Ball's Self-promotion Presumptuous Twaddle

Thu, 2007-02-08 10:02Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Ball's Self-promotion Presumptuous Twaddle

As recently as Monday Feb 5, 2007, the presumptuous Dr. Tim Ball was still advertising himself as “the first Canadian PhD in climatology.”

Here, for the record, is an incomplete list of Canadian climatologists, all of whom received their climatology PhDs before Ball (1983). Each of these has a list of publications and accomplishments that should leave the good Dr. Ball feeling chastened, if not humiliated, when he tries to pass himself off as a Canadian expert.

Leonard A. Barrie

Rrom ISI Highly Cited:

Chief, Environment Division, Environment Division,World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

1970 B.Sc. Queens University, Kingston, ON Engineering Physics
1972 M.Sc. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Physics, Meteorology, Cloud Physics
1975 Ph.D. Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe University, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Frankfurt Atmospheric Science

Born in Sherbrooke, PQ


George J. Boer

Senior Research Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis

B.Sc. University of British Columbia, 1963. Honours Mathematics and Physics
M.A., University of Toronto, 1965. Department of Physics (Subject: Meteorology)
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970. Department of Meteorology

“All aspects of climate modelling and analysis including climate prediction from seasons to centuries”

Ian Burton

Scientist Emeritus, Adaptation and Impacts Research Group (AIRG), Meteorological Service of Canada,
Downsview, ON M3S 5T4, ON, Canada

Adjunct Professor with the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto.

From FORUM: Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development:

“Dr. Burton is Scientist Emeritus with the Adaptation and Impacts Research Group (AIRG) of the Meteorological Service of Canada and an Adjunct Professor with the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto. He previously held positions as Director of AIRG and Senior Policy Advisor with Environment Canada. Prior to joining the federal government, Dr. Burton was Director of the International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS), a non-governmental network of research centres. From 1979-1984 he was Professor and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto. His research interests include risk assessment of environmental hazards, water resources and supply, and environment and development. Dr. Burton has served as senior advisor to the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (Ottawa) and as a consultant to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the U.S. Agency for International Development (US-AID), and numerous Canadian government agencies and engineering firms. He has worked for the Ford Foundation in India, Sudan, and Nigeria and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and the World Academy of Arts and Sciences.”


James P. Bruce

James P. Bruce, OC, FRSC, is a Senior Associate with Global Change Strategies International Inc, Ottawa, ON

From Water and the Future of Life on Earth, Simon Fraser University:

“Jim Bruce's career has been in meteorology, climatology, water resources, disaster mitigation and science management. He was the first Director of the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington and subsequently Director General and Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) responsible for national water programs. These included programs of hydrometric monitoring, river basin planning, flood damage reduction and water quality monitoring. In the 1980s, he was ADM Atmospheric Environment Service, and subsequently Director of Technical Cooperation and Acting Deputy Secretary General, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva. This involved oversight of international programs on weather, climate, water, and atmospheric composition. In the 1990s, and to date he has served as consultant on many projects relating to climate change, water, and disaster mitigation most recently as Senior Associate, Global Change Strategies International. For the Canadian Climate Change Action Fund he led a study of potential climate change impacts on water resources in Canada and is currently involved in a project on probable climate change effects on boundary and transboundary waters. Recent awards include the IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for 'exceptional world-wide contributions in meteorology and hydrology,' Officer of the Order of Canada and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He has received Honorary Doctorates from University of Waterloo (DES) and McMaster University (DSc).”

Stephen Calvert

Dr. Stephen Calvert, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
University of British Columbia

B.Sc., Reading (1958)
Ph.D., California - Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1964) (Supervisors: Tj. H. van Andel and E.D. Goldberg).

From Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences:

“The long-term goal of my research is to understand the factors responsible for the wide compositional variability of marine sediments, the controls on organic matter burial and nutrient utilization in the ocean, and to use this information to interpret past oceanographic and climatic changes from sediment core records. Specifically, I am examining:

1. Holocene climate variability along the northeastern Pacific coast at decadal and centennial resolution;
2. Millennial variability of oceanographic and climatic conditions in the northeastern Arabian Sea and their relationship to the high-resolution ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica;
3. The influence of changes in monsoon strength in the South China Sea on terrestrial climate and ocean conditions;
4. Glacial-interglacial palaeoceanographic records of variations in upwelling, nutrient utilization and carbon accumulation on the California continental margin.

A combination of organic, inorganic and stable isotopic information is used to reconstruct past sea surface temperatures, plankton production, terrestrial sediment supply and transport modes, nutrient utilization and bottom water oxygen concentrations.”

Garry Clarke

Garry Clarke, FRSC
Professor of Glaciology
Earth and Ocean Sciences
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

B.Sc. (1963), University of Alberta
M.A.(1964), University of Toronto
Ph.D. (1967), University of Toronto

From Earth and Ocean Sciences:

My research is devoted to understanding the physics of glaciers and ice sheets. In particular, I am exploring the nature of ice flow instabilities that cause certain modern glaciers to exhibit extreme oscillations in flow rate and, during the last Ice Age, appear to have triggered rapid changes in global climate.

R. Allyn Clarke

Research Scientist in the Ocean Sciences Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography.

BSc (Honours), Physics and Chemistry (1965), University of Toronto
MSc in Applied Mathematics (1966), University of Toronto
PhD in Physics (Oeanography) (1970), University of British Columbia.

From CMOS, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society:

“His research focuses on the circulation of the high latitude North Atlantic and its role in the global climate system. His research papers include both theoretical and observational results.

He has been very active in the planning and co-ordination of international Climate Science. Over the 1990s, he was the co-chair and chair of the international Scientific Steering Groups for both the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Climate Variability and Predictability Program (CLIVAR), member and vice chairman of the Joint Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), member of the Joint Scientific and Technical Committee for the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) lead author in chapter 2 of working group 1 of the Third IPCC Assessment and a co-opted member of the executive of ICSU’s Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR).

Within Canada, he has played a variety of roles in the planning and implementation of Canadian contributions to these climate and global change programs. He has recently returned to the bench after serving as Manager of the Ocean Sciences Division in Maritimes Sciences Branch in Fisheries and Oceans. His challenge over the next few years will be scheduling his annual spring survey of the Labrador Sea around the CMOS Annual Congress dates.”

Jacques Derome

From Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences:

“Jacques Derome is a full professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University and has held the position of Chair of the Department, most recently from 1994 to 1998. His research contributions are in the area of climate dynamics, interannual variability, and predictability. Dr. Derome was the President of CMOS in 1994-1995. He is principal investigator in the Canadian Climate Variability Research (CLIVAR) Network, which is funded by NSERC and CFCAS. He has served on numerous national and international committees, including the executive of the Commission on Dynamic Meteorology of the International Association for Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS) from 1987 to 1991, the National Research Council's Advisory Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET) from 1995 to 1999 and the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Canadian Climate Board. In 1995, he was awarded the Oscar Villeneuve Prize of the Société de météorologie de Québec and in 1996, he received the AES Patterson Medal 'for distinguished service to meteorology in Canada'. He has published over 50 publications in refereed journals. Dr. Derome received his PhD from the University of Michigan.”

Thesis topic: On the maintenance of the axisymmetric part of the flow in the atmosphere, Journal Pure and Applied Geophysics 95: 163-185, 1972

Jacques Derome and A. Wiin-Nielsen
Meteorological Service of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Department of Meteorology and Oceanography, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

Summary The maintenance of the axisymmetric component of the flow in the atmosphere is investigated by means of a steady-state, quasi-geostrophic formulation of the meteorological equations. It is shown that the meridional variations in the time-averaged axisymmetric variables can be expressed as the sum of three contributions, one being due to the eddy heat transport, another to the eddy momentum transport, and a third to the convective-radiative equilibrium temperature which enters the problem through the specification of a Newtonian form of diabatic heating. The contributions by the large scale eddies are evaluated through the use of observed values for the eddy heat and momentum transports….

Based in part on a thesis submitted by the first author as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Michigan. — Publication No. 194 from the Department of Meteorology and Oceanography, The University of Michigan.


Keith Donald Hage

From the Canadian Who's Who On-line:

University Professor; born Kandahar, Sask. 1926

B.A. Univ. of B.C. 1949
M.A. Univ. of Toronto,1950
Ph.D. Univ. of Chicago 1957

PROF. EMERITUS, University of Alberta.; Meteorologist, Meteorol. Serv. of Can. 1950-57; Rsch. Meteorologist, Suffield Exper. Stn., Ralston, Alta. 1957-60; Dir., Micrometeorol. Div., Travelers Rsch. Center, Hartford, Ct. 1960-67; Prof., Dept. of Geog., Univ. of Alta. 1967-85; Assoc. Dir., Inst. of Earth & Planetary Phys., Univ. of Alta. 1975-80; Nat. Corr., Internat. Assn. for Meteorol. & Atmospheric Phys. 1980-83; Cons., Electric Power Rsch. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif. 1982-86; el. Fellow, Am. Meteorol. Soc. 1982; awarded Patterson Medal 1989; mem. Cdn. Meteorol. & Oceanographic Soc.; Am. Meteorol. Soc.; Royal Meteorol. Soc.; co-ed. Essays on Meteorology and Climatology: In Honour of Richmond W. Longley 1978; author or co-author of more than 70 sci. papers and tech. reports; Spruce Grove, Alta.”


F. Kenneth Hare

From Science.CA

Kenneth “Hare was a meteorologist with the British air ministry during World War II, and emigrated to Canada in 1945. He joined McGill University as a geography professor, meanwhile earning his PhD as an arctic climatologist. In 1959, his team of arctic weather specialists joined a group of radar physicists headed by Dr. J. Stewart Marshall to form McGill's highly successful Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences).

Over the next decades, Hare was professor and dean of arts and science at McGill University, master of Birkbeck College at the University of London, president of the University of British Columbia, Chancellor at Trent University, and professor at the University of Toronto. For the past 10 years he has chaired the national Climate Program Planning Board.

Hare's research interests include atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate change, drought, and arid zone climates. He has been active in movements to protect the natural environment, serving on commissions and committees on acid rain, desertification, heavy metals, nuclear reactors and waste products, ozone, greenhouse gases and climate change. He was a member of the Research and Development Advisory Panel of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and has conducted studies on nuclear waste management in Sweden and France.

Hare believes the most urgent environmental challenge facing Canada this century is climate change created by the consumption of fossil fuels. He is a promoter of nuclear power, correctly used, as a more acceptable power source. Hare is a vigorous public speaker and writer on these issues.

Sources: Canadian Who’s Who 1993, Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences at McGill, The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2000 ed.”



Edgar Wendell Hewson

From the Canadian Who's Who On-line:

“M.A., D.I.C., Ph.D., F.R.S.C., F.A.M.S., F.R.Met.S; meteorologist; b. Amherst, N.S. 1910; e. Cumberland Co. Acad., Amherst, N.S.; Mt. Allison Univ., B.A. 1932; Dalhousie Univ., M.A. 1933; Univ. of Toronto, M.A. 1935; Imperial Coll. of Science and Technol., D.I.C. 1937; (Beit Scient. Rsch. Fellow) Univ. of London, Ph.D.1937; PROF. EMERITUS, DEPT. ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, OREGON STATE UNIV. 1981– ; Rsch. Meteorol., Meteorol. Service of Can., 1938-39 and 1946-47; Dir. of Diffusion Project, Mass. Inst. of Tech. 1948-53; Consult Meteorol., Consol. Mining & Smelting Co. of Can. Ltd., 1939-46; U.S. Bur. of Mines, 1939-40 and 1945-46; Asst. Controller for Training and Rsch. Services, Meteorol. Service Of Can., 1947-48; formerly Prof. of Meteorol., Univ. of Mich.; established Dept. of Atmospheric Sci., Oregon State Univ. 1969; Chrmn. 1969-76; Prof. 1969-81; holder of Roy. Soc. of Can. Fellowship, Imperial Coll., London, Eng., 1938; awarded Buchan Prize of the Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 1939; author (with R. W. Longley) Meteorology, Theoretical and Applied 1944; contrib. articles to Encycl. Brit., 1946-47; publ. over 70 articles on a wide range of meteorology subjects; held numerous consult. pos'ns; Prof. mem., Comte. on Climatology, Nat. Acad. of Sci., 1957-61; Am. Meteorol. Soc. (Assoc. Ed. Journ. of Meteorol 1944-54, Councillor, 1945-47 and 1952-54, Publ. Comte. 1946-57; Chrmn., Bd. of Reviewing Eds. Meteorol. Monographs 1948-58; Chrmn., Air Pollution Abatement Comte., 1951-56, rec'd Award for Outstand. Contrib. to the Advancement of Applied Meteorology 1969; Chrm. Nom. Comte., 1971; mem., Nom. Comte. of Fellows and Hon. Mem., 1972-73); Amer. Wind Energy Assn. (rec'd Award of Excellence for Contributions to the Development of Wind Resource Assessment 1983); mem., Soc. of Friends; Am. Meteorological Soc.; Royal Meteorological Soc.; Int. Soc. of Biometeorol.; recreations: reading, politics; Address: 1770 Avenida del Mundo, #1604, Coronado, CA 92118 USA.”

Steve Lambert

Dr. Lambert is a Research Scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis .

Research: Climate variability and Data


J. Ross Mackay

From University of Victoria, BC

Dr. J. Ross Mackay is a Professor Emeritus in the Geography Department at the University of British Columbia. Since retiring from the University at the end of June, 1981, Dr. Mackay has continued his legendary fieldwork in the periglacial environments of northern Canada. His publication record now spans the interval between 1947 to 1997 - a full half-century of innovative thinking and scholary achievement.

The J. Ross Mackay Award was created by the Canadian Geomorphology Research Group to honour Dr. Mackay's achievements.

His work includes climate publications such as

1975:
Mackay, J.R. The stability of permafrost and recent climatic change in the Mackenzie valley, N.W.T. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 75-1B: 173-176

1976:
Mackay, J.R. Ice-wedges as indicators of recent climatic change, westem Arctic coast. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 76-1A: 233-234


Gordon McBean

From International Institute for Sustainable Development:

“Gordon McBean is a Professor in the Departments of Geography and Political Science and holds the Research Chair in policy at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, at The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. After being a scientist in Environment Canada, he was Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences at UBC until 1994. From 1994 to 2000, he was Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada. As ADM, he was responsible for climate, weather and air quality sciences and services in the federal government and was a member of the Canadian delegation to Kyoto and other meetings. He was appointed to his present position in July 2000. His research interests are in atmospheric and climate sciences, ranging in scope from the natural sciences of the phenomena to the policies of governments and responses of people to them. He is now undertaking research on changing climate and weather systems and the science-policy interface as Lead for the Integrating Theme of ArcticNet, a newly established research program on climate change and its impacts in the coastal Canadian Arctic. He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, lead author for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and member of the Global Change START (capacity building) Program, the International Council for Science Advisory Committee on the Environment and the International Human Dimensions of Global Environment Change Program. He has received the Patterson Medal for distinguish contributions to meteorology by a Canadian and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society.”

From Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences:

“Dr. McBean is a Professor at the University of Western Ontario, and Chair for Policy in the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Previously Gordon was the Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC); Professor and Head, Department of Oceanography, University of British Columbia; Professor and Chairman, Atmospheric Science Programme, University of British Columbia, and; Senior Scientist, Canadian Climate Centre, MSC, located at the Institute of Ocean Sciences. Gordon’s early career spanned a wide variety of interests in MSC, including boundary layer research, hydrometeorology and environmental impact research, and weather forecasting. Gordon has received many distinguished awards (MSC Patterson Medal, CMOS President’s Prize, EC Jim Bruce Award) and has been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society. Gordon has Chaired and been a Member of enumerable national and international scientific committees, including Chair of the International Scientific Committee for the World Climate Research Programme, and he has published extensively. Gordon received his Ph.D. in Physics and Oceanography from the University of British Columbia.”

More From the Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario:

J.C. McConnell

Dr. J. C. McConnell, FRSC
Distinguished Research Professor,
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
PhD 1969, Belfast
York University

From Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, York University:

Research Interests
Chemical and Dynamical Modelling of Atmospheres
“Dr. McConnell's group is currently studying the photochemistry and transport of species of tropospheric and stratospheric interest using 0-D, 1-D and 3-D transport models. Among the problems currently being addressed are the cause of the springtime decrease in polar ozone, the impact of aerosols on global ozone decrease and also the increase of tropospheric gases such as ozone, methane and carbon monoxide over the last century or the oxidation capacity of the atmosphere. The group also studies radiative transfer modelling of the upper atmospheres and ionospheres of the Earth and outer planets using the data from the Voyager flyby, IUE and ground based telescopes.”


Norm McFarlane

Scientist Emeritus, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.

B.Sc. (Physics), University of Alberta (1962)
M.Sc. (Meteorology), McGill University (1970)
Ph.D. (Atmospheric Siences), University of Michigan (1974)

From Canada Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis:

Research interests
Numerical modelling of the general circulation of the atmosphere from the surface to the mesopause.
Development and use of comprehensive models of the climate system.
Parameterization of physical processes in atmospheric and oceanic general circulation models.


Lawrence Mysak

Professor Mysak was born in Saskatoon, SK, and is a graduate of the Univ. of Alberta (AMus 1960, BSc 1961), Adelaide Univ. (MSc 1963), and Harvard Univ. (AM 1964, PhD 1967). He also has spent sabbaticals at Cambridge Univ., the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder, CO) and the ETH (Zurich).

From Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University:

Professor Mysak is director of the Earth System Modelling Group which is part of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. The main goal of the research in the ESMG is to develop and apply reduced complexity models of the Earth system (see publications below, Claussen et al., 2002) to better understand decadal and longer term climate variability and change. Analysis of climate data and data-model intercomparison studies are also important activities of the ESMG. Currently, the ESMG is working with two Earth system models, namely, the UVic Earth System Climate model version 2.6 and a simplified global model with the ocean carbon cycle.

Projects
Arctic sea ice and climate during the Little Ice Age.
Sea ice rheology: viscous-plastic vs. purely plastic models.
Modelling the fresh water budget of the Arctic Ocean and exchanges with the North Atlantic: present and past.
Response of the ocean carbon cycle to Milankovitch forcing in a simple atmosphere-ocean-sea ice model.

CV

Other information from on-line CV and biographies:

Lawrence A. Mysak, CM, FRSC, For.Mem.AE, holds the Canada Steamship Lines Chair in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at McGill University, Montreal, and is past founding director (1990-96) of the McGill Centre for Climate and Global Change Research. Prior to his appointment at McGill in 1986, Dr. Mysak was Professor of Mathematics and Oceanography at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver (1967-86).

Dr. Mysak is internationally recognized for his extensive applications of mathematics to physical oceanography, his fundamental research on high-latitude natural climate variability, and the development and application of paleoclimate models. He has investigated the influence of El Nino on fish migration, and has modelled the climate of the warm dinosaur era and the cold glacial periods.

In 1986, Dr. Mysak was elected, by the Academy of Science, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC), and during 1993-96 he served as president of the 900-member Academy of Science, the largest of the three academies comprising the Society. In 1995 he became the founding chair of the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE), an umbrella organization that brings together the Canadian Academy of Science and over 20 science and engineering organizations in order to foster common interests and address issues concerning research and applications of science in Canada.

In November 1996, Dr. Mysak was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada (CM). In June 1998 he was awarded the Patterson Medal for “outstanding service to meteorology in Canada”, and the J.P. Tully Medal for “his impact on, and leadership in, oceanographic research and education in Canada”. In 1999 Dr. Mysak was named an inaugural Fellow of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. In 2000 he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, and a Foreign Member of Academia Europaea, the science and humanities academy of the European Union (founded in 1988). At the Spring 2000 Convocation, Dr. Mysak received McGill's David Thomson Award for Excellence in Graduate Supervision and Teaching.

(Dr. Lawrence Mysak also plays flute in the I Medici di McGill Orchestra, in addition to being a world renown climatologist, professor at McGill University and former President of the Royal Society of Canada Academy of Sciences.)


Tim Oke

Professor, Department of Geography
and Member, Atmospheric Science Programme, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.


Born in Devon, UK; Canadian citizen 1971
B.Sc. (Hons.) (1963) University of Bristol
M.A.(1964) McMaster University
Ph.D. (1967) McMaster University
D.Sc. h.c. (2005) Lódz' University

Fellow, American Meteorological Society, elected 2004
Fellow, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, 2003
Patterson Medal, Meteorological Service of Canada, 2002
Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology, American Meteorological Society 2002
Fellow, Royal Society of Canada, 1991
Fellow, Royal Canadian Geographical Society, 1991
Fellow, Guggenheim Foundation, New York, NY, 1990
Killam Research Prize, Killam Foundation, 1988
Award for Scholarly Distinction, Canadian Association of Geographers, 1986
Killam Senior Research Fellowship, University of British Columbia, 1982
President's Prize, Canadian Meteorological Society, 1972

From McMaster Alumni Association:

“Dr. Timothy Oke is a recognized leader in the study of microclimates and is the foremost authority on urban climates. His research focuses on seeking to understand the way humans alter climates through urban development. Specifically, exchanges of heat, moisture, pollutants and momentum in cities are measured and their effects on temperature, humidity, winds, and other climate factors are assessed. This leads him, for example, to assess the way the cumulative effect of every new building, road and garden creates the heat island effect of whole cities.

Since 1978, Tim has been a Professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia. He was the founder and chair of the U.B.C. Atmospheric Science Programme. From 1991 to 1996, he was the Head of the Department of Geography. Tim was selected as the Professor of the Year by the Geography Students Association in 2001. In 2002, he received the American Meteorological Society's Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology in recognition of his contributions to the teaching, theory and applications of knowledge on the interaction between atmosphere and biological systems.

At the University of British Columbia, Tim teaches meteorology and climatology, agricultural and forest climates, urban climates and urban biophysical environments. He also serves as a meteorological consultant on legal cases, appeals to boards and environmental matters, and as an advisor to government organizations and business.”


André Robert

From Atmosphere-Ocean's Monograph, 1997:

B.Sc. 1952, Mathematics, Université Laval
M.Sc. 1953, Meteorology, University of Toronto
Ph.D. 1965, Meteorology, McGill University

Professor, Department of Physics, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM); previously Professor, Department of Meteorology, McGill University, and Director Canadian Meteorological Centre (1973-1980)

A leader in numerical weather prediction, climate simulation, and related fields.


Marie Elizabeth Sanderson

From the Canadian Who's Who On-line:

B.A., M.A., Ph.D.; professor, author; b. Chesley, Ont. 1921; e. Univ. of Toronto B.A. 1944; Univ. of Maryland M.A. 1946; Univ. of Michigan Ph.D. 1965; DIR., WATER NETWORK, GEOGRAPHY DEPT., UNIV. OF WATERLOO 1988– ; Rsch. Assoc., Ont. Rsch. Foundation 1946-50; Prof., Univ. of Windsor 1965-88; Hon. Degree, Ryerson Technical Univ.; Award for Service, Cdn. Assn. of Geographers; Mem., Bd. of Dir., Canadian Geographic; author: Griffith Taylor: Antarctic Scientist and Geographer 1988, UNESCO Sourcebook in Climatology 1990, Letters from a Soldier 1993, Prevailing Trade Winds: Weather & Climate in Hawaii 1993, The Genius of C. Warren Thornthwaite 1996, Weather and Climate in Kitchener-Waterloo 1996; Home: Waterloo, Ont.; Office Waterloo, Ont.


Credit for compliling this list to Dan Johnson, University of Lethbridge

Previous Comments

So you expect everyone to be impressed by a list of doomsayers? How many on this list were part of the group that claimed in the 70s that we were heading for another iceage? One major problem that your side has is the fact that a large part of the chicken littles that you roll out base their data on data that excludes the medieval warming period. If your theory can’t hold upto A) all the data or B) open debate without the threat of the loss of funding then it’s junk science. Science is NOT a consensus of opinion. It is facts. in the last 100 years the oceans have risen 1/7th of an inch. 1000 years ago the Chinese were able to sail across what is now the North pole and the Vikings were farming in Greenland. The fact is Climates change, they always have. The 3% of greenhouse gas caused by man is of little to no effect. The massive increase in Sun Spots and the regular volcanic activity of the earth has more to do with any changes, so when your brainiac clutch of chicken littles figure out how to stop sun spots or volcanoes you let the rest of us know. In the meantime your Littlemore than a hack with a political agenda.

What a load of rubbish. There is not one “fact” in your whole screed. Just a load of talking points from right wing anti-science groups.

Why are people like you so afraid of science and scientists? Were you scared by some one in a white coat when you were young? Did you realise that all the smart kids in your class were good at science and you couldn’t understand a word of it? Please tell me I’d like to know.

tell me then where are their facts? Even if you use their figures man is only responsible for 3% of greenhouse gasses. The other 97% are from natural causes. If you can’t do anything about the natural causes, nothing you do about the man made ones will add up to any thing. That is a fact, but you just can’t get past your politics. Scientific method states that you deal with the facts and then make your theory. Not the other way around. Why is the ice in antartica getting thicker? Why were the Chinese able to sail where the northen icepack now is? These things are facts. Where is your proof? If you are old enough to remember the 70s (which I doubt) why didn’t the ice age they were predicting come about. I have an experiment for you take a glass of water add ice and fill it to the brim. Now watch it as the ice melts and let me know when it overflows. It will never happen. The Nothern Ice pack is the same thing ice floating on water (no land).

QUOTE: Science is NOT a consensus of opinion. It is facts.

Now there’s some circular logic for you. If science is “facts”, then what are “facts”? How does science determine “facts”?

How is science useful, if not for consensus?

Would you take medical advice that wasn’t supported by a scientific consensus?

While I question whether you can remember what you had for breakfast, let alone the 70s; I’d be even more surprised if you really remembered the hype around global cooling. It was a minor theory that was entertained briefly and then the scientific consensus dismissed as highly improbable. Now that’s good science. It made the cover on Newsweek, once, and National Geographic ran it, once, on the back pages.

The only people hyping global cooling reallyare alarmists and frauds: James Inhofe and Tim Ball, respectively.

Anyway, when you’ve scuttled back to your hole, take a minute to ask yourself those questions, and check those facts. Or does your “skepticism” not extend to your own cherished beliefs?

Science determines facts through measurments that include all the data not hand picked bull that fits your already reached theory. Queation? Is it a fact that Sun Spots have increased? Yes. How do we know this? From satalites we have monitoring the Sun. Is man responsible for Sun Spots? No. When the Sun Spots reduce and the temperature on Earth drops will we bw able to raise the temperature? No. The fact that you don’t know what facts are and post as Anonymous while telling someone to crawl back to their hole shows the level of your ability to even debate or sustain your OPINION beyond petty babbling. Science is useful as a tool for understanding data and then coming to a consensus. Not for reaching a consensus and then massaging the numbers to meet your preconcieved fairy tale.
You’re right, I should never post anonymously.

ah but my non de plume leads to somewhere. Yours still doesn’t.

Are you sure about that definition of fact? Please tell me, as I need to know, apparently.

QUOTE: The fact that you don’t know what facts are and post as Anonymous while telling someone to crawl back to their hole…

I’m sorry, what an inappropriate thing to say to someone who identifies himself as The Troll. Am I embarrased…

…shows the level of your ability to even debate or sustain your OPINION beyond petty babbling.

I see your superior ability to debate sails right past any of the points I raised in my post.

The facts that you are looking for (the real ones not the fantasy ones reported by the likes of Monckton et al.) are to be found in the various IPCC reports. These reports look at all the research on climate change and climatology that are published in the scientific literature and condense them down to 1000 pages or so. Over 2000 of the best and most respected scientists take part in this. This is the most rigorous reviewing of any science that there is. To dismiss this is to show both your ignorance of the scientific method and your unwillingness to accept the facts of global warming.

You may rant all you want but you will not change one fact as described in the IPCC reports.

Your comments just show your lack in scientific awareness since your comments about ice are not even closely related to what is actually happening. It is well known that certain areas of Antarctica have increasing amounts of snow and ice since this was predicted by the many models.

Ian is there land under the northern ice pack? The answer is no, so my glass of ice example is valid. I never said that the climate wasn’t changing going through its NORMAL cycles. It is the idiotic claim that 3% of any climate change model is the primary cause. Where did you learn to do mathmatical models. Tell me your claiming that you can predict the next 10,000 years with the models that you are using. I say you can’t, there are to many factors that you can’t calculate. A perfect example is a 5 day forecast. The models can’t even predict what the temperature will be in lets say Ottawha next Tuesday. Yet your willing to claim that you and the people that you are listening to can and have developed a model that’s accurate for 10,000 years. Your a fool.

This argument is entirely erroneous. If models can’t be trusted then you might as well say nothing about climate change or lack of it can be predicted. Deniers use models to make their claims that climate change isn’t related to human causes. By your arguments you cannot trust their models either and thus the only conclusion that can be reached using your logic is that nothing can be predicted by climate modeling at all.

As for the validity of models, you are further showing your lack of understanding of science and I learned to do mathematical models and modeling at the University of Manitoba, Faculty of Science. BSc, 2001, MSc, expected 2007. How about you?

Who is claiming that melting of the Arctic ice will cause sea level rise? It is well known that it is floating. What the melting will do is decrease the Earth’s albedo resulting in more energy being trapped in the atmosphere. This is referred to as a positive feed back.

Your knowledge concerning sunspots is also sadly lacking. Sunspots were observed by scientists long before the satellite age. Their cycles were also noted a long time ago. They are on an 11 year cycle so how come the earth’s temperature is not on an 11 year cycle if, as you suggest, they are to blame for global warming?

number 1 I learned my modeling while in a group called AFTAC in the Air Force, that was before going to U of Penn. I am not however impressed by sheepskins or letters. You did however stumble on to my point. “you cannot trust their models either and thus the only conclusion that can be reached using your logic is that nothing can be predicted by climate modeling at all.” BINGO The data can’t be crunched with todays technology. Not even a cray could do it, let alone when you leave out factors that your community tends to do. As for the solar flare cycle you should check your data. I referenced satellites because that is where the most accurate readings in that field are being recorded. One of the ways that man has been “observing” just a minor effect of sun spots is the havoc they cause on the shortwave radio spectrum. No one especialy I ever said that data can be recorded by only one means. AS for your theory on what melting the ice at the north pole would do, it is just that one more theory. Also if you follow your train of thought in that direction that makes water vapor the number one threat. Another theory is the havoc that desalinization of the Gulf Stream from the melting ice will have on shifting the gulf stream. Those effects could cause the opposit effect of Global Warming and could take place long before all the ice melts. Punch those numbers into your model. Modeling does NOT work. Like I said what will the temperature be next tuesday? You can guesstamate by using historical data and trends, but try getting it accurate to within 3 degrees consistaintly. You can’t Yet you want the world to swallow that they can predict with that accuracy even 100 years out… LOL
City Troll has made up every bit of that. Amazing that it seems easier to do this, then to check facts.
List your facts….

City Troll, if you have had any science education beyond kindergarten I would seriously consider asking for a refund since they have failed miserably in getting any scientific knowledge into your thick skull.

keep telling yourself that Ian “all those that don’t buy man is the cause of climate change are heretics” Tell me Ian what effect did the testing of Nuclear weapons in the atmosphere have on the atmosphere? What has been the rate of decline of CCFs in the atmosphere since the banning of hairspray and what is the date that the ozone hole will close since the banning of refridgerants? Does the model that you pray to include the calculation for methane produced by plants and if so at how many parts per million? Just a couple of questions.

As a person of science myself completing my masters degree, I certainly have to disagree with your notion of what scientific method actually is.

Scientific experiments are conducted to test a hypothesis, not theory, in which a hypothesis is derived based on research conducted in the past. Once a collection of work has been produced and hypothesis’ tested that body of material can be formulated into a theory which is supported by a large body of research. In general new hypothesis’ are tested and the theory is improved. As many theories are important, evolutionary, gravity, experimentation and hypothesis generation seeks to improve our understanding of the phenomnia.

Furthermore, you might not be ready for this but science never seeks to prove anything but mearly attempts to reject alternative hypothesis’ in order to arrive at the most possible explanation for the results within genally 95% confidence. As stated by another author the large body of scientists currently working on understanding climate is huge, they are active, researching and increasing our understanding of phenomina, which is the way science is supported to work. All new information is critically evaulated, and accepted or rejected by a peers within the expert community, results that have conclusions that run counter to the general concensus, are just as valid as any other as they contribute to the entire body of understanding.

Many many papers have been writen by scientists about climate change, and current understanding is human influence in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is directly responsible and one of the leading factors in our warming climate. Does this mean that all other factors are ignored, of course not, all factors are considered on the greater whole. Does sun spot and solar activity make a difference of course, does the concentration of greenhouse gases make a difference, does volcanic activity and cloud cover, yes all of these have been considered by the greater scientific community and the recent IPCC has provided the best currently understanding of how all of these phenomnia effect climate. That is science for you, and thats how it works in every field.

As for your comments most are unscientific, where did the chinease sail? thats covered in ice today, was it during the so called medieval warming period? Was the entire globe warmer then? does the scientific body of literature support warmer tempers across the globe?

As for your unscientific experiment with ice and water, there is a greater series of things to consider. For example is is widely accepted that during glaciation as more ice is added to the land and icecaps that ocean levels drop. Counter to that fact is that during warmer periods when glaciers are in retreat ocean levels have risen, this has been widely accepted from past glacial period changes. Your understanding of the scientific method and literature is lacking.

“results that have conclusions that run counter to the general concensus, are just as valid as any other as they contribute to the entire body of understanding.” except in the field of climatology which is effected by politics. As is a lot of other science. “Furthermore, you might not be ready for this but science never seeks to prove anything but mearly attempts to reject alternative hypothesis’ in order to arrive at the most possible explanation for the results within genally 95% confidence.” Bull tell that to those of us that have split atoms. PROOF is everything. a hypothesis, is theory, untill it is put into implimentation. Then it either works or it does’nt. All systems follow laws. NO ONE has mastered the laws of planatery climatology no one has even calculated all the variables. It’s all about hard numbers and you don’t have yours yet. Only your arrogance allows you to spout with surity conclusions that can not be crunched. Write out the variables for your model and I’ll come up with factors that you haven’t considered and others will come up with ones that I didn’t think of. Keep studying kid, try a little unified field mathmatics.

No one has masters the law of gravity but it is no less real that human caused global climate change. The science supports both

As well I speak of legitimate science, by scientists in generality. Much of the material produced by the deny camp is not scientific or is 20 years out of date and the scientific community has moved on.

I see little point in continue to argue that hypothesis and theory are not the same thing, when any scientist allready knows they are not. The vast majority of scientific phenomina is based on various theories of understanding. In fact laws in science are quite rare and some like newtons end up being proven not to be laws at all. Furthermore, back on track with climate change current evidence does not support alternative theories to explain the current warming trend. Until such “evidence” based on experimentation and modeling exists to provide enough weight to alternative theories, climate change induced by human activity remains the leading theory much like gravity explained though the force of attraction between 2 objects remains the leading theory.

Because once again Modeling does not work you can not create a model that will accuratly predict tomorrows weather let alone one that will do a year. If you honostly believe you can then print the formula. You are a fool worshiping a flat earth theory that can’t be proven. Tell me Carl what does a polar shift do to the climate model that you subscribe to? Polar shifts have occured before, did they change the currents of the ocean?…. When you can’t admit that you can not calculate the variables in your own theory (which you can’t) why should the world believe in what your preaching. Yours is no longer a science, it is a religion. When you base your theory on beliefs and whole sets of data that are faulty what you are doing is acting out of faith. That is a religion not science

great posts by city troll - solid reasoning without resorting to the old “we’re smarter than you” fakery

Carl: If you mention that graduate degree you don’t have yet one more time I am going to smack you with my ID badge from the Environmental Protection Agency. If you really do study modeling, you know as well as I do that these forecasts have ALL BEEN WRONG. We cannot forecast the weather accurately more than a day or two ahead. What makes you think we can forecast climate change, a phenomenon we DO NOT UNDERSTAND, 20, 30 or 100 years? I live in the hurricane belt now and we get reports from a dozen or so models mostly showing the hurricane going in different directions. It’s about time all of you stopped politicizing this issue and stopped trying to block the scientific process of discussion and discovery. Was it that clown Ian who called Monckton’s report a fantasy? Grow up pal! Monckton’s only reporting what so many other scientists have already recorded: THE SUN IS GETTING WARMER! And yet, you folks will try and cut funding, stop research, threaten decertification of anyone who dares to have a contradictory opinion. You global warming zealots are the new flat earth inquisition. You refuse to permit any dissent. The real motive here isn’t concern for the earth. You people want to restructure only the Western and primarily U.S. into that elusive, yet dangerous utopia you people have been dreaming about since Lenin perverted Karl Marx’s stupid, baseless philosophy. Go back to reading Pravda and leave the science and the environment to the grownups.

As my thesis has been completed all that remains is my actually defense I indeed do almost have my graduate degree. I make no claim to be a climate expert, those who obtained the doctorates, are active, conducting research are. I mealy speak to my graduate degree to add weight to my understanding of the scientific process and methods.

The IPCC says this about their models; after all they are predicting gross climate patterns on large scales, not the weather in whachamacity.

Coupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. Coupled models, as a class, are considered to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates. These models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature differences since 1979). Clouds and humidity also remain sources of significant uncertainty, but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities. No single model can be considered “best”, and it is important to utilize results from a range of carefully evaluated coupled models to explore effects of different formulations. The rationale for increased confidence in models arises from model performance in the following areas.

This is also a quote taken from Wikipedia

Scientists have studied global warming with computer models of the climate (see below). Before the scientific community accepts a climate model, it has to be validated against observed climate variations. As of 2006, models with sufficiently high resolution are able to successfully simulate summer and winter differences, the North Atlantic Oscillation,[16] and El Niño.[17] All validated current models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases will be a warmer climate in the future. However, even when the same assumptions of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission are used, the amount of predicted warming varies between models and there still remains a considerable range of climate sensitivity predicted by the models which survive these tests.

As this is just a blog, there is no blocking of any scientific process. In fact the most recent IPCC report is a collecting of over 2500 expert reviewers, 800 authors of scientific publications, 450 lead authors from 130 countries. I cannot follow how this is blocking the scientific process. If you consider the 2001 IPCC report, which is currently the most modern one online, the 2007 has not been fully released yet, the effect of solar forcing has been considered, it is not in any way shape or form been ignored. I put forward that you cannot look at only one factor in climate forcing alone as climate is affected by a large number of forcing factors all considered by the IPCC.

As funding at the University level is primary by governmental research agencies, least in Canada, the primary science body being the National Sciences and Research Council of Canada, it is these bodies who decide who gets funding for what research. It is rather impossible for the vast majority of the populous to effect the decisions of such a body. In fact most of us who have applied for funding have to undergo a rigorous process in order to prove our research has merit, has some benefit to Canadians, etc. As for preventing decent on a blog, well there isn’t any science being conducted here, and I certainly don’t live in either the US or the UK. Considering that China is another major greenhouse gas emitter I also think that regardless of economic system capitalism and communism have not properly delivered in terms of caring for the environment, neither is green I personally don’t care much what is done as long as emissions are controlled, leave that to the policy makers in government, whatever system can accomplish it so much the better for me I have no forward bias, as I am quite confidence a market economy can be effective in dealing with controlling emissions so the socialist conspiracy is rather hollow. As I do consider myself an adult, scientist, capable of rational logical thought, though no climatologist, I honestly leave climate to the experts and mearly echo them and ignore the fridge garble that is out of date, published in magazines or by people who have non expert backgrounds/work for pr firms.

Ball is a liar. There’s a fact for you.

stupid attack post! I laugh

None. That is a myth of the deniers. The ice age idea was a minor popular science point, promoted in talk shows but not much more. That is a matter of record.
That comment might itself be an ‘indicator’. Does anyone see a massive increase in sunspots during the recent 20 years here, or 50, or whatever you choose?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/image/annual.gif

 http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
I would like to refer you to this post, in which Dr. Boris Weiss, an astrophycist at Cambridge states:

“Although solar activity has an effect on the climate, these changes are small compared to those associated with global warming,” Weiss said in the news release. “Any global cooling associated with a fall in solar activity would not significantly affect the global warming caused by greenhouse gases.”

I know it's a trap to argue science, which may somehow set up the appearance that there is actually a debate around the realities of human-induced global warming, but I can't resist.

I look forward to the references to Sallie Baliunas that will inevitably follow this comment.

It must be nervous laughter, from not doing the homework. City Troll says 3% of greenhouse gas is human-caused. So your daydream is correct and the instruments are wrong?

See

 http://www.actewagl.com.au/education/_lib/images/Sustainability/Atmosphe...
Anonymouse: You really are clueless.
By “clue” you mean listening to Rush. By clue, I mean measured and confirmed observations.

I had no intention of presenting all these as people who support the climate change hypothesis; I have no idea how many of them do.

This is merely an incomplete list of eminent people, all of whom had climatology PhDs before Tim Ball. Yet Ball continues to say that he is the first climatology PhD in Canada. It's one of many things he says that are, demonstrably, at variance with the facts.

What the f*** Richard. I read half way down your list of eminent scientists (and they are eminent) and not one of them has a PhD in climatology. In fact, most of them received their doctorates before there even was such a thing as a PhD in climatology! This may be the basis of Ball’s claim. i.e. he got the first one awarded to a Canadian because he was the first Canadian who came to the door.

so Richard is “at variance to the facts”? imagine that!

DeSmogBlog is clearly having an effect on the climate change deniers. I have noticed an increase in invective and non-rational argument when the industry under scrutiny begins to feel the heat. There has clearly been a significant spike in non-rational postings on this website from its critics. Why would that be? First, filling a comment section full of emotional outbusts is often an attempt to drive more stable readers away from the site. Secondly, it is an attempt to try and foil the reasonableness of the article in question. Both techniques however are doomed to fail, as the logic is unassailable, as are the facts, and this website is watched daily by thousands of people. Keep up the good work, Mr. Littlemore!!
What about the Scientists from the UN? A United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. which scientists are correct the wacks above or the wacks that blame cows?

Human activity includes intensive agriculture from my understanding they are not seperated in terms of overall effect on climate.

For purposes of emissions per sector then they are likely broken down with various forms of agriculture making different contributions as you have stated.

Oh so now you would recomend that we become vegitarians as well as banning fossil fuel …LOL Funny they didn’t say that in Kyoto

Maybe someone needs to send this list out to journalists and others in the media who are likely to seek an expert opinion about climate change.

For instance, that recent column of Margaret Wente’s claiming to have talked to various experts and not naming all of them. I’ve read on one forum that she told someone one of her experts was Richard Lindzen. Who fed her his name? And then there’s the National Post publicizing the names of deniers, or of people it claims to be deniers.

So how do we publicize instead the names and opinions of the real experts? How about articles on some of the people who helped produce the IPCC report, and the things they study? Maybe the newly green Globe and Mail would go for that.

Why not just burn the “deniers”….. The reason a large part of the world and I know you don’t believe it, but also a large part of the scientific community (not all scientists are climatolagists) don’t accept this drival is because you have turned it into a religion. You have allowed yourselves to become closed fanatics that wouldn’t except cntrary data if it bit you in the ass. and there is a TON of conflicting data….
Troll: The global baloney zealots are already doing everything they can to attack, discredit, decertify and dismiss anyone who dares to follow the scientific method and continue questioning and researching this issue. They already work to block grants to scientists studying variations in solar radiation. And that Weather Channel bimbo wanted to decertify meterologists who failed to bow at the altar of idiocy that is manmade global warming. That would mean those folks would lose their job. Global warming Nazis! Seig Heil!

Re: “The global baloney zealots are already doing everything they can to attack, discredit, decertify and dismiss anyone who dares to follow the scientific method and continue questioning and researching this issue.”

No. The “deniers” discredit themselves well enough with the nonsense they spew out.

As for the rest of your claptrap, it’s all bogus and lies. There is no blocking of grants to studies of solar radiation. That is BS.

City Troll
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/17856506005288373194
* Industry: Tourism
* Occupation: Lunatic
* Location: under a rock in Philly : Heavily Armed

About Me

As a member of the lunatic fringe I reserve the right to discount anything you have to say unless it inspires a rant either for ya or agin ya

Thats me or am I really something else…. Tsk Tsk
Sadly, Gresham’s law – that debased money always drives out sound money – has an online corollary. On unmoderated forums, raging nonsense always drives out meaningful communication.

I have enjoyed much of deSmogblog, but the signal:noise ratio has dropped below my tolerance level.

Thanks to all those who have given me some interesting reading, especially those who post contrarian views respectfully and with an open mind. You have made me think.

May we meet again, preferably without the garbage.

That is, if spending hours at the computer writing nonsensical, angry screeds is considered winning. You know, you don’t actually have to read what they say. Just go on reading desmogblog and ignore the peanut gallery.
Let’s get back to the subject, mmmmkay? AHEM… It’s not the livestock itself that’s a major problem, it’s the fact that humans are destroying HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of acres of wilderness per day to make way for grazing grounds-this is happening right now with the South American rainforests. The thing is, rainforest soil is no good for growing large patches of grass, and it soon turns to desert. It has nothing to do with global warming, but it’s sad nonetheless.
What the f*** Richard. I read half way down your list of eminent scientists (and they are eminent) and not one of them has a PhD in climatology. In fact, most of them received their doctorates before there even was such a thing as a PhD in climatology! This may be the basis of Ball’s claim. i.e. he got the first one awarded to a Canadian because he was the first Canadian who came to the door. » reply | report as spam

Pages