I sent Kes's opinions to Terry Ball

From: TIM BALL To: Glenn Allen Subject: Re: FW: RE: Climate ChangeDate: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:33:12 -0700This is such arrant nonsense I don't know where to begin. Maybe we can start with the obvious fact that the "thoughtful"young man didn't do his research anywhere near adequately. I would fail him if he submmitted this as a Grade X paper let alone a university one. If he listened to all the tapes, interviews, and documents on our web site he would see we provide answers and explanations with what is wrong with the 'official' position. If he read my complete research record starting with my PhD, which was written when the official and scientific consensus was the threat of global cooling he would have a better understanding of my knowledge of the subject. I defy him to show one single shred of evidence that human CO2 or CO2 at all is causing climate change. This would exclude computer model outputs. They are the only source of evidence for such claims, especially those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Worse, they can't even forecast the weather 10 days from now let alone 50 years. These computer models have been wrong on every single 'prediction' to date, which isn't surprising. They leave out two of the major solar factors that cause climate change. They do not include negative feedack, they do not cope with particulates in the atmosphere and they barely include clouds at all - this include the latest research by Svensmark et al. The thoughtful young man lists NASA as a source but we have just learned how they got the official temperature record wrong. This agency is uner the direction of James Hanse, ardent Gore supprter. Ironically, the error (I personally think it was more than an error) makes all the statments in Gore's movie about temperatures of the last few decades incorrect. Now we learn that four of the warmest four years in the record were in the 1930s before humans began producing much CO2. We learned 1998 was not the warmest year, it was 1934. These changes change the slope of the temperature curve so that the claim of 0.6°C increase over the last 130 years is wrong and well within natural variability contary to the claims it wasn't. It's gone, the hockey sitck is gone and these were the only pieces of evidence of a human signal. Part from anything else the ice core and other records show that temperature changes before CO2 not as is assumed and as built into the computer models.
He should also look at his comments on CO2 and plants, which show a complete lack of understanding of the science. He should visit CO2 science.com to get a better idea of what is actually happening. He could also learn that his beloved government agencies such as NASA are saying the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has caused an expansion of global vegetation.
Of course, this won't happen because he, like so many others, become instant experts in climate and climate change when they would fail even the most basic climate science quiz.
He talks about Desmogblog a web site paid for by a Canadian who pleaded guillty to massive fraud. It was set up by James Hoggan who is Chair of the David Suzuki Fooundation. Hoggan also has a publicity company and the Suzuki Foundation is one of his clients along with Ballard Fuel, wind turbine companies and others that stand to profit from the 'go green' philosophy. The Foundation also receives money from three oil companies but somehow that is acceptable because it doesn't have an agenda.
The claim in Dessmogblog that I am paid by the energy companies is false. When I helped set up Friends of Science (FOS) I warned them about the slur campaigns that would occur. They put the money they received in a blind trust run by the University of Calgary. When David Anderson said he had consulted Canadian climate experts on Kyoto, eight of us went to Ottawa and held a press conference saying we were not conuslted. My expenses of about $800 were paid by Friends of Science. It subsequently turnd out that a very small percent, I believe it was about 2%, of FOS money came from an oil company. From this Desmogblog argued that since a small percentage of the expenses I received had, unbeknown to me, a percentage of that money then I was paid by the oil companies to spout their line. It is a bloody insult. If I was paid by them I woudn't be living on a pension, living in a leaky apartment block or driving a 1992 car.
The "thoughtul young man"should also do his homework on Kyoto. True 160 countries signed the original agreement but most were not requird to meet any reductions including China and India. He should also check on how many met their commitment or came even close. The truth is if every country met its requirements the reduction would be so small no scientist in the world would be able to detect the difference. Why? Because CO2 is less than 4% of the Greenhouse Gases and the human portion a minute fraction of that. Indeed, the entire human production is within theerror of the estimates of three of the major natural contributors to atmospheric CO2.
Ironically, the US using George Bush's voluntary program (the author and his son seem to detest with a passion that colours their judgment), achieved a greater reduction in the growth of their CO2 production than any developed nation.
The entire issue is political and was made so by Maurice Strong and his formation of the IPCC wose reports are ludicrous. Their rules require the scientific report be written, then a Summary for Policmakers is produced by politicans. This is then released to the public but also goes back othe scientists to make sure the technical report fits with the political conclusions. China fought desperately against what was going on to the point here they reduced the exremes so much that it ws noticed immediately by the media. India showed its disdain for the entire process by sending a single delegate.
The political nature of the science fits well with the clear political biases of the father and son. Mybe they could get one of their political friends to give me clear proff that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. I doubt it will happen because their searches are selective and limited by political blinkers, which they don't seem to realize they are wearing.
I am sick and tired of people who know nothing about the sceince claiming I have the science wrong because people who attacke me personally say i have it wrong. what they don't even realize is that bcause of heir lack of knowlegde or nderstanding they end up with a personal attack - but it is somehow acceptable becaause they have the right political perspective. What arrogant rubbish - like father like son. I could point out many more errors of facts and conclusions as el s more politcal bis, but they are not worth my time. I am simply doing this for you.
Tim Ball