Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Soviet Style Regime Change For Iran | Main | Thank You Canada! »

Monday, March 12, 2007

Global warming alarmists' new tactic - death threats

Former Climatology Professor Timothy Ball (U of Winnipeg) is ruffling some feathers over in the global warming alarmist crowd.  They don't like his refusal to drink the Kool-aid.  So some of them are threatening to kill him (Angry in the Great White North):

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

It makes you wonder: why are they so afraid of an honest debate?

Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 12, 2007 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global warming alarmists' new tactic - death threats:


As a long time skeptic of the global warming debate myself (Mars is warming, too, people), I'd just like to put on the record that I'd personally welcome any death threats that came my way and would feel free to respond to the same using all the necessary force required. Step up, guys, let's have the big global warming debate, and we'll even do it on your terms.

Posted by: Geoff W. | 2007-03-12 2:23:04 PM

Jeez Geoff you might get one of those Brand New
V'C's that the Government of Canada and it's Bumpkins want to Award to a Corpse. I do not believe for a moment that the Professor got a single "death threat" after all U of Winnipeg is not exactly
MIT or Princton where they turn out Real Scientists
-Our Tom Cats know all about Global Warming down here in the Picture Province - I noticed today which is much warmer than a week ago, that they follow the sun and stretch out to warm up. I figure the Sun has been heating the old Globe for many many Centuries, despite what the Socialist Horde
and the Green Little People are saying. Liberals would push for Global Warming if they could sell it for a fee. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-03-12 2:35:04 PM

I bet holocaust deniers get death threats too. Does that mean that the holocaust "alarmists" are afraid of honest debate and that means they know they are wrong? Probably not.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-03-12 2:47:17 PM

Mark Logan: Too equate the Holocaust with Global warming is sheer stupidity. Typical Liberal bullshoot.

Posted by: Bazoo | 2007-03-12 2:53:48 PM

Nice attempt at a topic shift.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-03-12 2:53:53 PM

I've seen a few tough talkin' posts here and there on WS that'd qualify as a death threat by this guy's standard. But hey, death threats get you media attention and media attention is always good. Kudos to him for a great bit of self-marketing.

Ooooh. I should send myself some death threats using a Hotmail and Yahoo account.

Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-12 3:02:25 PM

Shut up Bushido or I'll, idunno, like, totally kill you dead. This is for real because it's on the internets and you can't forge the internet.

Posted by: Evil Death Threaty Person | 2007-03-12 3:04:06 PM

Oh no! Help!

OK I'll stop now.

Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-12 3:04:57 PM

In the new religion of environmentalism, death to sinners apparently is encouraged.

Whatever happened to stomping your feet and holding your breath?

Those are much more mature actions.

Perhaps anger managment class would be in order.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-03-12 3:19:45 PM

Good program on Charles Adler's radio program today - he was promoting the BBC 4 Global Warming Swindle Documentary.

Posted by: David | 2007-03-12 3:22:16 PM

Well. In fairness, environmentalists get _really_ killed about as often as their critics get threatened to be killed. Idunno about you, but I'd rather be wished dead than made dead any day. I was just reading about those two jguys killed by the national police in Nicaragua in an "extrajudicial" attack. "Extra" is right.

Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-12 3:28:51 PM

Can I quote you on that "ebt"?

Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-12 3:58:06 PM

The first thing to understand about 'global anything' is that the celestial laws of physics and the solar laws of thermodynamics really don't give a rats ass whether mankind is on this planet or any other planet.
Ok so I'm a heathen.

The only people really concerned with seriously promoting this GWG farce is the guys who are making, or going to make, BIG MONEY off of it.
Mo(ney) Strong, Gore, Suzuki, carbon credits guys, etc.

These GW people appear extremely shortsighed to the point of even un-informed as to the previous changes of climate which have occurred over the last couple thousand years.

For those interested, google 'sharpgary.org'.
I haven't been there for awhile but he has a very interesting timescale chart of earthly climate changes, ie feast and famine.

Helps put our climate change and the threats of floods and droughts into perspective.

Happened before and will happen again.

How scary can it get?

I'd like to nominate the line 'Global warming is real because I've seen it with my own eyes over the last 20 years' as the most hilaraious and unauthoritive comment on global warming in the last month.
Gets the max of 10 marks for well-intentioned though.

Posted by: rockyt | 2007-03-12 4:10:01 PM

Hey EBT and Bushido ... please keep it clean, people will think this a left wing hate site. Name calling is a leftist tactic. Are you guys or gals or trannies or whatever ... leftists?

Re the alarmists being afraid of honest debate. It's the word honest that is the crux of the biscuit.

Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 4:19:01 PM

And regarding Adler playing the swindle documentary ... you can find the link here. It's really really really good.


Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 4:21:00 PM

I enjoy how everyone hear says that the only people pushing climate change are the ones who are going to make money from it.

Who does Ball get paid by?

Well he's a consultant with the Friends of Science who was so proud of their oil and gas funding, they tried to hide it.

He also, like Gore, Suzuki et. al., gets paid to push his tale.

Hey wait doesn't that mean he profits from telling people climate change isn't happening? Wouldn't that mean he has an interest in telling one side of the story too?

Nevermind he hasn't published anything in a peer-reviewed journal in over 11 years.

I think the energy industry has the most at stake here - namely billions of dollars in government subsidies.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 4:21:50 PM

And here's an interesting critique of Ball's credentials playing out in the courts:


Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 4:30:16 PM

Gore makes a living and you say that makes him dishonest.

Take a read of Ball's court files - an interesting read about his credentials.

Is that an inconvenient truth?

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 4:38:24 PM

Temper temper!
EBT, if I said someting to make you, well, snap and go all Mel Gibson meets Kramer on us, I really do apologize. Have a good night, get out in the sunshine if it's sunny there, buy yourself a latte and let it all blow over. Have a good one! :-D

Posted by: Bushido | 2007-03-12 4:40:34 PM

Death threats and cults are synonymous.

Not sure what's at play in this case but it's sure in the realm of possibility. It's a sign of the end game for the Environmental Freaks, including Charlatans like Gore and Suzuki.

They are now being challenged by credible people and
they will resort to some desperate actions.

Cornered rats have few options.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-03-12 4:40:42 PM

Hey, do you call yourself "Bushido" because you're a chink-eyed piece of yellow shit like David Suzuki? That would explain why you've got the balls to come on line anonymously and insult a white man. I know that kind of shit passes for balls in little yellow turds like you.

Of course, maybe you're just a stupid fuck. Since you'd rather be wished dead than made dead, I'll grant your wish. Drop dead.

Nice talk, to be sure. Crap like this has no place in a discussion.You ought to be ashamed of yourself. While I don't agree with Kookie Suziki on his self-aggrandizing Glowball Warming schtik, you have no right to call anyone a "chink eyed piece of yellow shit".
My grandchildren have that "chink eyed" feature and believe me they have, at 3 and 6 years old, more class than you ever will.
Take your "balls" and stick them where the sun don't shine. You are disgusting.

Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2007-03-12 4:48:55 PM

Wow EDT, racist/fascist much?

Anywho, fun facts for ya:

· 12 of the past 13 years were the warmest since records began;

· ocean temperatures have risen at least three kilometres beneath the surface;

· glaciers, snow cover and permafrost have decreased in both hemispheres;

· sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year;

· cold days, nights and frost have become rarer while hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent.

These are facts. My question is why don't we stop quibbling over why this is happening, and simply try to fix it?

Posted by: Minion4Hire | 2007-03-12 4:49:21 PM

Chris said


"Yes I make my living in the environmental field (at least I'm willing to share who I actually am on here, unlike some). However, my main focus is ecology, while I also work with the private sector with energy and waste conservation and synergies. In this realm, the private sector only makes the investment if there is a payback - and many companies see reduce costs and efficiency as a good thing."

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 21-Feb-07 3:50:44 AM

AND Chris just said

"I think the energy industry has the most at stake here - namely billions of dollars in government subsidies."

I say:

But then you have a stake in saying this.
Whom to believe? Chris Rickett or Tim Ball? Hmmm!

Oh, well. I guess I'll just stick to the science.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 4:58:31 PM

Minion: your facts do not point towards any conclusion. It could be human conduct causing it, or it might be the sun. That makes it hard to take action if the cause remains unclear. It seems that the global warming people have another agenda - like the destruction of capitalism.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-03-12 5:01:30 PM

Minion wrote:
"· sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year;"


130 metres peak since last ice age divided by 18000 years = 7.2 mm per year.

I'm putting my life jacket back in the closet.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:05:23 PM


"why don't we stop quibbling over why this is happening, and simply try to fix it?"

Without the cooperation of China et al, we won't be able to fix it. Why don't we focus on using our technology to learn to live with it? That way if it's due to natural causes now or in the future, we won't feel like danged fools as the sea washes over us just as we reach the top of Everest.

ebt: there's a website called thesaurus.com. You type in a word and it gives you alternatives. Use it so you don't have to resort to using your 5 swear words and coming across as a copralaliac zoophyte.

Posted by: greenmamba | 2007-03-12 5:06:55 PM

Alright, so maybe the sun is causing it, maybe God is causing it, but there is a good correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and the overall temperature of the earth with data going back centuries - and in some cases millenia. Even if the sun is causing this warming, lowering the level of greenhouse gases will cause the earth to trap less heat and help regulate our global temperature.

I just think it's better to start doing something now than trying to play catchup later.

Posted by: Minion4Hire | 2007-03-12 5:08:53 PM


" Even if the sun is causing this warming, lowering the level of greenhouse gases will cause the earth to trap less heat and help regulate our global temperature."

Assuming the sun is mostly responsible AND assuming we can actually reduce the concentration of CO2, what do you think will happen when the sun cools again?

Brrr! Oh, yeah, shorter and weaker growing seasons as well.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:12:10 PM

Finally H20 admits CO2 causes warming. I think we're moving along here people.

Two questions:

1) Do human actions cause CO2 emissions?

2) Have C02 concentrations grown since industrialization?

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 5:16:14 PM

By the way, the solar cycle you're speaking off has fallen in intensity since 1980. Yet, we've seen 19 of the warmest years on record.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 5:17:24 PM


"Finally H20 admits CO2 causes warming."

I don't think you have been paying attention. I've always recognized CO2 as a "greenhouse" gas. One small fraction of a larger fraction of gasses.

One where the human contribution is dwarfed by nature's contribution.

One where the absorption bands are mostly saturated and therefore, extra CO2 will only contribute logarithmically to trapping thermal energy in those bands.

One where historical records show CO2 lagging temperature increase and it remains unproven that the warming is exacerbated by CO2 released by the oceans.

One where the Antarctic ice core records may suffer from a flaw of not actually representing atmospheric CO2 levels contemporaneously.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:23:15 PM

Yes, warming and cooling trends will be gradual. They should still be taken seriously because we live in a chaotic fractal - some people will be seriously affected. For instance, the psychological stability of some enviornmental activists. (Truly, it's all a part of the global climate.)

That being said, I don't think it's charitable to be so quick to lump people all together indiscriminately. The preservation of resources and ecological diversity is a fundamentally conservative value. It pains me to see that the scientific issues so readily take a back-seat to politics and nut-cases.
(Please remove the words "antibot" from my e-mail in order to send me mail.)

Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-03-12 5:23:48 PM

"By the way, the solar cycle you're speaking off has fallen in intensity since 1980. Yet, we've seen 19 of the warmest years on record."

That's twice in a row you haven't been paying attention, I was responding to Minion's assertions and used the term "assuming".

As an aside, my understanding is that the sun stands now at its larger solar irradiance although I may be wrong. As an aside, it would be legitimate to question the theory on that basis. Having said that, same goes for the CO2 theory. CO2 consistently rose during the cooling trend mid 20th century.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:26:49 PM

And human beings change their climate everyday.

As a country that lags behind the OECD in energy intensity, we could learn a thing or two about using resources more efficiently and productively.

Save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.

Sounds win-win to me.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 5:30:12 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would love nothing more than to be more energy efficient and reduce actual pollution emissions for a whole wack of reasons.

At this point in time, oil is just far too energy dense compared to any and all other options. Change will be made gradually but I hope not at the expense of ruining economies thereby destroying lives.

Besides, I thought we were debating the global warming. Why did you change direction?

"And human beings change their climate everyday."

So do beavers.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:34:44 PM

Co2 is NOT a green house gas if it is an EFFECT of increased temperature rather than a CAUSE.

The ice core samples are irrefutable proof of this.

The lag between temperature rise and increase in CO2 in the ice core samples is on the order of 800 years.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-12 5:35:20 PM

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does trap thermal energy. Ok, that is not quite accurate. It catches the photons at that wavelength and reradiates it. These photons then do a random walk from one molecule to another until it leaves the earth.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 5:37:25 PM

This whole global warming debate, at least at this point where the skeptics are only now starting to fight back in order to get some logic and sense to it is almost like the 300 fighting the Persian hordes.

The difference is that instead of having the battle of Thermopile we are have the battle of Thermometer.

Just a little humor to break up the tension a bit.

Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 5:45:56 PM

Speller: "The lag between temperature rise and increase in CO2 in the ice core samples is on the order of 800 years."

...and some ice cores have CO2 levels preceding temperature increases by 800 years. Ice core dating is not 100% accurate. The point is there is a direct correlation between the two. And as h2o273kk9 pointed out, CO2 is indisputably a greenhouse gas.

Posted by: Minino4Hire | 2007-03-12 5:46:01 PM

Given the huge amount of money that are put in with public tax money into climate research, it is not surprising that prominent people get death threats who speak out the truth of the state of the global warming greenhouse theory. Because when the greenhouse gas global warming theory bubble soon will burst there are a lot of climatologist that will be out of work. Just an example, recently at a climate conference in Nairobi there attended 6000 climatologists. Climate research is now the most well funded field in natural science.

Posted by: Per Strandberg | 2007-03-12 5:56:23 PM

Our big problem is not the warming. I believe and it's has been proved that a slightly warmer climate would bring more prosperity to most areas of earth.

I think what we need to cut back on is the particulate being pumped into the atmosphere. That is what is interfering with the temperatures especially in the zone between SE Asia and the West Coast of the Americas. Our big pineapple express blow jobs are a result of a warmer pacific just like the hurricanes of the Gulf region are a result of the heated body of water in that tropical area during the fall season.

The particulate pollution is breathed by those who produce it and the rest of it drops into the ocean carried by the westerlies on it's way to us. Now there is do much more that it is holding heat near the ocean surface and that messes with the weather.

I think what we have here is not so much a global warming issue but rather a weather issue because of temporary condition that are created by too much particulate being pumped into the atmosphere.

This may be creating the illusion of warming, but I doubt it. The global warming and cooling trends occur naturally and are cause by forces outside of our control ... namely the sun, cosmic ray activity, Jean and Joan and a who knows who. You've got to change .. baby before I get home to you ... oops I slipped into a Santana warp there for a minute.

When I hear these global warming zealots going at it, I find it hard to keep a straight face .. They are so sure of everything and yet they know nothing of what they speak.

It's a scam and it's worked so far. We must debunk this shit before they take too much of our money and standard of living away.

Eventually the warming trend will subside and if the idiot left has managed to pillage out economy, they will take credit for it. If not we can then say ...we told you so. I am into the 'I told you so' scenario.

Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 5:59:48 PM

CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
There is CO2 in the Arctic.
Is the Arctic a green house?

It is irrefutable that temperature causes increases in CO2 NOT the other way around.

The ocean scientists say that the oceans absorb CO2 when they cool and emit CO2 when they warm.

The earth is mostly ocean.

The sun and cosmic rays are warming the oceans, the oceans are therefore emitting CO2.

Are the oceans a greenhouse?

The continent with the most active volcanos is Antarctica.
Volcanos are the greatest emitters of CO2 on the planet.
Is Antarctica a greenhouse?

Who defines which gasses are greenhouse gasses and which are not, Al Gore, Maurice Strong?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-03-12 6:22:22 PM

while the term "greenhouse" isn't the best, it is used generally to refer to gasses that trap (see above explanation) energy at a specific set of wavelength ranges equal to that experienced by reradiation of solar energy by the earth.

As the earth is a highly complex, non-linear, almost chaotic system with limited inputs and outputs, it is subject to fluctuations. Think high pressure and low pressure as an example.

Hence, as the poles receive less solar radiation and are somewhat isolated by the jet streams and other atmospherics, the distribution of this energy is limited. Also, as they have snow, they suffer from a high albedo (reflecting sunlight before being absorbed)

Albedo is important because the earth receives solar energy in the visible range and reradiates it in the thermal range. They are different. Albedo short circuits this process and prevents the energy at the poles from sticking around as long. Hence, it's colder.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-12 6:30:04 PM

In a way, we are lucky (blessed?) Internet is helping to raise serious challenges against false theories. Even if some people use impolite language, the debate gets warmer and globally warmer(pun intended).

In my point of view we have a more urgent problem to solve.Islamofacism and the mad mullahs. If an atomic war is started by the Iranian Hitler, what will happen to the atmosphere and the environment in general? How many people will die from cancer?

Has anyone computed the effect of exploding 1000 or even 2000 thermonuclear devices? So why are we not trying to stop the mad mullahs?

I'm afraid the Iranian nutjob will get his hand on nukes, given the opposition of China and Russia to real sanctions. Then what?

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-03-12 7:16:31 PM


Why is the right-wing, Christian response to 90% of the world's problems involve sitting back and waiting for the world to destroy itself while we continue to rape it for our own benefit? You know that whole ozone thing? We fixed that because we took action. We stopped pumping CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere. We actually did something to correct the wrongs being done. Chlorine and Bromine gases were known to cause ozone depletion, and carbon dioxide and methane are known to trap thermal energy. CFCs and HCFCs may not have been the only causes of ozone depletion, but we fixed the problem by taking action early. We can help do the same with global warming, regardless of what other factors are involved.

And as far as your claim that us "zealots" know nothing, what are you basing your claims on? Your own paranoid skepticism perhaps? One of the largest databases in the world - comprising 6 petabytes worth of storage (6 million gigabytes) - is strictly devoted to climatological data, over 100 terabytes of which comprise current climate models as part of a study for the UN's IPCC, a study that should be released sometime this year and so far has agreed with previous projections supporting global warming. Do you have any source or data to support your claims that matches even 1/100 of what this database contains? I don't think there is any other source or culmination of sources which contain anywhere near the same amount of information.

Posted by: Viral | 2007-03-12 7:21:08 PM

And when the albedo is lowered, things get even more interesting.

H20 - I'm not arguing that climate isn't complicated and that there are many inputs.

However, we agree that greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, CFCs, etc.) do cause warming. We have also agreed that human actions cause greenhouse gases.

Does that not mean humans contribute to climate change?

We change our climate everyday - we see it in urban development and we've seen it with deforestation and the creation of deserts. To think that these changes in the biosphere do not interact with the atmosphere would be foolish.

As to the deniers, I find it interesting that this entire post started out as defending Ball. Yet, nobody has seemed to respond to his questionable qualifications and resume padding.

John - could you please point out the studies that show a warmer climate is going to be a boon for our economy?

Then your comment that humans do cause pollution and it is causing odd weather patterns, and then you say climate change isn't happening. Sorry I don't follow your logic. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth (maybe that's why you invoked Jean).

Speller - so CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is it? That's an interesting theory.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 7:23:29 PM

Viral they don't like facts and science on this forum, only conspiracies.

Remember evolution is a scam too and Adam and Eve hung out with dinasours.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-03-12 7:26:28 PM

If the global cooling we were told to be so scared of, in the 70's was so bad. It seems to me that global warming is a good thing. I could live quite nicely in a climate 5 or 6 degrees warmer.

Posted by: Alan | 2007-03-12 7:52:26 PM

I said the we may be causing some occasional weather traumas, not general global climate change. The sun does that along with varying intensities of cosmic ray activity.

This entire planet is a green house by definition since a closed system (the biosphere held down by gravity) which contains life-giving water. The plants eat CO2 and produce oxygen as a by-product for us to breath ... again ... life - giving.

The more heat ... the more planets and the more moisture can be held on the land. Like the rain forest of the west coast of Canada. The more moisture on the land ... the less dessert. The Mediterranean used to look just Vancouver Island being a carpet on rock with big trees. The trees were all cut down to make ships and erosion did the rest .. viola ... a dessert region with warm weather. You can bet the middle east would be a bit cooler if it had more forests.

You may note that when you take away a forest you wind up with a desert ..like on Easter island or the growing fringes of the Sahara.

All this is rudimentary knowledge that is available in high school science books. A basic knowledge of how thing work in the biosphere allows you to visualized the changes that occur over shorter and longer periods.

In the case of the CFCs mainly at the south pole I am still waiting to hear what the big downside was. I also understand that those holes tend to get bigger and smaller from year to year regardless of what kind of fridge we own.

My point is simply that you are presenting global warming religion not science. I happen to see this warming trend (if it is actually happening over a long term) as potentially beneficial. It will allow more northerly areas to be more habitable and agriculturally viable.

We will also use much less energy on a warmer world. Consider that if an Ice-Age is a bad thing ... a warming trend conversely most likely will be a good thing.

Since we are never going to get China and India and other developing countries to slow down their emissions, and they are major contributors nowadays we might as well just wait and see what happens and consider how we might do to adapt to the new global warming trend.

Being scared shitless is not a way to live nor a way to approach a potential problem. Cooler heads will alway prevail and the skeptics definitely have the cooler heads. You schitzy Lefties are all in a panic and you are into feeling and beliefs ... beliefs are not facts .. the rest of us are into reality and sensible solutions that don't involve destroying Capitalism and democratic freedoms.

Finally, this is the issue that Mo Strong and the commies of the world are using to take down the West. The Elites of the world don't like the power of the USA and they don't like the power of the middle classes.

This a multi faceted issue and it is more political than it is scientific.

In closing this comment, let me say that I am endlessly amused by the arrogance of the Leftist who think they not only completely understand the workings of nature, but actually feel they can control it.

Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 8:17:57 PM

Alan .. I used you point in my rant before I read your comment ... sorry.

Posted by: John | 2007-03-12 8:18:59 PM

1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.