Email With A Global Warming Denier

This is an email exchange with writer Tim Ball who published this story denying that global warming exists. The first email is at the top, and the last email at the bottom.
--------------------------------------------


On 2/27/07, Simmons wrote:
In response to Dr. Tim Ball, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
You want proof? Here's your proof:
http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/2007/02/factsheet.html
Where's your proof that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas? You have no evidence while claiming people that believe global warming exists have no evidence.


On 2/27/07, Tim Ball wrote:
Would please read what I wrote. I never ever said CO2 wasn't agreenhouse gas. What I said was there is no evidence other than inthe useless computer models that it is causing climate change now orin the past. And that comment is applied to the total CO2. the human portion is so miniscule a part of the natural CO2 that it is wellwithin the error of of the estimate of how much CO2 there is in theatmosphere.I don't mind criticism, even if, as is usually the case, the person doesn't know what they are talking about. I just prefer it beaccurate and relevant.Tim Ball


On 28-Feb-07, at 12:12 PM, Simmons wrote:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKrNquElii0ORlk3ycjnb1Xrfbe3vbf1KDJBn4nHa4v1k4NXF0zcP-Ndz-jbIL3KedA48pMbsVw9wpFpL-VTOZsRkET4lEmF-BOJNRbToSG9rcWvC7t7QuizR4q5fSjhUqYHX/s320/Temp_CO2+Longterm.gif


This graph shows the carbon levels over time (in red) and temperature levels (in blue).They were taken from ice cores in Antarctica. This proves that as carbon levels varies, so does global temperature (approximately).Do you know as much about climate change as you claim?


On 2/28/07, Tim Ball wrote:
What that graph shows, as dozen of researchers have confirmed, is that the temperature changes before the CO2 not as the basic assumption of the humans causing temperature change assumes.

Here is a lot more information for you to bring yourself up to a walk on climate science.

H.L. Mencken said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" which surely applies to Al Gore.

Almost all politicians know little or nothing about the science of climate and climate change. This is also true of the majority of the public. Groups using this lack of understanding added to exploitation of fear have driven any consideration of the science out the window. The difference for the politician is they feel pressured to respond and they are in a position to influence policy in incredibly expensive and useless ways. If you want to read how the fear is exploited, read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear."

The underlying thrust of the argument of climate change is that it is being caused by humans and specifically our production of CO2. This is a vehicle being used to undermine the successful way of life we have produced that has enhanced the length and quality of life in every country that has tried it. People like Maurice Strong are the heart o ftis battle. He said, "Isn't the problem with the planet the industrialized societies? Isn't it our job to eliminate them?" This man organized the Rio Conference and was amajor player at the UN from which sprang the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the sole source of evidence for global policy on climate change. They could not attack energy because too many people would protest so CO2, the byproduct of what fuels our societies and produced by those nasty evil energy companies. I am not here to defend them or anyone else. What I want is the scientific truth and everything I know shows CO2 is not the cause of global warming or climate change.
Consider the following

When I began my climate studies the consensus was impending doom because of another ice age. In a book titled, "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte (1976) wrote,
"It is 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." Change the seventh word to warming and we are hearing the same unjustified hysteria today. A more important change is the switch from global warming to climate change. Why? Because the world has cooled since 1998 while atmospheric and human CO2 has increased in direct contradiction to the theory. So we spend billions when a large section of climate scientists anticipate a much colder world by 2030.

A common problem with this entire issue of climate change is confusion between pollution and global warming or climate change.. Despite attempts to muddy the water, for example by the Canadian government listing CO2 as a toxic substance, global warming and climate change are not about pollution. Questioning the climate science does not mean there is not a recognition of or concern about clean air and water and a healthier environment.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occurring gas without which there would be no life on earth. Indeed. it is reasonable to argue that reducing CO2 is a negative move. Some salient points about CO2

1. It is at 385 ppm (bottom right side of diagram) at the lowest level in 600 million years.



Notice there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at any point.
Research by Sherwood and Craig Idso at http://www.co2science.org/ shows most plants function best between 1000 and 1200 ppm. Commercial greenhouses are pumping these amount in and achieving four times better growth and yield with significantly less water use. This suggests the plants have evolved to that level and our now CO2 'starved.'

2. Concern that temperatures will rise with increasing CO2 are cancelled by a couple of important facts. First, the ice core covering 420,000 years shows that temperature in creases before CO2. This is in complete contradiction to the assumption that an increase in CO2 due to human will cause an increase in temperature.

3. Even if CO2 doubles or triples there is an upper limit to the amount of temperature increase that can occur because of its role as a greenhouse gas. This upper limit is set at 1.5°C, but some like Richard Lindzen believe it is less. The reason for this upper limit is because the atmosphere is close to saturation for CO2 now so any further increase will not increase its ability to 'trap' heat. A good analogy is painting a window with black paint to block the sunlight. the firsts coat achieves 98% reduction. Any subsequent coats achieve dramatically less reduction.

4. They get around this last problem in the computer models by assuming with no scientific justification a 'positive' feedback. A positive feedback in climate science means one that enhances a trend, while a negative feedback stops or reverses the trend. They assume the increase in temperature will result in increased evaporation, which will cause more heat to be trapped and temperatures to continue to rise. In fact, the amount of increased evaporation is negligible compared to the total amount already in the atmosphere. Wtaer Vapor is by far the most abundant greeenhouse gas being 95% by volume. CO2 is less than 4% by volume and the human portion of that is about 0.4%. In additon, the increased water vapour is more likely to increase cloud cover which will act as a negative feedback blocking the sun and causing cooling.

5. In Canada, from 1997 to 2006 the Auditor General reports Environment Canada pent $6 billion dollars on climate change with no results or effect whatsoever. During that same period while pollution levels declined they failed to meet their own targets and they certainly could have declined more rapidly if the $6 billion was properly spent on pollution.

Beyond this,

1. I am concerned about the fact that large segments of society, social, political and economic, are being bullied into silence by a small group of extremists even in the land of the free. They have stolen the moral high ground so that anyone who dares to question is accused of not caring about the planet, the environment or the future of the children. People are also silenced by not wanting to show their lack of understanding of what is a very complex subject. Both fear and lack of understanding are being exploited
2. The credibility of science is in jeopardy. My concern is when the public realize the extent to which they have been misled, sadly deliberately in many cases, they will not believe anything they are told and real issues will not be dealt with. I wrote an article with the title "What happens when Chicken Little cries Wolf?" to summarize the problem

A few sources you can follow include our own web page at,

http://www.nrsp.com/

I also helped set up and remain an advisor behind the scenes for Friends of Science at

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Two other sites I recommend include a more scientific one at with much material on the global average annual temperature

http://www.co2science.org/

If you want more in depth discussion about the manipulation of data visit the site of Steve McInytyre who exposed the "hockey stick" fraud. You will find extensive discussion here on the latest "adjustments to the temperature record, which, in my opinion border on malfeasance.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

and a more general one at

http://www.junkscience.com/

You can use the links provided on these sites to lead you to other material
Here are ten excellent newspaper articles with good information.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

I hope this helps you understand what is happening as fear and lack of understanding among people and politicians is exploited and we are driven toward terrible and unnecessary policies that divert from the real issues like clean air and clean water.

I am concerned about several things but two in particular.
1. I am concerned about the fact that large segments of society, social, political and economic, are being bullied into silence by a small group of extremists even in the land of the free. They have stolen the moral high ground so that anyone who dares to question is accused of not caring about the planet, the environment or the future of the children. People are also silenced by not wanting to show their lack of understanding of what is a very complex subject. Both fear and lack of understanding are being exploited
2. The credibility of science is in jeopardy. My concern is when the public realize the extent to which they have been misled, sadly deliberately in many cases, they will not believe anything they are told and real issues will not be dealt with. I wrote an article with the title "What happens when Chicken Little cries Wolf?" to summarize the problem.
Why have senior scientists continued to deny the evidence?
Tolstoi had a comment on this conundrum.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Regards

Tim Ball

On 2/28/07, Simmons wrote:

The graph does not show that temperature changes before CO2. That is just plain wrong.

In response to "global cooling" (which all global warming deniers consistently bring up): Science and technology has evolved so much since the 40s. First of all, computers. There has been so many advances, they're countless.

Your graph is absolutely incorrect. In the other graph, if one looks closely in the top right corner, one can see a red spike with no temperature following behind it. This is proof that temperature doesn't follow CO2 and and that CO2 levels are spiking.

In respond to your factual claim that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas: you're right. Water vapor accounts for 67% of the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 60% of the enhanced greenhouse effect (which you don't believe exists). That can be seen here (PDF).

Why do you continue to deny the evidence and scientist consensus?