A Skeptic's Take on Global Warming ...(the “greatest deception in the history of science.”)

Human Events ^ | 02/14/2007 | Bill Steigerwald

[IrishMike]

Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”

Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is “very likely” that global warming is the result of human activity.

The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

Timothy Ball: No. It’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

[Popocatapetl]

Something never mentioned in the global warming debate, but should be: Because of the concern over global warming, scientists have at least discovered some of the "weak points" in the Earth's system of temperature balance. But what has not be addressed are the positive ways, through technology, we might be able to *correct* some of these "weak points", if we observe them changing. For example, some of the Earth's deep undersea cold tidal currents are directly responsible for the formation of significant weather patterns, like el Nino. But just the change of a few degrees in temperature could cause this system to break down, resulting in some pretty nasty side effects. Though it sounds bizarre, we could lay pipe deep in the ocean that would act as a huge cooling system, to try and reduce the temperature of this current by a degree or two. It would literally be like laying a thick pipe under water, over the width of a river, and cooling the average temperature of the water past that point by a degree or two. Not entirely ridiculous, just making a slight, marginal change to an existing system, that makes all the difference in the world.

[Publius6961]

Sorry, I don't think so.

Human arrogance in the extreme, by the marginally intellectually functional.
It might make a nice movie, though, like earthquakes in New York, volcanoes in Los Angeles and an earth popsicle over a period of a few days.

My favorite is still The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes...

[CGVet58]

bttt

[Popocatapetl]

Well, despite your rejoinder, I am a firm believer that technology can be carefully applied to achieve all sorts of improbable wonders--if you can apply them to the "linchpin" of a system--and then only to change a "marginal" situation.

And, this does not imply that the change would be for the better, only that it could be done.

By far, the most powerful technological tool that we have are "biologicals", specifically microorganisms. For example, a plankton bloom can warm ocean surface temperature over a wide area by a degree or two. Inconsequential you might think, except that such a temperature increase could increase the strength of a hurricane by two categories strengths. And yet, in turn, hurricanes significantly lower ocean temperatures.

An example of a "marginal" need is the ozone hole. In and of itself it is less a problem than the marginal increase in its size. So the problem is not patching the entire hole, just slightly reducing it. Theoretically, this could be done by taking several tons of frozen ozone up to altitude and releasing it along the edge of the hole.

Since even at its densest point in the ozone layer, ozone only exists in a few parts per million, several tons of liquid ozone would "patch" a large cubic area at the edge of the hole. Relatively easy and cheap, and maybe saving several hundred or thousand people in the northern latitudes skin cancer every year.

One of the most successful environmental restoration projects ever cost only a few hundred dollars and took half a dozen men to accomplish.

The slender area of coastline around the continents and islands has what is called "arable ocean", where most of the sea creatures live. Because of several factors, most of the arable ocean of the West coast had been depleted of life.

This small group of skin divers got empty bleach bottles, tied a weight to them, then put a piece of giant sea kelp in each before laying them off the coast. They grow very rapidly and soon created kelp beds, which just as soon were heavily populated with sea creatures.

Which goes back to my original hypothesis about technology changing the linchpin of a situation to effect marginal change that matters.

[secretagent]

The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down.

Tim Ball misleads the audience, I think. 1998 spiked above the trend line, but that doesn't negate the trend line:

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/cru_2005.gif

[VOA]

bump

[Nathan Zachary]

"This clown is a lot more dangerous than Al Gore and has been doing his "schtick" a lot longer."

You're right. But don't pass Al Gore off as mere simpleton in the grand scheme of things either. Gore has been associated with this marxist global government nut for a very long time, and knows very well what Maurice Strong is all about.

There are a lot of people in both the Republican and Democrat parties who are members of his global world government agenda. That's why it is so hard to derail this Global Warming frieght train. It's more than just mere global warming. That's just a cover.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Something never mentioned in the global warming debate, but should be: Because of the concern over global warming, scientists have at least discovered some of the "weak points" in the Earth's system of temperature balance. But what has not be addressed are the positive ways, through technology, we might be able to *correct* some of these "weak points", if we observe them changing."

We have no need to "correct" anything, even if we could. It's absolutely ridiculous to think mere mankind, insignificant as a bunny turd in a forest, could control the forces of nature. We have no control, and we never will, nor is there a need to. Global warming, IF it happens shouldn't even be thought of as a bad thing. In fact, it would be a BETTER thing, and may RESTORE the world to a condition which was much more pleasant before a massive and sudden global cooling event, which still influences our climate today changed things. There is plenty of evidence that our polar ice caps never existed, that the entire world was a lush tropical paradise, it never rained, but rather, it fogged. There were no such things as thunder storms and lightning. There was much more moisture in the atmosphere than there is today, which made the entire earth more like a giant terrarium which never got too hot or too cool. People lived much longer because there was more protection from cosmic radiation than there is now.

[secretagent]

Just learned the HTML to post an image:

[Chena]

bttt

[secretagent]

[Nathan Zachary]

Just wait till they put this years global cooling spike on that chart. It will be off the chart. It's been on average 10-15 degrees below "normal"

[secretagent]

Source?

A variation of 10 degrees in one year would drop off the chart!

[Mr.Unique]

This can't be true. I watch TV and they told me that ALL scientists say there is global warming. Even the one on Cavuto's show today who didn't realize that correlation isn't causation.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[aruanan]

i would say the greatest deception would be darwin and his "theory"

Don't forget the biogenic origin of petroleum and coal.

[Popocatapetl]

I gave an example of correcting a marginal problem, with the creation of kelp beds along the West coast. In was a man-made problem, and it was a man-made solution. It was no more unnatural than a farmer using fertilizer to get better crops.

Another potential problem that we could eventually do something about are the vast undersea deposits of methane ice.

Only the cold temperature of the ocean and the intense pressure keep them as ice, instead of gas. And indications were that in past, some of them did "detonate" in a mass conversion, belching vast amounts of methane into Earth's atmosphere, with very detrimental effects on a worldwide scale.

So what is the great thing we could do? Mine it for fuel. So that instead of it blowing up all at once, we get energy with some waste CO2 and water. Difficult, but not impossible, and stopping what could be a horrific disaster.

You see, there is a basic philosophical difference between where the global warming religion people are coming from, and where I am coming from.

Consistently, since the 1960s, they have been convinced, and have *always* been wrong, that the world was going to have less, that people would have to do less, lower their expectations, and live with declining standards and prosperity.

I take just the opposite tack, that people are very creative, especially where it benefits them. They anticipate and accomplish more, the expect better results, they are always on the lookout for new and better things and ways of doing things, and they tend to ignore obstacles in their path.

And while I agree that there are many things not conceivably in man's power to do, there are many things that we can do, that fit my criteria.

1) We must develop a rational means.
2) We use it in a "linchpin" situation, that affects the entire situation. Much like leverage. And,
3) We use it in a "marginal" situation. To correct a "marginal" imbalance.

By doing this we do not set our sights too high, and we can actually tell if what we do is working or not. If you can measure change based on your actions, then you know it is your actions, not some other factor, making the change.

[BIGLOOK]

Aloha George,

Heard Tim Ball on Dateline Washington (a very good news item radio program) and he came of very strong and very perplexed by the whole global warming political agenda and its negative effects on the scientific community.

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. Source: Canada Free Press (2007)

5 November, 2004

Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling. Source: Frontier Center for Public Policy website (2004)

5 February, 2007

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.
Source: Canada Free Press (2007) 5 February, 2007

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.

Source: Canada Free Press (2007)

I've heard other climatologists and scientists that study ice flow in the arctic for data pertinent to navigation and commerce that deny and debunk the global warming theory since the data provided by its adherents has been cherry picked.

[george76]

Thanks for the response. I found this useful.

Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated “fact” that humans are contributing to global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of science.”

Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol “is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."

Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is “very likely” that global warming is the result of human activity...

The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?

Timothy Ball: No. It’s absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

Why should we be leery of the IPCC’s report -- or the summary of the report?

Ball: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19409

[BIGLOOK]

I heard that a viewing of the Inconvenient Truth was postponed today due to inclement weather....as was the the debate in congress for the same reason.

A snow day for the Global Warming crowd? They're not only foolish in their notions but foolish in their planning.

Puxatawny Phil has more credibility.