Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:07 pm    Post subject: Global warming: Greatest deception in the history of science Reply with quote

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. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Duck Tory

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good article there Craig, as much as all this doom and gloom stuff going around and people buying into it. Furthermore you notice there is a trend of no solutions mainly postive ones to supposed curb global warming.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like I said before those who believed in Global Warming act like cult people. Once you disagree with them, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

They don't understand reasoning at all :roll:
DM Schwartz

Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 45
Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4Reputation: 34.4

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The same people that keep telling us human's are causing global warming, keep pointing to the polar ice caps melting.

I especially like it when they point to the piece that broke of the Larson Ice shelf in 2002. They say global warming is making the water warmer which made the ice break. But as it turns out only 2 years later in 2004, as previous ly undiscovered active undersea volcano in the vicinity of the Larson Ice shelf. Hmmm, sounds reasonable that it might have something to do with the ice thining, but no, the Global Warming people keep pointing to it and ignoring the volcano.


There are also numerous active undersea volcanoes in the arctic ocean, but again completely dismissed.

The rifts in the oceans although on a few inches wide are 50,000 KMs in length. all of it actively pouring out lava.

There are tonnes of active volcanoes worldwide at any given time, yet their contribute to the climate is ignored.

Also, after reading the Summary for Policymakers, I've come to the conclusion that they aren't even close. little lone 'very likely'


Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am getting tired of this debate. I think I will just go along with the politicians in the know. Pay lip service, and then put forward and support useless policy. It will be easier on the ulcers that way.
Duck Tory

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Useless policy hey i would rather have a policy that works then it be made fodder for Liberal Cultists.

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find the facts of both Globol Warming & Cooling as interesting topics to study. My favorite is that Globol Warming will cause Globol Cooling in the long term. Eventually in a billion years the Earth will be in a permanent state of Greenhouse gases as the sun swallows further.
Duck Tory

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If people want to do something for the enviroment join Ducks Unlimited.

Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duck Tory wrote:
If people want to do something for the enviroment join Ducks Unlimited.

and get off the internet, turn off their TV's, stop reading the newspaper, have their cars crushed and recycled, grow their own fruits and vegetables with organic dirt not taken from giant dirt pits, buy only clothing that is completely necessary(and made of hemp - there is a store around the corner from me that sells clothing like that). Better walk everywhere, because bikes are made of metal that is mined(and don't forget rubber) and then formed in factories. Move out of their homes and into some sort clay hut.

and the list goes on and on...

I don't think there are many that will do any of these things.

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If people want to do something for the enviroment join Ducks Unlimited.

I second that recommendation. Also, the Buck for Wildlife program, or the Y2Y initiative. And even if you don't participate in the activities, consider buying fishing and hunting licenses - 100% of the money goes back to efforts to conserve and protect natural resources in your province.

Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question for Craig

Have you seen Gores documentary?
Could you give us a critique of his points?

He comes across as pretty convincing to a layman.

Your point about how we were all told we were entering a new iceage in the 70's is spot on. Climate change seems to be a reactionary science. When there were a large number of hurricanes in the carribean the scientists were telling us the world would end. This year nothing!

Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not Craig(really!? :o ) - But I'll say that I've seen the movie, actually rented it a month or two back to see what all the fuss was about. See, I like to watch movies like that to sharpen my rhetoric.

Quite frankly, I found that a good portion of that movie was partisan shots at the Bush administration. After a good 10 minutes of whining and crying about how he should have been president, he finally got into showing a lot of flashy graphs and charts. Starting with the infamous hockey stick graph - which many scientists have denounced, and many claim to be proven to be false(I'm not a scientist, hence my usage of claim).

A lot of the movie was sensationalism at its best...

I know the thoughts not complete - but i must run
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Global warming: Greatest deception in the history of science

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB