Canadian climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball recently published a new book on climate science: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. What follows later (below) is a short interview with Dr. Ball.
“Government propaganda” …”corrupt science”
In the book Ball writes that the failed predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coupled with failed alarmist stories such as the complete loss of Arctic sea ice by 2013, are making the public increasingly skeptical of government propaganda about global warming. People were already skeptical because they knew weather forecasts, especially beyond forty-eight hours, were invariably wrong, and so today more people understand there is no substance to global warming claims and that it is based on corrupt science. Now they are asking: Who perpetrated the deception and could a small group of people deceive the world?
In his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” Dr. Ball explains who did it and why.
Ball was among the earlier dissidents and as a result he became the target of media articles and false information promoted by a scurrilous website funded by a chairman of a large environmental foundation. He was a real threat because they couldn’t say he wasn’t qualified.
Dr. Ball has been the subject of three lawsuits from a lawyer operating in British Columbia. For the first one, he decided to avoid the expense of a challenge and so he withdrew what he had written. Then, within nine days, he received two more from the same lawyer suing for defamation because of harsh criticism he made of a climate scientist. At that point, he and his family decided they had to fight back.
As Ball carries on his legal battle he maintains that climate deception continues and that the public is paying a high price for completely unnecessary energy and economic policies based on the pseudoscience of the IPCC. Not to mention the social devastation of communities devastated by job losses.
“Their last effective chance”
Dr. Balls say the rhetoric and stream of misinformation increases as the perpetrators, now including the Pope, build up to their last effective chance to influence an increasingly skeptical world. When the Global Warming theme failed, they tried Climate Change. The Climate Change theme has failed, so now they are trying Climate Disruption as defined by President Obama’s science Czar, John Holdren—all to justify expensive government programs. The impetus for a global carbon tax and global governance represent the central theme of a climate conference scheduled for Paris in December 2015, the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP21.
What follows are some questions that Dr. Ball kindly answered:
What scientific reason do you think CO2’s role is far less?
Water vapor is 95% of the total greenhouse gases by volume, while CO2 is approximately 4%. The human portion is only 3.4% of the total CO2. They try to claim CO2 is more effective, but it’s a false claim called “climate sensitivity”. The number the IPCC use for sensitivity has constantly declined and will reach zero.
What factor has been the most responsible for the warming over the past 25 years?
The same factor as it has always been, changes in the sun. The IPCC dismiss the sun because they only look at variation in radiative output, but that is only one of three ways the Sun affects global climate.
What do you think the global temperature will do over the next few decades?
Decline. The major short-term control of global temperature is variation in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. As it varies it determines the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The cosmic radiation creates cloud in the lower atmosphere and it, like a shutter in the greenhouse it determines the sunlight reaching the surface and therefore the temperature.
What do you think of the claimed “97% consensus”?
It is completely false and was deliberately manufactured by John Cook at the University of Queensland. There are more detailed analyses of the corruption but this is the best layman’s account. www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how honest have the major climate institutes been with the public?
-10. If they knew what was wrong it is deliberate and criminal. If they didn’t know they are grossly incompetent.
Other comments by Dr. Ball:
The biggest problem for the public is they can’t believe that an apparent majority of scientists seem to support the IPCC science. The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked, as exemplified in German meteorologist Klaus-Eckert Puls’s comment:
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
16 responses to “Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball On 9716 Consensus: “Completely False And Was Deliberately Manufactured”!”
Trust in climate science is falling.
Polar temperatures are falling.
Oil prices are falling.
Natural gas prices are falling.
The stock market is falling.
May you live in interesting times! (Ancient Chinese curse)
Dr. Tim Ball is not a former Canadian or a former climate scientist. He still lives in Canada and he is still a climate scientist. He is retired though.
You should point out on the scale from 1 to 10 whether increasing value corresponds to increasing truth or increasing untruth.
… just in case it wasn’t clear to some readers.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dr. Ball.
You have cut to the chase and gutted the foundation of all the AGW assertions and claims (e.g., Arctic melt, more hurricanes, etc., etc.), all of which depend entirely on human use of fossil fuels generating CO2 and the consequences of that action.
And consensus? Consensus is not now, never has been, and never will be—science.
Their lie is exposed for what it is. Now, will anyone pay attention?
Consensus first enters science in the form of the Copenhagen consensus. (Pushing de Broglies ideas into oblivion)
Since that time non-classified science has made no progress.
Consensus has a purpose.
Dr Ball’s link to an article on the 97% consensus is worth checking out:
‘Will anyone pay attention?’ It may take a long time for a woman to realize that she has become the victim of a marriage swindler. Some kinds of swindle are very effective.
“He has spoken twice at The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. However, critics have observed that, in fact, Ball was a professor of geography there, has been retired since 1996, and that, in fact, the University of Winnipeg does not have, nor has it ever had, a climatology department.”
So he’s not a climatologist, he’s a geologist. Please give people their appropriate titles.
Geology involves looking back at the world’s past climate as recorded in geological structures.
Most self-proclaimed “climatologists” are in fact just physicists or mathematicians, who could not even forecast the weather 48 hours in advance, let alone 100 years. In short your criticism is total rubbish if you’re trying to discredit Dr. Ball.
In the meanwhile..
Fukushima to get two new COAL FIRED power stations.
And that’s on top of the 7 already planned for Akita region on the north western coast.
And guess where Japan gets a lot of its coal.
What do you think of the claimed “97% consensus”? It is completely false and was deliberately manufactured by John Cook at the University of Queensland.
Cook and others. There methodology here.
As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009, An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez , which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). [NO ONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR]
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey
With 3146 individuals completing.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014. In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.” Questions –
So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?
Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?
[…] By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | August 24, 2015 […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/08/24/climatologist-dr-tim-ball-on-97-consensus-completely-false-and-wa… […]
Ball explains who did it and why. Ball was among the earlier dissidents and as a result he became the target of media articles and false information promoted by a scurrilous website funded by a chairman of a large environmental foundation.