Dr. Tim Ball - Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project

[hellwoman]

Dr. Timothy Ball

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball has given over 600 public talks over the last decade on science and the environment. He is the co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World's leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball’s extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, make him the ideal head of NRSP as we move into our first campaign, Understanding Climate Change. His extensive public speaking experience and presentations to professional societies, business conferences, public forums and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations make him the ideal spokesperson for NRSP as well.

His other work in such areas as water resources, sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics will be invaluable as NRSP tackles other issues starting later in 2007.

Throughout his career, Dr. Ball has been heavily involved in local and national committees related to climate, water and river management and hazardous waste. He is regular contributing writer for Country Guide and has appeared as a guest opinion writer in all of Canada’s major newspapers. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com





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 letters@canadafreepress.com

[hellwoman]

Please visit this link to view the articles graphics:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/844

Global warming melting Arctic Ice
Manipulation of public perceptions
By Dr. Tim Ball Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Exploitation of fear by environmental groups was explained well in Crichton’s book, State of Fear. He could also have written a book titled, State of Knowledge. Most people know very little about the natural world and how it works. This lack of knowledge is easily exploited and coupled with fear makes it an even more powerful manipulative tool. The idea that knowledge is power isn’t new, but that is the positive side. Lack of knowledge is the negative side and makes you very vulnerable. As Derek Bok said, “If you think education is expensive - try ignorance.” Ignorance allows presentation of natural events as unnatural or normal events as abnormal.

Arctic ice conditions are a perfect example. In 2005 we heard that an area of Arctic ice the size Texas melted more than in 2004. Horrors! Catastrophe! The polar bears will be dead very soon. But what is the reality? Well this melt is well within natural variability and a very small portion of the total annual melt. Every single summer approximately 10 million square kilometers of ice melts in about 3 months. This is an area equal to the United States. Texas is approximately 681,089 square kilometers or 6.8% of the total land area. Suddenly it is not so dramatic. It is even less so in a historic context. The same scare technique was used in the 1970s. We were told, “The ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere increased by 12 percent in 1971 - an increase equal to the combined are of England, Italy, and France. This added ice has remained.”

The pattern this year illustrates the cycle. Here, courtesy of the University of Bremen are ice conditions for April 1, August 8, and November 29, 2007 respectively. It will take a few minutes to orient yourself because the arctic ocean is usually a thin line across the top of the map, something that adds to the lack of understanding.

Notice how much ice has already formed this winter, a more rapid growth than previously in the record. It was claimed the summer ice was the smallest on record but the valid record is short coincides with arrival of satellite data in 1980.

While the media raised alarms over Arctic ice melt, they did not report that Antarctic winter sea ice extent was the greatest on record. A similar pattern of annual freeze and melt occurs in the ocean around the continent but it changes from a summer minimum of about 2 million square kilometers to a winter maximum of about 15 million square kilometers for a an annual change of some 13 million square kilometers.

Of course, all this ice is in the water, so when it melts sea level doesn’t change. So the ice is not disappearing. Annual melt and refreeze is large, and current situations are well within normal numbers. The fuss over the ice works because people don’t know. But in case lack of knowledge doesn’t work an emotional and guilt trip will persuade the rest, or at least isolate them as uncaring. Yes, the polar bears are disappearing with the ice. But the ice isn’t disappearing. Right, and neither are the polar bears. Besides, they survived much warmer periods when the ice was reduced significantly. The longest since the last Ice Age was the Holocene Optimum from 9000 to 5000 years ago; the second was the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1200 AD, and most recently the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s, which we now know were warmer than the 1990s in North America despite what Al Gore says.

As Marie Curie, a worthy winner of two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics said, “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.”

Posted 12/4 at 06:43 AM Email (Permalink)

This piece is in Category: Global Warming

[hellwoman]

New NASA temperature data just another reason to re-assess global warming scare
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies
By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Imagine basing a country's energy and economic policy on an incomplete, unproven theory -- a theory based entirely on computer models in which one minor variable is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate system.


This is precisely what Al Gore, U.S. Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer and others want their nation to do. They expect Americans to accept on blind faith the thesis that human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Boxer, Gore and their allies readily resort to emotional bullying against anyone who dares question this dogma. Their pronouncements -- Boxer's juvenile "the American people have the will to slow, stop and reverse global warming" is a prime example - are merely displays of arrogance that expose their lack of basic science understanding (or their complete disrespect of public intelligence). The policies they advocate are wholly unjustified scientifically and have extraordinarily damaging economic implications for the developed world.


Science advances through hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsibility.' Trying to disprove hypothesis is what real science is all about. Yet the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would lead to significantly enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal scientific challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Adherents to the hypothesis began defending the increasingly indefensible by launching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten scientific opponents into silence.


Yet, much to the frustration of alarmists, solid scientific evidence continues to mount against the flawed notion that human CO2 emissions are a problem.


For instance, last month NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) made significant changes to their temperature records, downgrading the magnitude of recent rises. This was precipitated by discovery of errors in NASA methodologies by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, already well-know for his debunking of the now infamous 'hockey stick' temperature graph that was a fundamental pillar of the 2001 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.


Dr. James Hansen, as Director of GISS, is responsible for NASA temperature records. An ardent Gore supporter, Hansen often plays conflicting roles simultaneously - within one week of the change to the NASA record he posted a Blog diatribe, not officially through his employer's channels, but as a private citizen. Therein, he claimed the temperature changes were insignificant (in reality, they are highly significant) and likened climate warming skeptics to "court jesters" in the pay of industry. Hanson also played this duplicitous game when he made a sensationalist climate change presentation to Congress as a private citizen. Such strongly held and outspoken views likely influence, and so are inconsistent with, his activities as a scientist/executive at NASA.


Before McIntyre's discovery, NASA considered 1998 the warmest year in the continental U.S.; now, as explained by Paul Driessen in Monday's Canada Free Press, it is 1934, with 1998 second and 1921 third. When human production of CO2 was minimal, in the 1930's, four of the 10 warmest years are now seen to have occurred. The past decade now includes only three of the ten warmest years. Will Gore withdraw An Inconvenient Truth pending necessary corrections?


A second 'proof' of human CO2-caused warming, according to the IPCC, was a claimed increase in global temperatures of about 1°F over 130 years. This was asserted to be outside natural variability. But the uncertainty in the measurements was over ±0.3°F, meaning possible values could vary by as much as 66% of the total change. The source of this temperature calculation, University of East Anglia's Professor Phil Jones, has refused to disclose which temperature records were used and how he 'adjusted' them. Clearly, IPCC conclusions must be viewed with considerable suspicion until they provide full disclosure on the Jones data.


Computer models are the basis of all forecasts used by alarmists. And these models used temperature data that is now known to be suspect or completely wrong. Will Gore, Boxer and the IPCC call for a re-evaluation of the global warming scare. Don't bet on it - accurate science was never a hallmark of this crusade.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307.htm

[hellwoman]

Gore, Boxer, Suzuki lead an all-star cast exploiting science

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris
Friday, July 20, 2007

There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?


Skewed View of Nature

Western education automatically assumes a 'uniformitarian' view of the World, a concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.

Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your "noticing." Similarly, the media and the public have started to "notice" extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming 'climate crisis'. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP 'allied scientist' Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).

Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., 'ever.' What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth's five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.

Besides the public's lack of awareness of our planet's dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki's myth of nature's "gentle rhythms", then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, "Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon." Dion's total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact - half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.


Political Exploitation of Science

The exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to "stop climate change." They can't show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. 'Believe' is the key word here, not 'think'.

Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change 'superstar', rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, "The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it." Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an "online thank you card to Al Gore… -- thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!" To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.

Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act", also referred to as the" Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309". The phrase 'global warming pollution' is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore's crusade and other futile attempts to 'stop climate change' (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term "greenhouse gases" (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don't wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don't know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada's ratification of Kyoto in 2002, "For all intents and purposes, there isn't anybody that I know that doesn't want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?"

Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children. Combining such sentiments with religiosity and an adolescent 'we can do anything' approach, they end up with assertions so removed from the real world as to be laughable, were the consequences not so serious.

"Just as we lift our children up to feed them, and we hold them close to comfort them, and to protect them from any manner of harm, just as we would never, ever leave them trapped in a locked car in the hot sun, we must protect them from global warming." Boxer told an April 14, 2007 National Press Club audience. "The ancient religious writings say, "See to it that you do not destroy my world for there is no one to repair it after you." Today for us, it should be simple. Working Together we can reverse Global Warming! We must lead on this issue, not follow; its our job. I truly believe when we do our job, our country and our families will be better and stronger and the world will be safer."

Continued:

[hellwoman]

Of course we have no chance of "reversing global warming" (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer's rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters. As the public learn more about the issue, this will eventually backfire politically. This is why groups like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project focus so strongly on public education. Once a majority of the public recognize that many of the assertions of Boxer, Gore, Dion and Volpe have no basis in reality, politicians will have little choice but to radically alter their approach – either that or be voted out of office in disgrace.


Besides ignorance and political opportunism, what is driving this movement?
The principle target in all this is fossil-fueled based energy sources. Boxer summed it up neatly in her introduction to the June 28 Senate committee hearing, "reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming."

Besides vote-seeking politicians, who else would want to dismantle our fossil fuel-based economy? Some beneficiaries of such an agenda are obvious – alternative energy providers are already reaping financial windfalls from the scare. Nuclear power companies stand to make significant gains as well, provided they are not shut down entirely by environmentalists who oppose them even more fiercely than they do fossil fuel corporations. Many scientists and engineers who support nuclear power for its real benefits understand how today's climate scare is largely groundless and so do not boost nuclear power as a means to avert a climate crisis.

However, some spokespeople are not so careful. John Ritch, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, uses language even more extreme than Gore and Suzuki. At the October 2006 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia, Ritch said,


"The fact of this planetary crisis should no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are - quite literally - apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.

If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people - and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents."


NRSP scientists immediately sent Ritch solid evidence that his assertions were out of touch with modern climate science and expressed the hope that his "remarks are greatly tuned to a more realistic stance if the topic is brought up again in the future." NRSP continued, "Nuclear power clearly has important benefits to mankind but "stopping global climate catastrophe" is surely not one of them. [We] fear we undermine the whole effort when such extreme arguments are presented."

Ritch did not respond. Instead NRSP was answered by Jonathan Cobb, the association's "climate change advisor", who dismissed our concerns saying, "I can assure you that Mr Ritch pays close attention to the scientific discussion on climate change and he will continue to accurately report the overwhelming scientific consensus." That a climate change advisor would simply brush aside evidence that his employer had little need of his services is perhaps not surprising. However, that Ritch continues to use precisely the same language as above in his most recent speeches (June 2007) is inexcusable.

The specter of industry-caused "climate chaos" - a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May - ultimately leading to the 'destruction of the planet' is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General's office. His comment, "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.

Industry runs on energy, but you cannot directly attack the energy source because this would alienate the vast majority of the public who benefit from industrialization. The easiest way is to show that the byproducts of industrial activity are causing a planetary collapse. Even though untrue, this claim provides another popular moral high ground for activists. Demanding carbon dioxide reductions provided the vehicle and the United Nations supposedly provided the science for the theory that human addition of CO2 would lead to uncontrolled global warming. The theory quickly became fact, and the scientific method of testing, and accepting or rejecting, was effectively thwarted. Scientists who tried to pursue a normal scientific approach to the issue were quickly branded as pawns of the energy sector.

There are negative side-effects of industrialization of course, but eliminating industry also eliminates its exceptionally beneficial impacts on quality of life. Besides ignoring the natural evolution of the human species, in the extreme, today's climate alarmism is decidedly anti-human. Human progress is seen, not as a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration.

The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today's climate crusade as their primary raison d'être:

Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): "They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line - about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics", p. 115): "Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth's community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty "Good riddance!"

Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."

Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a 'bioethicist' at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be "speciests".

And of course the macabre " Voluntary Human Extinction Movement " is apparently alive and well with its "volunteer" class members agreeing that, "All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens." Asserting that "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health", the group's motto is "May we live long and die out."

In the extraordinary book "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, "Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Let's hope that Mackay's pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming072007.htm

[hellwoman]

Timothy F. Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Academic background
2 Views on environmental change
3 Dispute over qualifications to comment on global warming
4 Public appearances
5 Selected publications
6 References
7 External links



[edit] Academic background
Ball has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba in 1970 in Geography[2], and a Ph.D. in Geography "with a specific focus on historical climatology"[3] from the University of London, England in 1983.[4] Ball taught at the University of Winnipeg from 1973 to 1996, starting as a Sessional Lecturer and retiring as a Professor.


[edit] Views on environmental change
Some of Ball's statements on climate change include:

"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."[5]

"The entire Kyoto issue is based on the theory of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas...There are 2 major problems. First, [it] is not the most important greenhouse gas. Second, evidence now shows that temperatures rise before carbon dioxide increases - not the other way round." [6]

"Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes, that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds."[6]

"Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record."[7]

"The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the ozone layer."[8]

"...The majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science...The other problem is that so many of the scientists who are quoted as being on side with global warming are actually doing studies on the impact of global warming and climate changes and their studies then are listed as evidence for support of it. They are not, they are just starting with the assumption that global warming is going to occur, and what effect that would have. That is not support or proof at all."[9]

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."[10]

[edit] Dispute over qualifications to comment on global warming

Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The paper had credited Ball as "[h]e was the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[11]

Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996.[12]

Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[13]

In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[14].

In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

[edit] Public appearances
Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[15]


[edit] Selected publications
Houston, C. Stuart; Ball, T. F. & Houston, Mary (2003), Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 333, ISBN 0773522859

Ball, Timothy F. (1995), "Historical and instrumental evidence of climate: Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1714–1850", in Bradley, Raymond S. & Jones, Philip D., Climate Since A.D. 1500, Routledge, ISBN 0415075939
Ball, Timothy F. & Kingsley, Roger A. (1984), "Instrumental temperature records at two sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910", Climatic Change 6 (1): 39-56, doi:10.1007/BF00141667,

<http://www.springerlink.com/content/l51087083622ll24/>

Ball, Timothy F. (1983), Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, Queen Mary, University of London: Ph.D. Thesis, <http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?

searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27>
Ball, Timothy F. (1983), "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851", Climatic Change 5 (3): 85-93, doi:10.1007/BF00144682, <http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1412752642704v3/>

Catchpole, A.J.W. & Ball, Timothy F. (1981), "Analysis of historical evidence of climate change in western and northern Canada", Syllogeus (National Museum Of Canada) (no. 33): 48-96, <http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/CatchpoleAnalysisThis1981.html>

[edit] References
^ Peter Gorrie (January 28, 2007). Who's still cool on global warming?. Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2007-03-31.

^ Ball, Timothy. The significance of grain-size and heavy minerals volume percentage as indicators of environmental character, Grand Beach Manitoba : a case study. Retrieved on 2007-12-31.

^ McCloud, Judy (2007-02-07). Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to Canada Free Press. Canada Free Press. Retrieved on 2007-04-02.

^ Ph.D. thesis titled "Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850"

^ Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?. Canada Free Press (02 2007). Retrieved on 2007-02-05.

^ a b Junk Science continued. Natural Resources Stewardship Project (04 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-24.

^ http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864

^ Interview With Dr. Timothy Ball- The Myth of Global Warming?. Retrieved on 2007-02-17.

^ http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864

^ Harper, Tom (2007-03-11). Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-04-29.

^ Ball, Tim (2006-04-19). Aussies' Suzuki heavier on rhetoric than on science. National Post. Retrieved on 2007-02-24.

^ [1]
^ Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

^ Anderson, Mitchell (2007-01-25). Trust us, we're the media. Straight.com. Retrieved on 2007-04-29.

^ Hughes, Juliette (2007-07-02). The truth is downright dirty. The Age. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.

[edit] External links
NSRP A professional biography

February 10, 2007 Interview of Ball in the Pittsburgh Tribune: The politics of global warming

February 5, 2007 Ball's opinion piece Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? at canadafreepress.com

January 25, 2007 Trust us, we're the media, Georgia Straight

August 6, 2006 article from The Globe and Mail "Focus" section: Mr. Cool

June 15, 2006 National Post article for the Financial Post: Warmer is Better: Junk Science Week

October 3, 2007 AllPoliticsNow news report Winnipeg bred global warming denier Tim Ball avoids embarrassment at Peoples Court w/ links to court documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

[hellwoman]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/categories/C19

Global Warming Items
Accuses 30 scientists on list of 400 of receiving funding from Exxon Mobile
By EPW Blog Friday, December 21, 2007


[Note for a compete debunking of the assertions about “industry funded” skeptical scientists, see this August 5, 2007 Senate Report: (LINK) - To Read about What Prompted Gore to Lash Out, Please Read the new Senate Report of Over 400 Prominent Scientists Who Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Fears See (LINK) ]

Year of Global Cooling
By OnTheWeb Thursday, December 20, 2007


Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
By EPW Blog Thursday, December 20, 2007


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Confronting the true costs of climate change prevention
By Paul Driessen Thursday, December 20, 2007


The mantra is repeated daily. There is consensus on climate change. Global warming is real. It will be a disaster. Humans are to blame. We have to do something – immediately.

Bush Sells Out America at U.N. Conference
By Cliff Kincaid Wednesday, December 19, 2007


Our national “news” programs have been preoccupied with baseball players on steroids, but they should devote some attention to the Bush Administration’s approval of a plan to put the United Nations on steroids. Apparently looking to leave office with the blessings of the “international community,” the Bush Administration just sold out American interests at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.

Which part of this Scientific paper did Government Advisors Not read or Understand?
By OnTheWeb Monday, December 17, 2007


A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives entitled “Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”

Gore’s “wrenching” gospel
By Henry Lamb Monday, December 17, 2007


In many ways, Al Gore is like the charismatic preacher who mesmerized his congregation every Sunday, but during the week, ministered privately to the needs of neglected housewives to satisfy his own appetite. While sermonizing before the Nobel Committee - and an international television audience - Gore described the hellfire and brimstone of global warming damnation, and pointed the way to planetary salvation: the world must have a mandatory “cap-and-trade” regime, he said, administered by the United Nations.

Saying “No” When Everyone Else Is Saying “Yes”
By Alan Caruba Monday, December 17, 2007


I have been witness to the complete subversion of science in the service of an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism.

Al Gore Opens Mouth, Increases Carbon Footprint
By Selwyn Duke Monday, December 17, 2007


--Satire--
Speaking today to COOL-IT (Communists for Only Onerous and Lofty Industrial Taxation) in Nome, Alaska, former vice-president Al Gore criticized the United States’ failure to adequately address climate change. Mr. Gore warned of future consequences of inaction while emphasizing that we have already felt the effects of a lamentably low suicide rate. Gore mentioned the extinction of species, the melting of the polar ice caps, and his loss of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. Said Gore,

Earth’s Heat adds to Climate Change to melt Greenland Ice
By OnTheWeb Friday, December 14, 2007


Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland ‘s ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth’s crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
By Tom Harris Friday, December 14, 2007


It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference
By EPW Blog Thursday, December 13, 2007


BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ‘Futile’
By EPW Blog Thursday, December 13, 2007


“Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference
By EPW Blog Tuesday, December 11, 2007


BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming
By OnTheWeb Monday, December 10, 2007


Denpasar, Bali - As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

[hellwoman]

THE NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP PROJECT
Canadians care deeply about protecting our natural environment while preserving our quality of life. Consequently, we need sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on a thorough understanding of science, engineering and economics.

Yet, in many cases this is not what we have been getting. Impractical and exorbitantly expensive policies directed towards ‘global climate control’, unrealistic emission standards and so-called ‘green energy’, promoted by ideologically-driven ‘environmentalists’, are being widely accepted and vigorously promoted by mass media and politicians at all levels of government. Rational debate on these issues is virtually non-existent and alternative points of view are not given a proper hearing. Many Canadians have never heard ‘the other side’ of issues such as climate change and alternative energy and they have been conditioned to believe the other side is always suspect.

This problem is not unique to the energy sector and the climate change/pollution debate, although these are signature examples. All natural resources management in Canada - forestry, fishing, mining, water management and agriculture included – have for years been targets of environmental extremists. Over the past decades, mainstream environmentalism has managed to imbed a strong anti-development mentality in the Canadian popular psyche, without debate about the science, the economics or the social impact of such an approach on the relationship between humanity and the physical world. This mentality results in bad environmental policy and has serious negative implications for our society’s well-being. By maintaining a sense of a constant state of crisis, these advocates have thoroughly distorted the policy process.

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) is offered as a means to redress this serious problem. A federally incorporated, non-profit, non-partisan organization, NRSP will help balance the debate on the environment in Canada and abroad. .



Find out more about NRSP.


Understanding Climate Change - Our current and inaugural campaign.


Learn more about responsible environmental stewardship.


Support our effort!
http://www.nrsp.com/

[hellwoman]

FRIENDS OF SCIENCE
Website

Our Goal:

To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject.


Our Opinion:


It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.



Our Position:

While FoS does not do any research, it draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change. To read our Position Statement, click here. See our comprehensive essay on climate change science here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------








CURRENT NEWS:

News from Bali

Dec 2007 Newsletter

Bali Logic - by Rex Murphy

For breaking news on understanding climate change, read these latest uploads by the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

During 2007, over 400 scientists disagree global warming is man-made.

Global Warming news for the intelligent layman by Canada Free Press

Read these Civil Society Reports on Climate Change: http://www.fcpp.org:80/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1951

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1962


http://www.friendsofscience.org/