Global Warming???????NOT!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by magicofmt, May 28, 2008.

  1. magicofmt

    magicofmt Well-Known Member

    May 9, 2005
    I hadn't seen this before, thought I would share it

    Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
    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 one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. 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.
  2. blipelt

    blipelt Well-Known Member

    Apr 5, 2008
    why people are pushing global warming? Follow the money, people are getting very rich off of this (Gore) If they make co2 a pollutant like they wish to you better expect to start paying double or triple for electricty. How can co2 be a pollutant when plants need cox like we need o2. You want to fight global warming plant a few trees? I could spend all day disproving global warming, but I am biased I work for the largest lignite mine in the country. All I have to say is on average China and India put a new power plant on line every four days which is not scrubbed<= this means no regulations at all.


  3. wayneborngesser

    wayneborngesser Active Member

    Jun 20, 2007
    He who pays the piper calls the tune, would be the other reason for all of the junk science out there. When I was young it was the coming ice age. Science, by definition is not biased, but in practice almost always is. Look back to any beginning "new" discovery, and all you will read about is what a quack the person was. Same thing it seems in "science". Sadly they will use brute force and steal your hard earned money to make their dubious points. Just like the ozone scam and 99% of the air quality bunk. I'm sure theres plenty of folks even on this board that believes a lot of that stuff, not my business to educate them, but I had lots of time on my hands years ago and the science ain't there folks. Lewis and Clark saw smog when they crossed the Rocky mountains, it's the damn trees fault, and inversions happen a lot in many valley's around the world. Wonder what happens to the MILLIONS of tons of sulfuric acid, fly ash, etc. that came from Krakatoa when it blew? Just geeks trying to make a living, ignore them however at your peril. Guess what the fine is for letting evil R12 vent into the atmosphere? How about 100K? Stupid mechanics where told to put their "sniffer" UNDER the fitting, since R12 refrigerant is HEAVIER than air. Oy! I'm done.
  4. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Feb 4, 2005
    The man made Global Warming BS is to make create a false crisis and make money for the little Cottage Industry that it has Spawned
  5. edge

    edge Well-Known Member

    Nov 4, 2005
    Two completely separate issues.

    1) YES, there is Global warming;

    2) The cause. Is SOME man induced, most likely. Is SOME a natural cycle, undoubtedly.

    To anyone that disputes that the Earth is warming. There have been untold periods of glacial advance and retreat in the last Billions of years. The last one ended about 20,000 years ago...hence interglacial period!
    The Earth is covered in warms for several tens of thousand years and over several tens of thousands of years it cools again.

    WHAT IF this IS man-made?

    Lets' say that Gore is right!

    Let's think of the Earth as your freezer that has a Freon leak.
    At first it makes ice because it keeps everything under 32 ( 0 for you Celcius fans :) )
    The tipping point comes when the freezer can't hold freezing. Ice starts to melt and NOTHING you can do, short of adding Freon will stop it.

    IF CO2 is the problem, then not only do we have to reduce our current output, but we must pull it out of the atmosphere to the point that we reverse its effects ( adding Freon )!

    SO, Mr Gore, what year did we pass the tipping point!
    The World needs to reduce CO2 emissions to that years emissions, AND pull out the remaining CO2 out of the atmosphere back to that point!
    If CO2 has a lifespan of 50 years, and we started warming in the early 1900's then throw away your car keys, put on a sweater, stop going to work, and turn off the lights in America 'cause we are done using fossil fuels for a few decades!

  6. Waltech Jim

    Waltech Jim Writers Guild

    Dec 2, 2004
    Well, those of you that feel money is involved are right. Take a look at where Ball gets his money.

    I realize opinions vary, but I would be a little more careful of who I used to support my opinion.

    Ball has a BA, an MA in Geography, and a PhD in Geography. The last time I checked you had to have a science degree to be a climatologist.

    Please read his statements on environmental change and the dispute over qualifications to comment.

    SCIENTISTS don't debate Global Warming. The evidence is overwhelming. The only thing in question now is how quickly and with what magnitude the changes will take place.


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    Timothy F. Ball

    Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.[1]

    Academic background
    Ball has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba in 1970 in Geography[2], and a Ph.D. in Geography from the University of London, England in 1983, writing a thesis analyzing historical weather records from Canada's north.[3] Ball taught at the University of Winnipeg from 1973 to 1996, starting as a Sessional Lecturer and retiring as a Professor.

    Views on environmental change
    Some of Ball's statements on climate change include:
    • "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."[4]
    • "The entire Kyoto issue is based on the theory of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas...There are 2 major problems. First, [it] is not the most important greenhouse gas. Second, evidence now shows that temperatures rise before carbon dioxide increases - not the other way round." [5]
    • "Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes, that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."[5]
    • "Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record."[6]
    • "The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the ozone layer."[7]
    • " Scientists put CFCs in a chamber in a lab with ozone and assumed because the chlorine part of the CFC was destroying ozone this would happen in the ozone layer. Of course what they didn't tell you was that the ozone was varying to different degrees at different levels in the ozone layer which extends over several kilometers. There is a self correcting mechanism because as the ultraviolet penetrates further into the atmosphere it contacts more O2 and therefore more O is produced and more O3."[8]
    • "...The majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science...The other problem is that so many of the scientists who are quoted as being on side with global warming are actually doing studies on the impact of global warming and climate changes and their studies then are listed as evidence for support of it. They are not, they are just starting with the assumption that global warming is going to occur, and what effect that would have. That is not support or proof at all."[9]
    • "I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."[10]

    Dispute over qualifications to comment on global warming
    • Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[11]. His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".[12], and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" [13]
    • Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
    • Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[13]
    • Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.[14]
    • Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by several well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 [15], Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, [16], or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 [17].
    • In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[18]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

    Public appearances
    Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[19]
  7. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Feb 4, 2005
    I wouldn't hitch my wagon to Wicapedia either.
  8. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Feb 4, 2005
    The documentary of people signing a petition to ba Dihydrogen Monoxide is a perfect example of how these Crisis's that are not Crisis's gain support