Global Warming Deception – Part I

A thesis becomes political ideology
By Klaus Mueller
The Epoch Times
Jun. 03, 2007

Are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions the cause of global warming? In Germany, a scientist may still perform critical analysis to prove or disprove this assumption, though time is probably running out. The desired results have already been determined.

Looking Back at Environmental Modeling

Until a few decades ago there was no discussion about global warming, on the contrary, 32 years ago in Newsweek magazine (U.S.), an article warned about the imminent danger of an ice age. Most scientists were convinced until the mid-seventies that a new ice age was approaching.

In his 1976 book The Cooling, Lowell Ponte, writer and journalist wrote: "This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000."

A Hidden Agenda?

What is causing the current global warming? CO2 is a word that is constantly repeated. Most politicians and the media leave no doubt about the CO2 problem.

However, the problem arises when opposing opinions are suppressed, or even denounced because of a hidden agenda. This occurs when a large manipulative campaign is launched, based on such an agenda. Why are dissenting scientists being threatened and/or losing funding?

Gordon Brown, the aspiring future British prime minister, announced recently the importance of establishing a "new world order" to fight global warming. He also declared that the U.N. should make global warming a priority of its international mission (BBC 1/19/2007).

Dr. Myles Allen from Oxford University warns: "It is ludicrous to suggest that the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro-managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Politicians rarely offer opposing opinions. An exception to the rule is Czech President Klaus who stated to the Hospodářské Noviny on February 14, 2007, regarding the CO2 debate, "This is a wrong myth and I think that every sincere individual and scientist would agree with this … but, it is certain that this environmental activism is the modern reincarnation of communism."

Carbon Dioxide and Nature

Prominently, CO2 is food for plants and a fertilizer that is stirred up by the air. It is not-toxic. Rising CO2 rates since the beginning of the industrial revolution helped produce, for example, an increase of 61 percent in wheat harvests and increased vegetable production by about 51 percent (Idso et al. in 2003). Likewise, it was found that with rising CO2 rates, plants are more stress-resistant and need less water. Thus, seven billion people can be fed today.

Manipulation or Statistical Error—The Hockey Stick Graph

The current hypothesis is actually an outcome of the so-called "hockey stick" graph, which is the result of Michael E. Mann's scientific investigation of global warming.

This graph appeared for the first time in 1998 in Nature magazine, and was published in 2001 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. It is suggested that the steep rise in temperature was caused by higher concentrations of CO2 due to industrial development.

Other scientists, especially Professor McIntyre of the University of Guelph in Toronto, demonstrated that this graph is based on wrong data assumptions and incorrect selection of statistical procedures.

Warming as Factor or Fertilization

There is one reason that the bristlecone pines is a questionable indicator of global warming. The above-mentioned carbon dioxide fertilization during the last century caused accelerated growth of the bristlecone pines. Therefore, the main reason for the increase in the number of bristlecone pines is CO2 fertilization and not global warming.

In the aforementioned "hockey stick" graph, the medieval global warming between 950 and 1450 was ignored completely. Yet, it still was published without this data in the 1996 U.N. report.

In 2006, Mann admitted for the first time that his graph was inaccurate for the period before the year 1400 and that this phase was not represented quite correctly.

Nevertheless, politics won't allow further deliberation concerning this issue.