posted on February 5, 2007 09:21:31 AM new
Another Scientist Strikes at Global Warming Hysteria
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 5, 2007 - 11:54.
A wonderful thing is happening in the scientific world now that the United Nations has claimed that it is 90 percent certain anthropogenic global warming is real: scientists around the world are speaking out against this assertion.
Another such scientist, Canada’s Timothy Ball, wrote an article today addressing his view of the media hysteria which marvelously began (h/t QandO, emphasis mine throughout):
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 that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Ball continued:
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?
He continued:
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.
Ball then explained how he came to these conclusions:
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.
Ball even addressed why many scientists go along with the charade:
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?
Ball then described how this supposed consensus came about:
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skillfully 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 [Richard] 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.
Ball marvelously concluded:
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.
Amen, brother.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 5, 2007 01:12:26 PM new
Amen is right.
"scientists around the world are speaking out against this assertion."
That can ONLY be a good thing. This subject is just too complicated for the average American....many of whom can't even look at a picture of our elected leaders and be able to say who they are.
And then with gore traipsing all over America - spewing his position - laughed at by scientists.....they'll believe whatever he says for no other reason than WHO he is. It's that hollywood mentality
Hopefully this will encourage a TRUE debate....by ONLY those most qualified on the subject and THEN choices can be made when more actually have 'FACTS'/good information rather than POLITICAL pushing for what the U.N. wants.
I can only hope. But my position now is that there is NO PROOF that humans are causing this warming....and that's it's changing because that's what our planet/solar system has ALWAYS done.
We sure SURVIVED the 'ice age' the 'experts' were saying we were entering 20+ years ago. LOL LOL LOL
I think if we wait this out...we'll see exactly the same change-about.
posted on February 5, 2007 02:15:51 PM new
Yep...more and more ARE beginning to step out of the dark and BRAVELY, endangering their careers for doing so, speaking out against this recent report.
====
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
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 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.
posted on February 5, 2007 02:48:34 PM new
THIS SHOULD BE THE END OF ANOTHER NEW-CON LIE FROM BEAR AND HIS MOTHER. SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY ANYTHING FOR MONEY.
Exxon linked to climate change pay out
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 5 2007: 2:02 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.
The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.
Scientists say they're pressured to play down the impact of global change. CNN's Andrea Koppel reports (January 30)
Play video
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
posted on February 5, 2007 03:30:12 PM new
SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY ANYTHING FOR MONEY.
Nothing in there says he was paid, as opposed to all those supported by Green Peace & other envirowacko groups.
As opposed to some who hide all their assets in others names to avoid paying any taxes like YOU?
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 5, 2007 08:41:01 PM new
It'd be interesting to know if these scientists are some of the ones PAID CASH MOOLA by the American Enterprise Institute to undermine the IPCC report. The AEI is heavily funded by EXXON MOBIL and other conscientious protectors of the planet and your childrens' futures. It fits right in with the petroleum industry's plan to cast doubt upon global warming, a plan that is outlined in this memo, sent to EXXON executives in 1998. The memo outlines the plan in great detail. The PDF is here:
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
posted on February 5, 2007 11:18:19 PM new
Thanks Bigpeepa and Profe! Sometimes I question why I even bother with the RT and then posts and links like yours encourage me to learn more on certain issues.
It's interesting to see all the connections and funding between industry, so-called professionals, the think tanks, etc and how they link together in the big circle of it all. It would be impossible to keep up with everything though when one considers the daily output of information and misinformation from all sources.
Canada's Dr.Timothy Ball is a fraud.
5 Feb 07
"The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic."
"But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field."
posted on February 6, 2007 03:10:37 AM new
You can't be posting this crap with a straight face...can you kiara?
Maybe you can find me a bio for Richard Littlemore. I can't seem to find the mans credentials or doesn't he have any.
You'll notice the man has a MA and Phd. What does Mr. Littlemore have?
I found this Bio of Dr, Ball:
Bio: Dr. Tim Ball, B.A., M.A., Ph,D.
Dr. Tim Ball taught at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 to 1996. With a Ph.D. in Climatology, he is an expert on the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. While at the University of Winnipeg Dr. Ball was well-known for his sold-out classes for seniors on Current World Events.
Now living in Victoria, B.C., Dr. Ball works as an environmental consultant and is a popular speaker and columnist. He is a regular contributing writer to Country Guide and the author of numerous papers on climate change, bird migration, weather patterns and related issues. His book on environment, climate change and the fur trade is in print at McGill Queens University Press. Dr. Ball has also chaired provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development.
Dr. Ball has been heavily involved in education at all levels, kindergarten to seniors. He has acted as a motivational speaker for teachers, served on committees for curriculum development, and is a board member of Agriculture in the Classroom.
posted on February 6, 2007 03:21:12 AM new
Hold everything I find he (Littlemore) does have a Bio and he's written it himself:
Did you realize this is just a blog by a nobody that's trying to make himself look important? Someone like PeaBrain!
BIO Richard Littlemore
Richard spent 20 years in daily newspapers (the Ottawa Citizen, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Vancouver Sun), before turning his hand in 1995 to freelance journalism and public affairs. He wrote the David Suzuki Foundation’s first public information package on climate change in 1996, was vice-chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Air Quality Committee in 1996 and 1997 and sat as a delegate to the Canadian government's (failed) Kyoto Implementation Process from 1997 to 1999.
In addition to his DeSmog endeavours, Richard is a regular speech writer for many business and academic leaders and is a senior counsellor and the lead writer at James Hoggan and Associates.
Most importantly, he is a parent to three teenage boys who, like all children of their generation, deserve to inherit a world uncompromised by climate change.
[b]And it sounds like he did all this without college of any sort.
Amazing. I'll bet his three teenage boys think he's an A-hole too.[/b]
posted on February 6, 2007 04:42:24 AM new
Some information about the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which Tim Ball now heads. Just a shill for the Oil and Gas industry in Canada.
posted on February 6, 2007 01:34:21 PM newReal UNBIASED source the profe offers there.
ROFLOL
But yet Linda agrees with Bear's post about Canada's Timothy 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.
Yep, Linda is a hypocrite. She calls Profe's source as unbiased but yet her source is just as unbaised and says nothing.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 6, 2007 03:49:59 PM new
funny logansdad....guess you can't READ or can't comprehend what I already SAID about most of us not having any idea about the SCIENCE of all this.
My point has been that there IS much disagreement BETWEEN SCIENTISTS.
And since hundreds of them ARE saying it's all BS...that's it's a natural change that has happened before and WILL happen again....then the WORLD should be having an honest DEBATE about it.
Not having some UN group who AREN'T scientists tell us ONLY their side of this subject.
NOT having our PRESS/media take the liberal mind think....as they do in EVERYTHING....and try to get everyone all riled up by claiming the 'sky is falling'. LOL LOL LOL
But for some strange reason the environment FANATICS don't WANT honest DEBATE. They don't want to have the people HEAR from the scientists that DIAGREE. They work to silence them....just like two of you have done here.
What are you AFRAID of? What has you so scared that you don't want to listen to BOTH sides....ALL scientists...but instead have DECLARED only one side is the TRUTH.
There are hundreds of scientists here in the US alone that agree it's a normal cycle change. And yet the wackos will always work to DISCREDIT them...why? Because they have a DIFFERENT view, they drew a DIFFERENT conclusion.
posted on February 6, 2007 07:02:56 PM newWhat are you AFRAID of? What has you so scared that you don't want to listen to BOTH sides....ALL scientists...but instead have DECLARED only one side is the TRUTH.
Nice excuse Linda. Most scientists believe in the global warming theory. It is only scientists like Timothy Bell that are getting paid or are associated with special interests groups that are disputing the theory.
You should try listening to your own pathetic excuses for a change because it is you that refuses to listen to opposing views. When you are presented with the facts are proved wrong like you have been then you try your stupid antics like you did above.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on February 6, 2007 10:27:06 PM new
Further PROOF that what Timothy Ball said IS true.
"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."
Those who speak out - who don't agree with the liberal position CAN lose their jobs.
