July 09, 2017

Dr. Tim Ball: Why it's time to shut down Environment Canada

Tim BallRebel Columnist

Environment Canada (EC) misled the country on global warming, which caused massive unnecessary expenditures, cost thousands of jobs, destroyed businesses and industries, and devastated communities at all levels. 

Meanwhile, their forecast accuracy beyond 48 hours has not improved; they abandoned medium forecasts (three months to one year) after results that were worse than a coin toss; and all long-term forecasts since 1990, based on their membership in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were wrong.

John Christy presented the evidence in his congressional testimony (Figure 1).

In fact, the Canadian climate model forecasts that were part of the 102 IPCC CMIP-5 Climate Models result was the worst of them all as Ken Gregory showed (Figure 2).

EC was a major player in the entire deception of human-caused global warming. Assistant Deputy Minister Gordon McBean chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach, Austria in 1985.

Environment Canada then pushed the entire false global warming agenda with devastating and expensive impact on the entire Canadian economy. The most recent example was the approximately $3 billion commitment by Justin Trudeau to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement signals the end of the entire UN climate agenda including that Fund. Once US funding is gone, the entire UN climate program collapses.

Trump is a foreign body injected into the body politic by the people. Every segment of the body, from politicians on each side through to the media, are trying to reject him. Those who elected him are reinforced in their decision with every move he makes to keep his election promises.

Trump wisely chose to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement because it is biased against developed nations, making it a bad deal for the US.

Here is one synopsis:

To achieve the goal agreed in Paris of a maximum 2°C increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels, the estimated global cost is $17 trillion by 2040 (or about 800 times more than was spent on all the Apollo missions to the moon).

It would also require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris.

The Agreement assumes incorrectly that CO2 is causing planet destroying global warming, but only a few nations must reduce their production, while all others are virtually unlimited for several years to come. China is the world’s biggest CO2 producer, but is not limited in production until 2030.

In 2010 at Conference of the Parties (COP) 16, they replaced the Kyoto Protocol with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and planned to ratify it at COP 21 as the Paris Climate Agreement.

This became necessary after the disclosure in November 2009 of the corrupt science of the IPCC via the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

The Protocol and the GCF were designed to shut down the industrialized nations who became wealthy at the expense of other nations by using fossil fuels. They were to be punished by paying a fine for their sin of producing CO2, and the money was to be used to compensate developing nations.

In fact, it was a global scale transfer of wealth that required a single global government. It achieved Maurice Strong’s objective summarized by Elaine Dewar in Cloak of Green:

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

The Kyoto Protocol foundered on the disclosure of the manipulated science. It also failed because the US Senate rejected it. They did not want to vote against a "green" Protocol, so they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution to decide if they would vote on it. The resolution said they should not vote on anything that would harm the US economy. Therefore the vote was 95-0 in favour of not approving Kyoto.

Obama supported the GCF as part of his legacy, and also knew that without the US, it would not happen. But there was a problem: He could not call it a treaty because that would require Senate approval.

Ironically, this is exactly what made it easy for Trump to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

Environment Canada and all other national weather bureaucracies became involved because Maurice Strong set up the global warming deception through their membership in the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Virtually all climate research funding came from government sources, and they only funded research that supported their false science.

All Canadian federal research funding goes through "arms-length" agencies ostensibly to preclude political interference. However, climate funding came directly from Environment Canada to promote their version of the science.

As mentioned earlier, Gordon McBean was the person primarily responsible for the singular and devastating direction the department took. He brought his political view of environmental issues and particularly global warming, expressed in a speech to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1995. He spent his career promoting these views and virtually destroyed the Canadian Weather Service while wasting billions of dollars. The Auditor General put the cost at $6.8 billion from 1997 to 2005.

McBean also established his post-bureaucratic career by using $61 million of EC money to set up the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), a climate research organization that he took over as Chair in the month he retired from EC.

This agency only funded research that proved the human-caused global warming theory or the negative impact of warming.

Bureaucratic scientists are a guarantee of political science. As Dr. Lawrence Peters explained,

“Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.”

EC continue to push because they failed to follow the scientific method. Instead of proving that the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing warming was wrong, they only examined and promoted evidence that it was correct.

Every forecast they, as members of the IPCC have made, was wrong.

The simple and only solution to restore truth and integrity is to shut down EC and have Statistics Canada collect environmental data in its ‘resources’ wing and make that data available to anyone. At least private forecasters would be accountable to the market place.

It is time make Environment Canada accountable by closing the doors.


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-07-09 19:35:16 -0400
Andrew’s single atom brain doesn’t comprehend beyond town limits let alone grasp we are still on the up cycle from the last ice age. When there is consensus a red flag should come up along with the question “what is the hidden agenda”
commented 2017-07-09 19:35:16 -0400
Andrew’s single atom brain doesn’t comprehend beyond town limits let alone grasp we are still on the up cycle from the last ice age. When there is consensus a red flag should come up along with the question “what is the hidden agenda”
commented 2017-07-09 19:31:57 -0400
Jamie… In regards to people and their will and how they react when they’ve been deceived, nobody seems to do very much until they get hungry and once they missed nine meals which is three days without food a different psychology takes over in the human psyche..
But I sincerely hope that as you said people need to get off their arses and make a positive change or suffer the consequences of their inactions.!
commented 2017-07-09 18:57:12 -0400
I see that Andrew is on this thread pretending he matches DR. Tim Ball’s education and intellect.

Give it up, Andrew, you can’t even begin to reach Dr. Ball’s knowledge on the subject because Dr. Tim Ball is a real environmentalist and you are not.
commented 2017-07-09 18:51:09 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, again I say, OBJECTIVELY, between you and Dr. Tim Ball, which one of you do you think has more credibility? Really!!! Give a good logical, fact based reason why we should believe you over him? Not an emotional reason, deductive logic provable fact based reason. You’ll have to forgive me because I looked into this some time ago and I no longer have the exact numbers at my finger tips, but from the research I’ve done, the UN started out by asking about 10,000 scientists to do the research…. most declined. Of the 500 or so who agreed to do the research just over 100 came up with the data the UN wanted to support their globalist agend, so the rest were dismissed. Do you not think the UN scientist’s continued funding, and therefore their livelihood, is contingent on their getting the results the fits the UN agenda?? If not, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. As far as Dr. Tim Ball is concerned, the Toronto Star claimed that The Friends Of Science organization, which Dr. Ball co-founded, and on whose board he still sits, is funded by the fossil fuel industry. A claim that Dr. Tim Ball vehemently denies. And Michael Coren, someone with whom I disagree on almost everything, said in his column, “Dr. Tim Ball, unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody”. So, Andrew Stephenson, you obviously have your own agenda…. which is not the neutral pursuit of information to discover objective truth, but to cherry-pick data to confirm your bias. So, again I say why the hell would I ever believe you over Dr Tim Ball?
commented 2017-07-09 18:33:10 -0400
“Thermal expansion”… Andrew you have hit an all-time high note in hilarity.. now you failed to mention with that whether it’s the land expanding due to heat which would actually push back the oceans or is it the water is now so warm that it’s expanding… Both are impossible and have life on this earthly plane…
I understand that you were not a student of physics otherwise you would understand the thermal dynamic’s of water and how hot it would have to be to even expand a little which is simply out of the question and the only other way water expands is when it’s cooled past the point of liquidity into ice… Hilarity absolutely hilarity..
commented 2017-07-09 18:23:04 -0400
Andrew “short eyes” Stephenson..
Either you can’t read or you don’t read or you’re incapable of garnering anything that’s been written in front of you to read… They used to grow grapes in England now the cat go back further… Go back further… Go back further…
this earthly plane has been ice cold and this earthly plane has been temperate.
The planet is thousands and thousands of years old if not more and man has been sampling temperature for less than 150 while keeping records… Wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty tiny slice of the profile to be an alarmist…
And yes I used thousands and thousands of years and I will stick to that because one cannot measure which cannot be measured..
commented 2017-07-09 18:00:38 -0400
“Maurice Potvin commented 2 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson, Dr. Tim Ball is a PhD. Climatologist. Are you??? I assume you’re not. Otherwise, I’m sure you would have made sure we all knew about your credentials. Bearing that in mind, objectively,
between you and Dr. Tim Ball, which one of you do you think has more credibility?

I suggest you look up “appeal to authority” fallacies. Just because he’s got a PhD in climatology … does not mean his populist posturing is automatically true (kinda like believing the claims on a toothpaste ad because the actors are wearing white coats). Again, guys like Dr. Ball can make a living off petty-cash donations from supporters willing to donate to people who tell them what they want to hear, whether or not that’s scientifically accurate or not.

“Art VanDelay commented 1 hour ago
I see. So come up with a completely idiotic “hockey stick” theory, followed up with empty, alarmist rhetoric, and then when challenged, complain that we have no evidence to disprove my made up B.S. "

I don’t believe I ever endorsed the “hockey stick” model, and thus that’s kinda a strawman.

It’s not really “made up BS”, considering it’s the most strongly supported theory currently existing. I’d take a look at Dr. Ball’s alternative model, or one of yours, but … they don’t exist. You’ve got … some emails upon which you’ve written a massive and conspiracy laden backstory, which seem entirely based in a desire to continue wallowing about in confirmation bias. Anything you disagree with is part of this conspiracy, no? How convenient…

“Leviticus 2013 commented 3 hours ago
And don’t buy into the north melting into the sea… "
It’s actually thermal expansion driving rising sea levels, for the most part. Melting ice is a contributor, but a minor one.
‘Don’t fret Andrew… This earthly plane is just cycling..’
It’s interesting that you’re acknowledging that the climate’s changing (note that there’s no known natural phenomenon that can explain that) . Several of your compatriots, and Dr. Ball himself, seem to deny that it is changing. How do you reconcile this fundamental contradiction?
commented 2017-07-09 17:55:38 -0400
To all moderate and extremist liberals..Your hoax..your scams…your political correctness..your hate of non believers of liberalism/globalism is unraveling big time you Goofs..The next step is the drainage of the political swamp that pushes your horseshit onto Everyday good heart’d People in the Western World.
commented 2017-07-09 17:34:32 -0400
{… I think there will be more anger brewing then complacency.. "

Well, LEVITICUS 2013, I do hope you’re right. But I worked for years trying to get decent folks up off their arses to stop the shit that is killing rural Ontario – all to no avail. Whether the cause is cowardice, laziness, comfort, or stupidity, Canadians are, by and large, a beaten and submissive people.
commented 2017-07-09 16:57:43 -0400
Danielle Smith had a good interview with Tim Ball on the lawsuits. I hope those stupid lawsuits stop.
commented 2017-07-09 16:29:07 -0400
As I read the article I thought, “I can’t wait to get to the comment section and read some progressive twit spew a bunch of B.S. in an attempt to spin all this”. Lo and behold Andrew. “Basically, I don’t put a lot of weight into vague posturing.” I see. So come up with a completely idiotic “hockey stick” theory, followed up with empty, alarmist rhetoric, and then when challenged, complain that we have no evidence to disprove my made up B.S. Is that about right? Then again, in this day and age, in this country, we give a guy caught on film making IED’s to kill Canadians $10 mill, so what the hell do I know.
commented 2017-07-09 15:36:25 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, Dr. Tim Ball is a PhD. Climatologist. Are you??? I assume you’re not. Otherwise, I’m sure you would have made sure we all knew about your credentials. Bearing that in mind, objectively, between you and Dr. Tim Ball, which one of you do you think has more credibility?
commented 2017-07-09 15:16:20 -0400
The models continue to prove faulty in relation to observed data primarily because they continue to use a mathematically proven faulty IR feedback algorithm (sensitivity of open loop feedback). This math error makes model projection faulty by a factor of 2.3 – this is why models are always 2 or more degrees hotter than the observed temps as we pass the projected periods. The problem is that modelers constantly over value the effect of CO2 in feedback sensitivity. When these models are corrected using a proper feedback algorithm, the model comes in trim with observed temperatures – and as such shows that observed temps are well within historical climate parameters.
commented 2017-07-09 14:49:58 -0400
And don’t buy into the north melting into the sea… They’re still getting icebreakers stuck up there in the early parts of summer. Just relax Andrew and change from Kool-Aid to a good beer, enjoy your summer and don’t be a climate alarmist.. Remember that the globalist climate change morons couldn’t/wouldn’t produce their findings in a court of law when ordered to do so and that means they’re hiding something… They are guilty of fraud and they know it, but it’s very hard to unlearn something that you’ve been convinced is true.
commented 2017-07-09 14:43:10 -0400
Don’t fret Andrew… This earthly plane is just cycling..
Go back further and you’ll find that used to grow grapes in England and now they cannot meaning the planet has cooled go back even further you’ll find ice ages… Go back even further and you’ll find 7000 ppm CO2 in the planet was still alive and very green… Go back even further and you’ll see the planet was indeed temperate globally meaning overall the planet has cooled and there’s just little bumps in the road now that go both up and down.!!
You have been willfully misled and used as a fool to promote a globalist agenda.!
commented 2017-07-09 14:20:03 -0400
This is a total scam. Forget about the data they manipulated for a moment but look at the money. The goal is to empoverish developed nations and transfer their wealth to developing countries. What will they do with it, since many of them are dictatorships? Build new factories? With no environmental control obviously since they have no expertise. This would end up being an unprecedented global disaster.
commented 2017-07-09 14:14:44 -0400
Leviticus, if the “fabrications” were so brazen, then someone would be able to point out where, exactly, they occurred, rather than the current vague allegations based on an email supposedly sent more than a decade ago. I don’t care about “credibility”, what I want to see is a model that successfully explains observations better than the prevailing ones.

Basically, I don’t put a lot of weight into vague posturing. What I want to see is numbers and actual evidence, not just these vague allegations. People like Dr. Ball have yet to do that.

As for climate change, “snow in Miami” is a bit of a freak weather event (and has happened, though it’s extremely rare). Climate change would be if you measured the daytime high temperatures of every single July day, from 1880-1910, and compared that to every single July day for a corresponding 30 year period a century later. If it goes from 31 degrees to 33, that’s climate change. Any particular day may be hotter or cooler, but the average is what matters.

Miami’s kind of a bad example, as the temperate and polar regions feel far greater impact on climate itself. The biggest threat to Miami is rising sea levels, which are a consequence of climate change (mostly thermal expansion of ocean water, though melting continental ice also contributes to some extent). Miami sits on very porous karst bedrock and simple flood barriers won’t protect it, if sea levels rise too much the city will probably have to be abandoned. I wonder what the cost of that will be, relative to Dr. Ball’s 17 trillion figure, times all the coastal cities in similar circumstances?
commented 2017-07-09 13:13:58 -0400
Andrew… Maybe you haven’t been reading or you’re unable to disseminate or otherwise extrapolate information from a scientist who is forte is climate change…
Again maybe you haven’t read but the proponents of climate change have been found guilty of manipulating information.!!
That makes them have no credibility..
How hard is that to get..
And please do not regurgitate anymore of the pseudo scientific information that have proven to be false /illegal / flawed..your opinions are incorrect and the theories of your masters of been proven to be willfully misleading..
The gentleman below had it correct in saying snow in Miami would be rareL but not necessarily climate change or global warming.. Your masters have been using the term global warming up until it was more beneficial to call it climate change covering all the minor fluctuations of this earthly plane while it’s going through it cycles.!!
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and return to reality. Admit you have been willfully missed lead and quit bieng the fool..!
commented 2017-07-09 12:49:49 -0400
If you look up the definition of climate, one of the many states simply it is prevailing weather. That is weather that is natural, usual or expected in a certain area. Snow in Miami is climate change. Heat in Miami is not.
commented 2017-07-09 12:49:35 -0400
Although I’m a big fan of Dr. Ball, why can’t he get his wife or someone to stand in front of him and make a video of his findings and opinions. He would then gain popularity by explaining the more complicated parts of his theories.
His following may increase to a hundred thousand people instead of a few thousand.
commented 2017-07-09 12:45:51 -0400
The weather network has a piece on how hot the summer of 2100- yes not a misprint- the year 2100 which is 83 years from now. Of course they claim it will be so much hotter if don’t take action. What’s more they tell us to" get ready." If you are reading this and are not dead by the year 2100, you will be shortly thereafter. Good Gawd- They want us to spend billions now in the hope the models, highly unlikely, will prove correct. Tell us accurately what the temperatures will be 4 days from now and stop with the 83 year forecasts.
commented 2017-07-09 12:44:52 -0400
It’s interesting that the graph you use to “refute” climate change shows climate change is occurring. They overestimated the trend, but its’ still there.

Youv’e made the same mistake others do, of confusing “weather” and “climate”. Climate doesn’t care about 48 hour forecasts, those average out over the long term, and climate is a global model, rather than a very granular local one. You don’t need to simulate every atom in a flying baseball to calculate its trajectory, similarly you don’t simulate every single cloud when calculating cliamte.

“It would also require carbon dioxide reductions about 100 times greater than those pledged in Paris.”

What does this comment mean? Where does this number come from? Total pledges are considerably more than 1% of the total, so 100x greater than Paris greatly exceeds our actual total emissions.

China’s emissions are showing signs of already peaking, likely within the next few years. Similarly, the US is on track to meet its Paris commitments, which were basically a statement of an already existing trend. (Drop15% from 2005 to 2020? It’s already dropped 12, and continues to decline). This is hardly economically catastrophic, if anything Paris, by being a statement of existing trends, is too weak.

Finally, you’ve made the amateur mistake of attacking the credibility of the proponents, instead of scientifically supporting your counter-argument. If you were actually trying to be scientific, you’d present your own model demonstrating and be able to argue, in objective, empirical terms, as to why it’s a better explanation of observed trends than the currently accepted hypotheses. Science is about the best model to explain observations not amorphous grudges, and you’ve completely failed to provide anything at all of that nature. Frankly, someone with a PhD should know better than that, but I suppose like Jordan Peterson, you’ll say whatever gets the peanut gallery to toss money at you and science be damned .
commented 2017-07-09 12:29:23 -0400
The biggest reason to be skeptical of CAGW (beside the fact that that reality is not following the model) is the fact that so much money is being spent shoring up the ‘consensus’.

Science does not progress with consensus, it requires facts and honesty.
commented 2017-07-09 12:01:32 -0400
Jamie… What you said below will only happen if people roll over… You should read a book that was written back in the late 20s called nine meals to anarchy.
Deception is deception and everybody feels like a fool once deceived so I think there will be more anger brewing then complacency..
commented 2017-07-09 09:20:59 -0400
Time to do a lot of things, but face it, this ain’t gonna happen. Canada’s various governments will continue on this path of dishonesty because two-thirds of the electorate are terminally stupid and most of the rest don’t have the guts to take meaningful action.

Harper and Co. had their opportunity to turn things around, but they didn’t – and if Paris Scheer ever manages to displace turdo la doo, he’ll certainly maintain EC along with all its assorted fictions.
<-- /_page_stream.html -->