A Correspondence with Licia Corbella, Editor, The Calgary Sun
From: Brian McAsey
To: Licia Corbella
Dear Ms Corbella,
I want to comment on your opinion piece entitled Canada Should Breathe Easy: Inconvenient truth for pro-Kyoto crowd, as published on Tuesday November 14 2006.
Your advice “for Canadians who don’t believe the facts [of your] column […] [t]urn off your furnace, walk or cycle to work and stop breathing” seemed a little extreme and mean-spirited. Although I keep my energy tested home’s low energy furnace low and my family cycles/walks to work every day, I’m not quite ready to stop breathing. In fact, after reading your column my rate of breathing increased sharply. Today I’d like to waste some CO2 on you.
As the editor of the Calgary Sun I’d expect you would exercise far better research and fact checking when it comes to the veracity of important Op/Ed pieces like Canada’s shaming by the United Nations for our unmitigated failure into keeping our CO2 emissions in check and compounding it by not honouring our promises to our international brethren. Nothing like an international embarrassment to fortify our right wing radicals.
First error you made was in having only one climatologist consulted in your piece—oh, wait a minute you didn’t even get that right. Tim Ball is actually not a climatologist, he has a Ph.d. in Geography and was never a climatologist at the University of Winnipeg . Oops! That’s embarrassing, writing an entire article on the lies, deceits, and inflated figures of climatologists all the while relying on data from some shill for the oil industry and the Fraser Institute who isn’t (as you repeatedly stated) a climatologist. Nor is he, as you explicitly stated, a 28 year veteran climatologist retired from the University of Winnipeg [that in Dr. Ball’s studies of Geography could maybe tell you is in Manitoba]. His two publications in the field of climate notwithstanding [I’ve seen larger publication curriculum vitae in undergraduates in my area] I believe you owe an apology and a clarification to your readers.
Good thing you had an astrophysicist[?!] second “Dr.” Ball and give you his “personal opinion” (while carefully distancing it from his august institution) on CO2 emissions–and surprise surprise he’s another Fraser Institute boob. Well, it sounds like your column saved some money on phone calls by keeping things simple. Contacting a conservative lobby group backed by big energy for all your facts is an interesting approach to research.
Apparently nothing we do on Earth matters it all has to do with variants in Solar heating! Well fire up the SUV and let the Polar bears drown. In 2003 astrophysicist Soon, with no credentials in climate, published a controversial literature review paper, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute [hmmmm] in the journal Climate Research. The incoming editor believed that the review process had “utterly failed”; when the publisher refused to permit an editorial on this, he resigned and subsequently four other editors also resigned. The paper also attracted highly critical published responses and was quickly and thoroughly debunked. Big oil bought an academic and a paper to boot and everyone, save a few people with conscience, had solved a looming problem by declaring it in fact didn’t exist [just like the Dallas writers brought back Bobby by declaring the penultimate season a dream so too did the Oil industry deal with global warming!].
I won’t even bother debunking all the amazing “facts” you presented. But it is interesting how you can state so unreservedly that Earth was warming until 1998 and now it is cooling. Wow! For years people, including yourself, vehemently dismissed any data that supported global warming and now apparently it was warming– and now instantly cooling. How convenient! And so obvious. Those dummy climatologists (you know, the ones you didn’t bother interviewing) they’re wasting their time in studying things when the results have been announced by a geographer, a star gazer, and a hack. When will they understand that science is flimsy until the Calgary Sun announces it.
Hey Licia I’ve got an idea why don’t you save yourself some small effort, allow the filthy Calgary masses save their money on a subscription, and let the Fraser Institute publish “news pamphlets” on such pressing problems such as climate change. Finally, someone to tell us that we don’t have to act ethically or rationally in regards to our environment.
Licia do you think you could find someone to tell me things that I ought not worry about because it’s really not my fault–it’s out of my control–like hunger, poverty, women’s rights. What a great philosophy! What a great way to view your responsibility to the environment. Obviously, you already have a similar philosophy in regard to your duty as a member of the media!
Well that pro-Kyoto crowd, those nasty things called facts, and the fact that there is global warming that we are exacerbating have probably made it impossible to find anyone with actual credentials to quote for right wing screeds, so maybe it isn’t your fault. Let me help you with your next “column” (wink wink). Next time don’t bother to interview anyone–forget getting a balanced story, let your imagination be your guide. Also ignore the sweeping consensus of science and the world body politic–unless someone in Calgary’s oilpatch has approved. Finally, never ever apologize or admit wrong–it shows weakness and as we both know that means that the terrorists of truth have won.
Ps I only wish I had the gift of succinctly rebutting your erroneous article in 12 words or less so as to be able to have a Sun letter to the editor published.
Brian McAsey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Licia Corbella
To: Brian McAsey
Dear Brian,
I don’t have time to rebut your rebuttal. Ball was a professor of Climatology. He has never been funded by big oil. The only thing was once he had his travel expenses paid by Friends of Science, which had accepted a small donation from an oil company. I asked him. BTW, why are you so afraid to look at the facts. The evidence shows that CO2 is NOT a driver of climate. Not one shred of measurable science. In fact, CO2 tends to follow warming, not preceed [sic] it. The evidence is overwhelming.
Interesting too, how these “sceptic” scientists are considered knuckle-dragging morons completely on the fringe and utterly discredited but now they’re being blamed for stopping advancement on cutting GHGs. Sheesh.]
As for honouring our promises, did you send the governing Liberals of 12 years a letter telling them they were an “embarrassment”? Just wondering. I should really start keeping a file. And in 20 years when everyone starts screaming about global cooling – again – like they did 25 years ago, I’ll demand an apology.
Licia Corbella, Editor, The Calgary Sun
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Brian McAsey
To: Licia Corbella
Licia,
Thank you for your response. I apologize for the anger of my earlier letter but your column raised my hackles.
I must reiterate that Ball was a not a professor of climatology at University of Winnipeg. He was an associate professor (essentially an instructor at the college level) in Geography until the last 8 of his 28 years with the university. He received his Ph.d. in the United Kingdom in 1982 (well after there were programs in the field of climatology) on a topic in historical climate–he is not a climatologist. For the love of God make a phone call to the U of W if you want to disprove me. Even his own website admits the fact he was a professor of geography–geesh. His last peer review article was written over a decade ago and none of his work was on CO2. You have either been duped, and/or your sloppy or mischievous–I believe duped.
Check it out–I’ll pay for the call–it is unbelievable that you wouldn’t verify this credential and still refuse to. You are not alone in your mistake, in the recent past necessity to correct Dr. Ball’s “credentials” has warranted retractions and apologies from numerous periodicals.
In terms of being funded by big oil–his cross Canada tour with almost 100 stops was paid by big oil. He is employed as a “scientific advisor” to Friends of Science–which is funded by big oil (not one small donation from one small company–the Globe and Mail had a feature exposing the lobby as a front for the Oil industry on August 12, 2006). He has written position papers for the Frasier Institute which is funded in great part by big oil. He has admitted receiving monies through Dr. Cooper of the University of Calgary through big oil. And he admits that he isn’t aware where most of his monies are from– and conveniently they are from… (wait for it) big oil. Although he may be impartial and fair, his unwillingness to be forthright with you about his funding is disconcerting. So too is the fact that his money comes from lobby groups. I recommend to ask him again–and try to jog his memory.
In terms of the Liberals and their failures I don’t see how they are germane to the problem at hand. I think your line about broken promises came out of another email because it wasn’t my complaint. It is sad that people’s legitimate concerns and problems are reduced down to who they (likely) support politically. I don’t care who handles the problems of the day just that they are handled–if the Tories can do it they’re likely to get my vote. Once you become an ideologue in regard to science you no longer can be objective.
It is a fair criticism of both the left and right in light of the environment. For example with Kyoto there is criticism for the transfer of pollution yet pollution tax credits have long been the rallying cry of conservatives–what’s wrong with them now?
Finally, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t choose to speak to at least one climatologist about this issue. It seems to me you are making an a priori argument when you (and the Herald and the Post, Chrichton et al) hand pick fringe “climate” scientists. In answer to your question, if in 25 years we find out that the earth is cooling I hope I will be accept rational arguments and hard facts and not engage in political dogmatism. I’ll certainly make apologies for us becoming better stalwarts of the environment, consuming less, and enhancing technology. I’ll buy you a coat.
I’m open to changing my mind on the effect and problem of CO2 if there is a better argument–are you? If dozens of countries can meet their obligations to cut CO2–some more than what we pledged–why are we not only unable to cut emission but guilty of precipitously raising them in just a few years time?
Regardless of your political stance I still think you owe a clarification and apology to your readers in regard to Dr. Ball.
Sincerely,
Brian McAsey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Licia Corbella
To: Brian McAsey
Brian,
I will look into his credentials, I just can’t right now, since I’m completely jammed for time. I have spoken to numerous climatologists, paleoclimatologists, astrophysitist [sic], environmental scientists, meteororologists [sic], oceanographers etc.
How is it that you are so concerned that Tim Ball has received a free trip from a lobby group that has received funding from big oil but you'[re not concerned by the reverse?
Many lobby groups out there that are pushing the theory of man-made global warming (MMGW)– ignoring all the evidence about the sun etc – are funding research (mostly computer modelling) to back up their theory. The scientists they hire for millions of dollars know what outcome is required. There is far more money in being an advocate for MMGW than the reverse. Surely, you don’t argue that? Tim Ball gets death threats, so do most of the others. It’s truly disgraceful.
The earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it is today. It will, once again, be warmer and cooler. That’s just normal. I, for one, am much more concerned about pollution, the destruction or our oceans etc. This will be proven as another scientific fraud and scaremongering exercise.
If we really followed the money – like the UN oil for food scandal – I think it would be the other side that would have a lot of explaining to do.
Cheers,
Licia Corbella, Editor, The Calgary Sun
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Brian McAsey
To: Licia Corbella
Licia,
Thank you for promising to look into Dr. Ball’s credentials. I appreciate your time and politeness in demurring to respond to me as an editor of a major periodical your spare time must be at a premium. You have been cordial when I have been insulting and I appreciate you suffering me.
Today on the day of our international blunder that saw our Minister of Environment engage in high school hysterics of blaming the last government to excuse our transgressing international law I am (again) writing to encourage you to investigate this further and write a timely retraction on your column entitled Canada should breathe easy.
In answer to your question about questionable science ethics–I’d be concerned about any appearance of impropriety regardless of the stripe of the researcher. You are right to assert that science isn’t about consensus, I agree with you. But it is also not about picking the outcome you want and sticking with it regardless of the paucity of the evidence. Are academics sometimes corrupted by politicos and earmarked money–of course! But just because one priest molests doesn’t mean another will. Scepticism is a much abused word and it is too often used when people mean cynicism or sophistry. Being sceptical is a scientific obligation and what objectivists (regardless of their field) aim to perfect.
When Tim Ball echoed others’ concerns over anomalous data incorrectly scored in the infamous hockey stick graph it was an important (albeit highly contextualized) criticism. However, when he omits mention of thousands of studies of the same findings with impeccable research and design it makes you wonder. Moreover, when the journal Science recalibrated the data and found that it still indicated arithmetic global warming he abandoned the entire argument since it didn’t go his way. He is a “scientist” for hire and not a stellar one at that. Your implication of conspiracy that involve every scientist with a computer in a single field seem more dubious. I’m sorry to hear Dr. Ball receives threats, regardless of his opinions, I would not wish anyone to be subject to such treatment.
I have made it a mission to read through all the studies I can although I’m quite witless. It always surprises me that I’ve never met a single soul that read through the Kyoto Accord or any of the 400 supporting studies done by independent credible research–including the much maligned Mann, Bradley, Hughes “hockey stick” graph. Even policy papers on the effect of greenhouse gases by Bush’s staff are singular in their acceptance of global warming phenomena. It is surprising that given the breadth and depth of research in Climatology with thousands of articles in peer reviewed journals, Academies of Science from around the globe, and Nobel prize winners, that you’d rely solely on two lobbyists without proper credentials in the field of climatology.
I think you have been drinking the Kool-Aid served up by the Frasier Institute and oil fat cats. What is with the paranoia about global warming? If all the work by all these independent scientists is wrong then point out why, get a credible scientist to back you up, and go get the Pulitzer. What is my motivation in castigating you for improperly crediting Dr. Ball or asking you to interview a climatologist? As a working class simpleton with only a library card to brag of, who is influencing me? Who is paying me to harass you? Yours is a not so subtle form of indoctrination and it is not on the up and up. I know you are busy but don’t you think it would be shocking to find out your 28 year professor veteran climatologist is only an 8 year professor of Geography?
And yes the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. I realize this but that does not negate that our activities can and do influence the current global warming–the effect, well I concede that that is debatable–and you should by all means debate it. When Dr. Ball states that there has been a cooling trend since 1998 he might be talking about regional cooling somewhere on earth but it is incorrect in regard to global trends that have shown precipitous heating. There is no study that I have seen (among hundreds of papers in the last year) that has any data that we have been cooling since 1998–where did he glean that chestnut from? I assume he can cite a source?
The Jesuits taught me that Aquinas said there are three types of lies and several computations in the ways that they manifest. Dr. Ball seems familiar with nearly all of them and you are complicit in your blissful ignorance. In your role life as a (vocal) Catholic and journalist I beseech you to indulge me and hold Dr. Ball to closer scrutiny and reconsider a retraction.
Brian McAsey
End Note: Ms Corbella lied, apparently she never found time to look into Dr. Ball’s and Dr. Soon’s inflated credentials and amnesia about monies from Oil interests and conservative lobby groups. Obviously she never printed a clarification or retraction. She reiterated to me she was just too busy to be able to do her due diligence and moral imperative as a member of the media. I’ve debunked Dr. Ball’s credentials on a half dozen occasions since in numerous media outlets that too have misreported his academic background, relationship with Big Oil, and claim to be a climatologist. I have yet to be challenged by Dr. Ball or his associates on my facts.