Call your legislator (here) to urge them to listen to Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist, on the show tonight to explain what causes global warming, global cooling.
Here, in a nutshell, is what Ball has said about the claims of man made global warming:

Despite persistent failures of the IPCC predictions, most politicians are fooled into believing CO2 is a problem and the cause of climate change. Even if they don’t accept, they believe it is political suicide to assume otherwise. They accept the argument that all those prestigious groups can’t be wrong. Sorry, but they can and are.
We cannot stop climate change because we, or our CO2, are not the cause. There is no record of any duration for any time period in which CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase. Even if all countries implemented the complete Kyoto Protocol the difference in atmospheric CO2 would be undetectable. Saying we must adapt to climate change appears to avoid the issue but ignores that all adaptation plans are for warming. Evidence for cooling continues despite contrary comments.

We’ll also post his podcast comments later for you to send to your legislators so they can hear for themselves how they’re being played for chumps on this carbon tax and cap and trade.
See previous posts here and here and here and here and here and here —I’m tired, they’re just too numerous to mention.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

7 Responses

  1. Tim Ball wrote:
    > There is no record of any duration
    > for any time period in which CO2
    > increase precedes a temperature
    > increase.

    This doesn’t matter, BECAUSE WE HAVE CHANGED THE NATURAL SYSTEM.

    That is, we have artificially modified the natural system by pumping CO2 into it. Natural processes take places on long, long periods of time, not decades like we are seeing now.

    If a pendulum swings naturally for 5 billion years, and then someone comes along and bangs it with a hammer, of course it’s going to perturb the system in a new and unnatural way because the perturbation is unnatural. Arguments about how the pendulum acted previously do not apply, because it has been altered by new, unnaturalfactors.

    Ball thinks he has a clever argument, but it’s really not the clever at all and completely misses the point.

  2. Says you, DAvid, but Ball argues that climate changes all the time and that he’s seen four distinct climate periods during his short life. He’s right, of course. In my life I can remember the period in the 70’s when scientists were discussing the little ice age coming back, in the 80’s we discovered El Nino and how oceans impacted climate, in the 90’s we a warming period, and now we’re back to cooling again.
    And no, Eileen, I’m not a scientist. I’m a skeptic of the anti capitalistic/socialistic crowd which has found its new home in the enviro movement and seeks to remake western democracies through policy changes under the guise of environmental benefit.
    I’m all for environmental benefit. They’re not. They appear to be for the destruction of capitalism and, hence, the western way of life.
    They’ve been wrong before, sounded the alarm, stirred up emotions based on false data. I’m tired of them. I wish more people would remember all the out and out lies they’ve told before.
    And don’t forget what now disgraced former UN climate alarmist, Stephen Schneider said to Discovery Magazine in October of 1989 about the need to lie to the public to bring them around to his point of view, ““to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”

  3. Victoria Taft wrote:
    > …Ball argues that climate changes
    > all the time and that he’s seen four
    > distinct climate periods during his
    > short life.

    Of course climate changes all the time. No climatologist has ever said otherwise.

    And, if you want, you can divide those changes into phases. Many climatologists now call the current phase the “anthropocene,” meaning the era influenced by man.

    Still, Ball is trying to be clever with words while ignoring the underlying reality that we are no longer living in a “natural” world, so arguments about how the “natural” world behaves no longer directly apply.

  4. Victoria Taft wrote:
    > I’m a skeptic of the anti
    > capitalistic/socialistic crowd which
    > has found its new home in the enviro
    > movement and seeks to remake western
    > democracies through policy changes
    > under the guise of environmental
    > benefit.

    Why are you not equally skeptical of the pro-capitalistic crowd who has found its home by denying modern science and trying to remake western democracies through policy changes under the guise of financial benefit?

    Capitalism is a wonderful thing if you’re one of its winners. Not so much if you’re one of its losers — and there are always winners and losers.

    And not so much when we all have to suffer the externalized negativities it leaves behind for society to solve in its inexoerable quest for profits.

    In any case, I have talked with and interviewed dozens of climate scientists, and not once, ever, did any of them mention anything about remaking western economies. Perhaps a few NGOs have, but I trust them on climate science no more than I trust the CEI or AEI. They’re ALL advocating for their point of view.

  5. David,

    Being that we onto the Capitalism/Climate Control connection, please consider:

    The alternative to Capitalism is Socialism. Under Socialism the government attempts to control the economy, eliminating cyclic ups and downs and eliminating winners and losers. It has always failed at both (and always will) because the economy is a function of and is controlled by the constantly changing needs and desires of the entire population which is made up of billions of individuals making individual decisions relative to their individual wants and needs. It is simply too vast and subject to too many constantly changing variables to be effectively controlled by any central authority.

    It will do no better at controlling the climate, which like the economy, is simply too vast and subject to too many variables to be controlled by human authority. Does that suggest that the climate may be controlled by Supernatural Agency? Well, the climate is a function of nature—therefore if it will be controlled at all—it must be by that which is superior to nature itself. Mankind, need not apply.

    Stephen,

    PS. Capitalism, with its cyclic ups-and-downs, gives everybody a chance to be a winner and everybody runs the risk of sometimes losing. Which is not the same as being a loser—that is a function of personal character. Socialism cannot not cure that either.

  6. David says,

    “This doesn’t matter, BECAUSE WE HAVE CHANGED THE NATURAL SYSTEM.

    That is, we have artificially modified the natural system by pumping CO2 into it. Natural processes take places on long, long periods of time, not decades like we are seeing now.

    and went on to say

    …while ignoring the underlying reality that we are no longer living in a “natural” world, so arguments about how the “natural” world behaves no longer directly apply.”

    ————————————————————————————————

    David, Geologic history is replete with examples of rapid change. Yes, the climate does change all the time and not necessarily at a constant rate, nor intensity. Rapid geologic and climatic change is not necessarily unnatural.

    For example, the Younger Dryas period of 11,000 – 14,000 yrs ago was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation. Temperatures both initially plummeted and then rapidly increased over a 3,000 yr period. And what of humans, they were strictly hunter gatherers.

    One could make the same case for the Eemian period of 110,000 – 130,000 yrs ago BCE with rapidity of temperature changes. And what of humans?

    And the well “accepted” example of the the asteroid that ended the Cretaceous and the reign of the dinosaurs was rapid, even though this seemingly “settled” science has a number of prominent scientific detractors. Surprising you admit no such significant opposition exists on AGW (and this reflects the scientific method???).

    Or perhaps the end of the Permian period, in which significant volcanic activity through the Siberian Traps may have caused rapid climate change some 250 million years ago over relatively short geologic period of time.

    And the other hand, the development of the Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere 2.5 Billion years ago by Cynobacteria, which literally changed the course of geologic history and life on this planet. They simply “unnaturally” pumped O2 into the atmosphere to the “detriment” of the entire planet??! Amazingly, such a simple life form had a much greater influence on the atmosphere and ultimately the climate than that of those “Un-natural” humans??!

    You ignore the Geologic principle of Uniformitarianism which suggests that the same Geologic processes are in effect today that have been in effect throughout geologic history, though not necessarily at the same rate, nor intensity.

    Your statements above also seem to suggest it is “unnatural” for the biosphere, human or not, to have any natural impact on climate, which ignores the importance of the biosphere’s significant influence on and interaction with the composition of the atmosphere. Is this not natural?

    Interesting to note that you suggest humans have artificially modified the climate by recycling the same carbon that was naturally sequestered from the atmosphere and deposited hundreds of millions of years ago.

    Scientifically — unnatural change?? Balanced analysis and reporting??

Comments are closed.