I found another Global Warming Denier!

Hi Brit,

It would seem that we are not alone in questioning the whole Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and this guy has some high powered credentials, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?  Just as a general question, how many Climate Scientists have to tell you that the UN, through their puppet group the IPCC, is not being honest, no doubt for financial and political reasons, about Global Warming before you get the message?  Keep in mind, that the price for this scam is going to come out of your pocket.

the Grit

9 Responses to “I found another Global Warming Denier!”

  1. madmouser Says:

    I like it, The Cold, Hard Facts. Cold being the key word. I think this is going to blow up in their faces sooner or later.

  2. britandgrit Says:

    Hi m,

    Sorry to say, but the politicians and Big Business have seen the benefits to be gained from jumping on the wagon, and there is, no matter how loud we scream, no stopping it now. I’m just trying to get on the record so, after the collapse, I can scream “I told you so!”

    the Grit

  3. greenfyre Says:

    Sorry, but Ball claims he was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, a dept that never existed, got a degree in climatology, a degree St Mary'[s College U of London never offered (he was a geographer), and until the Uni of Winnipeg threatened to sue his lying ass off he used to claim he was emeritus.

    His climate “facts” are every bit as accurate as his alleged credentials … total nonsense.

  4. Q Says:

    I think, if Ball and other “Deniers” (I do not like the word) like carbon-based powerplants, nuclear powerplants and polluting chemical factories;
    we should move those factories and powerplants to their own backyard. I bet seconds thereafter, they would agree with the environmentalists.
    Claiming that carbon-fueled plants and lightbulbs are “efficient” is another lie. carbon-fueled plants have a max of 30% efficiency, whilst water and air-plants have 100% –> I agree that thousands of birds could die because of windmills, but that can be remedied.
    And why do they attack a cleaner way of producing electricity and other products? Isn’t that better in any case? If we can produce electricity at lower costs (and lower costs for the environment), which is more efficient, and would have no emmisions what so ever, wouldn’t that be in any case better then fossil-fueled based powerplants?

  5. the Grit Says:

    Hi g,

    And James Hansen claims to be a climate scientist as well, although his degree is in physics or some such. He also claims his data is accurate and sufficient, which has been repeatedly proved to be wrong. He also admitted to exaggerating the danger of Global Warming to Congress so he’d be more likely to get more funding. Total nonsense.

    Hi Q,

    Let me take chemical factories first. I live within a mile of several, and in my experience they’re much cleaner than the commercial jet traffic that screams over my house when the wind is coming from a certain direction, and are tremendously less of a bother than the race track that is a mile further away but is still loud enough to force me to turn up the volume on the TV when the cars are running.

    On the point of moving power plants into peoples’ back yards, that applies even more to “green” sources, as made most notable by Senator Kennedy’s efforts to snuff a wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard. And just try covering enough acreage in any urban area with solar panels to make a difference and see what prominent people scream.

    You also, I think, are confusing the “liking” of coal plants with the understanding that, for now, we don’t have a valid alternative. Well, actually we could build enough nuclear plants to let us turn off the coal plants, but there are just a few political problems with doing that. As to wind power, it’s not reliable enough to depend on. While it’s a good supplemental source of power, people can’t be expected to put up with all the lights going out in, say, LA because the wind quit blowing. Which leaves us with solar power. I ran the numbers not long ago and, with current technology, replacing our coal fired generating capacity with solar cells requires a surface area slightly larger than the State of Maryland. You can read it on my new blog: http://britandgrit.com/?p=545

    Of course, you have to keep in mind that, since solar power only works when the sun shines, we’d also need to maintain sufficient coal power to keep the lights on at night. The problem here is that we don’t have any efficient method of storing large amounts of electrical power, meaning that when we plug something into a wall outlet, the power it draws has to be generated then. So, until someone develops a practical equivalent to a giant battery, we can either use technology that can provide power consistently, or we can live with only being able to surf the net when conditions are right.

    I would also mention that your efficiency figures are wrong. Water power, at least the large scale instances of it, are horribly inefficient. The major dam generating plants only capture a tiny fraction of the potential energy of the trapped water, and they come with their own environmental problems that are much worse for the locals than even Al Gore’s wildest fantasies about Global Warming. Search on Three Gorges Dam and salmon populations if you want evidence. Wind power isn’t all that efficient either, something like 20% if memory serves.

    As to light bulbs, it’s true that the tiny gas filled bulbs are more efficient than incandescents, but they too have their disadvantages. On one hand, the claim that their increased expense is offset by their long life is not exactly true. If you read the package you’ll find that the advertised life of the bulb is only for applications where said bulb is left on for extended periods. If you turn it on and off frequently, like we do with most lights, the lifespan can be reduced by half, making it a toss up as to whether it’s a cost or environmental saving to use it. Second, and much worse, each of those bulbs contains enough mercury to require a health warning on the package. This means that the occupants of your home are at risk should one break in your dwelling, and even if they all get safely sent to the land fill, all that mercury is going to pile up until we have another Love Canal type disaster. The only way around this is to recycle them, but we haven’t built the infrastructure to do that, and no mention of any such investment has been included in any Government budgets yet. Better, I think, to wait for the safer alternative, LED bulbs, which are even more energy efficient and have a longer useful life.

    So, in summary, yes. We should make use of all our options where it comes to energy production, but we have to do it in a reasonable way, not in a panic over some fictional global doom rushing upon us.

    Y’all should note that this blog is closed and I’ve opened it’s continuation at:


    where I concentrate on a more humorous format. Feel free to swing by.

    the Grit

  6. greenfyre Says:

    “which has been repeatedly proved to be wrong.”

    Such as where?

    “He also admitted to exaggerating the danger of Global Warming to Congress so he’d be more likely to get more funding.”


  7. britandgrit Says:

    Hi g,

    “GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.”

    from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

    “Summary opinion re scenarios. Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been
    appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the
    global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels”, shale oil and tar sands were
    receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate
    forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that
    accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the
    important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of
    providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.”

    from http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2003/Hansen.html

    In the first case we can see just how sloppy Hansen’s work is and in the second he admits openly that he initially placed excessive emphasis on the worst case scenarios to get attention. You should also check out SurfaceStatons.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/) and take a peak at some of the equipment that the raw data on which the Global Warming Scam is based.

    the Grit

  8. greenfyre Says:

    1) Data clearly marked “provisional” while it was being verified was found to have an error, the error was fixed. Brooker’s pathetic attempt to portray a minor data glitch as a scandal is vivisected here http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker.

    “In the first case we can see just how sloppy Hansen’s work is ”

    i) It’s not sloppy to clearly mark unverified data as “provisional” while you check it; it’s called good practice. That way only a moron would mistake it for confirmed data. Apparently this includes Brooker, Watts and McIntyre – so obviously GISS’s mistake was assuming that people could read and act appropriately.

    ii) Hansen is not GISS only employee you know … this would have been work being done by technicians.

    2) What Hansen is quite clearly saying is that at some point in the past there may have been emphasis on extreme scenarios (which are always IF/THEN statements anyway) it is no longer done … that was 5 yrs ago, hardly relevant now (and that is just Hansen anyway, just one of ten of thousands of scientists world wide.

    3) The surface station myth has been debunked repeatedly http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Myth:_Warming_is_due_to_the_Urban_Heat_Island_effect, and even if it were true they are such a minor part of the evidence it wouldn’t matter http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-scope-and-scale-of-climate-science/

  9. britandgrit Says:

    Hi g,

    1. There wasn’t anything provisional about it. They were just sloppy. And there have been other such instances in Hansen’s past, not that I have time to look them up again.

    2. What Hansen is clearly saying is that he distorted the facts to sway political opinion and make himself important. Obviously, Al Gore paid attention to how he worked the scam. The importance of this is that it shows Hansen is only pushing Global Warming for his own personal gain, so nothing he says can be trusted.

    3. All you have to do is go look at the pictures. You’ll find stations next to air conditioner exhausts, BBQ grills, on asphalt, on the edge of city streets, with light bulbs inside the cabinet, and all sorts of other problems that make the data junk. And that’s just in the US. Who knows what goes on around the rest of the planet, not that there are enough weather stations outside the US to give an accurate picture of global temperatures anyway. As to the minor number of problems, it’s obviously important given the claimed minor change in temperature and the small number of stations used by Hansen. You do know that the Global Warming claim is based on data from something like 800 stations world wide? It’s also interesting to note that Hansen, instead of investigating the reliability of the sources of his data, simply waved the questions away and stated that any problems had been corrected statistically.

    On the other hand, if you believe the myth that global temperature can be measured accurately from such scant data, then you should be relieved to know that we’re now in a period of Global Cooling, as it was just announced that 2008 is the coldest year in the last decade.

    As to realclimate.org they are activists and not a reliable source of information.

    the Grit

Leave a Reply to the Grit Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: