When science is used as a political mallet, the truth is discarded, and only information that perpetuates the cause of the day is presented. Such is the case with the flawed theory of global warming. Before you dismiss this article as just another rant against environmentalism, consider the sources of the information in the following piece with an open mind.

The Journal Science is one of the most quoted and respected scientific journals on the planet. The problem, it seems, is not with the journal itself, but with the way that many of the findings that it publishes are exposed in our mainstream press. We have been told for more than a decade now that global warming is an approaching catastrophe. While there is ample evidence to support this theory, there is also ample evidence to dismiss it. Such is the reason that a huge number in the scientific community will not sign on to this possibly very flawed and politically driven theory.

With Hurricane Katrina still swirling in our memories, the radical left is seizing every opportunity to associate this tragic event with their political ambitions, that being the global warming argument. While there is nothing worse than opportunistic ambulance chasing, we should at least look at the possibility of the link, as this is the rational avenue to take. We must, however, hear all of the voices, and not just the one’s spouting doom and gloom, but also the calm voices that say this is just a variation in our planets normal cycle. That is true journalism, and it also gives science its due respect. Science is a great thing, but it is so often misused.

There is a phenomenon known as Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO, and it refers to the changing patterns in our atmosphere and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean. This is an oversimplified explanation, but if you care to get technical, feel free to read more on the subject. Researchers who study this weather pattern indicate that the AMO goes through phases of around 30 years, with a cool phase, and then a warming trend. Those who decry the fact that the ocean temperature is rising never include the fact that this happens on a regular cycle. The varying temperatures in the Atlantic are thought to influence things like drought, rainfall, and of course weather severity all over the globe. More can be read on this in the July 1, 2005 edition of the Journal Science in a report written by Rowan T. Sutton and Daniel L. R. Hodson.

In the September 2, 2005 issue of Science, it was reported that a U.S. hurricane expert resigned because of the ‘politicization’ of the scientific process. In other words, only the ‘right’ results were being reported. If results didn’t further those political beliefs that were prevalent, i.e. global warming, then the results were not included. This is not science. As well, a federal panel that was about to release a report on recent temperature trends suffered a setback when one of its scientists, Roger Pielke, of Colorado State University, resigned. His reason as stated was because the study failed to be inclusive and improperly eliminated the consideration of regional temperature trends. In layman terms, the study was being done to provide a politically correct conclusion and not necessarily the accurate one.

In September, 2003, the BBC ran a story about NASA’s new IceSat satellite, designed to measure polar ice and sea ice elevation. With feedback from IceSat project scientists, the BBC story continued that “up to now climate scientists have had only spotty measurements of the height of the remote ice sheets.” The question that one would have to ask of that comment is by what means can these scientists claim to know for sure the actual percentage that the icecaps have supposedly melted by. After all, if we only had a spotty measurement of their size up until 2003, can the claims that they have been shrinking dramatically for the last 30 years be assumed to be even remotely accurate? These claims are now suspect. It goes on to state that glaciologists do not even know whether these massive blocks of ice are expanding or shrinking. Their vast size makes accurate ground measurements impossible.

Yet another study outlines the implications of man made and natural aerosols, particularly the eruption of volcanoes. We are told that these aerosols contribute to global cooling, and the effects of some eruptions last years and can well exceed the effects of global warming in the 21st century. The author explicitly implies that natural occurrences more than make up for the greenhouse effect. Why have we not heard about this study on our news stations? Is it not negative in content, therefore not newsworthy?

For 30 years, levees have helped keep the city of New Orleans dry. They were designed to withstand a category 3 storm, as the chances of getting hit head on by a larger storm were slim. Former Democrat Senator John Breaux of Louisiana said that everyone has known for a long time that they wouldn’t stop a “once every hundred years” storm of this intensity. It must also be noted that New Orleans was hit by three massive hurricanes in the 1700’s. When Hurricane Betsy hit Louisiana in 1965, she was one mile per hour under Category 5 strength, and was packing winds of 155 mph. The point of all this is that these storms are not caused by a man induced global warming. History plainly states the truth, and is always unbiased, unless men rewrite the history books as they have been known to do. Further, the facts plainly show that these storms have happened before, and will happen again. They are not a new phenomenon, but are part of a global cycle that has occurred before our time, and will continue to occur.

Despite signing onto the Kyoto Accord, between 2002 and 2003, European Union emissions increased by 1.5%.

Scientific journals around the globe have been expounding on reports that glacier ice is in rapid retreat, especially on Greenland. We have seen television reports about northern native communities where the ‘devastation’ has started. Other reports state that the Antarctic ice sheet is now expanding, but nowhere do you hear this being reported. No one is touting the end of global warming, or at least of one scenario. This is a paragraph I found from another article, discussing what has been found in retreating ice caps. “Over the ensuing years, the glaciers ebbed and flowed, driven by vast, cyclical changes in weather that could send tongues of ice rushing downward, only to retreat a few hundred years later. The last one, known as the Little Ice Age, began around 1450 and completed its cycle around 1900.” In other words, for at least the last 600 years, scientists have been aware of great shifts in the ice sheets, with some periods of growth, and others of drastic shrinkage.

Is it no longer politically correct for scientists who disagree with the alarmist rhetoric to speak out? Are they being quieted and pushed out of scientific communities like those who challenged the Papal leaders in Rome of old? Is there now a scientific inquisition happening? There is a wealth of information, theory, and actual reliable data, as well as historic evidence to refute global warming. The media, in a deliberate and organized fashion, seems intent on ignoring any such evidence.

What then is the driving force behind this powerful lobby?

Is it the need to acquire government funding? The U.S. government awarded more than $4 billion dollars in grants for the study of our climate in 2000. Is it the desire for men to make a name for themselves by pioneering a theory? Is it an industry promoting its own agenda, or perhaps a larger scheme for global wealth redistribution? While I have heard all of these ideas, the truth is I don’t know what is driving all of this alarmism. I do know, however, that you cannot suppress scientific data that refutes a theory just because you have gotten behind it.

If this is the only way that a certain segment of the scientific community can continue to convince us of their cause, then we should be able to see through it. They indeed do science more harm than good. When men of high calibre start to question this theory publicly, and are then quickly silenced and ridiculed, we must start asking why. We must also look at this theory more openly.

Another very important question that we must ask is why does the media continue to report on only the most alarming information coming from the scientific community on this subject.