The New And Improved Apocalypse Part Two.

The Beast just came across this wonderfully lucid article about so-called Man-Made Global Warming, written by Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball*. Below are some highlights, but he recommends you read the entire piece here:

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in Climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University Of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

We know the answer to that question, don’t we folks?

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

But, but what about all this scientific consensus that we keep hearing about?

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libelous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Why are we being told the debate is over then?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Dr. Ball** lists in his article a goodly number of very well respected scientists who are skeptical of the Global Warming meme. As for consensus, you must remember the venue from whence these apocalyptic predictions come: Academia. Since the fall of the Kremlin, there is no more rigidly conformist ideological institution than your average bastion of higher education – Universities are veritable hives of leftwingery. They are like the fabled elephant’s graveyard – the place where old ideologies go to die. To get a true sense of how horridly authoritarian colleges have become, particularly in areas of free inquiry and free spech, please read Free Inquiry? Not on Campus by John Leo.

This is a classic carrot-and-stick operation; billions of dollars have been sunk into global warming to encourage researchers to do their thing, but the money is not there to disprove the theory. The money comes from true believers. The problem is that, just as feminist-promoted gender research began in the 70’s with the confidence that scientists would discover no real deference between the abilities of the sexes, ofttimes the actual results run counter to expectations. Reality has a way of making fools of ideologues. The Beast suspects that the actual numbers in the Global Warming boondoggle are not coming out the way certain people would like, hence the huge amplification of pressure on skeptics, that’s The Stick. Play along and you will be rewarded, buck the orthodoxy and you will be sued, ridiculed, or even lose your job. Meanwhile the emotional amplitude of the climate change crowd just grows and grows. They draw specious moralist comparisons between “climate change skeptics” and Holocaust Deniers (who can be jailed in Germany). They direct wild rage at anybody who dares question them. Why?

When you confront a child for telling a lie, does he not often pitch a tantrum – hoping the wild emotional gale will make you drop the subject for the sake of peace in your household? He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind – or in this case, a hurricane of hot air.

*CORRECTION – The Beast, indifferent typist extraordinaire, originally misspelled Dr. Ball’s name as “Bell”. He regrets any confusion that may have caused and thanks reader Ian Forrester for pointing it out. Good catch, Ian and thanks for stopping by!




  1. Red
    Posted February 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    I saw this article last year. There is more at

  2. Posted February 6, 2007 at 8:17 pm | Permalink


    The Beast will take a look, thanks so much for the link.

    *Update – Looked. This link is to the “desmogblog”, a global warming (actually that’s an old term – it has been replaced by the catchall phrase “Climate Change”) website that is, according to Tom Harris, Executive Director of The Natural Resources Stewardship Project:

    “…funded by a Calgary-based millionaire lawyer who pays a team of communications specialists (ex-journalists, etc.) from a Vancouver-based PR firm to run the site for him. No scientists appear to be involved at all – it is just a PR excercise so you have to take anything they assert with a rather large grain of salt, just as most people do politicians of all strips – all spin and no substance most of the time and surely not worth commenting on, which is why I don’t.”

    The Beast commends the site to his readers, you should really have a look.


  3. freespiritedkev
    Posted February 7, 2007 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    gotta have this link for that one

    ok now I’ll go back and read it LOL

  4. Posted February 7, 2007 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    THB, I’m also the DH you sited in your FReeRepublic posting of this article. is my group blog with several of my old college buddies. You’ll see some cross postings from time to time between Conclub and The Infidel Sage blogs.

    Keep up the good work, I’ve enjoyed your commentary.

  5. Posted February 7, 2007 at 1:16 am | Permalink


    I thought that might be you, thanks for the posting.

    The canadian site linked above didn’t think much of my post, here’s what they said:

    Is it Ball or Bell?
    Submitted by Ian Forrester on Tue, 2007-02-06 18:28.

    Beast, you just show your ignorance of the whole subject when you refer to Ball as Bell. I can assume that this signifies the level of your competence in all other areas you discuss on your blog. Time to spend more time on your high school (or is it junior high school) classes, since you must have skipped a few to spend so much time on idle and incorrect chatter.

    Dude’s got talent for invective – credit where credit’s due.

  6. dug
    Posted February 7, 2007 at 4:29 am | Permalink

    “Ian Forrester” ….My , MY, MY aren’t you just so superior… A typical Canadian libtard who thinks he’s morally superior, and so so condecending..

    Now Ian , just because the little voices in your head tell you that climate change (note “global warming” did not sell, so now it’s “climate change”) is the big threat does not mean it’s true.

    You just keep rolling on, listening to the voices, and feeling superior.

  7. Posted February 7, 2007 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    “idle chatter” – what’s wrong with idle chatter?

    “idle and incorrect chatter” – sheesh, I didn’t even know that idle chatter could be graded.

    His invective sure is cutting.

  8. Posted February 7, 2007 at 5:42 am | Permalink


    I didn’t even know that idle chatter could be graded.

    LOL! THAT is a pithy observation indeed – well said. The Beast loves idle chatter too.

    On a positive note – The Beast always thought it odd that he has never gotten a single hate comment on a blog as political as this one. So, even though he had to import this comment from another site – FINALLY! A HATE COMMENT!

    A Rubicon crossed.

    Oh and to supercillious Ian who thinks this blog is written at a Junior High School Level.


  9. Reich3535
    Posted February 7, 2007 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    WELL, it appears Mr. Ian Forrester needs to freshen up a bit on his use of the English language. His ramblings report that since THB used “Bell” instead of “Ball”, then…

    I can assume that this signifies the level of your competence in all other areas you discuss on your blog.

    Here is one brief explanation I found on the use of “assume” vs “presume” (google the word assume and you’ll find it too):

    Assume – to suppose to be the case, without proof.
    Presume – to suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability; take for granted that something exists or is the case.

    Since Mr. Forrester uses the word “since” he therefore is basing his decision on the proficiency of THB upon probablility. The correct word to use in this instance is therefore “presume”, and not “assume”.

    I hereto presume that since Mr. Forrester is incapable of properly using the English language, he therefore signifies the level of his competence in all other areas as being a bit too far north of the border.

  10. Posted February 7, 2007 at 7:25 pm | Permalink


    The English language can be an ornery bitch at times, eh? When a man slings the ad hominem mud he is often splashed in return. The Beast presumes that obsessing over a typo shows a certain lack of analytical skills, or a least a reluctance to engage ideas. It is not suprising that Mr. Forrester confined himself to a superficial analysis of the post – to go into detail would require effort. It’s much easier (and more fun) to be arrogant and dismissive.

    Good catch and thanks for the erudite comment.


Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: