Climate change - 2 sides to the argument

[veritasvincit]

This is a response from a friend of mine to rebut my post "The Sky is not burning" that refutes the claims that climate change is not "man-made".  The report below claims that people like Mr. Ball and cohorts who refute the claims that climate change is not "man-made" are being paid off by the oil companies.

bottom line is there is no concensus within the scientific community and my thought process tends towards scientific proof.  To quote:

Mr. Jacobs says he suspects that the Kyoto Accord was devised as a tool
by United Nations bureaucrats to push the world towards a world
socialist government under the UN. "You know," he says, "to this day,
there is no scientific proof that human-caused C02 is the main cause of
global warming.

Either way, the zionist bastards win:
1)  if the goyim believe in the man-made climate change theory then, what better tool to use for a world socialist government
2)  if the goyim believe that climate change is natural, the oil powers will continue to make astronomical profits

(Margaret i.e. it has not been proven based on scientific principles,
which would take another 20 years to do. He dare not out right state its
wrong, or he would lose his academic post and then be of no value to big
oil) The literature says you need 50 – 100 years to prove a trend, by
which time we will all be fried!)
 
 
 
Like Dr Akasofu, Dr Maruyama believes the earth has moved into a cooling
period, and *while Japan is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
carbon credits to hedge against global warming, the country's greatest
looming problem is energy shortage, particularly oil.*
 
"Our nation must pay huge amounts of money to buy carbon discharge
rights," he said. "This is not reasonable, but meaningless if global
cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust."
Dr Maruyama said he was uncomfortable, given the scientific uncertainty
of man-made climate-change theory, that Japan had taken a leading
position in the crusade for global greenhouse emission targets.
 
The scientists and two others -- Seita Emori, of the National Institute
of Environmental Studies, and Kiminori Ito, of Yokahama National
University -- contributed to a paper titled *"The scientific truth of
global warming" that was published in January by the Japan Society of
Energy and Resources.*
 
 
 
*And guess who this guy is - a geologist who is funded by guess who –
big oil*
 
 
(Margaret follow the money  and you will find out about the dis-info
campaign) There is a lot to read here – but if you have the patience and
you understand enough science you will see this is all a scam form big
oil and coal who just like the tobacco companies are fighting change.
 

Heartland's extreme anti-environmentalism no doubt spawns from its
supporters. Between 1998 and 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil gave nearly
$800,000 <http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41> to
Heartland. The group's Board of Directors
<http://www.heartland.org/FAQArticle.cfm?faqId=3> also explains the
group's climate change denials:
 
– *Thomas Walton* is the Director of Economic Policy at General Motors
<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10584>.
 
–*James L. Johnston* is a former senior economist for oil company Amoco
Corporation <http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=618>.
 
–*Walter F. Buchholtz* is a former member of Heartland's board of
directors
<http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf>
and worked as ExxonMobil'
<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11307&CFID=36603&CFTOKEN=86619919>s
Senior Issues Advisor.
 
–*James M. Taylor* is editor
<http://www.heartland.org/FellowDetail.cfm?expertId=41> of Heartland's
weekly Environment & Climate News and wrote an op-ed criticizing Gore's
"Assault On Reason" insisting that "global warming threats they should
not be deliberately exaggerated
<http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/010707Alarmist.htm> as a
means of building support for a desired political position."
 
*Borsity -- contributed to a paper titled *"The scientific truth of
global warming" that was published in January by the Japan Society of
Energy and Resources.*
*
 
 
      *Mr. Cool*
 
*Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business*
 
*Winner, 2006 citation from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanograpic
Society*
 
/"This article constitutes an outstanding contribution towards promoting
public awareness of climate change science in Canada."/
 
*--Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society*
 
/(Globe and Mail, Aug. 12, '06)/
 
 
 
On a cloudless morning in June, Tim Ball has joined a hundred-odd
members of the Comox Valley Probus Club for a buffet of coffee, cinnamon
buns and pink lemonade. As this group of retired business people wraps
up its monthly meeting, Prof. Ball surveys the crowd and runs a hand
over his suntanned dome.
 
 
 
He does not appear the least bit fatigued, which is remarkable
considering that the 67-year-old former University of Winnipeg professor
has spent much of the last couple of months crisscrossing the country,
addressing community forums, business groups, newspaper editorial boards
and politicians about climate change. He has been nearly as dogged as Al
Gore, whose own globe-hopping slide show is the subject of the
documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth.
 
 
 
*But that is where the similarity between them ends.*
 
 
 
Prof. Ball clutches a cordless microphone and smiles out at the sea of
white hair. He teases the audience about their age, throws in a hockey
joke, then tells the crowd that, unlike Mr. Gore, he is a climatologist,
and he is not at all panicking about climate change.
 
 
 
"The temperature hasn't gone up," he asserts. "But the mood of the world
has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming."
 
 
 
Over the next hour, Prof. Ball stitches together folksy anecdotes with a
succession of charts, graphs and pictures to form a collage of doubt
about the emerging consensus on climate change. There's a map of Canada
covered in ice 20,000 years ago - proof, he says, that wild swings in
the earth's temperature are perfectly normal. There's a graph suggesting
that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its lowest level in 600 million
years.
 
 
 
Gaining momentum, he declares that Environment Canada and other agencies
fabricated the climate-change scare in order to attract funding for
propaganda and expensive attempts to model climate change using
supercomputers.
 
 
 
"Environment Canada can't even predict the weather!" he bellows. "How
can you tell me that they have any idea what its going to be like 100
years from now if they can't tell me what the weather is going to be
like in four months, or even next week?"
 
 
 
As proof of the climate-change conspiracy, Prof. Ball shows the crowd a
graph with a kinked line jigging across it. This is the famous
"hockey-stick graph" published by Pennsylvania State University
scientist Michael Mann and his team in 1999, which shows temperatures to
be fairly stable for hundreds of years, then rising rapidly in the last
few decades. Al Gore, among many others, uses it to illustrate the case
for global warming.
 
 
 
Prof. Ball claims that the Mann team "cooked the books," and that its
blunders were confirmed just a few days previously, in a report to the
Congress by the U.S. Academies of Science. "He threw out all the data
that didn't fit his hypothesis," Prof. Ball says, without offering
evidence to back the charge. His outrage is now as searing as the
baking-hot sun outside. "I personally think [Mann] should be in jail!"
 
 
 
In fact, Prof. Ball says, the real danger for Canada is not warming, but
cooling: "It's like Y2K," he concludes. "We all just need to calm down."
 
 
 
He is met with raucous applause. It is as though a weight has been
lifted from the audience's collective shoulders: What a relief to learn
that this global crisis, one they keep hearing will bring extreme
weather, submerge small island nations and devastate economies, may be
nothing to worry about.
 
 
 
Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn't published on
climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14
years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by
a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they
aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by
donors from the Alberta oil patch.
 
 
 
*Most Canadians recognize, of course, that fossil-fuel businesses could
lose large sums if the federal government moves to curtail
greenhouse-gas emissions. *
 
*  *
 
*But they may not realize that by quietly backing the movement behind
maverick figures such as Prof. Ball, the fuel industry - with its close
ties to the party that brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power -
is succeeding, bit by bit, in influencing both public opinion and
Canadian policy on global warming, including the international Kyoto
Accord. *
 
 
 
An Ipsos Reid poll released in May found that, despite increasing
scientific evidence to the contrary, four of every 10 Canadians surveyed
still agreed with Prof. Ball's assertion that climate change is due to
natural warming and cooling patterns.
 
 
 
"He is a very entertaining performer, very slick," says Neil Brown, the
Conservative MLA for Calgary-Nose Hill, who attended a presentation
Prof. Ball made to a caucus of provincial Tories in Calgary. "When
someone shows up and tells me that the earth is actually cooling, then
it gets my attention."
 
 
 
 
 
The scientific mainstream is unequivocal that global warming is real,
happening at a rate unprecedented in human history, and most likely
caused mainly by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Last year, the national
academies of science of all the G8 nations, representing most scientists
in the developed world, sent a joint message to their leaders urging
prompt action.
 
 
 
In February, the UN and the World Meteorological Society's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together
more than 2,000 scientists to review tens of thousands of peer-reviewed
papers on climate science, will release its fourth report. The authors
say it will contain a warning that human-caused global warming could
drive the Earth's temperature to levels far higher than previously
predicted.
 
 
 
Andrew Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and
Analysis at the University of Victoria, and a lead author of a chapter
in the upcoming IPCC report. He gives a frustrated sigh at the mention
of Tim Ball's cross-country tour.
 
 
 
"He says stuff that is just plain wrong. But when you are talking to
crowds, when you are talking on TV, there is no challenge, there is no
peer review," Prof. Weaver says.
 
 
 
Like other senior scientists, he charges that Prof. Ball's arguments are
a grab bag of irrelevancies and falsehoods: "Ball says that our climate
models do not [account for the warming effects of] water vapour. That's
absurd. They all do."
 
 
 
Likewise, he says, Prof. Ball's claims that climate change could be
explained by variations in the earth's orbit or by sunspots are
discounted by widely available data.
 
 
 
Many of Prof. Ball's other arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.
Consider the hockey-stick graph: He was right that the U.S. Academies of
Science had delivered a review of climate science to Congress. But their
report concluded that temperatures in the last 25 years really have been
the highest in 400 years. Moreover, the panelists assured reporters that
there was no evidence at all that the Mann team cherry-picked its data -
completely contradicting what Prof. Ball told his audience in Comox.
 
 
 
"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is
about politics."
 
 
 
Leaders throughout Europe have accepted the IPCC position on climate
change, and have been looking for ways to take collective action,
primarily via the Kyoto Accord. Yet North Americans have lagged behind,
hamstrung by a lingering debate in the media and among politicians about
climate science.
 
 
 
*How did this doubt take hold? *
 
 
 
In a now-infamous 2003 memo, U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz
advised Republican politicians to cultivate uncertainty when talking
about climate change: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about
global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come
to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global
warming will change accordingly. Therefore, /you need to continue to
make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate /,"
wrote Mr. Luntz (the italics are his own).
 
 
 
Nurturing doubt about climate-change science has become big business for
public-relations companies and lobbyists south of the border. Between
2000 and 2003, ExxonMobil alone gave more than $8.6-million (U.S.) to
think tanks, consumer groups and policy organizations engaged in
anti-Kyoto messaging, according to the company's own records. Those
groups promote the minority of scientists who still dispute the IPCC
consensus on climate change, creating the appearance of widespread
scientific disagreement.
 
 
 
Mr. Luntz met with Prime Minister Harper in May, but the Conservatives
already had adopted his advice. Mr. Harper was emphasizing that climate
change was but an "emerging science" long before he cancelled an array
of programs designed to promote energy conservation.
 
 
 
Environment Minister and Edmonton-Spruce Grove MP Rona Ambrose, for
example, has talked up the flaws of the Kyoto Accord, while steadfastly
rejecting its modest emission-reduction targets. And on June 30, the
government simply disappeared its main climate-change web site
 
( http://www.climatechange.gc.ca <http://www.climatechange.gc.ca>), which once
contained educational materials for teachers.
 
 
 
However, given the resonance of the climate-change issue with most
Canadians, political leaders can't afford to denounce mainstream science
too loudly. That task has instead been taken up by activists in the
Conservative Party's Alberta heartland.
 
 
 
Over the past four years, a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory
insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals has come
together to manufacture public consent for Canada's withdrawal from
Kyoto. Through a Calgary-based society ironically dubbed the Friends of
Science, they have leveraged Tim Ball and a handful of other "climate
skeptics" onto podiums and editorial pages across the country.
 
 
 
While the federal government stalls, the skeptics preach doubt,
softening the public for a diluted "Made-in-Canada" climate policy.
Prof. Ball admits that when he meets with business leaders and
politicians,he advises them to weigh the high price of action against
more cost-effective "lip service."
 
 
 
These efforts may help delay emissions caps for years. Not bad for a
campaign that began with a bitch session among a clutch of oil-patch
retirees.
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
*"We started out without a nickel, mostly retired geologists,
geophysicists and retired businessmen, all old fogeys," says Albert
Jacobs, a geologist and retired oil-explorations manager, proudly
remembering the first meeting of the Friends of Science Society in the
curling lounge of Calgary's Glencoe Club back in 2002. *
 
 
 
"We all had experience dealing with Kyoto, and we decided that a lot of
it was based on science that was biased, incomplete and politicized."
 
 
 
Mr. Jacobs says he suspects that the Kyoto Accord was devised as a tool
by United Nations bureaucrats to push the world towards a world
socialist government under the UN. "You know," he says, "to this day,
there is no scientific proof that human-caused C02 is the main cause of
global warming."
 
 
 
He managed to insert that last message into the Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists' official statement on climate change in 2003. But
he and his fellow Friends of Science decided that if they wanted to have
broad influence on climate policy, they needed money in order to stage
events, create publicity materials, commercials and a web site, and
reach the media and politicians. Tim Ball spoke at the group's first
fundraiser.
 
 
 
But the event didn't raise enough for the group's ambitious plans. There
was plenty of money for the anti-Kyoto cause in the oil patch, but the
Friends dared not take money directly from energy companies. The optics,
Mr. Jacobs admits, would have been terrible.
 
 
 
This conundrum, he says, was solved by University of Calgary political
scientist Barry Cooper, a well-known associate of Stephen Harper.
 
 
 
As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at
the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged
to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers
charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding
donors' identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money
for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball's travel expenses,
according to Mr. Jacobs.
 
 
 
And who are the donors? No one will say.
 
 
 
"[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says
Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell
you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or
the individuals."
 
 
 
When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, "There
were some oil companies."
 
 
 
The brilliance of the plan is that by going through the foundation and
the university fund, donors get anonymity as well as charitable status
for their donations. In the last two years, the Science Education Fund
has received more than $200,000 in charitable donations through the
Calgary Foundation. Yet its marketing director Kerry Longpré said in
June that she had never heard of the Friends of Science. The foundation,
she said, deals only with the university, which is left to administer
donations as it sees fit.
 
 
 
Prof. Cooper and Mr. Jacobs both affirm that the Science Education Fund
paid the bills for the Friends' anti-Kyoto video, Climate Catastrophe
Cancelled. It features Canada's most vocal climate skeptics, including
Prof. Ball, University of Ottawa hydrologist and paleoclimatologist Ian
Clark, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson and
University of Ottawa lecturer Tad Murty.
 
 
 
It also includes Sallie Baliunas, a senior scientist with the George C.
Marshall Institute in Washington, a fiercely anti-Kyoto think tank which
has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobile.
 
 
 
Roman Cooney, the university's vice-president of external relations,
insists that the Friends of Science is neither affiliated with nor
endorsed by the school. And when he saw the University of Calgary's coat
of arms on early copies of the anti-Kyoto video, Mr. Cooney ordered
Prof. Cooper to remove it.
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
*There is a letter-sized piece of paper bearing the words "Friends of
Science" taped to the wall in Kevin Grandia's Vancouver office.*
 
 From that single sheet, Mr. Grandia has strung a web of string, leading
to the names of individuals, free-market think-tanks, private companies
and charitable foundations. And from them more strings lead, invariably,
to the names of energy corporations.
 
 
 
Mr. Grandia is being paid full time by James Hoggan and Associates, a
public-relations firm, to examine the connections between fossil-fuel
companies, the climate skeptics, and the PR industry itself.
 
 
 
"Follow the money trail," says Mr. Grandia, ball of string in hand. "Why
the hell do all of these lead back to oil and gas?"
 
 
 
Take Fred Singer, a former professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia, who supplied one of the charts for Tim Ball's
slide show. A string leads from Mr. Singer's name straight to
ExxonMobile, which has given his Science and Environment Policy Project
$20,000 (U.S.), according to the oil company's 1998 and 2000 grant records.
 
 
 
Other strings loop from Mr. Singer to Shell, Arco, Unocal, Sun Energy
and the American Gas Association. In a Massachusetts superior court
deposition, he admitted to having consulted for all those companies, as
well as the Global Climate Coalition, whose members in industry spent
tens of millions of dollars to fight the Kyoto Accord in the 1990s.
 
 
 
Mr. Grandia's boss, James Hoggan, chuckles when he sees the wall of
paper and string. Mr. Hoggan, whose clients include Alcan, CP Rail,
Norske Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation, has assigned two of his
19 staffers to this bit of intra-industry tail-chasing. (It is supported
by a donation of $300,000 from former Internet entrepreneur John
Lefebvre, now an environmentalist and philanthropist.)
 
 
 
Mr. Hoggan says he got involved simply because he was angry that his
peers in PR were muddying public understanding of climate science. "For
years there have been these kind of campaigns that are aimed at
manipulating public opinion, and not necessarily manipulating it in the
direction of good public policy, but trying to fight government
regulations that will cost industry money.
 
 
 
"It happened with the tobacco industry. It happened with the chemical
industry. It happened with the asbestos industry. And now it's happening
with climate change," he says.
 
 
 
"It makes me extremely angry. I don't think that the people who are
involved in this should be able to get away with it. My goal is to find
out as much as we can about these people and make it public. Who are
they? Who is paying them? What motivates them? How is it they can sleep
at night?"
 
 
 
Several of Mr. Hoggan's peers show up on Grandia's Friends of Science
spider web. First is Morten Paulsen of the PR giant, Fleishman-Hillard,
who wears three hats. In one, he's a long-time Tory/Reform/Canadian
Alliance activist - the co-chair of the Alberta Conservatives' 2006
convention, and one-time director of communications for Preston Manning.
In another, Mr. Paulsen is the registered lobbyist for ConocoPhillips
Canada, the country's third-largest oil-and-natural-gas production and
exploration company.
 
 
 
Mr. Paulsen also happens to be the registered lobbyist for the Friends
of Science. Indeed, he used to be listed as the main public-relations
contact on the Friends' website. Then, in June, his Tory connections
were revealed on Mr. Grandia's blog (desmogblog.org). Mr. Paulsen's name
no longer appears on the site.
 
 
 
Then there is Tom Harris, Ottawa director of the High Park Group, which
is a   registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association and
the Canadian Gas Association.
 
 
 
Mr. Harris has written several essays attacking Kyoto and the science
behind climate change for the National Post and the CanWest newspaper
chain. In his articles, he quotes several members of the Friends of
Science advisory board - including Profs. Ball, Khandekar, Patterson and
Murty - but he never mentions his own connections to the Calgary
organization.
 
 
 
In 2002, for example, Mr. Harris organized the Friends' first Ottawa
press conference in 2002, and helped make their video, according to Mr.
Jacobs. And as recently as May, he organized a trip to Ottawa for Tim
Ball, paying him $2,000 to give a presentation to federal MPs.
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
*The election of a Conservative government to Ottawa presented a golden
opportunity for the Friends of Science to help reopen the debate on
Kyoto.* By this year, they had circulated thousands of Climate
Catastrophe Cancelled DVDs among politicians and news outlets, ran a
radio ad on stations in Alberta, put up a web site, and jetted Tim Ball
across the country for face time with media, business and politicians.
 
 
 
The climax of the spring campaign was an open letter to Mr. Harper,
printed in the Financial Post and other CanWest chain newspapers on
April 6. The letter, signed by "60 experts in climate and related
scientific disciplines," exhorted the Prime Minister to hold public
consultations on the government's climate-change plan. (Jacobs says the
Friends didn't write the letter, which is featured on the front page of
the society's web site. The society's advisory board and president all
signed it.)
 
 
 
Members of the climate and meteorological science establishment quickly
noted that only a third of the names on the petition were Canadian. Many
of them were economists and geologists, not climate experts. One of
them, Gordon Swaters, a professor of applied mathematics at the
University of Alberta, later said that he disagreed with the letter
completely.
 
 
 
Several of the other signatories had received money from the oil, gas
and coal industries in the U.S. - Patrick Michaels of the University of
Virginia, for example, was handed more than $100,000 for climate skeptic
work by the coal-based Intermountain Rural Electric Association this
July, according to the Associated Press.
 
 
 
  "These people are ignorant. Well-meaning, but just plain ignorant,"
fumed Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society, which represents 800 Canadian atmospheric and
oceanic scientists and professionals.
 
 
 
"The Friends of Science are driven by ideology and some kind of a
misplaced understanding of how the world works. Many are what you would
call paleogeologists. Looking at the geological record, they see
evidence of wild swings in climate. Of course these swings are there: If
you go back hundreds of millions of years, 40-million years, even
400,000 years, you will find wild swings in temperature over long
periods of time. But that's irrelevant. There was hardly any life on
earth, let alone human life, at that time. So their time scale is all
out of whack.
 
 
 
"None of them ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they
would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is
so nonsensical it's hardly worth discussing."
 
 
 
In its own letter to the Prime Minister, the Meteorological and
Oceanographic Society objected to the Friends' complaints about a lack
of debate, pointing out that Canadian climate scientists from
universities, government and the private sector participate actively in
the IPCC's international reviews. The government, it argued, should be
relying on IPCC reports for good scientific information.
 
 
 
But various levels of government have gone on to give Prof. Ball an
audience. This spring he addressed the Alberta Tories in Calgary, as
well as the province's standing policy committee on energy and
sustainable development. On the trip Tom Harris organized for him in
May, he met with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, and gave his slide
show to a half-dozen federal Conservative MPs and a clutch of Tory
staffers. (Prof. Ball is not listed in the federal government's
Lobbyists' Registry.)
 
 
 
He made a particular impression on Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon
Humboldt: "It really broadened the perspective. You know, maybe there is
more uncertainty on [climate change]. Maybe we need to put more research
into this to get a better idea," says Mr. Trost. "Just like the Y2K
problem, we were a little oversold on that one. You sort of wonder. Just
because something is repeated often, it doesn't make it true."
 
 
 
"In public relations," says Mr. Hoggan, "we call this the echo-chamber
technique. You have Tim Ball saying the polar bears are fine. Then you
get Tim Ball's PR guy writing the same thing. And then Tim Ball takes to
the road, talks to reporters and does press briefings, making sure the
message is repeated over and over.
 
 
 
"The effect is to delay public judgment on climate change, and thereby
delay policy."
 
 
 
***
 
 
 
*In his speeches and interviews, Tim Ball consistently denies any
knowledge that he is receiving funds from oil companies. *
 
 
 
"I wish I was being paid by them," he deadpanned at his Comox show.
"Maybe then I could afford their products."
 
 
 
Like Mr. Jacobs, Prof. Ball says he doesn't know, and doesn't want to
know, who forks out the money for his expenses and activism. He simply
wants to talk about the science, and will do so to whomever will listen.
 
 
 
Certainly, climate skepticism isn't exactly making Prof. Ball rich. He
says that although he has earned as much as $5,000 for speeches to
industry groups such as lime producers, he more frequently gives talks
for free.
 
 
 
He is a warm, likable character, and there is no reason to believe he is
not sincere in his concern for science and public policy. He clearly
relishes the spotlight, and seems to grow taller, sharper and brighter
on stage. He punches the air with his microphone, and breaks out into a
broad grin at the crowd's response to his jabs at Environment Canada.
 
 
 
Still, it must take something more than conviction to propel him through
the more than 100 barn-burning speeches he gave across the country in
the past year. He angrily claims that his stance has led to being denied
research funding from Environment Canada, although he admits that he has
not actually applied for federal climate-research funding in more than a
decade.
 
 
 
One old colleague at the University of Winnipeg puts Prof. Ball's
passion down to sheer anti-authoritarianism. "He is a contrarian. He
lives to challenge authority," says the professor of geography, who
would speak only anonymously.
 
 
 
"If the IPCC scientists suddenly recanted," he jokes, "Tim would be the
first one out there saying, 'Wait a minute, global warming really is
happening!' "
 
 
 
Prof. Ball's adversaries admit that skeptical inquiry serves to make the
science better. They just wish he would conduct new research and
practice his skepticism on the pages of the peer-reviewed journals.
 
 
 
For his part, Prof. Ball insists that the reason he lobbies so
tirelessly on the issue is his frustration that the skeptics' arguments
aren't reflected in the pronouncements of scientific institutions like
the IPCC. Perhaps so, but his hard work is helping weaken the power of
such internationally respected institutions.
 
 
 
The proof, for Friends of Science founder Albert Jacobs, is in the policy.
 
 
 
"Our success is very recent, and our success is tied to the Conservative
government," Mr. Jacobs says. "Rona Ambrose, she has been tearing down
that Kyoto building."
 
 
 
The next big challenge, he says, is to reach children. The Friends of
Science is now lobbying to have its message included in the grade-school
curriculum.
 
[

[kolnidre]

What a load of rubbish. The arguments against the climate change (a complete non-starter term introduced because "global warming" was getting questioned so heavily, since no one denies that the climate is always changing) skeptics are straight out of Bernays's book of propaganda. Attack the other side with a label (deniers), and question its motivations are profit related.

Two can play that game. How many academic institutions, government agencies, academic and public programs have been established to prop up the myth of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, "climate change")? There are multiple climate change chairs, corporate climate compliance officers, and government "climate czars." Where are the chairs, grants, departments, and institutes that even give so-called "deniers" an equal voice, let alone reward them? The only one that comes to mind is possibly the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a voice in the wilderness against all of the above forces plus the corporate media.

People love to bash academics like Ball and insinuate that their motives are purely financial, even pointing out connections to oil giants. Yet Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil chief, was threatened last year by the Rockefellers to go along with the man-made global warming line or lose his job. Meanwhile, speaking of profit motives, how about Al Gore's interests in Generation Investment Management (GIM) or Maurice Strong's board position on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where "carbon offsets" are traded?

Goldman Sachs bought 10% of the CCX, whose co-founder is none other than former Goldman CEO and Treasury Dept. chairman Hank Paulson. Goldman has also allotted a billion dollars to carbon asset projects and Morgan Stanley has earmarked US$3 billion.

I could go on and on. For instance, the record shows not that the last 25 years have been the hottest in 400 years, but since the 1930s.

[veritasvincit]

Precisely!

kolnidre said:
What a load of rubbish. The arguments against the climate change (a complete non-starter term introduced because "global warming" was getting questioned so heavily, since no one denies that the climate is always changing) skeptics are straight out of Bernays's book of propaganda. Attack the other side with a label (deniers), and question its motivations are profit related.

Two can play that game. How many academic institutions, government agencies, academic and public programs have been established to prop up the myth of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, "climate change")? There are multiple climate change chairs, corporate climate compliance officers, and government "climate czars." Where are the chairs, grants, departments, and institutes that even give so-called "deniers" an equal voice, let alone reward them? The only one that comes to mind is possibly the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a voice in the wilderness against all of the above forces plus the corporate media.

People love to bash academics like Ball and insinuate that their motives are purely financial, even pointing out connections to oil giants. Yet Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil chief, was threatened last year by the Rockefellers to go along with the man-made global warming line or lose his job. Meanwhile, speaking of profit motives, how about Al Gore's interests in Generation Investment Management (GIM) or Maurice Strong's board position on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), where "carbon offsets" are traded?

Goldman Sachs bought 10% of the CCX, whose co-founder is none other than former Goldman CEO and Treasury Dept. chairman Hank Paulson. Goldman has also allotted a billion dollars to carbon asset projects and Morgan Stanley has earmarked US$3 billion.

I could go on and on. For instance, the record shows not that the last 25 years have been the hottest in 400 years, but since the 1930s.

[kolnidre]

Two can play that game. How many academic institutions, government agencies, academic and public programs have been established to prop up the myth of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, "climate change")? There are multiple climate change chairs, corporate climate compliance officers, and government "climate czars."

To add to the above, I was just reading a book review on amazon.com and one reviewer mentioned he was pursuing a degree in "ecopsychology." How can reality compete when the matrix of money interests and manipulation is set up by the controllerto serve their interests?

Ecopsychology. Give me a fuckin' break!

[veritasvincit]

this report was posted on DBS's site

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.asp ... 88975cbc52

Climate Change: Science Manipulated
Natural causes of global warming are much more significant than manmade changes
By Syun Akasofu, 6/3/2009 2:07:30 PM


1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wants to claim that the global average temperature has unexpectedly and abruptly increased during the 20th century after a gradual cooling from the year 1000, and that this unexpected increase of the temperature is mostly man-made-the greenhouse effect of CO2.

2. For their purpose, the IPCC ignored the fact that the Earth went through a cold period called "the Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800.

3. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 to the present. A recovery from a cold period is warming. It is mostly this warming that is causing the present climate change and it is not man-made. If they admit the existence of the Little Ice Age, they cannot claim that the global average temperature unexpectedly increased from 1900.

3a. In addition to the steady recovery from the Little Ice Age, there are superposed oscillatory changes. The prominent one is called the multi-decadal oscillation.

3b. In fact, most of the temperature change from 1800 to 2008 can be explained by the combination of the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation. If the recovery from the Little Ice Age continues, the predicted temperature rise will be less than 1°C (2°F) by 2100, not 3~6°C.

4. Because the warming began as early as 1800, not after 1946 (when CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly), the Little Ice Age was a sort of unwanted and inconvenient fact for the IPCC. (In their voluminous IPCC report, the Little Ice Age was mentioned casually only once, referring to it as "the so-called Little Ice Age.")

5. There are a large number of observations that the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age from 1800 on, not from 1946 when CO2 is the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. For example:
Receding of glaciers in many part of the world
Receding of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean
Change in freezing/melting dates of northern rivers and lakes

6. There is no firm observational confirmation that CO2 is really responsible for the warming during the last century. It is simply and assumption or hypothesis that the IPCC has presented as a fact.

7. The IPCC claims that supercomputer studies confirm the hypothesis.

8. Supercomputers cannot confirm their hypothesis, since they can simply "tune" their computer programs so as to fit the observations.

9. Although the IPCC predicted that by the year 2100 the temperature will increase 3~6°C, the temperature has stopped increasing after 2000 and shows even a decreasing sign.

10. Thus, their prediction failed even during the first decade of the present century, in spite of the fact that CO2 is still increasing.

11. This means that their CO2 hypothesis and computer programs are shown to be incorrect, proving that the program was tuned.

12. Why? Because they ignored natural causes of climate change, such as the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation.

13. The stopping of the warming is caused by the fact that the multi-decadal oscillation, another natural cause, has overtaken the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

14. In fact, the same thing happened in 1940, and the temperature actually decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that CO2 began to increase rapidly in 1946.

15. It was said at that time that a new ice age was coming even by some of those who now advocate the CO2 hypothesis.

16. If the IPCC could include the physical processes involved in the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, they could have predicted the stopping of the temperature increase.

17. However, they could not program processes for the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the multi-decadal oscillation, because the causes of the Little Ice Age, or the recovery from it, or the multi-decadal oscillation are not known yet. There are many unknown natural changes, including the Big Ice Ages.

18. Thus, the present state of climate change study is still insufficient to make accurate predictions of future temperature changes. Climate change studies should go back to basic science, avoiding interference from special interest groups, including the mass media.

19. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the IPCC manipulated science for its own purpose and brought the premature science of climate change to the international political stage, causing considerable confusion and advancing the completely unnecessary "cap and trade" argument.

20. What is happening now at many climate change conferences is simply an airing of the struggle between the poor countries trying to seize money from the rich countries, using the term "climate change" as an excuse.

21. We should stop convening useless international conferences by bureaucrats and pay much more attention to environmental destructions under global capitalism. There is no reason to alarm the general public with predictions of catastrophic disasters caused by the CO2 effect; and the mass media should stop reporting premature science results.

22. Basically, what is really needed are effective energy saving efforts by all countries.
Footnote: The hockey stick figure, which played the important role in the IPCC report of 2001, has not officially been withdrawn yet, although it has since been found to be erroneous.

Syun Akasofu is with the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Fairbanks, AK

[mobes]

1) if the goyim believe in the man-made climate change theory then, what better tool to use for a world socialist government

True. The goyim are willing to change from their 'old evil ways' if they believe it was man made.

2) if the goyim believe that climate change is natural, the oil powers will continue to make astronomical profits

May I remind you that we are on the verge of an energy shift. Everything is going to be electrical or electronic. Transportation methods included. So in order for the goyim to shout for a change in energy policy, oil companies need to profit heavily once again. The point is, all aspects of life will all be electronic - whether its banking, transportation, home living, entertainment etc.....and the ability for it to be controlled by who?

I need not mention anymore.....