IPCC Debunked

Last night, on CFRA, John Counsel took it upon himself to invite paleo-climatologist Dr. Tim Patterson and Tom Harris from the National Resources Stewardship Project onto the show to discuss global warming. It was one of the most entertaining and informative assessments of Climate Change. It is not Al Gore spewing myths, it is true science at it’s best. I encourage everyone to listen to these audio files.

(Note, I managed to get my call in as the first caller (Steve) on part III discussing the increased plant life due to higher co2 concentration and temperature rise. Pardon me sounding like I am slurring speech, I called from my cell phone and was driving at the time.)

CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part I
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part II
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part III
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part IV
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part V
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part VI
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part VII
CFRA Call In Show On Climate Change Part VIII

Now for the real info. The IPCC report which claims to have input form hundreds, if not thousands, of experts and scientists was only written by 30 people and that this policy maker’s report has been written to coincide with the beliefs of the group and not necessarily directly due to scientific information. Then they come out and say they will release the full report in several months and that it will be changed to reflect the information that this preliminary policy maker’s report says.

This is called “Ass Backwards Science” or ABS for short. You can read a great commentary on it by David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen (H/T to Dudley DoRight, a commenter for this)

Listen to Dr. Patterson and Tom Harris. For those interested, Tom Harris is the one who took the ad hominem attacks galore on the John Duffy climateliberal website. Tom, as I have pointed out has a Masters of Engineering in Thermofluids. He also had a great article published on climate change.

I guarantee you will come out far smarter for having listened and read info by these two men.

41 thoughts on “IPCC Debunked

  • February 8, 2007 at 12:24 am
    Permalink

    Google Alerts notified me of your comments which I have sent to Dr. Patterson and John Counsell – thanks!

    Sincerely,

    Tom Harris, Executive Director
    Natural Resources Stewardship Project
    P.O. Box 23013
    Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

    e-mail: tom.harris@nrsp.com
    Web: http://www.nrsp.com

  • February 8, 2007 at 1:10 am
    Permalink

    LOL, thanks for the laugh, wasting your time and inducing stress protein synthesis as you rage against the vast “left-wing conspiracy”.

    Do you subscribe to the belief that Dubya nuked the Twin Towers?

  • February 8, 2007 at 1:24 am
    Permalink

    As I always ask our detractors, which of the science facts we cite do you believe are incorrect?

    Sincerely,

    Tom Harris, Executive Director
    Natural Resources Stewardship Project
    P.O. Box 23013
    Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

    Web: http://www.nrsp.com

  • Pingback: Jack’s Newswatch

  • February 8, 2007 at 3:32 pm
    Permalink

    Muzzled by the CBC….tossed aside by poster #3…..truth hurts.

    Unlike the hysterics of supporters, this talk show, headed by those who clearly know their stuff, was based on what is clearly logic, education and a responsible look at “the sky is falling”.

    Great listen.

  • February 9, 2007 at 9:46 am
    Permalink

    many thanks for posting this. I don’t get to listen to Counsell’s show often enough, and I would have missed this completely if not for your post.

    an excellent interview, well worth saving.

  • February 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm
    Permalink

    I just listened to the program in it’s entirety.

    Man those guys are rational and very smart.

    They make a lot of sense. We need more like then getting their word out.

  • February 10, 2007 at 3:44 pm
    Permalink

    Concerning DeSmogBlog (post #8 above):

    After I wrote about the mistakes in the climate science in the Al Gore film back in June (see http://tinyurl.com/rxzhx for example), DeSmogBlog sent an announcement to media that I was someone who worked on a pro-tobacco lobby campaign in the early 90’s with a previous employer. DeSmogBlog never contacted me about anything; they just fired out the charge, apparently thinking people would therefore discount what I wrote about climate science.

    Next, I received calls from several media asking me about the connection and I explained that I was surprised to hear they were making this charge since I didn’t start work in he communications field until late 2002, my work being as an engineering professional until the end of 2001 (while writing as a freelancer now and then – see http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris ). I also explained to the reporters that my only connection with tobacco was working as an engineer at Transport Canada to get smoking banned on long duration air flights as it eventually represents a flight safety hazard (the filters become clogged after about 5 hours and then the low air quality in the cabin reduces the visual acuity of the pilots (who do not have a separate air supply) for night landing). The reporters realized the claim by DeSmogBlog was bogus and apparently some told them so. A representative of DeSmogBlog called me and grilled me and then, realizing my case was air tight, apologized and for a short while posted a correction on their site. However, according to reporters I spoke with later, they received nothing from DeSmogBlog correcting the mistake so I presume that is why the myth continues.

    I noted that some anti-smoking Blogs and Web sites had me up as the pro-tobacco guy so I asked DeSmogBlog to tell them it was untrue and ask them to remove it. They said they would but I doubt they did as doing Google searches still reveal my connection with some sort of pro-tobacco campaign. So, even though they ‘apologized’, the damage was, and is still being, done. One would expect DeSmogBlog would be much more careful after this. Instead, they continue to make many untrue claims about me, our organization and the scientists we work with. I had a laugh the other day when they had the headline, “NRSP’s Tom Harris Sucker Punches a Rookie”, claiming that I tricked a senior reporter into giving us positive coverage. No only was she not tricked, but she published a piece of mine and Dr. Clark’s a few months later. One can only hope that media and the public will eventually not take DeSmogBlog seriously.

    “http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists” posted above is complete nonsense (they can’t even get my location correct – smog bloggers know very well I am in Ottawa since they even called me when they investigated their tobacco charges (only AFTER media told me they would tell DeSmogBlog the info was bogus)).

    One has to remember that their site is funded entirely by a millionaire lawyer/activist John Lefebvre (sp?) and is designed by the major PR firm running it on contract specifically to discredit any one who dares disagree with political correctness on the climate issue so of course they will say, even make up, all sorts of things about those who they are paid to oppose. I stopped taking them seriously months ago. Yes, Lefebvre (generally a nice guy I am told by several people I know (some in my family) who know him but making a serious mistake funding the DeSmogBlog project) is, I am told, the same fellow who is out on $5 million bail as a result of am Internet gambling charge from the FBI – does anyone know any more about this case? I have no idea if he is guilty, and, for the sake of my friends who are his, I hope he is not but he is, from what I can see, the main driver of the little DeSmogBlog project and is apparently bankrolling the whole thing. I have no idea how much, if any, science understanding of the issue he has and the desmogblogers themselves have none that I can detect. They appear to be very experienced communications people though and so are succeeding in getting some coverage by those in the media who would rather focus on intrigue than real science.

    Thanks for support of others but the DeSmogBlog material is largely urban legend and so should be ignored altogether.

    Another urban legend that needs clearing up is the ‘fact’ that scientists who are skeptical of climate change are in the pocket of big oil. In reality, ZERO % of the funding in Canada (and practically none anywhere else) that goes to research into the causes of global climate change comes from industry of any kind – it is all from the taxpayer. So, should such research be hidden from the people that pay for it? DeSmogBlog apparently thinks so.

    I told one of the hosts this on the radio about the oil funded scientists myth but I’m not sure he was convinced – click here to listen to our short discussion – see http://www.nrsp.com/NRSP-Media/Audio_Wave/CFRA-Nov14-06.wav .

    Tom Harris
    http://www.nrp.com

  • February 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm
    Permalink

    Kitchener Conservative (#9) you aren’t kidding!! I think these two gentlemen need to be heard by more people in the main stream media too.

  • February 11, 2007 at 1:36 am
    Permalink

    Tom,

    According to “DeSmogBlog”, “Jim Hoggan is the founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.”

    He’s a lawyer, so naturally he’s an expert in science.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/about_us

  • February 13, 2007 at 11:55 am
    Permalink

    Excellent post Steve.

    I have two comments.

    First, I would like to know more about exactly how the Global Warming advocates are going to profit by their position. There was a brief mention about a brokerage firm buying Carbon Credits. If someone could be more detailed about this area I would be interested in hearing it.

    Secondly and this is just an aside in regard to the U.N. and the IPCC. If you pour over the U.N. & the W.H.O. studies concerning second hand smoke you will notice a rather odd omission. The findings of one twenty year study actually concluded that limited exposure (as in a household with smoking parents) to second hand smoke was actually beneficial to children between the ages of 6 & 9. The reasoning in a nutshell was that it help develop their immune systems.

    My point in mentioning this is that if one actually looks at what the U.N. says about a wide range of topics, it seems to me that you can only conclude that they are engaged in some sort of selfserving Socialist adgenda as opposed to being proponents of scientific truth, which they try to paint themselves as.

  • February 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm
    Permalink

    In reply to Tom Harris (post #10 above) How is the case coming along concerning your associate Dr. Ball per http://www.desmogblog.com/
    tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents? I guess this part of that website is accurate? Dr. Johnson seems to have some pretty damning evidence against the credibility of Dr. Ball, does he not?

    I’m not a fan of David Suzuki (since he shot down one of my proposals) but this website http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
    subsection “Who are the skeptics: Mr Cool & friends”, quote [“Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn’t published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.”]

    I like to keep an open mind on Climate Change/Global Warming, so if you would like to submit references to scientific papers you have authored/coauthored on this subject, I would be very grateful.

  • March 6, 2007 at 10:02 am
    Permalink

    actually, i’d rather enjoy any papers mr. lobbyist, er harris, has authored

    I’m guessing by the fact it took 5 days to post something and the link provided is nothing more than further tooting of his own horn, mr lobbyist has no relevant CV or research to back his claims. No real surprise there.

    Nowhere on that blog referenced in #10 by mr. lobbyist, do they say he’s pro tobacco. They do compare the tactics of his lobbyist group to that of pro tobacco groups. Not the same thing is it? Yet the lobbyist, insists that it is so and spends paragraphs whining about how he’s the victim of disinformation while avoiding any direct questions on the subject. Typical.

  • March 6, 2007 at 11:27 am
    Permalink

    jcairo,

    DeSmogBlog used to say Harris was a lobbyist for Tobacco, but has since removed that reference from their website.

    This site has the original link

    Link to the original article saying he works for tobacco: Read
    http://www.desmogblog.com/news-alert-tobacco-strategist-now-meddling-in-climate-change-debate
    NEWS ALERT: Apology to Tom Harris
    Submitted by Kevin Grandia on Thu, 06/15/2006 – 17:34.
    An earlier DeSmogBlog post concluded in error that Tom Harris, of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group, was at one point involved in making public relations strategy for the tobacco industry.
    Although the High Park Group’s Tom Harris was employed by APCO Worldwide, he is NOT the APCO Worldwide Tom Harris who is named in U.S. legal suits as having been on the Philip Morris file.
    The DeSmogBlog would like to apologize unreservedly for the error.
    Kevin Grandia’s blog | add new comment
    ( categories: U.S. | Skeptics/Disinformation | Corporate Actions | Spin | APCO | friends of science | tobacco | tom harris )
    Tom Harris
    Submitted by Tim Lambert (not verified) on Fri, 06/16/2006 – 03:47.
    I don’t think it’s the same Tom Harris. I found this old about page for Harris http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris/About-Tom.htm and in 1993 (when that tobacco document with his name on it was published) he was “working as a full-time professional speaker and freelance writer in space exploration, presenting to audiences of all ages and backgrounds ranging from aerospace professionals and science teacher associations to groups of young children.”

  • March 6, 2007 at 11:33 am
    Permalink

    “Nowhere on that blog referenced in #10 by mr. lobbyist, do they say he’s pro tobacco. They do compare the tactics of his lobbyist group to that of pro tobacco groups. Not the same thing is it? Yet the lobbyist, insists that it is so and spends paragraphs whining about how he’s the victim of disinformation while avoiding any direct questions on the subject. Typical.”

    http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3055

    DesmogBlog Removed the post they had on Tom Harris and tobacco

    Link to the original article saying he works for tobacco: Read
    http://www.desmogblog.com/news-alert-tobacco-strategist-now-meddling-in-climate-change-debate
    NEWS ALERT: Apology to Tom Harris
    Submitted by Kevin Grandia on Thu, 06/15/2006 – 17:34.
    An earlier DeSmogBlog post concluded in error that Tom Harris, of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group, was at one point involved in making public relations strategy for the tobacco industry.
    Although the High Park Group’s Tom Harris was employed by APCO Worldwide, he is NOT the APCO Worldwide Tom Harris who is named in U.S. legal suits as having been on the Philip Morris file.
    The DeSmogBlog would like to apologize unreservedly for the error.
    Kevin Grandia’s blog | add new comment
    ( categories: U.S. | Skeptics/Disinformation | Corporate Actions | Spin | APCO | friends of science | tobacco | tom harris )
    Tom Harris
    Submitted by Tim Lambert (not verified) on Fri, 06/16/2006 – 03:47.
    I don’t think it’s the same Tom Harris. I found this old about page for Harris http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris/About-Tom.htm and in 1993 (when that tobacco document with his name on it was published) he was “working as a full-time professional speaker and freelance writer in space exploration, presenting to audiences of all ages and backgrounds ranging from aerospace professionals and science teacher associations to groups of young children.”

  • March 9, 2007 at 11:29 pm
    Permalink

    I always find it revealing that those who attack our side seem to feel that their position is so sacred that ad hominem attacks and stating speculation as if it were known fact is an acceptable approach. I believe that, in general, this is because they are insecure about the science and so want to divert the public and the media from thinking about it on their own.

    Concerning speculation, how can anyone trust DeSmogBlog after they made the enormous, easily avoided (and, I suspect, intentional) error about my supposed tobacco work – and yes, it WAS a direct accusation about me being a pro-tobacco lobbyist – look at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3055 – saying I was “one of the architects of a similar strategy for the tobacco industry in the US.” That is not a conditional statement). Of course it is no longer on DeSmogBlog’s Web site, and their apology isn’t there either. I don’t imagine they like to be reminded of the episode (at least pubicly; privately I wouldn’t be surprised if some consider it an effective approach since the urban legend they started continues).

    Also note in the DeSmogBlog media alert “On November 13, 2002 Tom Harris was listed as the organizer of the launch of a Canadian climate science group called Friends of Science (FOS)”

    No, where was that listed (besides the CBC who just make things up when it suits their purposes)? I was not involved in the launch of FOS which I understand happened years before that press conference and FOS had no involvement whatsoever in the Nov 13 event. I have never been a member of FOS either, although I respect their science work as being first class. DeSmogBlog still haven’t corrected that mistake and continue to make statements that are either incorrect or misleading about NRSP on a regular basis.

    BTW, I was one of the principle organizers of the Nov 13, 2002 press conference and it was funded by ten entities, all openly identified to the press and yes, some from industry, but also some private philanthropists.

    Now, that was my first interaction with DeSmogBlog. As I said, I haven’t taken anything they say seriously since and I get the impression few not hopelessly biased on the pro-Kyoto side do either – why trust them after such a start? The fact that they are funded specifically to discredit our side, professionally and, so it appears, personally, means that there is no middle ground with them – we are “deniers” to the sacred doctrine of the Suzuki/Gore/Stern approach and nothing we say is of value in their mind. You can’t negotiate with people like that and, after that first episode and my observation of how they have behaved since, I never try (although occasionally correcting their mistakes when they pop up on reputable or influential sites such as this one).

  • March 10, 2007 at 9:18 am
    Permalink

    ” always find it revealing that those who attack our side seem to feel that their position is so sacred that ad hominem attacks and stating speculation as if it were known fact is an acceptable approach. I believe that, in general, this is because they are insecure about the science and so want to divert the public and the media from thinking about it on their own.”

    Here, Here Tom!

    Keep up the good work.

  • March 10, 2007 at 9:39 am
    Permalink

    Tom, I’m still waiting. Re: [10] “I like to keep an open mind on Climate Change/Global Warming, so if you would like to submit references to scientific papers you have authored/coauthored on this subject, I would be very grateful.”

  • March 10, 2007 at 3:24 pm
    Permalink

    Alan,

    I’m not sure what your point is? By all accounts, Tom doesn’t pass himself off as a climatologist, he advocates a position contrary to David Suzuki, Al Gore, etc.

    I don’t see why advocating a position would require Tom to have (co)authored any papers on the subject.

    He merely is advocating research done by others, which I myself happen to agree with. I’m no expert, but all the research that I’ve done has led me to the conclusion that natural not humans are by far the greatest contributor to climate change.

    Your comments have the appearance of only trying to discredit anything Tom is talking about. Is that right or wrong? Do you hold advocates like Al Gore and David Suzuki to the same standard. Neither of them are experts in Climate change, yet people take what they have to say as fact. So what really is your point Alan?

  • March 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm
    Permalink

    I have a long background in thermodynamics/fluid mechanics and heat transfer, all essential to properly understand the atmosphere so, while I do not generate original science myself (although I have published in thermo-fluids engineering), I am well-equiped to read the climate papers and write about them.

  • March 11, 2007 at 9:44 am
    Permalink

    [24]”I don’t see why advocating a position would require Tom to have (co)authored any papers on the subject.”

    Go to http://www.nrsp.com/: “we need sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on a thorough understanding of science, engineering and economics”.

    I agree. We need scientists, engineers and economists to shape “sensible … policies” . I’m not telling you something you don’t already know. Presumeably NRSP, in creating these sensible polices, relies on people skilled in these fields, people who publish subject to peer review.

    [I’ve had personal experience of this process of peer review while working at the University of Toronto (http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/list/ecvother.htm) as a research associate and have coauthored 2 papers for the Journal of Cellular Physiology in 1982 and 1985 although the online records that I can find, only go back to 1996: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc/31010/all%5D

    Tom [26] has answered me and I agree that he is “well-equip[p]ed to read the climate papers and write about them”, even if he can’t spell , but which are the scientific papers that he draws upon?

  • March 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
    Permalink

    Alan (#28), when the sun rises everyday for thousands of years, and someone comes along and says sacrifice 1000 virgins or it will stop rising in 50 years, I think it falls on the fearmonger asking for the virgin sacrifice to provide the paperwork stating the sun will stop rising and NOT up to those who believe the sun will keep rising to disprove the statement.

    So why don’t you tell us what scientific papers the climate change fearmongers rely on. Was it the IPCC report that we now know was both faulty and not endorsed by all the people they listed. Nor were the majority of those listed even scientists. Or was it Al Gore’s MockYoumentary? We all know his science background is intense. Political Science that is. And we all know politicians never lie.

    So why don’t you tell us what papers on the snake oil of climate change you have written?

    Now I must also add that your first link listing you as a Research Associate lists you as an “Electronics Technician”. And this qualifies you how??

    Heck, even I am an Electronics Engineering Technologist with a B.Sc. What degree did you say you have? Because my gut is telling me you set up the computers that they did their erroneous climate modeling on.

  • March 11, 2007 at 8:23 pm
    Permalink

    “I agree. We need scientists, engineers and economists to shape “sensible … policies” . I’m not telling you something you don’t already know. Presumeably NRSP, in creating these sensible polices, relies on people skilled in these fields, people who publish subject to peer review”

    Alan,
    try looking at their scientific advisory committee and allied experts

    http://www.nrsp.com/people.html

  • March 11, 2007 at 11:18 pm
    Permalink

    I suggest that at least parts of the following quote applies very much to our common concern about suppression of alternative voices in the climate debate:

    FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?

    Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    From: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19293

  • March 12, 2007 at 6:50 am
    Permalink

    [30]” Alan,try looking at their scientific advisory committee and allied experts http://www.nrsp.com/people.html

    Thanks, I somehow missed that. There’s a lot of interesting info there.

  • March 13, 2007 at 8:03 pm
    Permalink

    [31]”People were asking for the sort of science references we use. I could send them one by one but a more effective way is to send to the FOS science refrence site at http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=7 since they use many of the same references as we do.”

    Thanks.

  • March 13, 2007 at 8:42 pm
    Permalink

    [29]”So why don’t you tell us what papers on the snake oil of climate change you have written?”

    None. Where did you get that idea?

    “Now I must also add that your first link listing you as a Research Associate lists you as an “Electronics Technician”. And this qualifies you how??”

    Working closely with the principal researcher taught me a lot (although
    it has been a while).

    “Heck, even I am an Electronics Engineering Technologist with a B.Sc.”

    Oh.

    “What degree did you say you have?”

    I didn’t.

    “Because my gut is telling me you set up the computers that they did their erroneous climate modeling on.”

    Then you would be wrong. I was actually an ‘Electronics Technologist III’ in UofT jargon, a ‘IV’ meaning that you supervised other techs, but as I was on my own (as grants don’t normally cover techs) I had the ear of the Prof. As I previously said, I worked in Cell Physiology, and later in Cloud Physics closely it both cases with the principal researcher. I never indicated that we had anything to do with climate, and was just saying that ‘scientific papers’ are not new to me.

    The two papers I coauthored (in cell physiology) are (1)”Low-Frequency Voltage Noise in a Mammalian Bone Cell Close” Journal of Cellular Physiology 113:267-272 (1982) and (2)”Transient and Sustained Effects of Hormones and Calcium on Membrane Potential in a Bone Cell Close” Journal of Cellular Physiology 122:53-58 (1985). I designed and supplied the electronic interfaces and did some of the research.

    Later in the Department of Physics I designed a built interfaces to PC’s along with supporting software, mostly in assembly for wind tunnels, field instruments and Doppler radar. I retired in 1994.

  • March 13, 2007 at 9:45 pm
    Permalink

    Alan, by your own logic and arguments, you are not qualified to comment on this subject. In your post (#15) you quote Suzuki’s website which states Dr. Ball has not even published in 14 years in an effort to try to discredit him.

    Then in your last post (#35) you state that you yourself retired 13 years ago and have not published since 1985, some 22 or so years ago.

    I think I will stop wasting my time reading your posts and go back to Dr. Ball. He’s far more mainstream wouldn’t you say?

  • March 14, 2007 at 12:40 am
    Permalink

    Please take a look at our Web page on Dr. Ball at http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html where it says: “Dr. Ball has recently (Dec 06) co-authored a paper in the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock entitled Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? He is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 – McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World’s leading authorities on arctic birds.”

  • March 16, 2007 at 7:49 pm
    Permalink

    [36]”Alan, by your own logic and arguments, you are not qualified to comment on this subject. n your post (#15) you quote Suzuki’s website which states Dr. Ball has not even published in 14 years in an effort to try to discredit him.

    Then in your last post (#35) you state that you yourself retired 13 years ago and have not published since 1985, some 22 or so years ago.

    I think I will stop wasting my time reading your posts and go back to Dr. Ball. He’s far more mainstream wouldn’t you say?”

    For a guy with a degree you’re awfully thick. I’m not competing with climatologists, then or now. I’m merely stating that I’ve coauthored scientific papers in the past, and that I would expect to see any evidence of global warming, one way or the other, in such papers thereby giving credibility to claims.

    Tom [37], are you sure of the title you quoted? I could not find it at the Ecological Complexity website, when I searched there (seeking to pay by credit card for access).

  • March 16, 2007 at 8:52 pm
    Permalink

    I asked Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard who is a co-author and apparently following the logistics through to final publication and he said he expects it out this month and that he will let me know when the magazine with the paper it in is published.

    BTW, take a look at the TV4 show on “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and hear the interview with the producer yesterday in Winnipeg – see http://www.nrsp.com/news.html .

  • March 17, 2007 at 11:12 am
    Permalink

    [39] Thanks Tom, please let me know here, when it is published or by email (I have emailed you directly). I thoroughly enjoyed “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which makes a great deal of sense, and as a result has converted me to your point of view (I was sitting on the fence before) and will make sure that my friends review it too.

  • March 20, 2007 at 7:17 pm
    Permalink

    Maybe I’ll sit on the fence a little longer after seeing the “60 minutes” interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4OzpgTOhk with James Hansen. Obviously the Bush White House believes there is some credibility to man made CO2 causing global warming – else why would they doctor scientific reports? I have asked externally “Where is the definitive evidence that changes in temperature produce changes in CO2, or vice-versa”. I am of course referring to the data record of all those ice core samples going back thousands of years but have yet to hear from anyone. Even Al Gore hasn’t replied 🙂

Comments are closed.