Global Research: Global Warming: A Convenient Lie


Richard Moore

       "National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising
        in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate
        change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being
        man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported
        that Mars¹ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a
        few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory
        in Russia declared that, ³the Mars data is evidence that the
        current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes
        in the sun². They further point out that both Mars and Earth
        have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice
        ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has
        also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate
        a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA¹s
        Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive
        climate changes on Neptune¹s largest moon, Triton. Triton,
        whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now
        turning into gas."

Original source URL:
[links to sources in original]

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie

By Andrew Marshall

Global Research, March 15, 2007

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK¹s Channel 4, entitled ³The Great Global 
Warming Swindle², which challenged the prevailing political understanding that 
global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in 
fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth¹s 
temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and 
climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all,
that¹s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that ³the debate is
over², beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is 
never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order
for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun
being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only 
planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact,
many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming,
and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth¹s seasons change 
as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember 
that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact 
upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a 
report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred 
on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is 
expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News 
reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth 
suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being 
man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars¹ carbon 
dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An 
astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, ³the Mars data is evidence 
that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun².
They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their 
histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous 
fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a
climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA¹s Hubble Space Telescope 
has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune¹s largest moon, 
Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now 
turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure
the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun¹s 
temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London 
Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter 
than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from 
research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is 
increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate 

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists 
to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now 
believes that ³increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of 
natural phenomena². Allegre said, ³There is no basis for saying, as most do, 
that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural 
change and sees the threat of the Œgreat dangers¹ that it supposedly poses as 
being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech 
Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is 
man-made, ³Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist
says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific 
institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of 
green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of
scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a 
one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.² And if you are about to ask why 
no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, ³Other 
top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip 
of political correctness strangles their voice². Nigel Calder, the former editor
of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, 
³When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is 
settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.² He further 
stated that, ³Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of
one particular hypothesis². And in reference to how the media is representing 
those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, ³they often imagine that 
anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay 
of the oil companies², which is exactly what I believed up until I did my 
research. He also wrote, ³Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures 
that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter¹s 
billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the 
business pages².

For those who saw Al Gore¹s ³documentary², it was very convincing of its 
hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential 
to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and 
charts, so it must be true. Let¹s just get something straight here, Al Gore is 
not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is 
a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as
Al Gore¹s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for 
his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled
debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status 
quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore¹s 
film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is ³a 
sham². They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that 
theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity 
being the cause of climate change. In Gore¹s movie, he presented evidence that 
was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he 
claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. 
However, this group of scientists state that ³warmer periods of the Earth's 
history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels², meaning 
that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than 
increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it
follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also 
mentions that, ³after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon 
dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.² 
They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by 
over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, ³was a Œsham¹ given that this list 
included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.²

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote 
an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to 
scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, 
³Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon 
Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of 
science². He continues, ³We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars 
while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no 
scientific justification.² Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending 
billions upon billions of dollars on ³propaganda² which defends an ³indefensible
scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing 
to meet legislated pollution targets.² Then Dr. Ball brings up a very 
interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 
years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about ³global cooling² and how it 
was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival 
depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian 
politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that
it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of
the changes in the Sun¹s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving 
what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with
changes in the climate. That¹s what climate does and is always doing, changing. 
Dr. Ball claims that ³there is nothing unusual going on,² and that he ³was as 
opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] 
to the threats made about Global Warming.²

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for 
scientists who speak out, that, ³Sadly, my experience is that universities are 
the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes 
progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that 
demand a particular viewpoint.² He also mentions how he ³was accused by Canadian
environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.² He concludes in 
referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing 
myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who¹s book, 
ŒState of Fear¹, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. 
Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and 
a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made 
theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of 
global warming are ³treated like a pariah². The article begins, ³Scientists 
skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under 
attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present 
contrarian views about global warming.² He cites an example of this by 
mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by 
the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most 
skeptics don¹t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree 
with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded 
study in 2003 found that, ³Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are
known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.²

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore¹s movie, an Australian 
professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's 
circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply 
incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In 
response to the use of images in Gore¹s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. 
Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher 
at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, ³The breaking glacier wall is a 
normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.² 
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, 
that¹s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of 
the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn¹t very good, but I 
don¹t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of 
images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear 
seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears
are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things 
wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by
University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, ³the region of the Arctic where 
rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations 
since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.² Secondly, if the polar bear is in 
such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in 
Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, 
the very idea of a polar bear ³stranded² on a small block of ice is in itself 
misleading for Gore¹s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and 
according to Sea World, ³They can swim for several hours at a time over long 
distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)² 
Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, ³The man 
is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom
know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly 
based on junk science.² Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes 
of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact 
that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was 
recently revealed that Al Gore doesn¹t exactly practice what he preaches, such 
as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, ³People all over the 
world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a 
moral issue.² Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee
Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore¹s mansions uses 20 times 
the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported 
that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the 
average American consumes in one year.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion 
that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of 
the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose 
this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are 
reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having
received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out
against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who 
deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on 
the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote, ³Let's just say that global 
warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the 
past and the other denies the present and future.² This is a very disturbing 
comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made 
theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the 
most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel¹s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that 
the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action 
that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, 
Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps
down, has publicly called for a ³new world order² to combat the threat of 
climate change. So let¹s have a look at this New World Order that¹s being 
implemented to combat the threat of global warming.  One major thing being 
pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that 
we impose ³a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions². Most people will hear this
and think, ³Good, polluters need to be taxed². Well, this means people who drive
cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, 
you¹re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK¹s 
Guardian Newspaper reported that, ³The government is throwing its weight behind 
a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on 
Britain's busiest roads². That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study 
conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, ³a 
Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 
miles.² That¹s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don¹t know about you, but I 
don¹t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are 
being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission 
recently proposed to ³raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 
20% over the next seven years². This, they claim, is to help protect the 
environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just
excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, 
gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of 
taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the 
Transport Secretary in the UK, ³Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a 
satellite system to track their journey². This has been raising concerns in the 
UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals 
currently being made in Canada recommend that, ³Canadians would pay an extra 10 
cents per litre at the gas pumps², mirroring plans in the European Union. 
Another important recent news item is that Toronto ³Mayor David Miller said 
yesterday he would support Œregion-wide¹ road tolls², to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing
them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two 
years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU¹s member states to switch from
the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this 
plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs
³have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't
work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green'
lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.² They also are ³up to 20 times more 
expensive² than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher 
light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 
times a second. These special ³efficient² light bulbs also need more ventilation
than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light 
fitting. I¹m sure that this won¹t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are 
being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on 
conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper¹s clean air act. This 
discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to 
ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in 
California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 
2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips 
Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures 
announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will 
result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where
they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to 
get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a 
recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to 
make the UK the world¹s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every 
home in the UK is to be Œcarbon neutral¹ within 10 years, making every house 
updated to ³green² standards. The government said they would provide the 
renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on 
homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer¹s 
Alliance and critic of the plan stated, ³It's bad enough that politicians want 
to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our 
homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply 

I am not saying that it isn¹t a good idea to take action to help the 
environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data 
points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax
on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate 
change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please 
fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then 
how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That¹s like saying 
we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It¹s not
grey hair that causes people to age; it¹s ageing that causes grey hair. And 
nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. 
Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has 
always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made
myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to 
want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive
financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and
big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and 
collect money. However, it¹s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are 
already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle 

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect 
to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won¹t clean 
up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in 
Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won¹t stop Shell 
from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we
have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are 
facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of 

Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser 
University, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Andrew Marshall, Global Research, 2007
© Copyright 2005

Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website     
Community Democracy Framework:
subscribe cyberjournal list        mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives