I refer to the letter We're not heating up the Earth, the Sun is!

The recently concluded event of cities around the world and their people celebrating 'Earth Hour' has created an enormous amount of awareness and publicity. It's primary objective was to highlight our effect on Earth, more specifically we causing global warming.

My letter is to highlight a different view, a view whereby the causes of global warming are still disputed, and are not scientific facts. I hope to enlighten readers why this is so.

First of all, does anyone know the precise definition of global warming? Actually there isn't one, none as clear cut as the Law of Gravitation or the General Theory of Relativity. Generally, it is in this form: ‘Steady increase in the Earth's average lower atmosphere (near surface) temperature due to emissions and build up of greenhouse gases’.

Greenhouse gases consists of CO2, methane, water vapour, CFC, nitrous oxide. CO2 emissions from cars, factories and power plants are the biggest greenhouse gas contributors to the greenhouse effect. But how much of CO2 by percentage exists in our atmosphere currently?

We tend to 'forget' that CO2 consists only of 0.03% of the total atmospheric composition. Another thing is that published findings do not take water vapour into account as a greenhouse gas - it is always CO2 which is the 'culprit'. Water vapour is actually the largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, comprising over 90% of greenhouse gases. So the biggest contributor cannot be CO2.

So the question you should be asking is: ‘Could it be possible that something so negligible (as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) in relation to water vapour, be a major contributor to global warming?’

Consistency and accuracy are important. With regards to the temperatures collected over the years, say, from year 1900 to the year 2009, how precise and consistent are the records? The measuring equipment and methods of the old days compared to today’s are vastly different.

The readings would differ significantly, affecting the final results and conclusions.This requirement is important because the predictions on the rising average temperature of Earth is derived from GCMs (Global Climate Models).

A model is a set of calculation methods to predict an outcome based on previously input parameters. Exactly how accurate these models are, no one knows exactly.

But it would seem that scientists and politicians are unanimous in agreeing with the global warming theory. The media always highlights this but really, they are only quoting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which all scientists signed up with.

If you Google hard enough, you’ll find there are scientists who disagree with the panel. People should also understand that the IPCC is not a scientific organisation which verifies claims or supports or disputes a theory.

It is a pro-global warming supporter. Much like what you would expect from a washing machine salesman: ‘My product is the best! Everyone else’s is so-so, if not worse’.

There is also the famous controversy regarding the Hockey Stick Graph, presented in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR).

It showed Michael E Mann's 1999 paper and was the main paper cited by the IPCC. This whole episode started the whole global warming hysteria. The paper showed a 'sudden' increase in world average temperatures in the later part of the 20 ^th century.

But many scientists over the years have studied and disputed the paper because it contained serious flaws in assumptions and measurements. Of course, the media chose not to highlight this. There are also countless credible scientists from the top universities around the world who are disputing the causes of global warming, so who are we to trust?!

Climate change is not a recent phenomenon. Since time immemorial, the Earth's climate has always been changing, it was much hotter, then came the Ice Age, then it warmed again. What makes you possibly think it is not changing now naturally? Are humans so great they could actually cause global warming, then stop it?

The ironic thing is that just around 30 years ago, scientists were sounding the alarm for of all things, global cooling! Go figure. Just Google it.

The ramifications are enormous. If global warming is indeed a scientific hoax, hundreds of trillions of dollars would have been wasted to combat something which is not true or insignificant.

Some government leaders are proposing to impose carbon taxes, impose trade sanctions and other economic embargoes, to siphon hard-earned money from industries and individuals just because we drive internal combustion engines (which they asked us to buy in the first place!).

Politics and greedy economists are preventing non-biased scientific research. Trust is hard to come by from these quarters. The survival of many scientists conducting research are dependant on grants, which are paid for by the UN which is funded by governments (who support the global warming theory). See the trend here? You wouldn't want to offend your paymaster, would you?

The conclusion is, people must verify (or at least be more aware) of what they hear and see - you can even dispute me. But research first and gather data to support your arguments. This is a culture we should embrace even in politics and economics. Come to your own conclusions based on cold hard facts, not hearsay.

I still believe we should balance economic development and natural conservation, reduce pollution and wastage, promote recycling etc. But not in the name of global warming unless it is an indisputable fact as the Earth is round and not flat as people used to believe.