E-Buzz

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

global warming, NASA, map, globe

Annual average global warming by the year 2060. Courtesy of NASA.


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. '
By Citizen Correspondent Timothy Ball
Date Posted: 05/28/06
Reader Rating: rating

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.

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.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 next








Tags:

Comments

I am in total agrrement with

By Goose Egg, May 21, 2007 at 14:51

I am in total agrrement with the comment of Vince Jones about the author, who I think has made himself a laughing stock by putting his strange views on the subject.

In view of the seriousness of the effects of Global Warming, which is proved beyond doubt as being caused by rampant human destruction of natural resources of this planet, the administrator of this site should remove such unfounded articles from this post.

The following comment "In

By larsmith, July 13, 2007 at 16:32

The following comment "In view of the seriousness of the effects of Global Warming, which is proved beyond doubt as being caused by rampant human destruction of natural resources of this planet ... " is laughable.

It might be said, in all honesty, that "the effects of Global Warming which have been often repeated as being proven beyond all reasonable doubt ... " not it has NOT been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

There's an old saying that goes something like if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

This lie has been echo'd around the world so often and our public school children have been brain washed with it for so long that now we have a large percentage of our respective culture's population believing it, in spite of the evidence to the evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to the contrary is either squashed, suppressed or ridiculed in the media and among many liberal factions of our respective cultures.

There's plenty of evidence in the fossil record that things have, in the past, been a LOT hotter than they are today. There's also evidence in those records that the earth has been many degrees COLDER than we endure today.

Global dramatic temperature swings are nothing new to this world.

If you believe in evolution, then you have to believe that this earth was once a molten mess, that it was once densely covered with very humid rain forests, that it was at other times covered, in large portions by glaciers.

If evolution is true, then this earth has seen ... AND survived ... far greater climatic changes than has been "proven" to be "taking place" globally today.

Evolution is a lie with which children internationally have been brainwashed for years. The latest cry is that man is the one ( excuse the expression ) who is single-handedly effecting, global warming.

Instead of simply and blindly repeating that mantra, why not do some actual research. Study the impact that simple things like volcanoes have had on global warming. If you're half-way responsible, half-way competent and even marginally interested in the truth, then take a chance that the load that you're being fed by the media ( and Hollywood in general ) and the load you've been fed in public school is a lie ( rather a web of lies ) re: global warming ( and, yes, evolution ) and discover for yourself the impact that volcano emissions alone have had on global warming. You will find that Mother Nature has contributed FAR more to global warming than has man in all of the industrialized era(s) internationally !! You'll find that volcanoes are not Mother Nature's only way of impacting global temperature changes and you'll discover that recent years are not the only years in which drought & famine has swept across continents.

Yes, mankind has been and too often is selfish in its use of the land and careless ( at best ) in polluting both land and water ... but man is not even nearly the major contributor in global warming. Mother Nature is the culprit and is unstoppable by man's insignificant efforts.

You do bring up a few points

By Seth God of Chaos, September 24, 2007 at 18:38

You do bring up a few points worth touching on Allan, but your arguments ring hollow.

The facts are that while the Earth has been literally to Hell (molten geysers everywhere) and back, this is not really conducive for the survival of humanity.

I wouldn't wanna hop into a tub of lava, I'm not sure about you. Likewise, I wouldn't enjoy being ground under a multi-thousand ton glacial front.

My point is this, we exist in a VERY small window of climatic conditions. The majority of the surface that we inhabit falls within a temperature range that any geologist would tell you is quite narrow. Extremes we inhabit skew this, but you really won't see Antarctic researchers trying to exist outside in the elements 24/7.

THEREFORE, any deviation that proves to be faster than the normal background rate is highly suspect, especially due to our proclivity with burning carbon-bearing fuels.

I am by no means an expert on this, but every single reputable and peer-reviewed text currently coming out acknowledges this increase of the warming trend. This INCREASE (very different than background warming) is at a rate unseen for the past ten thousand years from core sampling. It is nigh impossible to explain apart from human interactions. No historical geological record that we have knowledge of shows a rate approaching the current rate of planetary warming.

What this means as far as implications is this: we don't know. We have no clue what an unprecedented shift in global warming rates will do to the Earth. We know it has been colder and much hotter, yes. But the real fear lies in our inability to account for the effects of this increasing rate in climatic modeling.

As Mr. Tim so eloquently states, if your hypothesis is not supported, you must reject it.

Did you notice that nowhere in the article did he mention if CO2 was ever actually proven to be a Greenhouse Gas? Only that it was "accepted before testing". A truly skeptical mind has only one way to read that; as being so blatantly obvious that to think otherwise is irrational.

As to the Earth being flat, Dr. Tim, why all we'd have to do is show you the space photographs proving it's not. Just like all we have to do is show you CO2's ability to trap insolation within the planetary atmosphere.

Put the nail in this coffin, please.

There's extensive blogging

By motmot, February 7, 2007 at 03:57

There's extensive blogging on Tim Ball's claims at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/timball/, including the recent lawsuit about his right to call himself "the first climatology PhD in Canada". For climate science debate that actually reflects the state of scientific knowledge, see realclimate.org.

Amazing, I don't even know

By Joe Whitchurch, February 7, 2007 at 16:43

Amazing, I don't even know this Timothy but I know political correctness and coercive power used to silence honest questions. A lawsuit because someone thought they were the first Pd.D. in climatology in Canada, now that is the sort of thing a law suit should be all about. And it doesn't matter in a suit who wins, only who has the deepest pockets to keep it going appeal after appeal. It is like certain law suit happy cults. They don't like their critics but why debate, just bankrupt them. Amazing. It was nice to get these web pages because they are so good at giving both sides. LOL. Amazing. Not surprising.

Carl seems to make Timothy's

By Joe Whitchurch, February 6, 2007 at 09:47

Carl seems to make Timothy's point in two ways. First by overstating Timothy's point which was that if global global warming is happening (not that it isn't happening) it is not likely caused by man. Carl says it will take too long to get the good data to make the point, but by then it will be too late!!!

Vince makes Timothy's point about the mean spiritedness of questioning prevailing orthodoxies of science, especially government, well-funded science. Two examples from Vince include his attempts at guilt by association. Apparently a blog that quotes Timothy was once (over three years ago) given grant money (30g) by Exxon! And Tim is a friend of Amy!!! LOL.

Then there's this goodie an all in one sentence, "Dr. Ball's .. name .. using .. noise .. platform." Well we wouldn't want a name like Timothy or to be quoting people who are just looking for a platform and make a lot of noise such! LOL.

And then there's the matter of degrading the number with the word 'few' (is that 3 or more or how much more and how does this compare in his field) about peer review papers. Good thing this isn't about Intelligent Design or even if he had peer review papers published, the judge and court could just say, 'nope, none here.' Who cares about Mount Saint Helen versus automobiles when such a fun, PC, circus of blog banter is afoot. (-:

For those of you wishing to

By Mance, August 11, 2006 at 09:54

For those of you wishing to read further about the academic credentials and motivation of Tim Ball, take a look at Desmogblog that suggests his "extensive background" is limited to a few peer reviewed papers in topics with questionable relevance to the physical causes of climate change.

Of other note is Tim Ball's realtionship with conservative activist Amy Ridenour's Envirotruth.org web site, which seeks to expose the 'distorted facts' on PVC, Genetially engineered food, and Perchlorate. Sourcewatch reveal that ExxonMobil funded the Envirotruth web site to the tune of $30,000 in 2003.

A search on climate change and Dr Ball's name reveal the amount of 'noise' he is trying to create on the web and in the media, using sites such as Orato as his platform.

This article really picked

By Carl, July 28, 2006 at 09:24

This article really picked my curiosity. I can't believe that Timothy Bull considers that all experts suggesting that a Global Warming is at the door are wrong. What it is particularly shocking is that he gives very few arguments for his thesis aside of his Ph.D., his name, reputation, experience...

Since I've red quite a lot about this subject, I was surprised by his opinion. I'm totally convinced that filling up the atmosphere with so much carbon dioxide (the problem is the rapidity of this phenomenon, not so much its simple occurrence) and other greenhouse gazes that are aside natural sources will have a consequence, difficult to predict, but that should be avoided.

Because the atmosphere has such a huge inertia, being huge and complex since it is implicating hundreds of elements and factors in interactions. Thus, waiting to act about greenhouse gazes is completely irresponsible because clear demonstration of global warming will take decades and decades from now as to get data for a sufficiently long period. Then, when this demonstration will be done, we will be decades too late to do anything that could limit further warming. We are already quite late to act in fact!!!

That would be great if Orato could find an expert truly recognized in that field that could write a text about this, giving scientifically based and recognized results that demonstrate the existing Global Warming.

Hottest Stories

Editor's Picks

I Wanted To Be Britain's Next Top Model

By Citizen Correspondent Rachael Cairns
I had a wicked time on Britain's Next Top Model. I was so lucky to get to the final... Full Story »