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
Another cry in the wilderness 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 skillfully 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 skeptic, 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
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 publicized 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 (www.nrsp.com),
is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the
University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at email@example.com
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the
Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according
to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the
sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be
affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago
and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such
as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it
was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20
years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather
patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012.
Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per
cent from 1990 levels.
Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records
were first collated in 1860.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to
the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a
brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured
magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to
intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a
dearth of sunspots signaled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but
that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew
steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during
an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest
recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a
particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the
magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10
levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long
this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been
enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more
intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the
climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society,
welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun
cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years
or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further
research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on
the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's
climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number
of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had
continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved
in climate change", he said.
Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's
findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential
climate change factors.
"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be
looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate
aerosols and volcano activity," he said.
The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global
warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of
it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that
the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of
the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which
release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas
- into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global
warming: I say this ispoppycock."
Subject: Global warming
Date: Sat, February 17, 2007
Dr. Tim Ball retired Climatoligist has said for years that global warming
is nonsence. He used the Hudson Bay Company records for 400 yrs. to do his work Something he mentioned in that is that Samuel Hearn grew barley in Churchill Manitoba, Canada.
That is certainly not an option now. Dr Ball is a very interesting man who has
researched this topic at length. He still gives lectures. He taught at University
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.