Global warming ‘biggest deception in history’

Political debate | Science used to push agenda of carbon dioxide reduction, says climatologist

Tim Ball does not believe humans are causing an increase to global temperatures through carbon dioxide production or by any other means.

He questions the motives of those who do.

The former geography professor and climatologist told a meeting of the Southern Alberta Council of Public Affairs May 31 that science has been used for political purposes to push an agenda of carbon dioxide reduction.

He said the potential effects of climate change are being used to scare people and unify them against a perceived common enemy, but that enemy does not exist.

Ball has been called a climate change denier. He denies it.

“Climate changes all the time and what’s going on now is well within natural variability,” he said in an interview before his speech.

“I was called a global warming skeptic. I wasn’t. What I was skeptical about was what the cause was, and it wasn’t human CO2.”

Ball said today’s concerns about climate change are “the biggest deception in history.

“Some people call it a hoax. It’s not a hoax. It’s a deliberate deception, a deliberate attempt to lead people into believing that humans are causing global warming.”

The complexity of weather systems makes it difficult for anyone to predict what will happen, he added. Many climatologists predict that higher global temperatures would result in more Canadian prairie droughts, but Ball said precipitation is far more important to farmers than temperature changes.

In fact, he said if the earth is warming — which he doesn’t believe — there would be more evaporation, more moisture in the atmosphere and more rainfall rather than less.

“That’s the counterintuitive science that they get away with because they know the public don’t understand these things,” Ball said about mainstream scientists.

He believes the climate is in a cooling trend that will continue until 2030. Declining solar activity and a low sunspot cycle are the bases of his prediction.

“Ironically, the government is preparing for warming. It’s cooling and it’s been cooling since 2000 and we’re not ready for it. And the only hope will be genetically modified crops, but they don’t want to hear that either,” said Ball.

Only 3.4 percent of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is caused by human activity, he said. Humans are not markedly changing the climate, contrary to the science embraced by many today.

Additionally, Ball said CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases and has been inaccurately portrayed as a primary culprit in climate change. Water vapour is a far bigger factor affecting temperature but it is not part of most predictive models.

Modern climate change models are based on less information relative to 50 years ago, as weather stations have been closed due to government cost-cutting in Canada and elsewhere, said Ball.

“In every single record we have from any time, any duration, any part of the world, the temperature changes before the CO2, in complete contradiction to their hypothesis and what they built their models on.”

In response to questions from the audience, Ball said Environment Canada has spent $6.3 billion on initiatives to combat climate change but that money would have been better spent on promotion of nuclear, natural gas and clean coal energy use.

The UN begs to differ

The United Nations says human-caused climate change could lead to a world of hurt unless we can reverse the trend. Here are some of the UN’s key points:

  • The net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] watts per square metre (W/m2). CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent from 1995 to 2005, the largest in any decade in the last 200 years. Radiative forcing is the energy imbalance in the lower atmosphere based on inflowing vs. outflowing energy.
  • Temperatures of 1.9 C to 4.6 C warmer than pre-industrial times, sustained for millennia, will lead to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This would raise sea level by seven metres.
  • Annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade. Sea ice decreases overall in summer by 7.4 percent. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than now for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to four to six metres of sea level rise.
  • The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about seven percent in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, in spring by up to 15 percent.
  • Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at 2000 levels, a warming of about 0.1 C per decade would be expected.
  • Annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased from an average of 6.4 gigatons of carbon (GtC) per year in the 1990s to 7.2 GtC per year in 2000-2005. For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 C per decade is projected.

Source: United Nations

About the author


  • bc economist

    That is what deniers do – deny the truth. This guy was a teacher and is saying the complete scientific community is wrong, and he is right. Sure. Denial.

  • NoMoreOil

    Tim Ball, really? Paid by Exxon to be a denier.

  • Roland

    I agree with this article. Now it must be said that the arctic has had exceptionally high temperatures, while at the same time the antarctic ice mass has increased.

    The UN has zero credibility in my mind. Its human rights committees are populated by countries with horrendous human rights records. But it sure fakes people out when they are quoted.

  • Nick Bear

    I have followed up on claims of qualifications and experience of Jim Ball and I would not consider him credible source of any information about the climate.

  • tony stephens

    Some people will “see” things differently to the bitter end. History tells us so.

  • Michelle Stirling-Anosh

    The IPCC’s procedures have been thoroughly investigated by Donna Lafromboise and found to be completely lacking in scientific integrity – in fact many of their ‘scientific sources’ for their conclusions were drawn from eco activist groups like Greenpeace…not from science. Likewise “Climategate” revealed that major climate scientists were intentionally deceiving the public and their colleagues, hiding and distorting data; William Kays “Ecofacism” site reveals much of this chicanery. Also TIDES Canada through Renewal Partners2, PlayBIG and the “Carbon War Room” (Richard Branson’s brainchild) see climate change/global warming as a way to make ‘climate wealth’ but we see the money they are making is on the back of taxpayers. Time to stop this train for deception. The world economy is in ruins – look at where – all the places that went headlong into ‘climate change’ CO2 reduction and carbon emissions trading strategies.

  • An

    CO2 makes up less than 0.04 % of the atmosphere and humans contribute less than 5% of that or about 0.002%. Water makes up about 50% on any given day and can change between 20 to 40%.

    The UN also said the glaciers in the hymalayas would melt by 2035 but this year’s satellite survey says they are growing.

    How do you know a politician is living. His lips are moving.

  • morg

    Tim Ball is not a climate scientist! He’s wrong and has been proven wrong by real climate scientist!

  • andrew macdonald

    Barb, do your homework before you embarrass yourself further. Mr. Ball has been a joke in the scientific community for years (he has never published a peer reviewed paper on climate), is not a climate scientist and more important has been funded by coal and oil interests for years. Do your homework and stop spreading misinformation. Mr. Ball is akin to the tobacco “experts” of 70’s and 80’s when we were told, “smoking? there is no science proving that smoking is bad for humans…”.
    You can do better.
    Andrew MacDonald

  • GregH

    Does Tim Ball have any credibility left? He’s lied about his claims of being a “climatologist”, and he’s been sued for making false statements about Andrew Weaver, a REAL climatologist.

    But when comes right down to it, why should we listen to cranks like Mr. Ball, when people like NASA provide accurate and clear evidence of current climate change?

    If NASA is too lightweight for you, how about the US military? Both the US Army and Navy have said that human-caused climate change is going to be a major strategic issue for the US in the near future.

    We here in Alberta have the money and the expertise to plan for a future where we’re not totally dependent on fossil fuels. Will we do that, or will we allow ourselves to be sidetracked by conspiracy theorists like Mr. Ball?

  • Steve Phillips

    Of course. The UN has another agenda. You can’t believe anything they say.

  • Mark

    “According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the spring of 2012 “was the culmination of the warmest March, third warmest April, and second warmest May. This marks the first time that all three months during the spring season ranked among the 10 warmest, since records began in 1895.”
    Des Moines, Iowa offers a case study of just how warm it’s been. The year-to-date there has averaged a whopping 8 degrees F above average, with many other cities across the country tracking close to that figure as well”


Stories from our other publications