February 13, 2016

Australia just fired over 100 climate scientists. Learn the REAL reason.

Tim BallRebel Columnist
 

Global warming was the topic of a hearing before both houses of Congress back in March 2007.

It was at that hearing that star witness former Vice President and Academy Award winner Al Gore stated:

“The science on global warming is settled.” “The debate in the scientific community is over.”

Now it's 2016, and Scientific American reports:

“Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs: Because the science is settled there is no need for more basic research, the government says."

This is a clever and humorous ploy but reflects a serious political failure: the inability to control bureaucrats, policy, and funding.

What is really happening is that the Australian government is eliminating climate scientists working at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

And to do that, they are using a very reasonable argument, promoted by proponents of man-made global warming, to do what they haven’t the political nerve to do:

Take control of their out of control scientific bureaucracy.

Maurice Strong knew politicians would be hesitant to oppose a scientific bureaucracy, which is why he set up the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scam through the bureaucracies of the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the bureaucrats in the weather offices of individual member nations.

Canada was deeply involved from the beginning, when Gordon McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (EC), chaired the founding meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Villach, Austria in 1985.

Sure enough, Canadian politicians lost control from the start. They couldn't and wouldn’t challenge the science and thereby couldn’t challenge the diversion of funds Environment Canada claimed it required to pursue their goal.

According to the Auditor General, Environment Canada spent $6.8 billion from 1997 to 2005 on climate change.

Contrary to funding policy, almost all went to people and programs supporting the government position.

Diversion of funding to climate change left other legislated requirements unfunded. It became so bad that public complaints about poor service triggered an internal investigation by The Impact Group. They hired Price Waterhouse, who carried out public hearings. I attended the Vancouver meeting and received a copy of the report.

In a review of that Impact Group Report, Ken Green wrote:

Elements of an “Action Plan for Climate Science Research at Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)” (obtained through an Access to Information request) indicate that Canada’s climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs.

Stephen Harper tried to stop EC by quietly cutting funding. By doing so, he paid a high political price. It didn’t matter that EC’s self-generated report acknowledged their work on global warming was political.

It didn’t matter that contrary to government policy all climate research funding came from EC.

It didn’t matter that every forecast EC made for three, six and 12 months or longer are completely wrong.

It didn’t matter that every IPCC forecast made was wrong and the Canadian computer model contribution was the worst of an ensemble of models:

Justin Trudeau is now replacing the funding that Harper cut. This is in addition to the $4.1 billion he committed to the Climate Green Fund that was given impetus through the COP21 Climate Conference in Paris.

The role and power of bureaucracies play a fundamental role in the shift to socialism and total government control

Politicians of all persuasions, but especially those who should oppose the trend, are so busy trying to stay in office that they will not do what is necessary to recover control.

A measure of the problem is provided by the few that try surreptitiously, like Harper, to reduce bureaucratic control.

It is also underscored by the resort to trickery, such as the Australian ploy that "the science is settled," so no more research is required.

As Richard Harris cynically observed:

“Probably the most distinctive characteristic of the successful politician is selective cowardice.”

 




JOIN TheRebel.media FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Send a message to Notley’s NDP:
GET YOUR StopTheCarbonTax.com t-shirt & bumpersticker
ONLY from TheRebel.media!

Any government in Canada that opposes oil & gas pipelines
should lose its share of oil & gas equalization payments.
SIGN THE PETITION at CutThemOff.ca

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-02-17 14:12:42 -0500
Tim Ball merits a lot of respect as demonstrated in his sound arguments and in the eloquent way he communicates his views on climate change. I admire this man for continuing his fight against those vindictive people who are anxious to deceive and to demonize carbon. We need more leaders like Tim Ball.
commented 2016-02-17 14:00:34 -0500
Sean. Nothing like a good old ad hominem argument when you can’t come up with something convincing.
commented 2016-02-16 15:43:24 -0500
I recently viewed a documentary about the ancient Incan Empire of South America. These ingenious people were compensating for “changing climate” in their agrarian methods over 1000 years ago! That is long before the Industrial Revolution and the advent of fossil fuels! So, anthropogenic causation of “climate change” seems to be just a method of the redistribution of wealth in the world by the United Nations!
commented 2016-02-16 14:03:44 -0500
Are we carbon based humans bad toxic polluters?

The ambient atmospheric CO2 we breath in is about 400 ppm (parts per million) or 1 part in 2,500. So what are the other 2499 parts?
With each breath and our amazing lungs, we exhale about 100 times more CO2, 40,000 ppm or 1 part in 25. So what is the other 24 parts made up of?
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

Parts per million may sound like a lot but CO2 is infinitesimal when you consider the lower atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% oxygen, that’s 99% and the remaining 1% consists of some 9 other trace gases.
In their order of volume, the remaining 1% is….. Water Vapour, Argon, ‘Carbon Dioxide CO2’, Neon, Helium, Methane, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Ozone.

CO2 is an inert, colourless, invisible, odourless, tasteless gas that is absolutely necessary as photosynthesis requires a minimum of 280 ppm for life on earth and in the oceans to exist. It is the ‘ingreenient’ that greens the planet!

Another good example is that our BC Greenhouse Growers (and all hydroponics need about 4 times more) 1600 ppm to grow healthy, strong root, profitable plants, with less water. Most greenhouses spend big bucks with generators to convert natural gas to CO2 and add in a 12 hour daylight growing cycle, 23 times more CO2 than ambient.

My purpose is to show how silly it is for us to waste tax-dollars on demonizing CO2 and methane as harmful gases and believe the nonsense they could cause catastrophe on earth.
I also maintain you could more easily balance the budget by dismantling the Carbon/Climate Cap/Trade Bureaucracy and stick to tangible realistic environmental principles.

The UN IPCC, Climate Change program’s purpose (Kyoto etc.) is to redistribute tax-dollars from have to have not nations, most of which are non democracies run by corrupt dictators.
When they produce 73 consecutive computer climate models and all 73 have been wrong, we should be able to figure out their motives by now.
commented 2016-02-16 03:21:45 -0500
True legitimate scientists never close off scientific debate as it is always evolving and never ends.
commented 2016-02-15 20:52:48 -0500
Michael Martin….it was all those cows farting, releasing untold amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere that caused the depletion of the ozone leading to global warming and climate change. So climate change is not man-made. The scientists are wrong ..it’s bovine made…you’re right
commented 2016-02-15 20:05:00 -0500
Michael Martin,
You have apparently drank so much kool- aid you can no longer think straight. I would recommend immediate detox and anti-brainwash therapy. That you state that there is a problem and we fail to take action is just the rambling of a fucking retard. Where does water go after it’s used. Into outer space? Never leaves the atmosphere, always recycled by the planet in one way or another. Same as carbon, always released by the planet and recycled. You would have cattle ranches eliminated so the Buffalo herds would once again dominate the American plains. In the words of Monty Python
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKZ5bP1wsB0
commented 2016-02-15 19:40:45 -0500
I have very much respect for Tim Ball and similar minded scientists for their unwavering attempt at the Truth.
I am 69 years old and have experienced very cold and very warm weather in my birthplace on the east coast of Canada. As time passes our climate appears to cycle every few years, much the same as the price of oil.
I believe the sun has as more to do with temperature and weather changes. NOT man.
I believe MEN in positions of great power have run out of ways to raise money via taxes,we are taxed to death already,and so Mr Al Gore came up with a doozy, Global warming LOL.
I have to agree it is a great attempt, look at the people willing to follow like lemmings, And who wouldn’t try to SAVE the planet and people from extinction. I am glad there are people like Ezra and Tim and the whole Rebel network to stand up and tell the Emperor thet “He has no clothes”.
Thank you my very respected friends. (Ezra run for Prime Minister!)
commented 2016-02-15 19:05:47 -0500
Flat earthers—pay attention
When in my early 40s I was returning to the west after a few years of construction in Ontario ,I noticed while driving in Saskatchewan on a straight hi way ,the trans can ,they put kink in the road every so many miles,so this up set me ,so I went in to nearest hi ways dept. to complain . They explained to me if they didn’t kink the road I would end up in St. Petersburg Russia.they had a globe of the world there and a ruler. So please the science has put this to rest.
commented 2016-02-15 16:24:37 -0500
There is much irony in prefacing a clip with Tim Ball with an ad for wind turbine technology.
commented 2016-02-15 15:40:33 -0500
Yes congratulations Dr Ball on winning your court case .!
commented 2016-02-15 15:30:35 -0500
Hello TIM BALL
I always read your blogs and watch your videos, in fact I have named my favorite hockey stick after you, and no matter whose in goal whether it’s al gore or Naomi Kline or Greg gore rober’s son or David the all ways finds its way thru their legs,and we all ways win the argument . …….the "puck"always
commented 2016-02-15 15:23:30 -0500
The cattle industry does more damage to the environment then oil and gas does. You would be amazed at the shear amounts of water it takes to raise cattle. Not to mention the methane cattle put into the air and that they can destabilize the nitrogen table by adding too much of it to the areas that their restricted to. And if that’s not enough people terraforming the land to support cattle leads to an overall decline in the diversification of species. There are many factors in climate change and all we are ever told is that it’s our fossil fuels that are to blame. It really Dosn’t matter what the cause is we know there is a problem, we’ve known for quite sometime, and we fail to take action. Why cause no one profits from protecting the environment. You would think a place to exist would be profit enough. But I guess those leading us won’t be happy till their lifeless skeletons are floating threw space with two big bags of cash under each of their arms.
commented 2016-02-15 13:08:35 -0500
Dr. Genius, no disagreement, but I didn’t want to confuse Sean. I suspect that there’s not a lot of scientific literacy there, and I was expecting appeals to the high priesthood (as though arguing from authority were scientific).

There is no more definitive result than “we went right around”. Math can be disagreed with, hemispherical models (or models based on other conic sections) could be proposed, but nothing proves it’s round like actually going around.
commented 2016-02-15 10:05:20 -0500
Everybody knows God controls the weather and he promised to never flood the world again so suck it science.
commented 2016-02-15 08:30:56 -0500
Thanks Dam Thomas for correcting me on that one!
Your calculation makes this even more insane for these Climate Alarmist Lunatics!
I wonder how much C02 does Mother Nature contribute in Canada when our Fall Leaves fall to the ground and decay!!
commented 2016-02-15 04:24:56 -0500
Michael Doll wrote «Magellan’s ships did this. Flat earth theory disproved.»

There are other obvious ways to tell the Earth is spherical. You can observe that you can see the mast of a ship coming into harbour before your can see the hull. From this, you can not only tell that the Earth is round, but if you knew how far away the ship was at both points, you could calculate the size of the Earth. Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth in 240 BC by observing the angles of shadows in two cities at different latitudes at the same time (with an assistant). His calculation was pretty close. Also, nobody in any era who could ever be considered a “scientist” has ever considered the Earth to be flat.
commented 2016-02-15 01:10:07 -0500
Interestingly, there actually is a flat earth society (theflatearthsociety.org), who believe not only in the myth that the earth is flat, but they also believe in the myth that trivial percentages of CO2 is causing catastrophic destruction to the earth.

It is the Warmists who are the Flat Earthers…The anti-scientists…The faith-based believers…that worship a false prophet…the erroneous computer models.

@climatefallacy
commented 2016-02-15 00:46:29 -0500
Awesome , using their own BS against them. How can they dispute that they are not needed if they are doing SETTLED research LMAO!
commented 2016-02-14 23:54:52 -0500
Sean Penson: the scientific method involves a number of steps, including making observations, theorizing about what has been observed, and predicting behavior based upon the theory. Would you agree with this?

If the earth were flat then if one were to head off in any direction and go far enough, one would fall off. Magellan’s ships did this. Flat earth theory disproved. More recently some people (including a couple of prominent “deniers”) have been up to and beyond the earth’s orbit and seen how it is roughly spherical. This is the approach favoured by those (like me) that you are disparaging.

The null hypothesis states that unless a system has moved out of its natural state, then variations in the system are most likely due to be caused by natural variations within the system. Nothing in the last 100,000 years would appear to meet this criteria. The normal variations within the climate system include glaciations and Greenland average temperatures varying by over 10 degrees over a couple of centuries. The length of time during which we have global coverage of temperature is only since the late 70s with satellite data. The predictions of climate being controlled primarily by the CO2 content in the atmosphere are running approximately four times as hot as the satellite records showed temperature increasing (in the decades for which they agree the temperature was increasing). The models also run about twice as hot has the global thermometer networks display. The Central England Temperature record (unadjusted version) shows that the sharpest 40 year increase in temperatures occurred from 1690 to 1730. There was not a lot of CO2 increase because of cars and trucks then, Sean.

We are firmly grounded in reality. To go back to your analogy, we do not claim that Magellan fell off the end of the earth. One of the earlier falsification criteria listed for “CO2 from mankind is causing warming that will prove to be catastrophic in the long run” was that if CO2 levels kept increasing at the same rate then there would never be a period longer than 10 years for which the lower atmosphere did not show warming. That level was passed over 5 years ago. The model understanding is wrong. It is so wrong that the models should not be used for prediction unless they can be improved. Do you actually want to discuss the science, or just call names? I’ll wait to see if (and how) you respond before adding any more.
commented 2016-02-14 22:13:13 -0500
Quote:Can’t believe all the flat earthers on this site. Educating oneself is the key of life, get you out of Hicksville.

And who the hell are you to say? Another ballot dropper for the drama queen? I suggest you watch the video and educate yourself or have you the strength to call into question your own presuppositions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n32xl9fy0Wo
commented 2016-02-14 21:04:33 -0500
Three Monkeys commented:
C02 in atmosphere .036%
X 2% Canada
X 25% Canadian oil industry = .00018%

Be careful with figures like that. It implies that all CO2 is emitted by man. Many pro-AGW websites actively promote that falsehood. There are about 720 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, and humans add about 6 GT annually. Now take that 6 GT figure and work your 2% and 25% into it and see what it comes to in terms of total atmospheric CO2 load. I get .0000015%, a long, long way from .0018%. Seems a shame that we have to kill so much of our economy to make such a miniscule difference.
commented 2016-02-14 21:00:58 -0500
Envogate at a global level.
commented 2016-02-14 20:57:02 -0500
“Can’t believe all the flat earthers on this site. Educating oneself is the key of life, get you out of Hicksville”

Sheridan is doing brilliantly well. His tutors all forecast astonishing things for him.
commented 2016-02-14 20:42:51 -0500
The propaganda and lies are settled: AGW is real and we are headed for global catastrophe because, you see, our emissions are adding a percentage-of-a-percentage of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. We are doomed unless we pay huge carbon taxes to the UN scammers.

However, the science IS indeed settled: our planet isn’t getting enough C02 in the atmosphere. We need about 600-700 ppm for a healthy planet. Basic biology. Can’t seem to get Al Gore and David Suzuki to understand that. (I guess I’m too smart for them or they’re too dense for us).
commented 2016-02-14 20:39:38 -0500
Sean Penson, you’ve been drinking the" Climate Change Koo aid" for far too long and you likely have got the" Climate Change flu". These Climate Change scientists have been wrong for so many years back that it is no wonder that no one believes them at all. Fire the whole bunch of them and you should also educate yourself and quit drinking that stuff.
commented 2016-02-14 20:39:05 -0500
The video link, below, explains it all. This is Monkton at his best, he even has Trudeau’s election win covered.

If you have not seen this, Out Last Year Of Freedom – Chtistopher Monkton, I strongly recommend that you watch it. Should you be in a hurry, fast forward it to 27m and see why Trudeau exists as our, so called, Leader.

DO NOT MISS THIS VID.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n32xl9fy0Wo
commented 2016-02-14 19:56:11 -0500
Can’t believe all the flat earthers on this site. Educating oneself is the key of life, get you out of Hicksville
commented 2016-02-14 19:35:01 -0500
VICTOR ADAM, thanks for bringing up Harper’s understanding in 2002 that man-made global warming was a hoax and a socialist conspiracy. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party and other ‘conservative’ parties in Canada bowed to political correctness and received no benefit from doing so in terms of electability and saddled Canadians with the enormous cost of supporting such socialist insanity!