Canadian Scientist: Global Warming Is Bunk

Thought all Canadians were warm, fuzzy, Kyoto Protocol socialists (a Canadian, after all, instigated the Kyoto Protocol process)? Not so. Just ask AB Freedom. Or, ask this scientist:

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. In Monday's digital version of the Canada Free Press he writes that "Global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide."

Go here to read his article.

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.

Dr. Ball then goes 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.

He then writes about the reasons the Global Warming Pimps (as I so adroitly term them) rule the day:

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.

Here's the real issue at hand, which Dr. Ball readily addresses:

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.

A small interjection here: I am not scientist nor proclaim to be a Global Warming scholar. But I am intelligent enough to question the issue when I read and understand the sources of the GW hate and discontent. As Dr. Ball indicates, when SCIENTISTS cannot find it within themselves to do nothing but trod the politically correct line, then I must question most everything relating to the "science" of Global Warming.

Some more "insight" into the political efforts: the Calgary Herald wrote that Minister of the Environment of Canada, Christine Stewart, said: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

"Justice and equality." Translated: the Socialist redistribution of wealth and the collapse of Western Civilizations, or "okay, so even if we're full of crap it's all about pushing through our political agendas anyway, and Science and Truth be damned."

Patrick Moore, the man who essentially started Green Peace in 1977 and now fronts Greenspirit, said "The Amazon is actually the least endangered forest in the world." Moore continued: "This is where I really have a problem with modern-day environmentalism. It confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric. The fact of the matter is: There is a larger percentage of the Amazon rain forest intact than there are most other forests in this world."

Other interesting quotes:

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

-- Petr Chylek(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia), commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

-- Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction), in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999.

"Every scientist" subscribes to Global Warming? Go to http://www.oism.org for a petition signed by blocks of scientists questioning the science behind GW. Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

Also: the IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate:

The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

So am I doing my best to DISPROVE Global Warming? Not necessarily; what I am indicating is that the statistics and information we have gathered evidently proves that weather patterns are changing. But that's about all we can yet apparently prove.

But be leery when you hear or read of people speaking of "Global Warming" in terms of concretes and absolutes.

Where there is money there is agenda. And vice versa.

BZ