Dr. Tim Ball On CFC's and the Sponsorship Scandal

Wed, 2006-06-07 11:14Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Dr. Tim Ball On CFC's and the Sponsorship Scandal

CLICK HERE FOR AN UPDATED BIO OF TIM BALL (FEB.05, 2007)

Upon closer review of the recent Ottawa Citizen editorial board with the infamous climate change denier Dr. Tim Ball, we here at the DeSmogBlog Team have uncovered even further evidence about how outrageous Dr. Ball actually is.

In the PR world we call it staying on message, listen to this interview if you are interested in how not to do an interview. We here at the DeSmogBlog Team appreciate the PR practitioner providing Dr. Ball with the bad advice.

Check out these great quotes that have been captured for time immemorial by the good folks at the Ottawa Citizen.

Time-mark 43:56 min: Editor: "What do you think about government, do they have the wherewithall to make proper decisions about science?"

Please go to this time mark to check out Dr. Ball make the analogy that the scientists at Environment Canada are doing exactly what Chuck Guite did in the Sponsorship Scandal.

Time-mark 56 min: Dr. Tim Ball: "CFC's were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing"

Time-mark 57 min: Dr. Tim Ball: "What's wrong with global warming? There are lots of positive benefits to global warming."

Scary thing is that the media are actually taking this guy seriously.


Tags: 
Ottawa Citizen

Comments

Fri, 2007-02-09 14:43 — Paul
I am not surprised in the least by this information. The leading expert on this topic is Dr. James Hansen. You can find his work on The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) web page http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ As you will see he has no agenda being he is a lowly government employee simply interested in the truth. I'm really surprised at the emotional response from those who opose gthe theory of global warming. They seem not to even have a grasp of the real data.

Fri, 2007-02-09 15:24 — ski968
I just can't help myself... Nasa (the best and brightest men and women in the country), Did Dr. Hansen consult with Ms. Nowack(Astro-nut) on the issue? Joking aside, Nasa long ago became a liberal operation. Who else would be dumb enough to send a school teacher into space..... Remember the Hubble Fiasco? Anti military Nasa Scientists turned down the offer from the military to test the optics on the Hubble. So the best and brightest put a billion dollar screwup into orbit. Great place to fix a telescope! So no Paul, I don't place a whole lot of faith in NASA.

Mon, 2007-02-12 12:59 — Capt Caveman
I don't believe in GW but if NASA does, how do they justify all those shuttle missions? How much pollution does that create? Cut NASA funding and GW research funding!!

Thu, 2007-05-24 22:44 — Cory
Not one of these comments provides a sound argument against global warming. Fact of the matter is the burning of fossil fuel contributes 6.6 petagrams of CO2 a year to the estimated 750 petagrams present in the atmosphere. While this seems like a minor amount imagine how much this has thrown off the earth's NATURAL carbon cycle over a period of 100 years. Furthermore, to compare global warming controversy to past tobacco scams is a false analogy. However I find it amazing how many of you comment on the dollars that would be lost should the public find out the truth about "global warming." You fail to recognize how much money the oil companies have placed into bad science in order to quash further awareness of global warming. What amused me the most was your petty attacks on Al Gore as if his hypocrisy justifies global warming. On the contrary a wealthy politician buying carbon offsets to ease his mind should not be presented as evidence in an argument against global warming. The "greenhouse effect" IS sound science and global warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed if not for the sake of your future but for the future of your children, grandchildren, and so on. Not to be rude, but I find that those that are most closed-minded on climate change are people age mid-30's and older. I believe that it is because they have experienced a vast amount of technological improvement in their lifetimes. I could imagine how hard it would be to "think" that you would lose these nice new things should there be reform. One person pointed out that "at least money from oil comes from an activity that has "pushed" forward civilization in ways never seen before, and without it civilization would surely plunge back into the stone age -or medieval times. Make your pick." I am shocked by how mislead this statement is. Fossil fuel did not make our civilization. WE made our civilization with the help of fossil fuel. We have the ability to do great things without the dependence of cheap oil. Now my take on global warming is that it is a very real problem that needs to be dealt with, but it won't be. And I'm going to have to face the consequences of my actions as well as everyone else's. I will admit. I am a hypocrite. I drive a mid-sized truck that gets about 15mpg. But do I really have any other choice? The suburban structure we have built leaves me none, especially being a college student working two jobs. For those of you that are thinking "well by a Hybrid. Take the bus. Carpool" you're still failing to see the root of the problem. We need to put our ingenuity that got us to where we our today and apply it to combatting two things (1) the dependence of fossil fuel and(2) a grave future brought forth by climate change. Finally, just because a celebrity makes a statement does not make it invalid. And just because a scientist claims something does not make it the gospel truth. It is important that we as intelligent humans apply our brains to becoming critical thinkers of everything presented unto us. Think of how many conflicts, disasters, wars, etc. could have been avoided had society just stepped back and analyzed the WHOLE situation. Even if you still don't believe in climate change/global warming just think what harm could be caused in taking caution. I myself would love to see a world with less pollution. As for the people who claim that it has gotten hotter since when they were children I have no comment being that I am only eighteen. However my advice to you is that the next time you're driving in a highly trafficked area roll down all of your windows. You will start to feel your eyes burn from the overwhelming amount of pollution in the air. I know I already said finally but I have one last thing. This comment probably struck me the most. "I think it's very egocentric to suggest mankind is the engine that drives the climate of this planet. We aren't driving this planet -- we are only passengers." There was a time when this statement was true, but not anymore. Our capabilities as humans has far exceeded the boundaries of nature/earth. Once a man could look at a tree and be baffled at its indestructibility. Now we can cut trees down faster than we can throw away the piece of paper used from the tree. Its safe to say that we ARE the stewards of this planet. We have the ability to destroy our whole world within timespan equal to a minute fraction of its existence. The only problem is we'd be destroying ourselves as well. Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Should you have any comments I can be e-mailed at cfulton@hayeslaw.net

Sat, 2007-10-13 10:44 — Lee

I also have a PhD, mine in biochemistry from work with a Nobel Laureate at UCLA, and I also have an MD from the University of Miami.
The most obvious thing to any real scientist is that this "debate" does not exist within the scientific world. Global warming is a FACT within the scientific world. There is no debate in scientific literature.
The only debate is from coming from charlatans like Dr Ball and fools like GW Bush, not scientists. Dr Ball has left the scientific world and published nothing within the scientific literature about this, because his "facts" are manufactured and interpreted with malice and supported by his ridiculous superficial childish arguments that no scientist would allow in any scientific journal.
Was his retirement from the scientific community due to early onset dementia? Surely there is an explanation for his loss of any significant fact based thought process, which he presumably once possessed.