Dr. Tim Ball of drtimball.com joins us once again to discuss the latest climate talks in Lima, Peru. We examine the foundations of the IPCC and UNFCCC, their tie-in to Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome, the issue of science vs. politics, and the agenda that is driving the climate change debate.
SHOW NOTES:
People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception
The Club of Rome: “the real enemy is humanity”
List of excuses for โthe pauseโ in global warming is now up to 52
UN members agree deal at Lima climate talks
James,
I could not disagree with “Otabenga’s” comment MORE!
Dr. Tim Ball’s interview was fantastic and very easy to understand.
His straightforward speech is both honest and VERIFIABLE!
Thank you for interviewing him as regretfully, I had never heard of him before this. I am eager to search your archives to hear more of him.
I am eager to listen to the next interview, I hope you have time to interview him again SOON!
Thank you for the reply. You raise very serious charges, so let me take a moment to respond. Firstly, if there are any lawsuits against Dr. Ball other than Mann v. Ball and Weaver v. Ball I don’t know of them. Both of these lawsuits were unsuccessful as far as I know:
“Weaverโs libel suit against Ball has also now been rendered dormant due to failure to prosecute because Weaver, like Mann, wonโt disclose his (similarly dubious) metadata.”
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
I was unaware of Tim’s view of Darwinian evolution, but would be curious to hear more of his view before taking a single three sentence quote as some sort of indictment.
But perhaps more to the point, if we are to make progress in a discussion like this I would appreciate you pointing out anything that was said in this interview that was incorrect. That way we can correct any false statements and learn our way forward.
So do you retract your assertion that Dr. Ball has been successfully sued for libel and “forced to state he is a liar”?
Regarding the temperature trend, are you denying the existence of the pause? There are certainly differences in opinion regarding its significance, but not its existence:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
There are many, many more mainstream references to this phenomenon if you need them, including from Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html
(along with a good breakdown of Nature’s excuse for the pause: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2014/03/how-journal-nature-plays-fast-loose.html)
What does the phrase “10 hottest years on record” mean to you, and what temperature datasets using what statistical analyses are you basing these on? The problems with the temperature record are fairly common knowledge by now:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/
And even if we could trust the statistical construction of a temperature record from scattered and manipulated instrumental measurements over the past 150 years, one wonders what this says about the anthropomorphic contribution to temperature change anyway.
Why do we examine global temperature figures with huge error bars for tenths of a degree differences in order to rank a century of temperature data, anyway? Surely if we are talking about truly unprecedented warming and global catastrophe we should be able to put these figures and trends in a wider perspective, shouldn’t we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
There is only a fringe of a fringe that claim there is literally no such thing as radiative forcing. The real question is what the climate sensitivity is, and there are literally dozens of published papers that provide a significantly lower sensitivity figure than the IPCC. What is the correct figure?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2014/11/40-published-papers-find-climate.html
Why are these issues never discussed, while instead we are treated to MSM propaganda climate “debates” featuring visual representations of the repeatedly debunked 97% consensus claim as a rebuke to those who would dare question this received scientific wisdom?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
I really liked to hear a scientist other than Greg Graffin of Bad Religion saying that consensus is not science.
I only judge the man by what I heard here, not what others will type in here without proof to “kill the messenger”. I really despise people who literally believe and want to apply books put together from ancient scrolls in real life too (creationists) and people like this cannot go on for an hour interview without mentioning the Bible and “god”. Why did it not just happen now
I see that not only are you not interested in providing citations for anything you state (including your continued citationless accusations about Dr. Ball), but you actually seem boastful about your unwillingness to look at sources of data that contradict what you say. For someone who professes interest in falsifiability (particularly ironic considering we are talking about unfalsifiable
global warmingclimate change“global weirding”) it doesn’t seem like there is much room for falsification in your citation-free assertions.You also continue to state that you have “confidence” that a doubling of CO2 makes “this warming” (you mean the 18 year pause?) “excpected” without addressing the issue of climate sensitivity as I raised in my previous post. Do you expect others to have the same “confidence” without looking into niggly little details like how much temperature change we are likely to expect from a doubling of CO2?
candideschmyles,
You say that scientists view climate largely as unknown and full of large error margins. Then you say 97% of climate scientists are confident that man is causing global warming. Which is it?
If 97% of scientists think man is causing global warming, how can it be “the easiest thing in the world” to be a skeptic?
You cite the “97%” figure without addressing James’ debunking of it during the interview or providing any support for it whatsoever.
You make two arguments from authority:
1. Since 97% of scientists believe something, it must be true. (At one time, 97% of scientists believed the Sun rotated around the Earth.)
2. Since scientists have come up with successful theories in the past (acid rain), all future theories put forth by scientists must be true.
These are very strange arguments and I’m wondering why you would engage in this methodology if you agree with the premise of falsifiability.
You argue that since Dr. Ball made an incorrect claim, the rest of his claims should be discounted. Yet you admit you made an incorrect claim about Dr. Ball’s libel cases, which you retracted. Should the rest of your claims be discounted?
Why do you use value-laden adjectives such as “undoubtable”, “naive”, and “dangerous” in your discussion of climate science? Does using these terms lend itself to constructing and evaluating falsifiable (scientific) statements?
I look forward to your response.
If you think they(the few countries who have the tech) want to heat up the atmosphere, then look at geoengineering and HAARP (which even the official version of what it is for is heating up certain parts of the atmosphere in “limited areas”. Pfft, the military and their friends are always 20-30 years ahead in what we really know in science. They could be heating it up artificially in many ways.
Also, volcanos have been very active in the last 10 years and especially this year, look up the article on arstechnica of 50 active volcanoes, that’s gonna be spreading C02, a lot. But somehow the hidden data (which is only partially hidden since Climategate) shows they do not even take into account the effects of volcanos on CO2 levels.
I’m a chemistry technician, and 99% of the times I use CO2, it’s in tanks where it is used as a COOLANT. I’m aware that more complicated physical chemistry is at play when thinking of the effects deep in the atmosphere but seriously, where do you even live? I’m not afraid to say northern Canada and it’s been ridiculously cold the last 2 years during the winter, it’s more like when I was a kid suddenly, when yes, I noticed a localized but still 48th to 50th parrallel climate all my life and i’m much more concerned about the health and survival of humanity from air/water/soil pollution, some of it added on purpose (neurotoxic pesticides) and nuclear disasters like in Japan, where like James said, when they will try to remove the rods, it will be an extremely slow process because if they have the rods touch each other while taking one out, you might as well evacuate most of the eastern northern hemisphere…I don’t know if all the Chinese fit in Indonesia and Australia, but even if they did….I rather not think about THAT because there is nothing I can do about this. As for my own evil carbon footprint, I use public transportation as much as I can, but it is so inefficient in my northern canadian town, much different than when I was in Montreal, which made me wonder why some people bothered having cars when there.
Anyway, like I said I’m a chemistry tech, not an engineer, I have some knowledge to bring to the table but what I’ve learned and put to use when using CO2 tanks is that it is a coolant, needed in many chemical reactions (I work for a not-so-evil generic medication company, you know, the kind that makes only tried and true medication for very cheap without the artificial inflation of new medication that big pharma (those who try and create new medication, some that does indeed cure and not only manage symptoms, something i’ve emailed James before in the past) who invent a new medication that is practically the same as an already existing bunch of medication of the same family. They basically only invent medication to replace the ones whos patents are expiring soon, so they tweak a little the molecule and tada you got something new, that could very well be a very bad medication, or something that brings nothing new to the table but with the load of publicity and drug reps meeting doctors or just sending them documentation (doctors take very few pharmacology classes, it’s ridiculous) that this one new med is awesome and makes all the others irrelevant. Well that’s another lie worth discussing some other time.
Got it Boss! (no really, engineers are my bosses). I did not dispute how it reacts high in the atmosphere boss if you re-read what I said. I said that I’m often using it as a coolant. And I’d like for CO2 producing factories to have mandatory CO2 collecting techniques so as to re-use it constantly, instead of producing chemical waste.
You have really rich parents if they afforded you getting a PhD in Chemistry (any specialization?) and you don’t even work in the field. There is nothing wrong with working in the chemistry field and I’m just a lowly technician who wears the hazmats and yellow hats while PhD’s sit around in comfortable offices with 2000 dollars chairs.
You persist in citing a “97% figure” without citing where this number comes from. I realize you are not interested in such details, but for those who are reading this thread that are interested in the number (which was discussed in this interview), you might wish to start here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Then you compound this with a strawman argument. The 97% claim by Lewandosky and Cook is not that CO2 causes temperature increases, as you assert, but specifically that 97% of peer-reviewed papers support the idea that humans have caused at least half the 0.7ยบC global warming since 1950. When subjected to the slightest scrutiny, this “97%” number collapses to “0.3%”, but the point, once again, is that there is almost no one who claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase temperature. The real question is what is the rate of climate sensitivity.
I attempted to raise this point before and you chose to ignore it, but I will raise it once again for the benefit of those reading this thread who are interested in actual scientific discussion of this question. In a nutshell, the IPCC claims the “most likely” value of climate sensitivity is 3ยบC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#box-10-2
There are now over 40 peer-reviewed published papers that suggest a median climate sensitivity of 1.1ยบC:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2014/11/40-published-papers-find-climate.html
This would help to explain why actual recorded temperatures (both UAH Lower Troposphere satellite records and HadCRUT4 surface records) demonstrate that (ironically enough) 97% of CMIP5 climate models that the IPCC “relies heavily on” (http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/AR5/) grossly overestimated the amount of warming we have actually experienced over the last 20 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg
But why let pesky observations get in the way of a good model?
Feel free to respond with more citationless strawman arguments.
You either do not understand that the strawman argument has to do with your claim that there is some other side to this debate that is taking the position that CO2 does not cause any warming in the atmosphere or you are deliberately trolling. You continue to talk about Tim Ball as if this is of any relevance whatsoever to any of the facts presented in this interview or this debate. I think there really is nothing further to discuss on this topic at this point. I look forward to having Dr. Ball on the program again in the near future to continue our discussion.