Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology says global warming bullshit

[spunkmaster]

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.?Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.? . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe 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 science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, 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.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

[polish_aristocrat]

we have almost as many global warming as .xxx threads

[Hazlewood]

Thats way too long man...who is my fellow canuck trying to fool...we know whats causes global warming

[stickyfingerz]

Anyone that has a dissenting opinion against Global warming is considered a nutjob or a kook, even if they are at the top of their field.

[ridikuloz]

blame canada

[Agent 488]

here's some info on that "objective" scientist:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]

[The Sultan Of Smut]

"Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

[he-fox]

yeah, sure, this dude is smarter than the hundreds of scientists from 130 countries that had that conference weeks ago. Coz he´s a PhD.

[Phoenix]

haha a voice for the oil tycoons...that is mighty nice of him

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by budsbabes

here's some info on that "objective" scientist:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]

So they accuse him of being in bed with the oil industry, yet cite no source... ya thats valid. Find me who he works for that gets money from the oil industry and proof of it. If you only had that much proof for a sponsor shaving on gfy you would be banned.

[Phoenix]

haha a voice for the oil tycoons...that is mighty nice of him

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

So they accuse him of being in bed with the oil industry, yet cite no source... ya thats valid. Find me who he works for that gets money from the oil industry and proof of it. If you only had that much proof for a sponsor shaving on gfy you would be banned.

gimme a sec.

[the Shemp]

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by the Shemp

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

Sorry but that is the stupidest fucking comparison ever. People that dont buy the whole global warming THEORY are now in the same boat as kooks that think the earth is flat?

[BradM]

There is no such thing as global warming.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by BradM

There is no such thing as global warming.

Correct

Now, wondering if we can we clean up the environment and head in a more positive direction instead of talking shit about it?

[Brad]

lol. interesting article with no evidence either way. It's obvious what his argument is, but there is zero proof. Isn't a scientist supposed to support his or her claims with some evidence or some statistics at least? I'm no sceintist, but from the courses I took in University, this kind of narrative crap would never fly and isn't proving anything. I'm sure the guy is smart, but come on he's not fooling anyone.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Adult Lounge - Brad

I'm no sceintist, but from the courses I took in University, this kind of narrative crap would never fly and isn't proving anything.

You hit the nail on the head - it is "narrative crap"

PS Reminds me of expert witnesses - they will say anything to earn a dime and raise their profile on the "expert witness court circuit".

[stickyfingerz]

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-vid.cfm

Watch the videos and see the outright lies that are being perpetrated.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-vid.cfm

Watch the videos and see the outright lies that are being perpetrated.

Sticky... try and not be so silly using stupid lobby groups on an agenda to prove something ;-)

We are talking about yet another bullshit website created by Fred Smith...

On March 14, 1984, Fred Smith launches the Competitive Enterprise Institute, with his wife Fran Smith and Cesar Conda as the original members of CEI's Board of Directors. Similar to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who launched their companies from their garages, CEI's first offices were in Fred and Fran's kitchen.

PS I'm gonna start the Earth Foundation next week to prove something - I'll remember to start it in the kitchen *lol*

[sh33p]

I wonder how much he was paid by the oil companies.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Webby

Sticky... try and not be so silly using stupid lobby groups on an agenda to prove something ;-)

We are talking about yet another bullshit website created by Fred Smith...



PS I'm gonna start the Earth Foundation next week to prove something *lol*

Oh Fred Smith the evil anti global warming genius that killed small children in order to get his point across? I agree anyone that tortures kittens and puppies and kills small children should be drawn and quartered.

Of course you have proof that he is a dirty slave to the oil machine right? Point me in that direction..

[pocketkangaroo]

You're right man. I believe oil companies and scientists paid by oil companies over most of the world's scientists.

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

Timothy:
"Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda."

With logic like that now wonder he doesn't believe in the reality of global warming lol.

[volante]

Originally Posted by he-fox

yeah, sure, this dude is smarter than the hundreds of scientists from 130 countries that had that conference weeks ago. Coz he´s a PhD.

How about 17,000+ scientists who claim manmade global warming is bullshit?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[Webby]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Oh Fred Smith the evil anti global warming genius that killed small children in order to get his point across? I agree anyone that tortures kittens and puppies and kills small children should be drawn and quartered.

Of course you have proof that he is a dirty slave to the oil machine right? Point me in that direction..

You obviously know more about Fred than others Better report him to law enforcement with all that evidence ;-)

Sadly free speech has it's problems eh? Stupidity is one obstacle.

[volante]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

You're right man. I believe oil companies and scientists paid by oil companies over most of the world's scientists.

Three times as many scientists are funded by political organisations than business organisations.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by volante

Three times as many scientists are funded by political organisations than business organisations.

That is a good fact. It doesn't change my belief that I trust the oil companies and their reports far more than most of the scientists in the world. The oil companies have no reason to lie.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by volante

How about 17,000+ scientists who claim manmade global warming is bullshit?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Hush no dissenting opinions allowed regardless of their standing in the scientific community...

We will force Eugenics... err I mean Ice age theory..err I mean global warm.... I mean Global climate change

[Webby]

Originally Posted by volante

Three times as many scientists are funded by political organisations than business organisations.

Seriously... you have a point. There are many "scientists" on both the political and industry payroll. There are also more "scientists" who know absolutely nothing about "global warming" - it is not their field of expertise.

It may be more relevant to concentrate on the findings of those who are qualified and not attached to either political or industry lobby groups - and actually working in the area of climatology.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Hush no dissenting opinions allowed regardless of their standing in the scientific community...

We will force Eugenics... err I mean Ice age theory..err I mean global warm.... I mean Global climate change

You forgot the gigantic-deadly-killer Ozone hole.

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Hush no dissenting opinions allowed regardless of their standing in the scientific community...

We will force Eugenics... err I mean Ice age theory..err I mean global warm.... I mean Global climate change

just because there was once consensus on now discredited ideas all ideas about which there is consensus are discredited also?

stupid-ass "argument."

[stickyfingerz]

[BradM]

If ANYONE can prove to me that this shift is outside of the norm for the last 100,000 years of weather data and that this warming is an obvious sign of HUMAN MADE and not natural warming, I'll be all ears.

Just like if God comes down and pats me on the back and lets me win the lottery, I'll be a believer.

Fact: We have 300 years weather data (not that accurate though) and we're going off 100 year records to make "estimates". COME ON people, I am sure there are 1,000 weather shifts all of the time and it goes up 10* then freezes for 2 years, warms up then freezes for 80.

[Webby]

Dunno why - just think useless posts with silly graphics belong in the kindergarten. Sadly, yet another example of the downside of free speech.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by notabook

You forgot the gigantic-deadly-killer Ozone hole.

Im just glad I bought that UV resistant silver heat suit when I did. Otherwise I would have skin cancer today just like the rest of the planet. Phew...

[KingK7]

Blame the gypsies!!!

[Agent 488]

Originally Posted by BradM

If ANYONE can prove to me that this shift is outside of the norm for the last 100,000 years of weather data and that this warming is an obvious sign of HUMAN MADE and not natural warming, I'll be all ears.

Just like if God comes down and pats me on the back and lets me win the lottery, I'll be a believer.

Fact: We have 300 years weather data (not that accurate though) and we're going off 100 year records to make "estimates". COME ON people, I am sure there are 1,000 weather shifts all of the time and it goes up 10* then freezes for 2 years, warms up then freezes for 80.

dude - read something besides drudge. grab some scientific journals.

[cranki]

Originally Posted by volante

How about 17,000+ scientists who claim manmade global warming is bullshit?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

gosh, how fucking stupid is that????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by budsbabes

just because there was once consensus on now discredited ideas all ideas about which there is consensus are discredited also?

stupid-ass "argument."

Funny there was a consensus on flat earth, and there were witch trials in Salem. All very much thought to be 100#% accurate also. Now you only have to look back 30 to 40 years to see a gaggle of total bs scientists being paid via government grants have spewed and you might just see a pattern...

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by budsbabes

dude - read something besides drudge. grab some scientific journals.

In other words..... if you disagree with a totally UNPROVEN theory you must be stupid....

[Webby]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

In other words..... if you disagree with a totally UNPROVEN theory you must be stupid....

There is no need for any theory to be stupid - stupidity is easy and common as pigshit on GFY


PS I'm looking at that "evidence" right now ;-)

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by BradM

If ANYONE can prove to me that this shift is outside of the norm for the last 100,000 years of weather data and that this warming is an obvious sign of HUMAN MADE and not natural warming, I'll be all ears.

Just like if God comes down and pats me on the back and lets me win the lottery, I'll be a believer.

Fact: We have 300 years weather data (not that accurate though) and we're going off 100 year records to make "estimates". COME ON people, I am sure there are 1,000 weather shifts all of the time and it goes up 10* then freezes for 2 years, warms up then freezes for 80.

How dare you question the benevolent scientists!! Didnt you read the IPCC report!! It was rife with scientific words like "likely" and "very likely"!!! and "consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies"*

[Martin3]

No one denies that there are shifts going on. Some parts of the world are setting record ows, other record highs.

The news and politicians are focused on the Artic melting yet ignore the fact the Antartic is growing at a faster rate then normal.

NASA scientists believe Pluto may be thawing a bit and they have photographic evidence of CO2 ice caps on Mars melting over the post 10 years.

Yet, bring up any of those facts and you're compared to those that thought the Earth was flat.

It's amazing what doomsday scare tactics do for population control

[fuckdashyoudotcom]

Originally Posted by Adult Lounge - Brad

lol. interesting article with no evidence either way. It's obvious what his argument is, but there is zero proof. Isn't a scientist supposed to support his or her claims with some evidence or some statistics at least?

Yeah, would have been interesting to see some facts to support his argument...He writes more like a politician than a scientist.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Martin3

Know one denies that there are shifts going on. Some parts of the world are setting record ows, other record highs.

The news and politicians are focused on the Artic melting yet ignore the fact the Antartic is growing at a faster rate then normal.

NASA scientists believe Pluto may be thawing a bit and they have photographic evidence of CO2 ice caps on Mars melting over the post 10 years.

Yet, bring up any of those facts and your compared to those that though the Earth was flat.

It's amazing what doomsday scare tactics do for population control

Wait if some places are getting colder, and some warmer that sounds almost like the earth has a slight wobble to it, and isnt always on a 100% concentric axis..... GASP!

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

Didnt you read the IPCC report!!

Of course everyone contributing to this thread read the IPCC report - they all read it from here

[Nysus]

From what I read of that letter it doesn't sound professional at all or scientific at all.

[PAR]

Ok that is way to long to read right now. But I will say this.. Its cold as fuck here right now... So happy I'll be in LA in less then 24 hours.

That said the only reasion a Canadian would say Global Warming is BS is to lower the heating cost in winter. I for one am waiting for the warm winters to come.

1970's the big news was global cooling...

"In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[4][5]

Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[6] However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[who]

50 globes with changing temperatures caused by flipping magnetic poles.