Friends of Science Calgary

The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.

Trump Transition Will be a Tsunami Washing Away Climate Corruption.

Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball ©2017

Many people, including my wife, ask why I continue to fight for the truth about the greatest deception in history, the claim that humans are causing global warming. The answer is simple; I don’t want any politician to be able to say they weren’t told. I have written a multitude of articles in every medium possible, published books, done countless radio and TV interviews, and given hundreds of public lectures. It is in the record and readily available with the simplest of Internet searches. If they didn’t know, they didn’t look very hard or were deliberately selective.

 

Despite that, there were times when I questioned the efficacy of my actions. This was brought home recently when in one of the many Internet interviews I do with students around the world a young woman asked if, in retrospect, I would follow the same path. After very little contemplation I said no and quoted the old saying that if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. However, I then added, that it is of no consequence because of the path already taken and so you must follow Winston Churchill’s dictum.

 

“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” 

 

Nothing has happened to challenge my “honour or good sense.” Indeed, I steadfastly kept the idea in the front of my mind that if evidence of ‘good sense’ appeared that showed I was wrong, I had to be the first to announce it to the world.

 

Over the last 40 years, I saw events come and go that I thought would expose the greatest deception in history: The claim that human CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I kept thinking and hoping that something or someone would appear to expose the entire thing. It needed an event or person who could go to the heart of the problem that was established and firmly protected within the realm of government. I watched the Chapter Eight debacle in which sections of a final report agreed on by the committee were drastically altered when it was released to the world. I thought the leaked emails, first 1000, then 5000 and finally 220,000 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that became the control centre for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would open people’s eyes. The exposure of malfeasance, collusion, and manipulation of data, publications and even scientific journals should have stopped the corruption. It didn’t.

 

The disclosures should have converted the valiant supporters of the IPCC and CRU. It didn’t. For the few of us who already knew, it was just confirmation. It is a measure of the tunnel vision of left-wing ideology that the Guardian reporter George Monbiot, a strong supporter of both agencies and their work wrote,

 

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

 

But this didn’t trigger a campaign by him to demand the truth as it would in a less doctrinaire person. As Clive Crook wrote in The Atlantic

 

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best, they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst, they are patently incompetent and even willfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

 

I thought the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that exposed the corrupt activities of the central scientists at the IPCC would stop the juggernaut. Instead, they hired PR people and set up controlled whitewash investigations as Crook noted. None of it stopped and only marginally slowed the AGW deception. The marginal delay occurred because the emails were leaked in November 2009, a month before the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 meeting in Copenhagen that planned to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. A year later COP 16 in Durban, South Africa, they approved the replacement for Kyoto, the great socialist transfer of wealth scheme based on use and abuse of CO2, with the Green Climate Fund (GCF).  Too many people had too much invested, and most of the public didn’t understand what was happening.

 

A major factor in perpetuating the deception was the claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed. This was another falsehood deliberately created to perpetuate the myth. A Queensland University researcher claimed to have surveyed 11,944 papers and concluded 97.1% expressed an opinion supporting climate change. In fact, by their definition, only 41 agreed with their hypothesis or 0.3%.  The only 97% figure of relevance is the 97% who have never looked at the IPCC science.

 

The 3 % who have, were shocked. For example, Emeritus Professor of physics, the late Hal Lewis wrote in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (APS) in October 2010

 

“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

 

German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls had a similar experience as he explained.

 

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

 

For most, it is so bad they think they are misreading it, so they reach out to others for confirmation. This was the experience of people like Albert Jacobs who contacted me several years ago to speak to a small group of Albertans. Their concern about the proposed Kyoto Protocol led to examining the scientific justification and found it wanting.  I met the group at the Calgary airport and after convincing them that the science was worse than they surmised the discussion turned to the real issue. Should they stick strictly to the science or be aware that the issue was science corrupted and used for a political agenda. The other issue was making the science understandable to the 80% of the public who are Arts students. To their credit, they stuck to the science and did it with great success.

 

A few years later I got a call from Malcolm Roberts a recently retired Australian engineer and businessman who also looked at the climate science. I helped him work with others to create the Galileo Movement, an organization that has achieved the same impact as Friends of Science. Malcolm wanted to become proactive, and as we communicated, he became aware that the real problem was in the deliberate use of bureaucrats. He learned that Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and as Strong knew the politicians and public would not challenge the bureaucrats. This culminated in Roberts running for office under a new Australian Party banner – One Nation.

 

Meanwhile, he also learned that everything presented to the public was computer generated; there was not a shred of empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. His campaign as the Senator from Queensland was successful, and his maiden speech started the search for empirical evidence. To my knowledge, it is the first open challenge to the bureaucrats who control the global warming agenda by a politician. He asked the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the agency responsible for climate change, to produce empirical evidence for global warming.

 

They produced a report that failed to provide any evidence. Instead, they countered with English TV celebrity Brian Cox showing a temperature graph from NASA GISS showing the temperature rising. Apparently, he didn’t know that a temperature graph is not empirical evidence of AGW. Worse, he didn’t know the graph was altered to exaggerate the gradient. If he had done even minimal research, he would have come across Tony Heller’s explanation of what and how the ‘adjustments’ were made to create exaggerated warming. Because of these events Senator Roberts arranged for Tony and me to appear with him at the Australian Parliament with a public presentation. The Senator spoke about the failure of CSIRO to provide empirical evidence. Tony explained the extent of the corruption of the temperature data, and I provided the entire development and objective of the AGW deception from the Club of Rome through Agenda 21 and the IPCC.

 

Then, as the ancients would say, the stars aligned. While in Australia with Senator Roberts Donald Trump won the US Presidential election. It will change everything, but especially with the climate corruption. A measure of Trump’s acumen and developer’s sense was that he appointed various people to head transition teams before the election. He knew you need everything ready to go on the first day of construction. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who both Tony and I knew, was appointed to lead the transition team dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and climate change. He invited the three of us to appear at a meeting on Capitol Hill to make similar presentation to those we made in Australia.

 

We appeared on the Hill on December 12 before Senators, Congressmen, Aides, and members of the public. We then went to the CEI to participate in discussions with a group called “Cooler Heads” that included other members of the EPA transition team. Considerable discussion ensued with many questions related to positive actions. President-elect Trump wants clean air and water, so some form of EPA is required. What is not needed are bureaucrats creating regulations and enforcement without scientific evidence for a political agenda.

 

It is likely Trump will advocate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.  Ironically, because of Obama’s need to bypass the US Senate, it was an Agreement, not a Treaty. Then, to satisfy less committed nations and reach an agreement for the publicity it was made non-binding. This means the US can walk away and there is nothing any other nation can do.

 

The exploitation of environmental concerns and global warming to push a political agenda is coming to an end. Control of bureaucracies is critical because they are the massive army of unaccountable control. As American author and social commentator, Mary McCarthy said,

 

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.

 

Two actions are required to drain the Washington environmental and climate change swamp; reduction of funding and changes to legislation. Both are scheduled for implementation by the Trump administration under the guidance of the transition teams. Nothing cleans out a swamp better and quicker than a tsunami.

~~~~

cover-dr-balls-book

Dr. Ball’s latest book is available on Amazon.

http://drtimball.com/

46 Comments

  1. In my beginning denier debunking days, Tim Ball was the first guy I went after. Easy take down. Global warming is as true as the sun coming up in the east.

    https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

    • You complain “Tim Ball was an attendee at a private meeting…”, but I bet you never complained about all the ‘private’ meetings of the Sierra Club, or Club of Rome, etc, etc. that plotted to bankrupt the US coal industry destroying thousands of jobs and livelihoods, or ‘private’ meetings like the one the BBC held several years ago, supposedly attended by ‘experts’, but was a sham when finally revealed (despite the best efforts of the BBC’s very expensive lawyers to keep the attendee list and agenda secret). Your’s is a typical ‘Play the man not the ball’ (not a pun) response that lacks the critically important element, EVIDENCE.

      I’ve just seen it written that “The satellite temperature data is wrong because it doesn’t take feelings into account”. This just about sums up the CAGW/alarmist camp, that evidence is ignored, and ‘feelings’, or the ‘we know better’ meme is the driver.

      You may have also just seem that FoE have been ordered to stop making false, scare-tactic claims about Fracking. The reason? They completely failed to present any evidence for their claims whatsoever.

      • This is the review of 9200 peer reviewed science papers by the world’s scientists. Every IPCC review of science shows stronger confidence and evidence that humans are the only driver of a warming earth. We can’t blame anything else but humans and with proper responsibility we can change to clean energy system world wide.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

        Historical climate metrics[edit]
        It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983–2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.

        It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010.

        This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.

        It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

        There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.

        Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.

        Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2’s atmospheric concentration.

      • Currently, the ‘consensus’ estimate from the latest observations for the Transient Climate Response is around 1.3K – 1.4K.

        Transient climate response is based on a 20 year time period. Those are significant numbers for warming.

    • The issue, as you very well know, is not “global warming” at all. It is the claim that CATASTROPHIC global warming will result (more or less in short order) from current emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

      CAGW is the issue – everything else is obfuscation and noise,

      Tony.

      • Catastrophic global warming can be avoided with a rapid transition to renewable energy. If we stay with fossil fuels, the worse things get.

      • catweazle666
        JANUARY 6, 2017 AT 6:21 PM
        Alarmist drivel from start to finish.

        So that is your winning argument?

      • The dangerous part of following denier science is like the example below. Lindzen comes up the idea that clouds are like the eyeball and will reflect more sunlight back into space as the earth gets warmer at the surface. The opposite is true. Cloud feedback is so far slightly positive by observations with satellites. With Trumpty Dumpty coming in, they want to cut off NASA’s budget for studying climate. Satellites should only be used for weather and so forth. This is dangerous and stupid. If you don’t know, it doesn’t mean don’t study, it means study even more on something that has a very high potential of dangerous consequences for our lives on earth.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

        Lindzen and Choi (2011) find the equilibrium climate sensitivity to be 0.7 C, implying a negative feedback of clouds.[40]

    • @Jeffery Green
      January 4, 2017 at 12:31 am: And of course the sun does not rise, but the earth does turn. Start with that, Jeff, then keep studying if you really want to learn. Not holding my breath……..
      Thankyou Dr Ball from Brett Keane, New Zealand.

      • CO2 is the reason we have warmed. Solidly based in physics. Do you disagree with that?

        • “CO2 is the reason we have warmed.”

          Simply put, I believe it is incontrovertible that the whole AGW debate revolves around the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by a doubling in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide – commonly referred to as climate sensitivity, and that over the past three decades many billions of dollars have been expended researching this extremely important value. A low value – less than say 2°C – indicates that we have little or nothing to fear from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a high value – in excess of say 3.5°C – likely indicates that we may have a serious problem.

          I doubt anyone on either side of the debate can disagree that this is a very important issue.

          So let us see how much progress has been made over the last couple of decades pinning down this extremely important number.

          The IPCC is commonly regarded as the most reputable authority on such matters, so let us see how estimates of the climate sensitivity have changed over the five IPCC Assessment Reports from 1990 to the present day, a period of some two and a half decades.

          Here are the ranges of value given by the five IPCC Assessment Reports that have been published to date.

          IPCC First assessment report 1.9°C to 5.2°C, but states “…hence the models results do not justify altering the previously accepted range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C

          IPCC Second Assessment Report 2°C to 4.5 °C

          IPCC Third Assessment Report 1.5°C to 4.5 °C

          IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2°C to 4.5 °C

          IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 1.5°C to 4.5°C

          So, despite the expenditure of many billions of dollars on research, estimates of the low and high limits of this essential parameter have not changed in 25 years.

          The original 1.5°C to 4.5°C estimate came from the 1979 Charney report.

          http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

          So it is in fact over 35 years.

          Unimpressive…

      • catweazle666
        JANUARY 6, 2017 AT 6:25 PM
        “CO2 is the reason we have warmed.”

        Simply put, I believe it is incontrovertible that the whole AGW debate revolves around the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by a doubling in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide – commonly referred to as climate sensitivity, and that over the past three decades many billions of dollars have been expended researching this extremely important

        You are over confident of low numbers. The kind of risk we do to our climate if they are higher numbers for climate sensitivity, means go for clean energy quickly. Burning fossil fuels also diminishes health and the economy both. A clean energy economy is the best economy we can have.

        • “You are over confident of low numbers.”

          Not just me, sunshine. In fact, the latest estimates are below the IPCC’s low end numbers

          Currently, the ‘consensus’ estimate from the latest observations for the Transient Climate Response is around 1.3K – 1.4K.

          http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2

          So try to keep up with the actual science by reading the peer reviewed literature and stop rehashing crackpot alarmist blogs.

          Then you might have some chance of being taken seriously in scientifically oriented environments.

          We are not going to stop burning fossil fuels any time soon. In fact, consumption of fossil fuels is going to increase for the foreseeable future – certainly out to 2040, no matter how much you scientifically illiterate bedwetters and Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) with your hidden agendas hoot and screech and impotently wave your little arms and stamp your tiny feet.

          It is as simple as that.

          Read this and weep.

          http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook

          So suck it up, buttercup, your agenda has no chance whatsoever of success, especially since we in the UK voted for Brexit and Trump and his Deplorables won in the USA.

          So to all intents and purposes, the Green scam is on the skids, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

      • The graph in this simulation is right skewed. Meaning chances are higher of high climate sensitivity. Anything below climate sensitivity of below is next to nil. But low chances of very high climate sensitivity cannot be ruled out. From the graph in this there are numbers as high as 10 rather than 1.5 to 4.5 by the IPCC. The climate sensitivity is also based on a 100 year response, which is geologically a short term response. If you go out farther to a 1000 to several 1000 years, the earth has long term positive feedback of co2 coming up out of the oceans and land as they warm. This is why James Hansen estimated cliamte sensitivity higher. The positive feed backs on earth are quite numerous.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#/media/File:Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png

        Frequency distribution of climate sensitivity, based on model simulations.[1] Few of the simulations result in less than 2 °C of warming—near the low end of estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[1] Some simulations result in significantly more than the 4 °C, which is at the high end of the IPCC estimates.[1] This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.[1]

      • Anything below climate sensitivity of *2* is next to nil.

      • Currently, the ‘consensus’ estimate from the latest observations for the Transient Climate Response is around 1.3K – 1.4K.

        Transient climate response is based on a 20 year time period. Those are significant numbers for warming.

      • This tells us that the earth reacts quite strongly to small changes. The change in orbital forcing that brought us out of the ice ages was 7% of the change in the earth’s surface temperature. 93% of the change was the earth’s positive feedback system.

        transient climate response 20 years
        climate sensitivity is typical 100years
        ice age change several thousand years

        continuous change took place for several thousand years to get us to the Holocene. All due to the positive feedbacks on earth. Mainly we are 70% ocean surface with strong water vapor feedback.

        https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

        According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

      • Give it up, Jeffery, you lot have lost.

        This lady has defeated you, thirty years of dire predictions of doom and disaster, not a single one correct.

        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7BTnRqeqVxo/Usw2ugazZ8I/AAAAAAAA2Vw/Up68eQgj6Aw/s320/mother_nature_denies_global_warming.jpg

      • catweazle666
        JANUARY 7, 2017 AT 2:19 PM
        Give it up, Jeffery, you lot have lost.

        This lady has defeated you, thirty years of dire predictions of doom and disaster, not a single one correct.

        NO WARMING IN 17 YEARS? Not so bucko! The last 3 years have been the warmest on instrumental record. In the last 5 decades, each succeeding decades is warmer than one before it. What explains this temperature increase over the last 50 years if it is not done by humans? Do you have a better explanation than the IPCC? The fat lady is actually singing human climate change since about 1780.

      • YAWN…
        Go learn some up-to-date science, you ignorant little boy.
        Now, SHOO, I’m bored of showing you up for the fool you are.

      • catweazle666
        JANUARY 7, 2017 AT 3:41 PM
        YAWN…
        Go learn some up-to-date science, you ignorant little boy.
        Now, SHOO, I’m bored of showing you up for the fool you are.

        Here is where Timothy Ball stands on the science of climate change.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

        Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]

      • https://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

        All of these studies, using a wide range of independent methods, provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past century, and especially over the past 50 to 65 years (Figure 1).

        Earth should be heading towards an ice age by orbital forcings. Here is several science papers, peer reviewed showing natural vs human warming. Easily human warming. Even a denier like yourself catty boy is having trouble looking away from it. It is main stream science doing what science does best. You have been owned catty boy.

    • denier debunking days
      =================
      Belief and denial are religious terms. Science cares not what one believes or denies. Here is how science views the problem:

      The world has been generally warming since the LIA. No one knows what caused the world to cool at that time. Prior to that time, for the past 10 thousand years, we have seen repeated warmings and coolings that defy explanation. Quite simply no one knows what caused them.

      The current warming is no different statistically than past warmings. It is larger than some and smaller than some. It is shorter than some and longer than some. As such, there is no scientific reason to assume that the current warming is caused by anything different than past warmings.

      In the past we have assigned the cause of these warmings to human action. The most common cause is lack of sacrifice to the gods. Typically by giving something to the high priests to stop the warming. The current warming is no different. The high priest are demanding we sacrifice to stop the warming.

      • The world has been generally warming since the LIA. No one knows what caused the world to cool at that time. Prior to that time, for the past 10 thousand years, we have seen repeated warmings and coolings that defy explanation. Quite simply no one knows what caused them.

        https://skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

        The argument that we’re simply “coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)” makes one of two assumptions:

        The planet oscillates around some natural equilibrium temperature such that after it cools, it must warm to return to this temperature, and vice-versa.
        Whatever caused the LIA cooling has reversed phase and is now causing global warming.

        1. decreased solar activity
        2. increased volcanic activity
        3. ocean conveyor slowdown
        4. decline in human population

        England was the first to really industrialize coal which led to allow them to dominate the world. Industrialization matches perfectly with the increase of temperature and co2. All evidence points to humans warming the climate.

    • Desmugblog…oh dear…pathetic.

      You’re making stuff up again, Jeffery!

      That’s naughty, your mummy will be cross.

      These days child, it’s you sad lot that are the ‘deniers’, and you can take that to the bank.

      You lot have lost, suck it up buttercup.

      • carbon dioxide is a well proven ghg. That is undenialable. It is the main constituent of warming out of the main ice age. Undeniable. Science has shown we owe our Holocene period the last 10,000 years mainly to ghg levels.

        Soooooo the question is:

        If we further raise our ghg’s level in the atmosphere by 120ppm co2, from 280ppm to 400ppm co2, will the earth warm? The answer is yes!!!!

      • “It is the main constituent of warming out of the main ice age.”

        Rubbish.

        Google “Milankovitch cycles”.

        You haven’t a clue what you’re wittering about.

      • catweazle666
        JANUARY 6, 2017 AT 8:08 PM
        “It is the main constituent of warming out of the main ice age.”

        Rubbish.

        Google “Milankovitch cycles”.

        You haven’t a clue what you’re wittering about.

        https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

        According to the Shakun et al. data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

        Milankovitch cycles are important, but don’t explain by themselves the present level of temperature of the Holocene. ghg’s explain 93% of the warming from the ice age to the Holocene thru the Holocene period of the last 10,000 years. Other factors influence also, but not like ghg’s do.

    • > ” Easy take down.”

      So why don’t you do it? I read your link, and agree with everything Tim Ball said in it. Where is the “takedown?” Interesting though that you seem to support desmogblog, the website founded by the convicted fraudster John Lefebvre:

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/oukin-uk-neteller-founder-plea-idUKN1036368620070711

      So on the one hand we have a convicted fraudster, on the other we have Dr Tim Ball who has told the truth about everything. And you choose the fraudster.

      • Read my other links and I have interesting peices of science in them based in the mainstream. Humans warmed the climate, humans can go clean energy and negative carbon emissions if they wish.

    • Oh, come on!

      Surely you are not also a Geocentrism believer?

    • Jeffery,
      The fact you use the term denier to describe anyone, let alone an honest hard working scientist like Dr. Ball shows you are not here for an honest debate.
      I have read Dr Ball’s ideas on CAGW. His theory makes more sense than you and your conspirators
      insults, lies, and exaggerations.
      Why doesn’t your desmoblog site allow comments?
      Because you and your government funded gang have no facts, only lies like your lying pied pipers Obama , Gore and Clinton.

      • Dr.Ball is declaring the greatest deception in history is the ghg theory. GHG theory is an evidence based theory that holds true no what you try to do to undo this. That’s what the truth does. Dr. Ball is wrong no matter what his convictions are. Is he lying, possibly. If he really believes ghg theory doesn’t exist, then he is incredibly naive.

  2. Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    All the signs are that a lot will happen in a short time as soon as the new US President takes over later this month.

  3. The sun does not “come up in the east”. You are 2,500 years behind the truth but, of course, your statement regarding CAGW is therefore correct.

  4. Trump may well be the perfect vehicle for massive, positive change simply because he already understands the damage hired thugs create. When “true believers” are the bureaucrats the IRS refuses to process tax exemptions, the EPA fakes or alters data and students are denied the education the taxpayers sacrifice to provide. He may not deeply understand the “Charter School” issue but he knows how much is spent while inner-city kids leave 12th grade with 6th grade educations, destroying their opportunity and beggaring communities with taxes. Again, he may not really understand LWIR absorption by gases but he knows coal miners are destroyed when honorable work is replaced by welfare.
    His victory just might actually be the victory or Science and Truth. We can hope now.

  5. It is obvious to all that Obama’s disdain for the rules of governance is merely another manifestation of the willful blindness to reality of the Progressive movement. Progressivism, like Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism etc. is built on the disregard of realities, be they scientific or economic. Obama’s ideological blindness and unwillingness to compromise led him to the mistaken belief that he could change the world by issuance of Executive Orders, rather than seeking the consent of the governed through their Congress and Senate. It’s ironic that these shortcuts were what led to rise of Donald Trump, and ultimately, the unwinding of all Obama’s self-perceived “good works”. Had Obama played by the rules instead of trying to cheat them, he may have accomplished something. But we will never know now.

    Similarly, the Progressive movement has cheated and subverted, avoided and pointed and shrieked it’s way to it’s height of power under an equally deluded Obama. Had the Progressive movements views and policies been built on reality rather than dogma they may have stood a chance. But when reality intrudes, fakery ebbs away. And so it will be with the rest of Progressive Obamaism when Trump assumes the presidency.

    All you really need to know about the Progressive movement and Obama happened a couple of days ago. Obama had himself awarded,on the way out the door, in a not surprisingly ego-maniacial and farcical fashion, the Distinguished Public Service Medal, the third highest honor that the US can bestow on a civilian for doing…. nothing. In contrast, Ronald Reagan tore down the Berlin Wall, ended the Cold War and got the Presidential Medal of Freedom a full 5 years after he left office.

    My guess is that if Obama didn’t give himself a medal no one else would bother to either.

  6. Trumpty Dumpty just doesn’t get it. This is a business oportunity to lead in the world and make the United States great again. Instead it is living in the past of the great times fossil fuels played in our economy. Fossil fuels need to die and die quickly for the sake of a good life on earth. We stick to fossil longer, it is more suffering in the future.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2017/01/06/china-is-going-all-in-on-clean-energy-as-the-u-s-waffles-how-is-that-making-america-great-again/2/#25bc1b3b796a

    “Implementing the Paris Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all.” Business Backs Low Carbon USA

  7. Ronald Wright, Canadian author of the bestseller, A Short History of Progress, who studied archaeology and anthropology at Cambridge, sees a pattern in our refusal to take our collective foot off the accelerator and slow the greedy advance of civilization. He says we North Americans are heavily invested in selling hydrocarbons but are in denial about it because of, “controversies stirred up by massive funding from big oil companies that create bogus scientific institutes.”

    Civilizations rise and fall, prosper then collapse when the very technologies that created prosperity and success in the first place become liabilities, says the scholar who described this in his Massey Lectures. He calls this downfall of societies the progress trap and refers to examples in Easter Island, ancient Rome, Sumer and more, where innovations created new problems of their own, conditions that were worse than those that existed before the innovation.

    #beyondcoal Leave it in the ground.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: