Scientists Agree - We are Ruining the World

[Quasar1011]

Canada's top climatologist went on record (Feb. 5th) to say he doesn't believe mankind is to blame for global warming. Here's a link to the article:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

To whet your appetite, here are the first few paragraphs...

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.

 

[Narz]

I skimmed the whole thing and he doesn't present a shred of evidence for his case (he just talks about how everyone else is wrong).

 

[batteryacid]

From his article:

The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise.

So it is apparently only an assumption that CO2 absorps Infrared Radiation ???

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 he IS payed by an oil company

So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Yeah, Greenpeace throws money around- the money Greenpeace can pay scientists is really laughable compared to industry.
And I guess explaining to the voters that energy costs will rise or that they should cut oil and gas consumption really wins you an election

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.

So physical modelling of the albedo of earth is apparently not good enough for him.

The whole thing smells like if someone wanted desperately get an easy interview in some economist journal.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All he sais is: "Global Warming isn't real" and then spends the entire article talking about himself. And used "I" 21 times.

Now I wonder, what (or rather who) is the subject of the article?

example:

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.

"I'm so great, but no one listens to me." The martyr syndrome combined with inflated ego syndrome.

Talk science scientist.

 

[MrCynical]

For an article entitled "The Cold, Hard Facts", it's singularly lacking in any. No evidence, studies, or indeed any hard facts are presented; merely the statement that global warming does not exist. The vast majority is taken up by stating his own credentials (going far into unnecessary ego massaging), and a fairly random assortment of people who share his view. Frankly I don't have a lot of patience for anyone who claims to be dealing in facts, and then drags things like Michael Crichton's fictional book into the debate.

 

[brennan]

So he's an oil company stooge with no facts to show us? Pardon me for not being convinced.

 

[El_Machinae]

His credentials are pretty good; a professor is a professor. He's harmed, credibility-wise, for being paid off by people who think in terms of fiscal quarters.

http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html

Here's a quick list of his publications; I'm currently watching one of the videos. A lot of his articles point out that global warming would be good for Canada.

Except for the prairies and displacement, this would be true - maybe. People's main concern regarding global warming would be the massive displacement and infrastructure changes throughout the world. I think London is predicted to be affected; meaning that money will have to pour into it to prevent damages - money better spent on progress instead of treading water.

 

[Bast]

His credentials are pretty good; a professor is a professor. He's harmed, credibility-wise, for being paid off by people who think in terms of fiscal quarters.

http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html

Here's a quick list of his publications; I'm currently watching one of the videos. A lot of his articles point out that global warming would be good for Canada.

Except for the prairies and displacement, this would be true - maybe. People's main concern regarding global warming would be the massive displacement and infrastructure changes throughout the world. I think London is predicted to be affected; meaning that money will have to pour into it to prevent damages - money better spent on progress instead of treading water.

Russians are apparently saying that they'd be better off with Global warming. I'd just laugh so hard if freak snow storms hit the country and kill off so many people. But hopefully the neo-nazis that are raging there right now.

 

[History_Buff]

I think I am starting to see why people think it's a problem and why people see government regs as a solution. Without rules from above, it's generally cheaper to NOT control emmissions and other pollution since you are effectively transferring the costs from the polluting company to society.

This is exactly it. It's called an externality in economic terms. By simply emitting into the air, they do not pay the cost they inflict on society (in the form of global warming, air pollution, acid rain, etc.). That's why you need a government intervention to make sure those costs are represented.

The original capitalistic theory said that people would avoid this, in order to ensure the well being of their offspring. But that hasn't happened, and never will. Keynes summed it up with "In the long run, everybody's dead." What he was saying is that people think in the short term, and so without outside intervention, the market will never correct itself to account for externalities like these.

Russians are apparently saying that they'd be better off with Global warming. I'd just laugh so hard if freak snow storms hit the country and kill off so many people. But hopefully the neo-nazis that are raging there right now.

That is the reality of climate change. There will be winners, and there will be losers. And I've often heard that the most northern countries (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia) will probably be the winners in that sentence.

 

[Masquerouge]

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.

I guess I'm not listening to you because when it comes to subjects that I have no expertise in, I'd rather trust the majority of experts over a lone maverick like you?

 

[BasketCase]

Cobblers throughout.

The US has made NO binding commitments to addressing climate change.

What VRCW said. Yes, the United States HAS made binding commitments to addressing climate change. Some of the programs I listed are, in fact, binding law.


What I'm seeing here is the same thing I saw ********s doing when I was in college: "one rape is too many". The universal escape clause. 100% guaranteed. Set an impossible standard for your opponent.

The United States, and indeed many nations, are taking decisive action to combat global warming. But it's not enough for the radicals. And it never will be enough for the radicals.


A while back in this thread, somebody called me arrogant and cynical. You know what, I need to get this off my chest:

I am arrogant and cynical. And I'm also right.

If humans can be dumb enough to keep Bush in office for eight years, then you're going to have to agree there's no really practical limits to what humans are capable of. And the fact is that most humans are willing to screw other people to some degree in order to make life more comfy for themselves. Two feet to my left is a piece of an innocent cow that never hurt me in its life; I killed it (and a pig and a couple of avocados) so I could have a guacamole bacon cheeseburger for dinner.

The truth is that most humans, at the very same time they're pointing fingers at the U.S. for global warming, are trying to catch up to the U.S. themselves. And most people are willing to shrink the global pie if it means they get a bigger piece of that smaller pie.

 

[Quasar1011]

And if you disagree that humans are causing global warming, you can get fired, or at least have your job reclassified.

Oregon Governor vs. climatologist

 

[bigfatron]

What VRCW said. Yes, the United States HAS made binding commitments to addressing climate change. Some of the programs I listed are, in fact, binding law.

The programmes you listed addressed polution - there are many forms of pollution (lead, particulate, etc etc) of which only a sub-set relate to climate change. The Clean Rivers Act is a great piece of legislation, no doubt, but pretty much irrelevant to climate change. I'd be interested to see what binding commitments the Federal US has made to reducing carbon emissions, which is what we are talking about - can you link to one?

What I'm seeing here is the same thing I saw ********s doing when I was in college: "one rape is too many". The universal escape clause. 100% guaranteed. Set an impossible standard for your opponent.

bullfeathers - what you are seeing is people asking the US to commit to meeting the same standard as other countries - why do you define that as impossible?

And being compared to a ********, that's a first!

The United States, and indeed many nations, are taking decisive action to combat global warming. But it's not enough for the radicals. And it never will be enough for the radicals.

Some municipal authorities in the states, cities and states, are doing really good things. Absolutely.
But the Federal government has resisted action every single step of the way, from Imhofer's lunacy in the Senate hearings, through climate denial within the administration, appointment of industry lobbyists to official positions, politicians re-writing scientific reports because they don't like the conclusion, the list is endless....you've got your head buried in the sand if you believe the Federal government has taken any more action than it is absolutely forced to do on this.

A while back in this thread, somebody called me arrogant and cynical. You know what, I need to get this off my chest:

I am arrogant and cynical. And I'm also right.

No, you're not. But this is a sterile argument, we could give (arguably have given) you evidence in truckloads and you will never accept it.

If humans can be dumb enough to keep Bush in office for eight years, then you're going to have to agree there's no really practical limits to what humans are capable of. And the fact is that most humans are willing to screw other people to some degree in order to make life more comfy for themselves. Two feet to my left is a piece of an innocent cow that never hurt me in its life; I killed it (and a pig and a couple of avocados) so I could have a guacamole bacon cheeseburger for dinner.

The truth is that most humans, at the very same time they're pointing fingers at the U.S. for global warming, are trying to catch up to the U.S. themselves. And most people are willing to shrink the global pie if it means they get a bigger piece of that smaller pie.

Again that's simply wrong - people are getting it that the future has to be more sustainable, ordinary people like me understand that simple fact. Of course everyone aspires to a higher standard of living, but that has to come through a more sustainable path.

Yours is a pretty bleak view - sustainability and growth are incompatible, pollution can only be controlled at unsustainable expense, people don't give a **** about their environment or future but only about the here and now, people are too stupid to do what is best for them in the long run, dog eats dog always ....

I guess I'm optimistic enough to think you are wrong about this too.
BFR

 

[bigfatron]

And if you disagree that humans are causing global warming, you can get fired, or at least have your job reclassified.

Oregon Governor vs. climatologist

Actually if you read the piece you find this guy is called the 'State Climatologist' by his University - the issue seems to be that he gives the appearance of speaking on behalf of the State of Oregon on climate matters, when he doesn't have that status.

He isn't losing his job here, just a title.

Unlike when Imhofer went after the US chapter reviewers of IPCC reports....

 

[Adebisi]

Just because the IPCC publishes a report, it doesn't mean that "scientists agree". And btw, the IPCC "90% certainty" has been significantly lower in the past. It is certainly a lot more plausible today to believe that human activities cause gobal warming, even though some disagree. The extent of global warming can still be contested though. Personally I believe in the lower projections (which are also very serious - a rise of merely one degree is still significant).

 

[Goa]

Just because the IPCC publishes a report, it doesn't mean that "scientists agree".

If all scientists of a certain field, with a total of more than thousand individuals and dispersed over all countries, meet to write a consensus paper of their field, I think that definitly means "scientists agree".

And btw, the IPCC "90% certainty" has been significantly lower in the past.

Those guys have been busy the last years, so yes, the accuracy of, and confidence in the prediction is higher today than it was before.

The extent of global warming can still be contested though.

nobody said otherwise. But if you want to contest it, you need very good arguments, and a theory which explains better all the measurments done up to today.

Personally I believe in the lower projections.

May I ask you why?
Have you done any detailed study about it and the conclusions from this study makes you disagree?
Or is it just a "feeling"?

 

[El_Machinae]

The extent of current global warming is really tough to quantify; it needs to be examined with regards to historical cycles (of which there are many). However, the cause and long-term effects of GHG pollution are less hard to predict. We know where they're coming from and we know what they're going to do.

 

[sebanaj]

Nothing coming from UN and SocioDemocrats is trustable.

Pollution > Unemployment, Poverty & Famine

 

[El_Machinae]

Name a trustable source, then.

My challenge continues to be: look up an ecology prof at your local university (pick one at random), and ask him if he thinks that human-caused climate change is a concern (via email). You might as well rely on the local expert opinion ...

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Pollution = Unemployment, Poverty & Famine

Fixed tenchar.