The Big Lie of Global Warming.


It might seem drastic, even for a global warming sceptic like myself to use the word “lie” in describing the position of the “Warmists” - even inflammatory.

 

Well, that’s intentional.

 

Describing the claims of the Warmists as “exaggerated” or “incorrect” is really not enough. They amount to lies for these reasons. Lying is not just making a statement that is contrary to the truth. It can be failing to make a statement that is true (lying by omission) or making a statement where in fact no statement is possible at all - for example situations where the correct answer is “We don’t know.” It is also possible to lie by making statements that seem are follow logically from underlying assumptions but the assumptions themselves are incorrect or unproven.

 

The First Big Lie of the Global Warming Believers (the Warmists) is that the whole debate comes down to one issue on with which you either agree or don’t agree. Of course there is not one question regarding climate change but a whole array of questions - all of which can be discussed, and need to be discussed separately. These include:

 

  1. Is the Earth is getting warmer?
  2. If so     Is the increase due to an increase in atmospheric CO2?
  3. If so     Are human activities substantially the cause of the temperature increase?
  4. If so     Will temperatures continue to increase?
  5. If so     How much will they increase?
  6. If so     Will there be negative social and economic effects from the increase?
  7. If so     Will reducing CO2 emissions slow, stop, or reverse the increase?
  8. If so     Will reducing emissions in Australia slow, stop or reverse the increase?
  9. If so     Will introducing an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax in Australia reduce emissions?

 

Even if the answer to Question 1 is “Yes”, that does not mean that the answer to Question 2 is “Yes” and if the answer to 3 is “Yes” it does not mean that the answer to 7 is “Yes.”

Each of these questions needs to be tested individually but, in the debate over Global Warming, the whole nine (and there are more than nine if you really break them down)  are presented as a package. If you question any one of these propositions, you are branded as a “sceptic” or even a “Global Warming Denier” - a designation that is regarded as being on par with being a Creationist or even a Holocaust denier.

 

It ought to be regarded as quite acceptable to agree with the first four statements, but disagree with the 6th. Or to agree with 1 to 7 but disagree with 8 and 9, but under the current terms of Warming debate, no such cherry picking is allowed. People are classified as either Believers or Deniers for, according to the Warmists, if you say “Yes” to Questions 1, the rest follow naturally without any further discussion. 

 

The most troubling aspect is that the whole debate has been presented as a “scientific” debate, that is to say - a debate between “science” and “non-science” - in spite of the fact that many of the people attempting to separate these different issues are scientists. In fact, the people trying to test these questions separately are the only true scientists in the debate.

 

The overriding truth, in terms of scientific validity, is that the only thing we know for sure is that the answer to Questions 1 to 7 is

 

“WE DON’T KNOW”.

 

And this is the Second Big Lie of the Warmists: pretending to know things that they don’t.

 

To explain this, lets have a look at Question 1

 

Question 1.     Is the Earth getting warmer?

The scientifically correct answer to this question is “We don’t know.”

 

It doesn’t matter how much data we have, we can never say that “the planet is getting warmer.”  We can only take measurements from time to time and then say “The planet got warmer over that particular period.” In other words, because we have to collect data and make comparisons, we can only ever make statements about the past, even if it is the very recent past.

 

When we put a pot of water on the stove and light a flame under it, we imagine the pot is heating up. We don’t know it is, we assume it is because of prior experience. We have put pots of water on a flame in the past and they have all eventually boiled and so we assume  that the same thing will happen this time.

 

This is the nature of knowledge. It is a set of assumptions based on prior experience. When certain actions produce certain results over and over again, we become confident that they will happen in the future. So when we put the pot on the stove we are almost certain, from previous events that it will get hot, and when we look at it we assume it is “getting hotter” at that moment, though that is purely an assumption. We would have to test the temperature by putting our finger in the water or looking for signs of steam rising to verify that it has actually warmed up.

 

The problem with the greenhouse gas/global warming theory is that we don’t have repeated instances to look back on. We cannot say “We’ve poured CO2 into the atmosphere 15 times and 15 times the planet has warmed 5 degrees, so we’re pretty sure it’s going to happen again.”  This is the first time humans have released this quantity of CO2 and other gases, so we can only speculate on what the result will be.

 

So let’s reframe the question to ask:  Have Global Temperatures Risen in recent times?

 

 

Go to Page 2.     Have Global Temperatures Risen in recent times? 

  

Go to Home Page