Global Warming is a Sham

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists, reports The Mail.

The IPCC report released in February said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels. But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory. In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument was outlined on the UK's Channel 4 in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The IPCC report was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change and said that,

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change,"

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London,

"The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2. "It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment. A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday:

"We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going. But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

'Based on the situation at the moment'? Hardly scientific language, is it? If the evidence really is so compelling, why the evasive and airy-fairy arguments, seemingly based more on emotion and guilt than science?

I am willing to accept there is a case for Co2 emissions being controlled (the insurance theory)but
a) why do the climate changers feel the need to resort to threats and intimidation to put forward their case and
b) why is the evidence put forward so inconclusive?

It reminds me of entering into an argument with a deeply religious man.

Update; from Iain Dale

Among those who attempted to prevent the film being shown at all was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne, who, without having seen the programme, wrote to Channel 4 executives advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast it.

Chris - if you're so sure of your position, why are you so frightened of debate? Isn't this how the Catholic Church behaved in the Middle Ages?