Climate change challenge | Tim Ball tells producers that effects of human activity are over analyzed
Climatologist Tim Ball started the April 16-17 water, agriculture and environment conference by questioning the veracity of global warming.
It is well-trodden ground for Ball, who speaks frequently on his views that while climate change is constant, the Earth is in a cooling period rather than a warming one.
“It’s starting to look like global warming is another undelivered government promise,” he quipped.
Ball presented data indicating a gradual decline in average temperatures since 1998 and said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has focused on human causes of global warming without exploring and explaining the amount and cause of natural climate change.
Read Also
Irrigation expansion urged in Western Canada
An asset management and investment fund says irrigated farmland is a significant opportunity for Canada to boost productivity and gross domestic product.
However, its message that the Earth is warming, largely due to increased amounts of greenhouse gases, has become accepted truth by the general public.
“People don’t understand the basic science and so they are easily fooled,” said Ball.
He was also critical of weather forecasts, which he said use inadequate data and ever-fewer reporting stations to make their predictions.
And while forecasters can’t accurately predict weather four days in the future, they confidently predict it will be warmer 20 years from now.
Ball left the conference before a question and answer period, which raised complaints from some participants.
In an interview after his speech, Ball said his views are gradually gaining traction.
“Up until now, anybody that’s dared to question (global warming), like myself, has been attacked. It used to really bother me until an old air force friend of mine said, ‘you know, during the war the pilots said if the flack is really heavy, you know you’re over the target.’ ”
Ball also said he has been approached to investigate the logistics of water pipelines to the United States, which could be possible under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Ball said a water pipeline would be less controversial than an oil pipeline only in one way.
“It would in the sense that if it spills, the potential damage is less, but on the other hand, water pipelines are very different because you can shut off an oil pipeline. People will get angry but not as angry as they would with a water pipeline.”
