Monday, February 5, 2007

A "climate-change denier" speaks out

Dr. Timothy Ball, a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor on the supposed human contribution to climate change. (HT: Drudge Report)

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.

[..] 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.

[..] 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.
Read the whole article here.


Mike said...

Boy oh boy, it seems like every time you turn around these days, there's another of these *********-deniers spreading falsehoods based on their Neo-**** ideology.

Former Londoner said...

And of course if you dig a little deeper you will find that he has connections to Big Oil, just like every other climate change denier.

I have seen the charts. There are never more than 3 degrees of separation between any one of them and Big Oil. In fact, there are probably no more than 3 degrees of separation between anyone and Big Oil, even David Suzuki.

Everyone has connections to Big Oil if you dig deep enough. No one can be trusted.

s]Blank]57 said...

this doesn't sound like a climate change "denier" to me in fact he seems to indicate that the climate does change in "cycles" unless I'm just to "stupid" to understand.
I don't have a phd but I did hear a news bit on tv yesterday that said " the coldest day in recorded history" was reached in Montreal PQ on Feruary 06, 2006.

s]Blank]57 said...

I still can't find any news story about this coldest recorded Montreal which I heard on the news yesterday as I walked by the tv.
The date I used above should be 2007 not 2006.

Anonymous said...

His connections to big oil are obvious - the Friends of Science are a nice Calgary-based oil charade.

Yes the climate will always change, it's the degree at which it's changing that is the issue. With time, species have opportunities to adapt, without it they die.

I also enjoyed Ball's assessment of CFC's not being a problem - "it's the sun."

I find it interesting that cutting CFC use may have actually caused the hole in the ozone layer to shrink, while at the sametime Ball and his crew think the sun is continuing to heat things up and make things worse.

Please stick with a theme that works.

Or better yet, prove to me that your energy-use and tranportation uses do not result in greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases do not cause heating in the atmosphere.

MapMaster said...

prove to me that … greenhouse gases do not cause heating in the atmosphere.

Prove to me that you can predict their impact, that they are the deciding and for all intents and purposes the only variable, that warming does not precede increased concentrations instead of the other way around, and that compensatory effects do not or cannot prevail. I think rather that the burden of proof is on you for making new claims.

Anonymous said...

Many commenters say that the author is connected with Big Oil, which is why he is denying global warming. Well, anyone (and everyone) that drives or rides in a motorized, petroleum-based vehicle is "connected" to Big Oil.