Stick it, Al

Ladies and gentleman, have you just had just about enough of all the global whining about global warming. How we are evil and causing the wholesale destruction of our planet? Are you tired of Al Gore and the other environmentalist wackos? Well read the article below. It’s not written by an actor or by a mediocre (and failed) presidential candidate with a lisp; it’s written by a — gasp! — Ph.D. climatologist. Read it and breathe in a big gulp of common sense.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at

14 thoughts on “Stick it, Al”

  1. gracias val,ya mande el link este a un “global warming psycopath”’ver si abre los ojos..o deja que se le “congelen”…

  2. But it does not matter. Because it is really about “feeling good” and power. After WWII, people were told that they had to give up personal choice to the government, because the world had gotten so complex that only “the plan” could provide for their needs.

    When that was shown to be false, it was the idea of “limits on growth” and “the population bomb”.

    Now that that has been shown to be false, it is global warming.

    One thing I have noted (and I am not a total skeptic, I do believe part of the reason for the increase in temperatures is manmade) is that the term “global warming” seems to have fallen out of favor — now it is “climate change”. I believe the reason for this is that if the worst predictions do not come true, they will not have to go through much in the way of verbal gymnastics in their next call.

  3. Most of what’s put out to the public (i.e. Gore’s tripe) is tripe. But the reality is that we are in a cycle of Global Warming. There is no denying that. It is also a fact that we’ve contributed in part to it. But Kyoto is not the answer. That would have had countries like the US, Canada, and others spend gazzillions of dollars and turning industry on its head while China and other countries of similar ilk, get a pass.

    An interesting editorial today on the issue in the WSJ.

    Frankly, what we should be doing is goin nuclear; set up breeder reactors like the frogs in France do (reusable cleaner nuclear energy); this would make us less dependent on fossil fuels; and it produces cleaner byproducts (steam rather than CO2 or SO2 and all the other crap that gets belched into the atmosphere).

  4. actually, mike, whether we contributed to it or not is really up for debate. The vast majority of pollution was released pre 1980 (thanks to the EPA) and they thought then that CO2 emissions were leading us to a global cooling….

    but i do agree with you about nuclear power.

  5. There is a rumor going around that if Methane Al the Gas Bag were to be punctured, one would find Chicken Little inside.

  6. Daniel,

    LOL 🙂 thanks for the laugh … although you may not be aware that the actual results of the Scientific Method proving the Global Warming” theory are carefully guarded and kept in Gore’s “lockbox”!

    I wish you well 🙂 Melek

    “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” Chesterton

  7. Sometimes that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness is a spurned prophet. Other times, it is the village idiot who has gotten lost in the woods again. Mr. Ball may be one or the other. I’m not sure there is enough scientific evidence yet to really know where this global warming thing is headed.

    One thing is certain, we should be as informed as possible on this.

  8. You know, today I was wishing global warming were real. I woke up to 5 degree weather- and I’m not in Antartica, just central Pennsylvania.

    So Al, BRING IT ON.


  9. If all these global warming fanatics were sincere, they would welcome an open debate. Since they use the same tactics that commies use against their enemies;I must question their motives and believe that there is much more (or maybe less) to this than they want the public to know.

    I agree with LittleGator, we need much more information.

    Anything that windbag Al says should be questioned.

  10. Hey, if you look at the temperature map right now, how about pouring a little of that global warming on my mug? There’s nothing like feeling hot-hot-hot in the middle of sub-zero readings…

    From my days at the feet of so-called illustrious environmental science teachers at UM, I learned one thing: ELLOS TAMPOCO SABEN nada, there is a lot of conjecture, and an equal volume of theories floating around that have not been proven. So …. I’m careful with the junk science.

    Speaking of which, Mark Steyn had a great piece on it this weekend, well worth it (at

  11. >>”One thing is certain, we should be as informed as possible on this.”
    Yes, I think that’s what Dr. Ball is saying too. He stated that scientists hadn’t even applied any science to the theory before it became the new hysteria. If that’s the case, what kind of info are we non-scientists actually being subjected to? Stuff like this:
    pollution = bad vs. pollution clouds blocking sunlight keeping earth cool
    trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen = good vs. trees also emit methane, a greenhouse gas = bad
    and the latest
    warming melts polar bear environment = endangered bears vs. warming means more seals for polar bears to eat = booming bear population

    How’s anyone supposed to form a consensus based on “facts” like that?

Comments are closed.