Audio Interviews at KHEN "Truth Quest:"

Dr. Ball, Horner 

 Dr. Tim Ball- so-called “climate skeptic” and “climate change denier”

5/12/09 interview with Melodee Hallett Dr. Eric Karlstrom and co-host on "Truth Quest with Melodee" 

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, August, 2009

Dr. Timothy Ball, Canada’s first Ph.D. in Climatology, is an ex-professor of Climatology at the University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, in Manitoba, Canada.  His interest in climate was fueled when, prior to returning to university, he served in the Canadian Air Force and for five years flew search and rescue missions in the Canadian Arctic.  

Interview highlights:

When Timothy Ball initially got into climate science, he didn’t imagine it would become such a controversial science.  He notes that whereas “consensus” means something in politics, it doesn’t mean much at all in science.   Indeed, "global cooling" was the “consensus” belief back in the 1980’s.  Ball was as opposed to this consensus then as he is to the so-called “consensus” of man-caused global warming now.   So he has been called a “climate skeptic.”    However, the truth is that all scientists are skeptics and must be skeptics.  Ball has also been called a “climate change denier” (this began with a London Times article about five years ago).  Of course, this is meant as in insult; with the implication that denying climate change is comparable to being a “Holocaust denier.”  What is ironic and amusing about this is that during his whole career, Dr. Ball been spent trying to educate people about the extent to which climate changes all the time.  

Unfortunately, the whole field has been hi-jacked by the environmental movement and the political agenda that came with it.   They (the catastrophic-global-warming advocates) have turned the scientific method completely on its head.  

How science does and doesn’t work:

Science works by developing hypotheses which are based on assumptions.  Then you test these assumptions and hypotheses against the evidence.  In science, other scientists are supposed to challenge the assumptions in the hypothesis.   But in the case of carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming, the hypothesis was accepted as fact before the research had even begun.  As Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT meteorologist) stated: “The consensus was reached before the research had begun.”   So instead of disproving the hypothesis as per the normal scientific method, they have gone to great lengths to defend the hypothesis against all scientific facts and scientific skeptics.  

But the evidence keeps growing to show that the man-caused global warming hypothesis is clearly wrong.  What’s troubling is that even though the science clearly shows that carbon dioxide is not the problem, the politicians have still gone ahead and introduced carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, and whole economic structures, etc., even though the science shows there’s no justification for it.

The United Nations IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Dr. Ball was never invited to participate as a member of the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).   When it was set up, (in large part by Canadian, United Nations magnate, Maurice Strong), the people who were put on the IPCC were very carefully selected.  In Canada, most were part of the government bureaucracy of Environment Canada.   Indeed, no academics outside of government were invited to participate.  At the time, Dr. Ball was chairing a Canadian national committee on natural climate fluctuations, where he expressed his view that the jury was still out on whether carbon dioxide causes climate change.   So he was asked to step down as chair of this national climate committee.   Thus, we see that the IPCC outcome was predetermined because of who was asked to serve on the IPCC.

Three films pertinent to this issue are Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” Martin Durkin’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” and Channel 4’s “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.”  

(Note that the second two films completely refute the premise of Al Gore's academy award winning movie.)  In fact, Dr. Ball is featured in an excellent Channel 4 (BBC) feature entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (which people can view on u-tube or purchase from    Ball notes that Al Gore’s documentary movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” deserved an Oscar because it is from the land of make-believe and is a superb piece of propaganda.  What many people don’t know is that the week before Gore got his Nobel Prize for the movie, a British court ruled that the movie is a purely political film with nine major scientific errors and that this information needs to be disseminated to teachers who might show the movie.

Another excellent program is a previous Channel 4 documentary called “The Greenhouse Conspiracy,” which was made in the late 1990s (also available on u-tube).   Remarkably, and almost frighteningly, the points that it makes are still extremely relevant today.  However, even though this program was well received in Europe, PBS and Canada’s CBC refused to air this program.   To Dr. Ball’s knowledge, this program has still not been shown in North America.   There were amazingly strong attacks against it.

“The Greenhouse Conspiracy” documentary features the work of Sherwin Idso and his son (their website is called CO2 science- which shows that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause plants to grow more vigorously.  Indeed, if we reduce CO2, this would be quite harmful to the plants.  

Shifting Terms

The term “global warming” morphed into the term “climate change” about two years.  Why?   Thomas Huxley said that the great bane in science is a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.  The ugly fact here is that since 2000 the temperature has being going down as carbon dioxide continues to rise.  Of course, the “climate change” terminology allows them to attribute anything to human activity.   It’s back-firing on them to some extent.  For instance, most people can see that a colder year cannot be due to global warming.   

More recently, "climate change" has shifted to “climate chaos” and after “carbon credits” (which grew out of the Kyoto Protocol) was discredited, it went to a "carbon tax," and now it’s "cap and trade."  But all of these are the same- all of them undercut the industries that burn fossil fuels.

Mainstream television has been the real culprit- these are the “gossip mongers” in the global village.    Their political views are coloring their view of science.   They are repeaters not reporters.  

What Is the Greenhouse Effect?

The Greenhouse Effect is an analogy that is used to help people understand things, but it doesn’t fit exactly.  It is based on the idea that our world is about 33 degrees C warmer than it should be without the greenhouse gases.  The earth’s average temperature now is about 15 degrees C and without the greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, etc.) trapping and holding infra-red radiation emitted by the earth, it would be about -18 degrees C.    The analogy is that greenhouse gases act like the glass in a greenhouse.  Short-wavelength radiation from the sun can come through the glass and is absorbed by surfaces in the greenhouse.  These surfaces then give off energy as sensible heat (or infra-red radiation) which cannot escape through the glass.  Hence, the glass traps the sensible heat in the greenhouse, which then gets hotter and hotter.   So the glass acts like a one way valve; it lets the energy from the sun into the room but does not let the heat from the room escape.  The analogy is that the greenhouse gases act like the glass in the sense that they also are transparent to short-wave radiation from the sun (mostly visible and UV light) but absorb sensible (infra-red) heat emitted by the earth and then re-radiate or counter-radiate that energy back to earth.  

There are many problems with this analogy.  One of the errors in the analogy is that when we read or hear about greenhouse gases in the media and EPA reports, they are generally talking about CO2.   But CO2 constitutes less than 4% of the total greenhouse gases.  (And human contribute only about 3% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide.   So we contribute far less than 1% of total atmospheric greenhouse effect).   Water vapor, which makes up about 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume, is the most important greenhouse gas and is virtually ignored.   The other main greenhouse gas is methane.  Animal rights people are attacking cattlemen and so on to the extent that in New Zealand, they actually introduced a tax of $300 per animal due to the methane that they produce.  It’s gotten that ridiculous.  So the greenhouse effect is a real thing but it doesn’t work like a greenhouse, as they suggest.

Recent work by a professor Nikolovsky shows that the greenhouse effect doesn’t change the temperature much at all.  It does cause the temperature to be warmer, like a blanket on your body night, but it is essentially saturated.  It works as efficiently as it can and even by changing the content of greenhouse gases, you don’t change the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect.  This suggests that the total cause of climate change on the earth is the sun.  But of course, the IPCC doesn’t consider the sun as a potential cause of climate change at all.  The hypothesis, then, developed around the idea that an increase in CO2 would cause a temperature rise.  And of course since humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year, temperatures should rise.

The difficulty with this is that paleoclimatic records of any duration, such as the ice core record, show that temperatures change before carbon dioxide does.  So the fundamental assumption of the hypothesis is shown to be absolutely wrong.   

Again, hypotheses are based on assumptions.  They start out as theories.  If they hold up to scientific attempts to disprove them and if they make accurate predictions, they become a law.  So Newton’s theory of gravity started as theory but when it couldn’t be disproven and when it helped us to put a man on the moon, it became the law of gravity.  We still have many theories, however, including the theory of evolution, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and the theory that an increase in CO2 will cause global warming.   But as the scientific evidence comes in, it shows that the fundamental assumptions of the carbon dioxide/global warming theory are incorrect.   

Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas (and also Essential Plant Fertilizer)

The IPCC makes up the statistic that humans contribute 7.85 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year (2007).   What they don’t admit is that of the CO2 we produce, we remove about half by our activities of agriculture and forestry.  Farmers are already sequestering CO2- so if CO2 is a problem (and I don’t think it is), why aren’t we paying farmers for that service?

The other major problem in these climate issues is that virtually all the data we use are very crude estimates.  We have no firm measurements of carbon dioxide being added or removed from the oceans each year.   The IPCC estimate that the oceans contribute between 90 and 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year.   This 10 gigatons of uncertainty is actually greater than the 7.85 gigatons attributed to humans!  

We are now in the position where we are taking the output of one computer model, using it as if it were real data, and inputting this data into other computer models.   That’s how incestuous this computer model-generated science has become.

There is currently about 385 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Sherwin Idso has shown that for most plants, the optimum amount of atmospheric CO2 is between 1000 and 1200 ppm.  This amount is being used commercially in greenhouses to increase plant yields by a factor of 4.  Also, plants use less water when they have more CO2.    The 1000 to 1200 ppm level appears to be what the plants have evolved to.  A good graph by Berner (2001, below) shows average temperatures and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 600 million years.   Over last 300 million years, when most plants evolved, the average CO2 content of the atmosphere seems to have been about 1000 to 1200 ppm   So you could argue that at the present level of CO2- 385 ppm- our plants are malnourished and CO2-starved.   And of course if you reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, this would have negative effects on plants.

 (Fig. 1. Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Variation over Past 600 Million Years

Temperature after C.R. Scotese; CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001)

One very good study showed that the rising levels of CO2 has caused increases of about 2 bushels/acre wheat yields in North America.  

Indeed, if you go to any conference, after about an hour CO2 levels in the room are up to about 1500 ppm, without having any damaging effects to humans.   In mining, where this is in an issue, people are allowed to stay in mines with CO2 levels up to about 4500 ppm, but only for about 15 minutes.  Above this level, CO2 becomes toxic.   But CO2 levels could go way higher than the present 385 ppm, benefit plants, and still have no negative effects on temperatures, plants, or humans.

The Carbon Sequestration Scam

Carbon sequestration is a bit of a scam that is being pushed by governments and oil companies.   In an oil field, if you just pump the oil out, you recover about 1 barrel in 4.  But if you pump a fluid into the well, you can recover about 3 barrel in 4.  So the oil companies are pushing for a government subsidy to get liquid CO2 pumped into the ground to get more productivity.  This is a very expensive technology and only profitable with a large government subsidy.  Dr. Ball hasn't seen any research on what effects this would this have on groundwater.   

In the DVD, “Nobodies Fuel: Why Energy is More Important than Climate Change,” Canadian Engineer Lightfoot notes there is a direct correlation between the use of fossil fuel and wealth.  He also notes that the carbon sequestration process is so inefficient that it would require the burning of an additional 35% of coal to accomplish.  

We need to remember that carbon dioxide is an essential component of the biosphere and is essential to life itself.  CO2 is coming out of the ground all the time from volcanoes (along with water vapor, sulfur, etc.), and it is leaking out of the ground for several hundred km surrounding any volcano.   Studies at Mt. Aetna in Sicily show large amounts of CO2 coming out of the entire area.  This is why Dr. Ball has long criticized the siting of our CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, a large volcano in Hawaii.  Volcanic material here is very porous.  So this is the most ridiculous place you could choose to measure global CO2 levels.   CO2 also comes out from underneath the oceans, from undersea volcanoes, etc.   

Large volcanic events generally bring temperatures down briefly because of the large amounts of sulfur and particulates given off that block the sunlight.  Examples include Mt. Pinatubu, which erupted in 1991 and reduced the global temperature in 1992 by 1 degree Celsius.  In 1470 BC, the eruption of Mt. Santarini in the Eastern Mediterranean wiped out the Minoan civilization and allowed the Greek civilization to rise.  The eruption of Mt. Tambora in AD 1815 in Indonesia triggered the year with no summer in 1916.   After this event, governments started to control grain prices.  This huge volcanic explosion also had an effect on the battle of Waterloo.  

Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels

The whole issue surroundng any future scenarios depends on when you start your trend line.  By changing this, you change your conclusion about whether the CO2 (and also temperature) is going up or going down.

In Dr. Ball's opinion, the pre-industrial levels of CO2 have been deliberately created.  It started with the ice-core record.  Several researchers have shown what’s wrong with that.   Zbignew Jaworski has been working on ice cores for 30 years.  He shows that they underestimate the amount of pre-industrial carbon dioxide by at least 20%.  If you increase the pre-industrial levels by 20%, you bring it up to modern levels.   (So there may not have been any increase in carbon dioxide levels at all in the last 150 years!- ETK note).  Also, in the ice cores, researchers smooth out the curve.  They take the huge variability in readings and apply a smoothing curve that eliminates the tremendous variability and all the high readings.  

A German named Ernst Beck examined a record of about 90,000 readings of atmospheric CO2 that were measured beginning in 1812.  The record shows a great range of readings up to 455 ppm.  However, earlier on, an English scientist named Calendar got a hold of this record, he chose only the 20% of the readings with the lowest CO2 levels- to fit the idea that pre-industrial levels were about 280 ppm.  Beck’s work shows how this data was manipulated.

Dr. Roy Spencer has just published a paper that shows that CO2 readings at Mauna Loa very closely follow variations in sea surface temperature off the Hawaiian Islands.  The sea temperature would determine the input and output of CO2 from the ocean surface.  (When sea surface temperatures increase, more carbon dioxide is given off- ETK note).  This then would be producing the variability at Mauna Loa, rather than the human input.  Keeling produces the Mauna Loa readings, takes the readings and adjusts them, and has patented the method for measuring and adjusting CO2 all over the world.  So it’s not surprising that these records show a lot of uniformity.  In fact, when you take single readings from anywhere, you see huge variability.  But they eliminate this variability and reduce the average in doing that.  So the 280-ppm pre-industrial level simply does not hold up to any scientific investigation at all. 

Earth’s Temperatures- Past and Present

The most recent warm period was the Holocene Optimum from about 8,000 to 3,000 years ago.  The ice-core record from Greenland and Antarctica shows that earth’s temperatures there were about 4 degrees C warmer than present about 5,000 years ago.  But you don’t have to look at the ice-core records only.  Dr. Ritchie of the University of Toronto photographed a 3-foot diameter, fossil white spruce, radiocarbon dated at 5000 years ago, located about 100-km north of current treeline.  For a tree of this size to have existed at that location, the climate would have had to have been about 4 degrees C warmer than today.  

But they (the United Nations IPCC) are trying to convince you that: 1) it’s now warmer than ever before, and 2) the rate of warming is greater now than ever before.  Both of these are simply not true.  

By the way, the IPCC has maintained that average earth temperature is 0.6 degrees C (1 degree F) warmer today than 100 years ago.   But if you go back and look, you see the IPCC actually states 0.6 degrees plus or minus 0.2 degrees C.   This is a very wide margin of error.

Accurate Temperature Records?

Temperature is measured in a Stevenson screen which sits about 4.5 feet above ground level.   So we really only measure temperature at that height.  But when you go back 100 years, you see very few instruments like the modern temperature gauges.   Also, by building cities we have created the Urban Heat Island Effect, artificially raising local temperatures by replacing natural vegetation with concrete, etc.   The center of a city is much warmer than the surrounding countryside.  In the night, a dome of warm air forms over the city.  This dissipates during the day and reforms at night.   This urban heat island effect encompasses many temperature gauges and distorts the record of surface temperatures.   Once you factor in the Urban Heat Island, you virtually eliminate the 0.6 degrees C. warming that the IPCC claims. 

Another irony in this subject is that humans and other organisms generally do better when temperatures are warmer rather than cooler.   The Medieval Warm Period ("MWP," about 900 to 1300 AD) was a period of unprecedented wealth, whereas the Little Ice Age ("LIA," about 1350 to 1850 AD) was a period of shorter growing seasons, increased starvation, disease etc.  The twelfth century in Scotland was known as “The Great Century.”   The Vikings were farming in areas of Greenland now covered by permafrost.

The Little Ice Age, beginning about 1500 AD was marked by colder temperatures and wetter conditions.  You could argue that the collapse of European economies during this period lead to the Reformation.   Human history really starts to make some sense when you start to understand how climate affects human migrations, food production, etc.   One of the things that lead to the colonization of North America was the fact that here was a huge territory with relatively warm conditions.    
For people, plants and most organisms, warmer is better.  But now governments are preparing for warming when we are headed for cooling!

The Role of the Sun

In the terms of reference of the IPCC, they say only intend to look at human causes of climate change- so they effectively ignore all the natural causes.  And one of the causes they particularly ignore is the change of the sun.  We’ve known for a long time that as sunspot numbers change, earth temperatures change.  When you have more sunspots, the earth is warmer and when you have fewer sunspots, the earth is cooler.  The IPPC ignored that because they said that a correlation does not mean cause and effect.  And that’s true.   But we’ve had in the literature since 1991 evidence of a cause and effect mechanism between sunspot numbers and temperature.  The IPCC has not acknowledged this.

Cloud formation is a very complex thing.  We now know that cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere affects the amount of cloud formation we have.  When cosmic radiation enters the atmosphere, it creates ions around which water vapor condenses to form water droplets and clouds.   When the strenth of the sun’s magnetic field increases (causing more sunspots), the increased amount of solar wind or plasma acts that is generated as a shield blocks more of the incoming cosmic radiation to the earth’s atmosphere.   Hence, as the amount of low cloud cover varies directly proportionally with the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the lower atmosphere.  Thus, when the sun’s magnetic field is stronger and there are more sunspots and less cosmic radiation, there is less low cloud cover.  Conversely, when the sun’s magnetic intensity decreases, there are fewer sunspots, more incoming cosmic radiation, and more low cloud cover.  This is important because low level clouds in the atmosphere act to reflect solar radiation back to space and cool the planet.  

To re-state: when there is more sunspot activity, there are fewer clouds, and warmer temperatures.   So by this mechanism, solar activity directly affects temperature:  When there are more low-level clouds, less solar radiation is admitted to warm the earth’s surface, whereas when there are less low-level clouds, more solar radiation gets through to warm the earth’s surface.  So if we use the greenhouse analogy, low clouds, which vary with the magnetic field of the sun, act almost like a screen in the greenhouse that cool the planet.  

The IPPC has ignored this and said there is no mechanism.  But we have a very plausible explanation that explains this mechanism.  This mechanism was first proposed by Christianson and Larson in 1991 and then picked up by Svensmark (and described in the book, “The Chilling Stars,” by Svensmark and Calder).   So the IPCC's argument that this was not in the literature, wasn’t peer-reviewed, simply does not hold up.  They just didn’t want to include it because it shows that their CO2 argument is totally fallacious.

In fact, there is a much better correlation between solar activity and temperature than between CO2 and temperature.   This is shown very well in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” movie.

Larson and Christianson also showed that you can predict the number of sunspots in future cycles by the length of time it takes to go from one cycle to the next.   Measurements of sunspot cycles began with Gallileo in 1715. And a sunspot cycle is about 11 years.  There has been cooling since 2000. 



We are now in Cycle 23, but we’re supposed to be in Cycle 24 and it’s not happening.  So the longer the delay before we start Cycle 24, the lower the number of sunspots there will be in Cycles 24 and 25.   As it stands right now, we anticipate a cooling comparable to what occurred from 1800 to about 1820 or 1830, a period of low sunspot numbers called the “Dalton Minimum.”  If it takes much longer for Cycle 24 to begin, this cycle could be equal to what happened during the Little Ice Age.    

Dr. Ball got the most hate mail he ever received after he wrote an article about the benefits of warming.  This is something that global warming alarmists don’t want to hear.   The fact is that overwhelmingly more people die of the cold every year than from the heat.  In Britain, for example, it is about a 5 to 1 ratio, with five times more deaths due to cold than heat.  There is a big potential problem here:  If we prepare for cooling and it warms, there is no problem.  But if we prepare for warming and it gets colder, this would be a huge problem; it would then be much more difficult to adjust to the colder temperatures.  

The Political Agenda

One of the disturbing things about this issue is that scientists have been bullied into silence. This is quite disturbing in a democracy.  Dr. Ball, for instance, has received death threats.   But after he spoke out in the “The Great Warming Swindle” and mentioned these death threats, the threats stopped.

How many scientists have sold out for the grant money and/or have been bullied into silence?  What is the culpability of the science?  Dr. Ball:  It is quite high.  

Funding has become a bigger and bigger factor.  Funding for universities started to be cut back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Universities quickly realized they could take a percentage of any research grant that a faculty member got.  What this meant is that a faculty member’s standing within the university, their promotions and so on, became just as dependent on the amount of money they brought in as on the number of their publications.  This meant that in order to succeed, scientists had to put in the right key words in their grant proposals - key words that would trigger the funding.  And the government controls the key words and says we are only going to fund the science that supports our position.   So clearly, the people that get the grant money are those using the right key words.  

And then there is the problem of publishing, what Dr. Ball calls “peer-review censorship.”  If you submit an article to a journal, the editor will send the article to what Ball call “the high priests”- those that are getting the funding and writing the publications.  If your article does not reach the proper conclusions, these "high priests" will see it as heresy and recommend that it not be published.  So in this way, you end up biasing the actual amount of research done on these issues.  In fact, there is actually a very, very small group that has dominated the entire climate science field.  Professor Wegman, in his review of the “Hockey Stick” argument, named the names.  He identified 42 climate scientists who had all published with each other and presumably reviewed each others work.  But they generally don’t disclose who has done the reviewing.  However, since a reviewer can destroy someone’s career, we should be able to find out who is doing the reviewing.

One of the main controllers of funding in the U.S. is Tom Wigley, of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder, Colorado.   In Canada, Gordon McDean, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada, has had total control of funding in climate research in Canada and only funded the kind of research they wanted done.

Maurice Strong and the Real Political Agenda

The group that is pushing this agenda views the collapse of the Western economy not as a calamity, but as a good thing.   One of those most responsible for this agenda is Canadian, Maurice Strong, who is very prominent in the United Nations.   This man has had an incredible influence on what has gone on.  

Maurice Strong was a farm boy out of Manitoba.  His family was socialist, almost communist.  Strong then went to the U.S., became an industrialist associated with the Rockefeller family, and made a huge amount of money.  He wants to impose his socialist agenda on the world.  About 30 years ago, he made a statement in which he said that the main problem for the planet is the industrialized nations and isn’t it our responsibility to get rid of them.  Here is the direct quote:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class- involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and sub-urban housing- are not sustainable…..  Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the United Nations’ Rio Earth Summit, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), founder, president of Earth Council, co-author of the Earth Charter with Mikhail Gorbachev, etc. ( Quotes On Global Warming)

The question Dr. Ball poses to people is this: How would you go about doing that?  If you think of the industrialized nations as the engine of a car, you can stop the engine by squeezing the fuel line- i.e, cutting off the use of fossil fuels, which drive the whole engine.  But in a democratic, industrialized nation, people will scream immediately if you cut off their energy flow.  But if you can say that the by-product of your industry- CO2- is destroying the climate and will destroy us all... then you have a better chance of changing the society.

That’s why CO2, which is such a minor part of the climate mechanism, has become the sole focus.  How did Strong do this?  He got into the United Nations.  Elaine Dewar (author of “Cloak of Green”- about 20% of the book is devoted to Strong) notes that Strong set up the United Nations Environmental Program, part of which is the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  And he wrote the "terms of reference" for that agency.  Ball's experience was that the politicians and bureaucrats would write the “terms of reference,” and in doing so, predetermine the outcome of the inquiry.  This is how the government controls these things.

When Strong wrote the "terms of reference" for the IPCC, the first one was you can only look at human causes of climate change.   So he immediately restricted the research so that it won’t include natural causes of climate change such as solar variability.  He also said the IPCC must write a “Summary for Policymakers,” which is released some seven months before their "scientific report" is released.   So this "Summary for Policymakers"- written by bureaucrats- dictates what is included in the final scientific report.   In this manner, Strong controlled the scientific agenda through the "terms of reference" for the IPCC.

Strong also organized the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where he sold this idea to various governments, NGO’s, environmental groups, etc.  The Kyoto Protocol came out of this conference.  So that’s how Strong took it into the public and political arena.  Now it’s so politicized that the science has really become irrelevant.

Incidentally, Strong only has a ninth grade education.  It is frightening.  If you talk to people that know him, he is an incredibly persuasive person.  He is now living in China, working in a company with George Soros to build very cheap cars in China to import into North America.   The reason he is in China is that the U.S. government has been investigating him, his son, and Kofi Annan and his son in their involvement with the Oil for Food (Iraq) scandal.  

The damage Strong has done is far and wide.  For example, he was in charge of Ontario Hydro, which is the government agency that runs all the power production facilities in the province of Ontario.  They are now in such desperate shape that they will probably have energy shortages for the next 40 years.  Strong convinced them to shut down their nuclear- and coal-fired power plants.  He built some wind power plants which are absolutely useless.  The only thing that is saving them is importing energy from nearby provinces.

Dr. Ball prefers to call this a cabal- a small group of very powerful people with a political agenda.  He thinks Rockefeller and Soros are part of that.  Everywhere you look you see these few people controlling things.  You have to look at the influence of Al Gore and Maurice Strong on the carbon credit idea.  Carbon credits grew out of the Kyoto Protocol.  In 1998, there was a meeting in the White House with Clinton, Gore, Ken Lay, ENRON, and Gordon Brown.  And ENRON was the major force behind that meeting.

And of course the Chicago Climate Exchange is the main clearing house for trading carbon credits and guess who is on the board of that?  Maurice Strong.  And Al Gore’s General Investment Management is also a major clearing house for carbon credits.  Last year, Gore is said to have made $51 million off of that alone.   It has also been said that Gore may be the first “eco-billionaire.”

As MIT meteorologist, Richard Lindzen has said, quite correctly, “if you can control carbon, you can control the world.”   Because all life, including human life, is carbon based.  

"Cap and Trade" is another of those examples of shifting the goal posts.  It started as "carbon credits" it became a "carbon tax," and then "cap and trade."  Obama said he was going to shut the coal industry down and he would do it by putting such a high carbon restriction on them that they couldn’t operate.    He’s now pushing "clean coal," (a complete oxymoron- ETK note).  

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, now is talking filing about a law suit against Al Gore, charging him with deception.  Gore has told people that CO2 is a problem and that carbon credits is a good way to deal with it and then he turns around and makes money off of selling carbon credits.  That’s false advertising and a huge conflict of interest.  

Geo-Engineering and Weather Modification?  Are these a Version of Human-Caused Global Warming?

Back in the 1970’s, the fear was there would be global cooling.   There were ideas of putting up huge reflectors in space to direct more sunlight down to northern cities, etc.  Unfortunately, if you don’t understand climate mechanisms and how they work, you are more than likely to do the wrong thing and create a bigger problem.  So doing nothing is by far the best.   But of course, if there is money to be made, people will find a way to get that money- for instance, you now see industries growing up around all the stimulus money going to alternative energy companies, etc.   This idea that we can somehow control the climate…. (is questionable). 

There was a very large experiment that involved dropping iron filings over the Pacific ocean.  The idea was that if you drop iron onto the ocean surface it will absorb more CO2.  This was a complete failure.  These geo-engineering schemes are hair-brained.    

The good news is that we have reduced levels of pollution.  Just like we’ve reduced deaths from many forms of cancer.   There’s such a tendency to promote the negative things happening.  We’ve got to start getting out the information of the positive things that are happening.