Climatologist Says Global Warming is a Fraud: Personal Attacks Anyone?
February 8, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
So, a highly educated climatologist says global warming is a fraud. I would like to hear why he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Please, climate changers, enlighten me.
Money quotes:
 … 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. (emphasis mine)
More:
 … 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.
Yet more:
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.
Oh, I can’t stop now…
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.
That explains a LOT about Canada, and why as far as I know we only have one single private university in the entire nation of 30 million people.
One last one. You really should read the whole thing.
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.
I said something similar a few days ago. There is something seriously wrong when people who want to see legitimate scientific questioning and open debate are associated with neo-nazis.
The lack of open debate in this country is disgusting and a result, I think, of the fact that Canada was not founded on the values of freedom and liberty as the United States was.
You said a bad word. You said America is better than Canada. You are evil. EEEEvil.
Tim Ball is not in fact a climatologist. He is in court at the moment for using the term. He’s actually a retired teacher of geography and head of anti-Kyoto astroturf group The Friends of Science. 0 credibility.
Really? Huh. Seems pretty well published and accredited for a schoolteacher.
Hey bigcitylib,
“Tim Ball is not in fact a climatologist. He is in court at the moment for using the term”
That would be him suing The Calgary Herald
According to his bio, he was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnepeg.
http://www.orato.com/?q=user/1468
Heck, they even call Michael Mann a climatologist, yet his Phd is in Geology & Geophysics.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=47
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi.....325000.php
Try to be a little less trolling.
David Suzuki’s has a Ph.D in zoology yet that doesn’t stop him for discussing the “great” danger of global warming…
Well, I guess your infallible little Prime Minister Harper is as well, then, as he has followed the path the pollsters told him to and now publicly pretends to be a believer in man-made climate change.
Which is it – is Harper a liar or is he a man without principle? In this situation, it is either one or the other, and I would be curious to know which one you believe is the most applicable.
Also, for the record, if you would take a little time you would find that the monstrously overwhelming majority of scientists whose life’s work it has been to study this issue no longer debate the impact of man on climate change, only the most appropriate responses to it. The insurance business long ago began factoring in climate change in their risk assessments for business the world over and most major businesses do the same. I guess all of them, the Nobel laureate scientists, business leaders and other experts are all just not as smart as you, Lowell Green and your fellow far-right flat-earthers.
Tim Ball gets more ink than his paid-for views warrant and he does not publish in any peer-reviewed journals nor does he debate peers who would wipe the floor with him as he is likely aware that the floor would be mopped with his sorry little derriere.
A) I wasn’t talking about Mr. Harper here. Can you wrap your little mind around the idea that in a free party like the Conservative party, it is possible to differ from groupthink and still maintain membership? Further, can you wrap your little mind around the idea that using big words like “monstrous” to describe support does not lend credibility? Majorities have been wrong before. Like 30 years ago in fact, when the “monstrous” majority believed we were descending into an ice age… which leads be to…
B) These scientists have a pretty short life if global warming has been their life’s work… seeing as how as I just mentioned, only a couple of decades ago, they were all convinced the opposite is happening.
C) Turns out I was right, the personal attacks could not be held off in the name of rational debate. In your short comment, you called Harper a liar or a man without principle (who wasn’t even the subject I might add), then you suggested that Dr. Ball is being bribed for his views along the way to some schoolyard bravado along the lines of “My Daddy is tougher than your Daddy!”. Real insightful.
Nothing like attacking the man rather than his ideas. Good work, mudman.
tim ball is a loser of the highest order. friends of science, founded by ball, gets funding from exxon.
furthermore, the lack of any peer-reviewed research from ball should sound warning bells in any serious individual’s head.
Shane,
Note by Mr. Ball’s own admission his degree is Geography, not Climatology. Note also that both references you provide are to the same document. It looks like he published his PHD. Note also that the dates are 1985, 1986. If you wiki him, you will see that his total published output (other than stuff done for FOS) is about a half dozen publications, most are previous to 1990, and most seem to be rehashes of aspects of his PHD. None of them concern current climate conditions.
The guy’s a retired geography teacher. It is telling that you guys can’t find a better spear carrier than Mr. Ball.
I see bigcitylib & jeff are out trolling around
Bigcity…Dr. Ball was a professor of climatology.
And it’s him suing someone else not the other way around.
BTW, Michael Mann has a Phd in geology and geophyics, but you’d have not problem calling him a climatologist.
jeff, where to begin with you…
“loser of the highest order”? His Phd makes him more credible than you when it comes to climatology.
With all the bad science coming out of the UN and focus on oil being the blame, you can’t put 2 and 2 together to realize why companies like Exxon would want to fund groups that don’t tow the UN global warming alarmist mantra.
“lack of any peer-reviewed research from ball” do you have evidence or are you just trolling.
Shane, his arguments are junk too.
And if you think that a “majority” of climate scientists believed that we were entering an ice age thirty years ago, you are obviously incapable of using google.
No one can explain the Ice Ages or warm periods in earth history, yet celebrities and politicians KNOW what the weather will be like a hundred years from now? Ridiculous.
Where’s Galileo when you need him?
Bigcitylib,
Dr. Ball was born in England, where he received his secondary education. He received his B.A. (Honours) from the University of Winnipeg and his M.A. from the University of Manitoba, and a PhD from Queen Mary College, University of London. He served in the RCAF as a navigator for eight and a half years. Professor taught geography, and specifically climatology, at the University of Winnipeg for many years before retiring to Victoria, British Columbia.
I read Bell’s stuff a few days ago. Good post.
One private university, Sean? I don’t think that’s accurate.
I could be wrong about the 1 private university, but danged if I can think of any other than TWU in Langley. Please advise if you know of others. In any case, even if there are a handful, it would explain in large part the difference between academia in the USA as compared to Canada. In America there hare hundreds. Perhaps thousands, and they aren’t beholden to the government for funding and support.
As for the above mention of Ball’s bills being paid by Exxon, I think he deals with that himself very well in his arguments. Why is it that nobody questions the agendas of those who are paid by other special interests?
Well, Shane, for one thing, Ball denied being paid by the oil companies for the longest time, then finally admitted after he’d been caught out.
The point is, you’re not going to convince anyone outside of a dwindling circle of wingnuts using Ball because most peope knowswho he is, what he represents, and how misleading his arguments are. If conservatives frankly had paid ANY attention to this issue before Xmas, you would know all this too.
bigcitylib,
“dwindling circle of wingnuts using Ball because most peope knowswho he is,”
It appears that you don’t know him all that well. A quick search on the University of Winnepeg’s website shows that climatology, which he taught, is under the department of geography.
The wingnuts are people like you that do nothing but try to push poison to anyone that will listen.
Instead of taking the word of the MSM and Al Gore verbatum, try doing some research into global warming you’ll find things are not as they seem.
I always find it interesting when opponents simply say, “the guy you cited is an idiot. You shouldn’t pay attention to anything he says.”
It kind of reminds me of that scene from the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
All I hear is, he is wrong, his arguments are misleading. Don’t look to him for a clear picture.
What I don’t hear is anyone dealing with anything he actually said. Only, “Everyone knows he is wrong.”
Now that I have repeated myself, hopefully it sinks in. Let’s hear some dealings with just the points I quoted, if not the whole of the arguments from that article. Let’s hear some interaction on the invalidity of just those claims. Not on how much he is an dullard or worse.
Or is that all you’ve got?
Climatology has been part of Geography departments in some institutions for decades. If the point is to discredit the messenger rather than discuss the ideas, people should at least know the proper meaning of the characteristics of the messenger.
Having read the article Tim doesn’t state one single fact to support his claim, but lets let the words from other members of the NRSP speak for themselves
http://www.freedominion.ca/php.....8;start=15
The NRSP’s Tom Harris continues his attempt to scare up donations and recruits on The Free Dominion website. In this episode, he attempts a bit of political strategizing:
I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, “The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord.”
However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).
So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well – namely, they don’t take sides at all and admit they don’t know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify.
The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the “we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it” camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.
What’s wrong with this approach?
So when the intellectual honest of the NRSP is to cause choas in trhe Global Warming/Global Climate Change debate, you actually expect people to take these F*CKING LIARS SSERIOUSLY???
Zorph,
He’s not trying to prove why global warming doesn’t exist in the article, what he’s saying is, he’s an expert in the field and “the World is not listening. Here is why”
With lines like
“No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier”
“I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague”
“Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society.”
what did think he was trying to talk about?
“you actually expect people to take these F*CKING LIARS SSERIOUSLY???”, all I can say is “if the shoe fits”…..
Zorph: Are you of the opinion that the earth shouldnt change while humans occupy it?? If so, tell us how?? Maybe throw in the odd tip on how to stop earthquakes as well. Throw out Dr Ball and go searching…you can find hundreds of climatologists and hundreds of scientists who agree with Dr Ball, are they all schmucks too?? I think the arguement is too important NOT to beleive the IPPC report and people like Dr Ball. You cant say I believe in the scientific experiments that prove Koyoto but I dont want to hear the science that disprove it, well you can, but, you loose credibility. The basic laws of science state that nothing is beyond disenting arguements.
Billg,
Tom and his friends at the NRSP are not about the science at all, they are tied to big oil at the hip and they have made it very clear that they are not interest in debating the science, as Tom article shows, they are just interested in delaying the debate, mudding the waters.
Oh and yes, I have read up extensively on the GW/GCC science, both pro and con. Much the science sited by the NRSP and the Friends of Science group is based on old model and old flawed data, which they never bother to correct or update.
Take the bs arguement about pushings and forcing of the solar weather, start with Ipso 1998, then move to Duke University, May or June 2005, then go look at the so called “New” arguements that people are using to claim that the GW/GCC is all cause by natureal pushings and forcings, then back track all their sources and those sources sources and see exactly where they lead.
Make sure you pay special close attention to data sets from the orbital sats., especial the dates on the data sets. Make sure you under the instrumental that was used and the inherrent error that were used and make sure the pros or the cons are using the corrected data sets that adjust for the instrument errors.
I’ll wait.
No, Kit Con, Dr. Ball was a professor of Geography who has claimed to be a professor of climatology (in fact claimed to be one of the first people to ever earn a degree in climatology). And yes, he was the one launching the lawsuit, but he is also the one who has been forced to retract some of his earlier claims re his credentials (like being one of the first people to earn etc.). As for the peer reviewed literature, wiki lists a grand total of six articles of his, most from around 1985. Desmogblog gives the number of peer-reviewed articles at 4, and nothing in the past 15 years or so.
I’ve done all that Zorph, and, my eyes glaze over. And it wasnt the point of my comment. Not every scientist who disagree’s with you is “in the hip” of big-oil, there are scientists who believe that we are actually cooling and that we need more GHG not less, there are those that believe that solar activity that has warmed Mars is warming the earth, are you going to discredit them as well?? But, I’m not going to change your mind, and, your not going to change mine. But the bigger question is, whats next?? Why cant Canada work within a workable time frame to reduce our GHG?? We are a drop in the GHG bucket, if we shut down every car and industry today we wouldnt make a dent in the worlds GHG problem, so, we are not a Koyoto leader (thanks Libs) and we are not in position to guilt anyone else into siging onto Koyoto, so, why tie one hand behind our industry when the largest GHG producers will continue on their merry CO2 way?? Why not make this a workable thing? And one more question…if this is all about saving the planet why dont the NDP and the Liberals form a coalition government…seems pretty simple to me…pair up and save Canada, we cant meet Koyoto so, send out a cheque for 10 billion, give “big-oil” and the auto industry its marching orders and, steal and rob as much as you can because, after the economic damage its the last we’ll see of the NDP or the Liberals, and thats why Chretien, Martin and Dion didnt push it before, thats why they wont push it now. I’ll wait.
You can find any single scientist to prove any single point. What does the weight of the evidence say? What do almost all climatologists say? That the climate is warming and that human beings are mostly responsible. It’s pretty simple.
It would be useful for Conservatives to realize that the argument over the science is pretty much over. The question is now what do we do to deal with it. Wouldn’t it be more useful for conservatives to develop and propose market-based ways of dealing with the problem that seek to channel the ingenuity of the market into solutions. That’s what the debate is going to be about. By rehashing tired old arguments and agreeing with each other impotently on blogs, you’re ceding the ground to people of other ideological persuasions who will propose solutions that you will hate. And you’ll be playing catch-up the whole time. Get into 2007 and join the real debate.
bigcitylib,
“Dr. Ball was a professor of Geography who has claimed to be a professor of climatology”
I just don’t knwo how you can be so ignorant, yes he taught within the department of geography, but specifically he taught climatology.
Climatology is a part of the department of Geography, at the University of Winnipeg.
link:
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/ball_t.shtml
I hate to stoope to your level, but you just sound like a shill for the kyotophites.
Sick of Tory…its more than just a single scientist. And, who are we playing catch up with?? And, the reasons this is being rehashed is that both Liberal and NDP party’s have told us how we are going to deal with it. We will somehow reach our Koyoto targets. They dont know the job loss or the economical costs…just meet it. So to counter that insanity and dangerous path, most of us are trying to talk a little sense into normal people.
I’m pretty sure I get this site now… it’s taken a while.
I’m in on the joke now.
This is, in fact, parody. Deliberately disguised as far-right, theocratic numbskullery.
Now I debated commenting on this, because I didn’t want to let the genuine fringe who comment here in on the joke.
I believe however that for those people, suggesting this site is a perpetual joke on them (that they actually participate in) will actually only steel their resolve.
Brilliant! My new favourite blog!
Riiight. Because this post has so much to do with… what’s that word… theocracy? Yup. Theocracy.
Thanks, Scott, for taking yourself out of public discourse with that last attempt to completely alienate everyone but your elite little club.
Nothing like that thing called “inclusiveness” is there?
Or wait.
That only applies to thoughts you approve of.
I hope you enjoy that little closet you live in, where none of the “bad men” can “get you”.
I appreciate your concern Shane, but since I don’t attend Mass, if by nothing other than proximity I’m safe from the “bad men”.
Seriously Shane, lighten up. You’re an author here, so you’re in on the joke too… aren’t you?
Aren’t you?!
It’s all good Shane, Scott isn’t a member of some tiny closet club. His attitudes are shared by most CBC die-hard audience members.
His higher thought comments are just mirrors of the typical reporting style he’s exposed to on the national broadcaster daily. Here’s a tip to help you get through a comment, read a sentence, break with some classical music snippet, think about what makes Canada, Canada and move on to the next sentence.
If that fails, I’ve started a new drinking game. Every time Scott references religion (mass, Christian, etc.), take a shot of your favorite beverage (just limit yourself, you’ll be drunk sooner than you expect).
Scott, props for sitting at the right table for this long!
This argument is fascinating, but, to be honest, I’m having trouble concentrating. The temperature in my apartment has risen about 1.8 degrees over the past few hundred years, oh I mean few minutes, and it’s really driving me crazy.
Oh… wait… Scott FROM Winnipeg?
As in he isn’t there anymore!
Right!
Pass that doobie over here… [phhht]
AAAHHH!
Dang! You’re right Scott! This is good stuff! Now I get the joke! But I’m gonna need another drag on that. Can you just send me a baggie and I’ll get started with my “mellowing out”?
I’ve noticed that whenever you mention that there have been cooling and warming periods on earth way before humans appeared on it, it goes right over their heads or it is ignored. Mmmmm… Also, even though we are in the process of cutting down our emissions, it makes no difference, and things are getting worse, or so they would have you believe. The smog in Los Angeles when I was a kid was really bad many days in a row, and now our weather is so beautiful and clear the dire predictions make me wonder what planet you are talking about. Hey, open your eyes, go outside and enjoy the weather, take a deep breath, and relax. You’ve been inside too long reading doomsday reports. It’s going to take more than a half degree to make me panic. And just how accurate were the thermometers decades and centuries ago, anyway?
I have to laugh my ass off at all the UN-critical thinking that accompanies the libs that like to pick apart “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and Dr. Tim Ball etc on the one hand, but do not exercise the brainpower to do the same with Algore’s An Inconvenient n00b.
If only they used the same type of tactics against Algore’s movie that they do with what they disagree with.
Which only goes to prove, those who claim to engage in “critical thinking” are in fact doing nothing of the sort, since “critical thinking” necessitates examining things they would tend to agree with in a less biased fashion.
How many of these people are agreeing with it simply because it supports their own political views, and not because the science is all that convincing? Eat that crap up with a spoon uncritically much?
BTW, I do not accept everything I see unquestioningly, even stuff I’d tend to agree with. I have a problem with their interpretation of the ice core samples in the movie, since CO2 can be dissolved into ice under pressure, forming other compounds and skewing the “free gas bubble” measurements.
[...] bad the Blogging Tories don’t. I think Harper is just blowing smoke. If he had his druthers Harper would round up all the [...]
[...] Change Denier … except this guy’s got some credentials behind him. Read all about it at The Politic.I really like this quote:”Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon (of global warming) has [...]
The Calgary Herald summary is an excellent document detailing Tim Ball’s position, and tells exactly how much Tim Ball credentials and experience support his views.
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-.....-documents
(1) Tim Ball: ”Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon (of global warming) has…
(2)Frontier Centre: We are all familiar with the modern theory that the world’s climate is getting warmer. Is it?
Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.
FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?
TB: Yes,…
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publi.....?PubID=864