Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
11 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (44 fans)

opednews.com

[I found this scientific gem online yesterday, compliments of Matt Drudge, and felt strongly that it should be shared with the world. In fact, I was so excited about it, I could not help but add a few comments of my own.]



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.

[We learn that Timothy has a Ph.D, or piled high and deep-whoopdeedoo.]

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?

[Some people still to think the earth is flat. We call them idiots.]

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.

["Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide." And Mr. Ph.D has proved that how?]

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?

["I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change." And the reason is??? Do you feel the suspense building like I do?]

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.

[And the point now is? Insert drumroll here.]

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.

[Are you still waiting for the easy explanation? Suspense mounts evermore...]

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.

[New facts emerge, Tim remains stuck in the history books, is the simplest explanation I can see for this.]

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.

[Would that Timothy Ball were one of them!]

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.

[And just what were the libelous statements? And just what was the defense to the libelous statements? I just moved closer to the edge of my chair, in anticipation.]

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?

[And this has what to do with what single fact about global warming?]

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.

[The contradictory nature of the evidence is what I was hoping to hear since paragraph one. Did I maybe read too quickly?]

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.

[Everything I've read about Crichton makes him sound like a shill for Big Oil, and he's been contradicted by many serious scientists. In fact, that why I stopped reading him years ago. However, I'm still dying to hear the surprising detail of the flawed science, as I slide now almost off my chair...]

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.

[Now we know his credentials, but what did you say his arguments were? I'm beginning to think I need new glasses.]

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.

[I thought scientists gathered evidence around which they built theories, and then set out to prove those theories. And that one of the most powerful proofs for the theory, was its predictive power-for example, wilder hurricanes, melting icecaps, crazier weather patterns around the planet, changes in animal behavior, etc., etc. Did you ever read the news, Tim?]

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.

[It would appear that's precisely what you're trying to do, Tom Boy, yes.]

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.

[So let us assume that you just might be wrong, Sir. Shall we risk frying to planet to find out? The burden of proof at this point is clearly on YOU, and you've done nothing I can see but demonstrate your close relation to baboons.]

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.

[Tell us, tell us, tell us! Please, please, please! How are we going to get the secret info out of you? Send you to AbuGhraib? Guantanamo?]

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.

[I could not agree more, Tim: IS IT TRUE there is NO human relation to global warming, when we crank out 50,840,000,000 of CO2 per day worldwide? I would like to know where you've figured out that goes, and tell us in your next treatise. I'm afraid most of us fools think it goes directly from our tailpipes into the air.

I'm afraid you have finished your article and not told us one damn thing, Tim. I suggest you go back to graduate school and start all over again. Oh, wait! I see you wish to give us your credentials first. Thank you ever so much.]

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

[Just one last favor, Tim: Would you change the title to, "My Cold Hard Skull"?]

 

http://www.hyperblimp.com

In my run for U.S. Senate against Utah's Orrin Hatch, I posted many progressive ideas and principles that I internalized over the years. I'm leaving that site up indefinitely, since it describes what I believe most members of our species truly want: (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why have kids?

Living on Sunshine, Underground & Off the Grid.

The Foundation of Religion Fractured, shaky, and exposed

Rocky Anderson: "Not a Snowball's Chance in Hell!"

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 11 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

we should clean up our air, water and soil because... by Mark Petersen on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 6:24:25 AM
'Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nati... by Mark Sashine on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 7:14:45 AM
as we are apparently generating (Adding in/on) abo... by Mr. Robin Parsons on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 9:53:48 AM
I think that Geery misses Ball's argument. The ar... by Dennis on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 12:25:42 PM
If this was Dr. Ball's argument, I confess I misse... by Daniel Geery on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 1:59:25 PM
"from increased CO2 use" There is NO precedent in ... by Mr. Robin Parsons on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 7:47:56 PM
"It appears I'll witness another cycle before reti... by johndoraemi on Wednesday, Feb 7, 2007 at 5:36:25 PM
If you would like to know something about solar su... by Mr. Robin Parsons on Friday, Feb 9, 2007 at 6:57:06 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen and anyone else, Please do... by Alex James on Friday, Feb 9, 2007 at 9:56:09 AM
according to Buckminister Fuller, who calculated h... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Feb 9, 2007 at 10:39:14 AM
Thanks Daniel for your reply. You refer to the po... by Dennis on Sunday, Feb 11, 2007 at 4:27:51 PM