility - what caused climate change in the 12 previous occasions it's occurred during the life of the earth?

After 12 periods of climate change caused by Nature, why should the activities of man be responsible for present events?

And this last point raises a very interesting question - what gives the 'Yes' case the right to think they can reverse the work of Nature or God? What gives Al Gore and his like the right to think they can undo God's work?

And why are the worlds' religious leaders saying nothing about this?

This is the second part of a look at the international controversy concerning the cause of climate change, and an attempt to put some balance into the argument.