Although the University of Calgary has severed all ties with the Friends of Science and shut down the accounts which were set up in 2004 by political science professor Barry Cooper, the anti-Kyoto group is still using the same charity, the Calgary Foundation, to collect money and issue tax deductible receipts for anonymous donors.
The money is now going through an independent think tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, which has received at least $50,000 since last fall, according to a document released by the Calgary Foundation. The Frontier Centre has indicated that it wants to produce a climate change video for children in schools.
So, Friends of Science out, FCPP in, because even Frank Luntz believes humans contribute to global warming now. Denial is old-school, and so the Calgary school washes its hands of you, Friends of Science! But do they? A quick look at the board of advisors for FCPP show us that Tim Ball, or should I say DR. Tim Ball, the go-to guy of climate change denial and , is on the board. From fcpp.org:
Tim Ball has an extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition with additional experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide Magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems. He had a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg until he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a BA from the University of Winnipeg, an MA from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D (Doctor of Science) from the University of London England. Dr. Ball has been targeted as a climate change "denier" in the hothouse of climate change alarmism and subject to various ad hominem attacks.
Tim Ball is also the Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project: from nrsp.com
NRSP is a federally incorporated, non-profit, non-partisan organization that will promote responsible environmental stewardship through:
* broad-based media, government and public relations;
* consumer education and advocacy;
* private initiative and the promotion of private property rights;
* market-based approaches; and
* sensible and efficient legislative and regulatory frameworks, particularly at the federal level.
Sure gets around, doesn't he? It's like, he's so passionate about denying 99.9% of settled climate science that he has to be on not one but 3 boards! Listen to mister Braggy McCredentials as he introduces himself: CFP linky if you can stomach it
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Why? Umm, because the vast, vast majority of scientists DO believe in global warming, and have the peer reviewed research in the field to prove it? Unlike Ball, who hasn't published a peer reviewed scientific publication on climatology in around 10 years. But he certainly does his share of writing.
That’s not to say that Ball hasn’t been busy writing lately. Over the past five years, he has published no less than 39 opinion pieces and 32 letters to the editor in 24 Canadian newspapers. Fifty of these pieces ran in papers owned by CanWest MediaWorks. These efforts totalled an incredible 44,500 words.
This is even more surprising, given the monotony of his material. Virtually all of these articles were variations on a single theme: science does not support the idea that global warming is caused by humans. Invariably, the bylines of the opinion pieces characterized Ball as an expert on climatology. What is the public to think?
Let me repeat again, just in case you missed it the first time. Ball has not published a scientific peer reviewed paper in over 10 years. Friends of Science does no original scientific research. And yet we're supposed to believe them over the overwhelming majority of working scientists and climatologists? Oy, right then.
Scientists have noticed and discussed climate change, and then fear-mongers have magnified it into a threat. The possibility of global warming is a classic example. Here's the conclusion of journalist Don Philpott, author of "Global Warming: How Serious Is The Threat?", a paper published in January: "Global heating threatens our health, with the elderly, young and poor particularly at risk. It threatens our ability to grow crops and store them safely. It opens the door to a fearsome spread of diseases; it threatens drinking-water supplies and air quality."
Sounds fearsome, doesn't it? My response is, "Thank goodness for global warming." Just 20,000 years ago, Canada was under a massive ice sheet, two kilometres thick in the Hudson Bay region. Just 300 years ago, a Little Ice Age would have precluded agriculture as practiced in Canada today. In fact, just 30 years ago, global cooling was the scientific consensus, transmitted to the public by the same transmission belt, the popular press.
Yes, I'm sure the climate change refugees will also be saying "Thank goodness for global warming", as will the rest of us who will fucking starve to death because of drought and the collapse of the food chain, asshole. Ball goes on:
Just a brief list of the benefits to our coldest province, Manitoba, and the coldest city, Winnipeg, illustrates the positive potential of global warming:
- Reduced heating costs.
- Reduced fuel bills for travel.
- A longer growing season, allowing a greater variety of crops.
- Less frost damage and crop loss.
- A greater variety of plants for gardens and other uses.
- More rapidly growing forests and an increased rate of reforestation.
- Less frost damage to streets and roads.
- The potential for direct access to world markets through northern ports.
- Reduced construction costs in an ameliorated climate.
- A longer summer season for tourism, and for cottagers and campers.
As for mosquitos, Winnipeggers at least have been dealing with the pesky bugs since long before David Suzuki even heard of global warming.
A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let's hope so.
Won't it be keen when those pesky mosquitoes are gone from Winnipeg? Gosh, I can hardly wait! Global warming is going to be super awesome! And more camping, more cottages, more weekends at the lake - mom, can we start running the car overnight? Pretty please?
When told of these claims, Richard Gammon, professor of oceanography and atmosheric sciences at the University of Washington, somewhat exasperatedly refuted them as either scientifically baseless or misleading.
Andrew Weaver is a leading Canadian researcher in the field of climate science who holds a Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria. He is also the chief editor of Journal of Climate, the leading academic publication in this field, and a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme). This is the largest peer-review exercise in the history of science, involving more than 2,000 climate researchers from 100 countries, and its much-anticipated Fourth Assessment Report is due for worldwide release on February 2.
Weaver also quickly confirmed that those widely published views of Ball’s have little scientific basis.
Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change. “This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”
In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on: “This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”
How does Gammon explain the climate holdouts? “You can always find somebody paid for by the Western Fuels Association or ExxonMobil to stir the pot and say that we don’t know yet or we are still confused and we need to listen to all sides, and ExxonMobil will take that point of view.” (Ball, in a Globe and Mail interview last summer, said he has not knowingly received any funding from oil companies.)
The "we're still confused, we don't know yet" comes straight from the maw of Frank Luntz.
So if you were wondering why Rona Ambrose was such an embarassment on the world stage, and why Canada's Ewww Government hasn't done JACK SHIT in over 2 years about global warming and Canada's role in it, you can thank Tim Ball of Friends of Science (friendsofscience.org), the Conservative government-connected Frontier Centre for Public Policy (fcpp.org), and the National Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).