Update: Tim Ball’s Huge Courtroom Win, Now Targets Michael Mann
Skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball – after his sensational courtroom victory over UN IPCC junk scientist and British Columbia Green Party Leader – now targets climate fraudster, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann. [Editor: Please DONATE today. We set up and coordinated Tim Ball’s legal defense fund and anticipate the need for your further support – see *APPEAL below this article]
Dr Ball writes:
I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people. As with all events, there is so much more that rarely receives attention yet is essential to understanding and improving conditions in the future.
While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer, Roger McConchie, in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The first lawsuit was brought by Gordon McBean. In 1985, when he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada he chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach Austria. My wife and I decided we could not afford to defend the case and so I withdrew the publication. This, in my opinion, achieved the objective of the lawsuit that many call SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). All the lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. BC had anti-SLAPP but for some unknown reason, it was withdrawn through legislation. The anti-SLAPP legislation is spreading as politicians and lawyers realize the dangers in using the law designed to protect people by silencing them. Eight of the other ten Canadian Provinces have anti-SLAPP legislation.
The second lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Weaver. At the time he was a professor of computer modelling at the University of Victoria and author on four of the IPCC Science Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, 2013). After filing the lawsuit, he was elected to the BC Legislative Assembly as a member of the Green Party. He later was re-elected as the leader of the BC Green Party.
Nine days after receiving the Weaver lawsuit I gave a public presentation in Winnipeg, including an explanation of the “hockey stick.” Afterward, I was interviewed by the Frontier Centre, and they published my flippant comment about the juxtaposition of Mann’s location. Within 24 hours I received the third lawsuit. That case was scheduled for trial on February 20, 2017, but after six years Mann sought an adjournment. We are now trying to get the case back into court. It was incorrectly reported that Mann was in contempt of court for failing to produce documents. He did not produce the documents, but he is only in contempt of the court when they so rule. That is part of what we will pursue now the Weaver trial is finished. How quickly that will proceed is hard to know because I understand Weaver is going to file an appeal.
The Weaver defamation case involved an article I wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. I referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. I made comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit. Meanwhile, Weaver’s lawyer arranged with the publisher of Canada Free Press (CFP) to print an apology he had written. I never knew about that until after it was printed. As a result, I withdrew all my articles on file with CFP and did not send them anything else.
I contacted a lawyer, Michael Scherr of Pearlman Lindholm to defend myself against the case. He wrote a letter withdrawing and apologizing for the unsubstantiated comment but not the main thrust of the article. Apparently, that was insufficient for Weaver because he continued the lawsuit. He did not call a single witness to the trial. It lasted three weeks, and the judge allowed witness statements into the record without objection from Weaver. On Tuesday, February 13 the judgement was released with the ruling that all claims against me were dismissed. The judgment is available on line, so I will not influence anyone’s view by commenting here.
Defeating Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
I am meeting with my lawyer next week to reactivate the Michael Mann trial as soon as possible. We will discuss costs but cannot do anything until the Appeals procedure is over. I can tell you I am overwhelmed by the financial and support from around the world. The sort of comment that is particularly encouraging is a variation of Voltaire’s comment that I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you must have the right to say it. Of course, Voltaire understood the station because he also said what I discovered “It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”
The judgment is online here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
* AN APPEAL
Dr Ball is succeeding in his courtroom battles thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support. Tim Ball’s Legal Defense Fund was set up and coordinated by friend and colleague, John O’Sullivan. But both men recognise the war against junk science goes on.
Growing public consciousness is of a self-serving establishment (the ‘consensus’) that has for decades ignored or subverted the traditional scientific method (as extolled by Karl Popper) against the interests of the majority. Whether motivated by political, ideological or financial inducements, this elite acts to chill dissent among independent scientists.
In 2011 anticipating further such battles Ball, O’Sullivan and their colleagues co-founded Principia Scientific International (PSI) for the specific purpose of supporting fellow embattled scientists upholding the traditional scientific method (e.g.transparency, openness & verifiability)
Ongoing and further misuse of the media and courts is of grave concern to us. Please help us to help other abused scientists by giving generously via the DONATE button on the right of this page. Remember, PSI is legally registered in the UK as non-profit and all monies given are used solely in defending science.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Trackback from your site.
GUILLERMO SUAREZ
| #
The Silence of the Scam – will not hold up a planned – for with this win at hand – The Ball will beat the Mann
Reply
Macha
| #
Brilliant
Reply
jeroen
| #
Though I am a bit dissapointed in Tim Ball for the assumptions he made about Weaver I do have to say I think a lot of what Ball wrote and says is to be taken as His point of view and a lot of evidence he throws on the table these days is pretty convincing.
If put together with other scientists I believe the case for global warming becomes weaker and weaker.
Though I am no scientist and I have no means to verify the the data I am shown I can’t dissmiss the fact that the people who blasted the climate change debate to new hights [Al Gore] doesn’t want to debate on the public stage.
Also I think it is really weird that many scientists that are trying to justify the claims of global warming are all showing different data or data that we now know is not even really believable or flat out know to be data we could not used even if we wanted it to.
Until all big scientists that are fighting sceptics outside of debates start releasing their data on which their research is based and the stop saying that there is no discussion possible anymore on the subject I won’t believe that global warming is really the global warming they are stating it is.
It might not be the most nobel position to take but if you keep spouting things that are basically ANTI science I can’t dismiss the idea that they are hiding something.
Reply
Jay Clemons
| #
The planet is clearly and incontrovertibly warming. No reasonable person, let alone climate scientist, can deny that the planet is warming. Indeed, even Tim Ball knows that the planet is warming. The vast majority of the scientists who study climate have concluded that the main reason for the recent and ongoing warming is the combustion of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its fraction in the atmosphere has increased by 45% over that ~century (to the highest level in over 800,000 years!) the planet is WARMING when it should otherwise be (and previous to 1900, was) cooling.
But Tim Ball apparently does not believe in the Greenhouse Effect, and that CO2 is a greenhouse has, But, tellingly, Dr. Ball has FAILED to argue convincingly for any other explanation for the observed warming. His forte seems to be insulting other serious scientists. Not a very positive contribution…
Reply
Jeroen
| #
Well it seems we are on complete opposits.
Yes the earth was warming. More and more statistics are coming out showing that the earth has had not much worming since around 2000 if none at all.
Also the so called facts that c02 it the root of all evil is in my honest opinion and after hearing many arguments and explanaitions form both sides , total bs.
I have seen the graph from the dear lord and savior Al Gore and the graph proofs only that CO2 logs behind temperature.
Oceans are the biggest source of CO2 release on the planet.
That is a fact.
But what happens when the earth warms ?
Yes more water evaporates into the air that becomes rain eventually and he look at that watervapor is a greenhouse gass.
Damn what goes up in the air when it warms ?
I can go on for days but I can only say that even scientists say they don’t really understand the climate so that means they are building sciense on climate on a less than good foundation.
Which in turn makes for a wide variaty of conclusions.
The biggest one is the concencus of 97% .
That allone means something is up when scientists start to defend that number as if their carreer depands on it.
Even that idiot Micheal Mann said that he wasn’t going to release the details of his Hoocky stick because the only thing Ball would do was try to prove it is a faulty graph.
Isn;t that the basic of sciense where nothing is a fact and every graph, threory and whatever is there to be proven wrong time and time again?
That alone is reason enough for me to believe the climate is just fine.
ps. sending regards from the nice and deffinitely not shrinking community of the polarbears
Reply
EllBee
| #
In the concluding paragraph of your original post above, you state, “… if you keep spouting things that are basically ANTI science I can’t dismiss the idea that they are hiding something.” By that I assume you are referring to climate scientists and not to Dr. Ball, to whom it would be more appropriate. Dr. Ball is not a climate scientist but rather a public relations advocate for the fossil fuel industry. He does not know the science nor does he want to know the science. He is content to cherry pick and misrepresent what he perceives to be flaws in the genuine science of climate change and then present his own skewed and misleading views to global climate change-challenged right wing audiences. Long story short – when it comes to global climate change, Dr. Ball is an anti-science guru, and nobody does it better than he does. It’s a pity because he probably would have been really good at the real science, with the proper training, if he hadn’t been blinded (blind-sided) by energy industry dollars.
Compare Al Gore to Tim Ball. Both are public relations front men for their side of the debate. Neither does any science but at least Dr. Ball appears to be able grasp some of the basics of the subject while dismissing much of the minutiae in order to emphasize his “big lie”. Al Gore’s presentations look good, are generally factual but often inaccuracies are pointed out which need to be corrected. He readily admits his own limitations and understanding of the science but at least appears willing to correct himself, unlike Dr. Ball.
Throughout your comments, the initial one and in reply to “Jay Clemons”, it is obvious that you lack an understanding of what the constituent components are in the field of climate science and that your main sources of information are the right wing websites of people and organizations who feel their livelihoods are being threatened by a left wing climate change conspiracy. Investigate the “97% consensus” argument, the details of which you do not appear to have any understanding of, and ask yourself why people like Dr. Ball are the “odd men out” in the debate. It may prove to be very enlightening!
Finally, your comments about Michael Mann are completely inaccurate, whether knowingly or through ignorance. His integrity, his honor, his science, all were impugned by Dr. Ball directly in front of an audience, derisively delivered and in a contemptuously dismissive manner. However, throughout the legal proceedings, Dr. Mann has maintained his integrity, his honour and his science. Dr. Ball has only brought dishonour and shame upon himself by his continued misguided and misleading attacks on the science of climate change, a subject which he continues to denigrate for his own nefarious mercenary purposes!.
Reply
Ahead On The Right
| #
” Investigate the “97% consensus” argument…”
Would you please explain the mechanics of exactly how the claimed 97% was derived?
EllBee
| #
Ahead On The Right – Not quite sure how this thread works. Seems I have no way to reply directly to you so I am compelled to backtrack to here.
As a non-scientist I will defer to those that do know the underpinnings of the “97% consensus” controversy! If these articles are not sufficient for your purposes, I suggest you follow some of the links in them for further understanding!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
Jeroen
| #
It seems you don’t really get what I mean at the end of my comment.
The reason I say I don’t believe the science for human induced climate change is because the conclusions by the many scientists working on predictions are
1) not coming true
2) complete incoherent
Don’t get me wrong I am open to believing human induced climate change is real and I have seen many video’s on it and though some parts sound to me like it is more true then what the other party says but al in all I side with the opposition.
Just to make something clear.
I am no scientist nor am I striving to be one.
Everything I say is my personal opinion and I am always open to change that opinion.
So to just elaborate on my comment a bit regarding the science it self.
Almost all scientists are saying the consensus is reached and there is no discussion if we are or not the cause of the climate changing.
That in it self is already something that makes the hairs in my neck stand up.
NOTHING absolutely NOTHING in science is closed for discussion.
Like Albert Einstein said “No amount of experiments can proof me right; a single experiment can proof me wrong”
But the issue I see here is that the climate scientists that are behind the claims humans are the cause are saying “No i won’t listen to you sceptics as you are only trying to disprove our science”.
Basically saying they don’t want sceptics trying to debunk their claims.
When I say that water is a solid and I can prove it everybody in science would be embracing that and trying to proof me wrong.
On climate everybody is saying it is true and nobody CAN and MAY prove us wrong.
At least that is how I see it.
Coming back on the coherence of the narrative of human caused global warming.
Stories from the scientists themselves that state we are the main source of climate change or even the single cause (yes some still say that) are also wide spread in the way the climate will change.
Statements have been made that never came true or even the complete opposite.
Statements are made that are more like doomsday movies than real life.
Facts that present themselves at the moment in nature are not even talked about and they most of the debates ignore factors like the sun or even events this planet has had that cause certain changes to the climate and say “that was so insignificant that we don’t use that data”.
If you take Michael Manns mail to Tim Ball(whatever you may think of him) in account where he says “I’m not giving you the data of the hockey stick graph cause you are only going to try and disprove it” I just get irritated by the how much he is hurting science in general with that.
I mean that as , science is the constant search of proving results wrong.(so to speak)
I also hate the fact that data is constantly changed with the reason of “margin of error correction”.
There are temperature graphs from noaa and the ipcc themselves that show the roman warm period and the little ice age.
But if you look at their latest those are completely gone.
They also completely ignore the fact that in canada they are finding plant life that should never have grown there if it was always as cold there as it is now or in the past and the same goes for places like greenland, scotland, iceland, and more.
So it HAD to be warmer in the past.
But nobody is really talking about that.
Another thing that makes the story less believable is the media.
The media is scaring the world about it’s inevitable demise while other more pressing things like a meteor strike that could kill us all would be kept silent because it would cause panic.
Apart from there it really is weird how every horror story by science is passing by but sceptics are never in the mainstream media.
Why is that? I thought media should be neutral and report both sides of the story?
Final point
Money. if you look at how much money Al Gore is making of the whole climate change debate and the regulations it would be natural for Al Gore to make the scare as big as it can be.
And governments will receive massive amounts of money for going green, for using solar and wind.
All the while nothing is getting greener.
Companies telling they go green so they can ask more money still get 99% of the energy from coal and other sources, everything but green.
I can talk about it for hours on how many companies are profiting, government regulations that make them keep power and make them able to decide where money flows are going.
Take for example the oil.
Oil is cheap and it does’t bring much money for them so they need another milk cow.
Call in solar and wind that are inefficient and you can create jobs so more income tax and you can ask more money for houses around the wind turbines because it is now “Green”.
Hope that makes my opinion a bit clearer.
Like I said I don’t want believe one side over the other and want to remain there were the facts lead but at the moment the human induced climate change story is so incoherent that it takes me a lot of fairy dust to make some kind of conclusion that I would believe myself.
Cheers.
jerry krause
| #
Hi EllBee,
First you wrote “For me, the science is settled and everything following is my own personal opinion based on my observations of the materials available on the internet.” Then, “The vast body of knowledge developed over time relating to the science of climate change has led scientists to conclude that the earth, as a whole, is currently warming and that the most likely cause is the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Have you studied the data of the NOAA SURFRAD (Surface Radiation) project (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/metplot.html) which has been measuring radiations and air temperatures at seven USA site for climatic purposes for about two decades? I certainly not found much evidence of the consideration of this data anywhere except for a few skeptics, like myself. https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/redux-what-downwelling-ir-radiation-why-condensation-nuclei-andor-cloud-how-tyndall-scattering-andor-downwelling-ir-emission/
Have you studied the data of the USDA SCAN (Soil Climatic Analysis Network) (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/) which has been measuring downwelling solar radiation, soil temperatures and soil moisture contents at depths of 2, 4, 8, 20, and 40 inches at, now, more than 200 sites, some as early as two decades ago. Again, few to no one except for myself. https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/observations-refute-greenhouse-effect-of-certain-atmospheric-gases/ and (https://principia-scientific.com/scan-data-clarifies-nocturnal-inversion-mechanism/)
Have you studied the quality controlled datasets (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html) of NOAA’s former National Climate Data Center which measurements are similar to the SCAN data except this project measures the earth’s surface temperatures at more than a 100 USA sites since about a decade and maybe some earlier? I only learned about this site a little more than a month ago. This because I was not reading the right literature for it is a fact that I find some of this data has been used and reported in peer reviewed scientific articles. Because of its recent discovery I have not yet referred to it in any of my recent resent PSI essays.
Have you studied atmospheric sounding data (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html)? Again, I have. (https://principia-scientific.com/chance-favors-the-prepared-mind-part-2-or-jet-streams/)
While I claim to be familiar with these sources of useful data, I cannot claim to have even begun to digest the small portion of these data which I have studied and I certainly cannot claim to have even read everything on the internet which might be critically useful to better understand the natural variables of climate before a concluding if the greenhouse effect theory of certain minor atmospheric gases, , as proposed more than 100 years ago, is a valid theory. But I do not need to read everything to prove a theory false.
After I wrote (http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/) in 2014 at another blogsite, one who doesn’t doubt, wrote that the reason that the atmospheric dewpoint had its presently measured values was that the earth’s average temperature was 33C higher because of the greenhouse effect. Which argument I could not refute, since at the time I knew of no empirical observations with which to refute it. But I now have NOAA’s NCDC actually measured surface temperatures of soil surfaces during midday during the summer season which cannot be explained by any atmospheric gases. For not only are these high midday soil surface temperatures tens of degrees above those of the atmosphere these high temperatures have cooled tens of degrees during the afternoon, evening, nighttime until the next morning, before sunrise. Which I consider to be empirical evidence that little is hindering the radiative cooling of the surface. except the conduction of sensible heat which had been absorbed to have been stored in the soil, at the depths’ whose temperatures had also been measured, during the daytime. I must add these observations require a generally cloudless atmosphere.
However, there is another problem which might hinder the acceptance of the consequences of these observations. For I have also observed that many of today’s scientists do not seem to understand the ‘power’ of the scientific law to refute wrong ideas. I do not know what you might conclude when I compose a brief essay, PSI, posts it, and you read it. But that will not be my problem; it will be your problem if you do not agree with the empirical evidence I present.
Have a good day, Jerry
EllBee
| #
Jeroen – I have aggregated your last two responses to my posts here so as to address them concurrently and hopefully without prejudice to your meaning.
First, this disclaimer – For me, the science is settled and everything following is my own personal opinion based on my observations of the materials available on the internet. So let me tell you what I have found out as well as what I hope are reasonable and rational assumptions I have made. You can re-read my previous comments if you see any contradictions (unintended) or to clarify confusion of my opinions presented here.
The vast body of knowledge developed over time relating to the science of climate change has led scientists to conclude that the earth, as a whole, is currently warming and that the most likely cause is the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is not a conclusion that they reached overnight but one which slowly became apparent over time as a result of many different scientific disciplines weighing in with results from their diverse studies, experiments and observations. As each of these sciences, such as geology, paleoclimatology, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, etc., became aware of each others’ work and were able to relate anomalies in their field to that of others, it became evident that human emissions from the burning of fossil fuels was the one measurable element that could account for what was happening to the climate globally. While other potential causes were observable, none were observed to be as obvious or as of significant importance as CO2.
Scientists can track the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere by it’s footprint! This from Skeptical Science.
“Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
If you read the full article you will understand how our CO2 emissions relate to natural emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes, release from the oceans, decaying vegetation, etc. We have upset the natural balance of emitted atmospheric CO2 from natural sources and natures ability to reabsorb it. Pay particular attention to the comparison between today’s atmospheric levels of CO2 to those over the past 15 – 20 million years or so.
The above is the main gist of my arguments concerning my belief that human emissions have, and will continue to have, repercussions for our planet in the future. But for the purposes of argument here, this is not a scientific argument. None of these discussions are related to science but rather it is a political discussion initiated by people like Dr. Ball.
Dr. Ball and his compatriots on the right have hijacked the debate for their own self interest and politically motivated agendas and they have managed to persuade people like you into accepting their version of reality. They do that by misrepresenting science and arguing from ignorance in a manner that is understandable to the uninformed average person. Dr. Ball not only denigrates established scientists but also the academic establishments that train them and for which they work. He uses science as a pretense to attack scientists and teachers of science not because he has any legitimate concerns about the science but because of his petty, right wing political beliefs. His arguments fall flat when confronted with the established science and established scientists.
This is already long enough and I don’t want to drag it out but I will close with an offer to continue on a point by point basis. Let me offer some talking points based on your comments in no particular order(your words in parentheses).
1.“Statements are made that are like doomsday movies than real life.”
2.“Facts that present themselves at the moment in nature are not even talked about….”
3.“… and they most of the debates ignore factors like the sun or even events this planet has had that cause certain changes to the climate and say “that was so insignificant that we don’t use that data”.
4.Government/university funding of science versus fossil fuel funding of anti-science.
5.“…also hate the fact that data is constantly changed with the reason of “margin of error correction”.”
6.“.…that in canada they are finding plant life that should never have grown there…”
7.You quote Michael Mann as stating, “I’m not giving you the data of the hockey stick graph cause you are only going to try and disprove it” Can you give me a reference, please!
8.“Another thing that makes the story less believable is the media…..”
9.Cheap oil
10.“Tim Ball isn’t the only one spouting your so called anit-science.”
11.“.…you sound a lot like other extreme.”
12.“If science states that that the science on climate change is settled……”
13.“…why you attack someone like Tim Ball that shares the opinion with many other scientists…”
14.“.… I don’t believe the science for human induced climate change is because the conclusions by the many scientists working on predictions are
1) not coming true
2) complete incoherent
That last we’ll treat as one if you like!
Finally, my “Subject to change” policy. When scientists currently and in the future on your side of the fence do science that adequately rebuts and refutes the science on my side of the fence, then and only then will I send you a gift card for your favourite beverage or beverage room, whichever you prefer. But until then, my brain bank is closed to your misinterpretations of the global climate change debate but more importantly it is closed to the conflation of genuine scientific endeavors with misleading, politically motivated, mercenary agendas.
Reply
EllBee
| #
Jerry Krause – As stated elsewhere several times in this thread, I am not a scientist and will not therefore argue scientific details with you. And having said that, it will be obvious to you that the answer to your queries about whether or not I have studied any of the topics you mention above is no, I have not! But my question to you is, why do you seem to think that it is relevant to any arguments here in a discussion of Dr. Ball’s scientific misrepresentations and anti-science utterances?
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, what you seem to be implying throughout your post is that climate scientists are ignoring data you believe to have a bearing on increasing global temperatures. If that is the case, then perhaps it would be appropriate for you to make your views known in a forum of qualified scientists or in a scientific paper submitted for peer review rather than here in an anti-science political blog! However, I doubt very much you would be able to convince any qualified global climate scientist in the field that your “backyard science” endeavors have any more credible significance or carry any more validity than Dr. Ball’s non-scientific pronouncements.
Finally, you state, “For I have also observed that many of today’s scientists do not seem to understand the ‘power’ of the scientific law to refute wrong ideas.” If it is your intention to present irrefutable evidence to support your position, then by all means do so. But may I strongly suggest you do so not here, but in a reputable scientific forum. As for what I might conclude from an essay you seem intent on posting here is irrelevant. I’m not the one you have to convince with empirical evidence, it’s the global scientific community of climate change scientists who will be the final arbiters of your “science”.
James McGinn
| #
For Ellbee (see below)
Ahead on the right requested:
Would you please explain the mechanics of exactly how the claimed 97% was derived?
EllBee replied:
As a non-scientist I will defer to those that do know the underpinnings of the “97% consensus” controversy!
JMcG:
I don’t know what being or not being a scientist has to do with it, since AOTR just asked to find out about your knowledge of nontechnical procedures. But, allow me to ask, did you just recently become a nonscientist? Were you a scientist when you made the following comments that I have pasted from your previous comments?
“Dr. Ball is not a climate scientist but rather a public relations advocate for the fossil fuel industry. He does not know the science nor does he want to know the science. He is content to cherry pick and misrepresent what he perceives to be flaws in the genuine science of climate change and then present his own skewed and misleading views to global climate change-challenged right wing audiences. Long story short – when it comes to global climate change, Dr. Ball is an anti-science guru, and nobody does it better than he does. It’s a pity because he probably would have been really good at the real science, with the proper training, if he hadn’t been blinded (blind-sided) by energy industry dollars.”
And:
“Throughout your comments, the initial one and in reply to “Jay Clemons”, it is obvious that you lack an understanding of what the constituent components are in the field of climate science and that your main sources of information are the right wing websites of people and organizations who feel their livelihoods are being threatened by a left wing climate change conspiracy. Investigate the “97% consensus” argument, the details of which you do not appear to have any understanding of, . . . ”
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
EllBee
| #
James McGinn – My comment to AOTR started out with the “non-scientist” disclaimer to ensure that he would understand that I was not attempting, nor would I attempt, to discuss the “97% consensus” which I had referenced in a previous comment to “Jeroen”. The two links I referred him to from Scientific American and Skeptical Science certainly provide that information and are thorough in their explanation of how the 97% figure was arrived at.
As for your two other questions, the answer to the first is no!, I did not just recently become a non-scientist. I have been a non-scientist my entire adult life. And two, again, the answer is no!
The first paragraph is my opinion of Dr. Ball’s attitude and anti-science crusade in partnership with the Heartland Institute, the Koch brothers and ranking members of the anti-science Republican party, et al. Long story short – he is propagating bad, pseudo-science for political reasons. He has absolutely no interest in the genuine science, as I have said elsewhere, science which he would be unqualified to conduct in the first place.
The second paragraph of mine that you quote was in reference to Jeroen’s comments to Jay Clemon’s. Jeroen’s comments had descended into the standard uninformed and ignorant rant associated with right wing deniers who get all their information on any topic from right wing blogs and news media. They are, like all deniers, unwilling to even attempt to understand the “sciences” behind the global climate change debate. Whether it is intellectual laziness or perhaps a perceived right wing political party prerequisite for admission (acceptance) I don’t know but it certainly doesn’t help the discussion of the consequences our climate change inactivity will have on our children and grandchildren.
A question for you! Do you foresee the anti-science Republican party weaning itself off of the fossil fuel industry teat anytime soon?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
EllBee:
” . . .nor would I attempt, to discuss the “97% consensus” which I had referenced in a previous comment to “Jeroen”.. . .
And:
” . . .my opinion of Dr. Ball’s attitude and anti-science crusade . . .”
JMcG:
So , uh, . . . er . . . uh, let me get this straight. You refuse to discuss the details of a subject that you brought into the conversation. And you refuse to stop discussing a subject for which you’ve already conceded you have no expertise.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
James McGinn
Reflection on Daniel Eltons Dissertation on Water
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16601
Reply
EllBee
| #
If you had read the thread, you would have realized that I did not raise the issue of the “97% consensus” – that would have been “Jeroen”. And as a non-scientist, I deferred and referred him to two articles available online explaining that topic.
You state, …”you refuse to stop discussing a subject for which you’ve already conceded you have no expertise.”
That would be the science of global climate change. Correct, I do not have any expertise in it. But by the same token, neither does Dr. Ball. Do you think I would be wasting my time here if Dr. Ball had admitted to that fact 10 years ago? And that is why my comments are directed at Dr. Ball’s pseudo-scientific utterances, based on his political motivations, and not for his advancement of genuine scientific knowledge, which is not his goal. And as long as he continues his politically motivated attacks on the science and scientists involved in understanding the current global climate change quandary humanity faces, he deserves to be called out for misleading misrepresentations of their data!
Reply
jeroen
| #
Just want to ask you one thing
You can think of Tim Ball what you will but thought the main topic was of course on Tim Ball i have to address one thing I am curious about.
Tim Ball isn’t the only one spouting your so called anit-science.
Looking over the internet there are lots of other articles stating the same findings or at least the main point about climate change is the same.
After reading all the comments on other posts as well it looks like those here ferociously fighting the “anti-science” you sound a lot like other extreme.
clinging to the story of one side and not budging at all.
That goes back to my point I made in another reply in this comment section.
If science states that the science on climate change is settled and no discussion about it is possible is true, than that is the real anti science as there apparently is a consensus under pro climate change scientists that don’t want to hear anything that might proof them wrong.
Can you explain why you attack someone like Tim Ball that shares the opinion with many other scientists and not even show any sign of even remotely considering anything the other party is saying.
That is my question to you here.
Don’t get me wrong it might just be that I am missing something here and you are perfectly right about everything and science should not let sceptics try to challenge their findings.
I’m curious about that.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Book: by top climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, “Human Caused Global Warming, the biggest deception in history”.
(Bless him: he doesn’t know about Fractional Reserve Banking.)
pages 13 & 14: 97% consensus claims by Naomi Oreskes & John Cook of fraud factory skepticalscience “useless & a deception” respectively. The actual consensus was 0.3%.
Tim Ball’s rather good website: drtimball.com
His other book is just as good.
Book: Heaven and Earth, global warming: the missing science, by top geology Prof. Ian Plimer. well worth a read to blow away the BS.
Have a good day.
Reply
EllBee
| #
Jerry Krause – See my response elsewhere in this thread!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ellbee,
You seem to suggest that PSI is not a good forum for good science. I disagree. For you must not have read who controls what get published in peer-reviewed ‘scientific’ journals.
And, do you know that Galileo wrote his forbidden book–Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences–in Italian (the language of the common folk)?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
EllBee
| #
Jerry Krause – “You seem to suggest that PSI is not a good forum for good science.” That is exactly what I am suggesting. This is a dumping ground for the pseudo-scientific trash of the anti-science Republican fossil fuel funded bloggers. Anything even remotely resembling science can be posted here as long as it’s underlying political message is unequivocally clear in it’s denial of global climate change.
As for what gets published in peer reviewed journals, let me guess! Is it “peer reviewed science articles”? Controlled by peer reviewed scientists? If you think your “science” will withstand rigorous scrutiny of peer review in a reputable journal, then that is where you should be publishing. But my guess is you are like Dr. Ball, Tony Heller, et al and do not have a soild foundation for what you think is “science”. So what I would strongly urge you to do is chuck out the scientific pretense and stick to the politics. It may not seem as glamorous or be as rewarding but it will at least make your life somewhat simpler and enjoyable.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, You are clearly very ignorant and biased. PSI senior scientists have a very wide range of political views. As CEO and co-founder I admit that during most of my academic career I had socialist views. Now I have no political sympathies. Many of our team are registered Democrats. PSI is legally incorporated in the UK as a non-profit forbidden by UK law to advocate for any political party. Moreover, non of our funding is from corporations – it is totally from grassroots individuals. If you had performed any non-biased research you would have learned that. But why let facts sway you from your demented conspiracy theories, eh?
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – Call me ignorant if you will, but I’d rather be ignorant than delusional like you and your compatriots. As for biased, absolutely – totally and 100% biased – in favor of the accepted science of global climate change. Not the rubbish you post here, which isn’t science by any stretch of the imagination. My comments to Jerry Krause were an invitation for him to do his science and submit it for peer review but you and I both know that that won’t happen. Why? Because it has absolutely no merit as science.
Regardless of how you define PSI, it is still a repository (dump) for the pseudo scientific rants of people like yourself, Jerry Krause, Tim Ball, Tony Heller and others I haven’t had the inclination to read. And notwithstanding your apolitical comments above, the agendas of those I mention here is exactly what I have said, not to further the science of climate change, but rather to further their own misguided right wing anti-science Republican agendas.
And please do continue to post your “scientific” tripe here, hidden away in relative obscurity, for your many loyal fans to gorge on while dodging the ridicule of established scientists. You should troll YouTube for more of your kind of “scientist”.
Windy
| #
Could you please correct the article? Andrew Weaver is the leader of the B.C. Green Party, the leader of the Canadian Green Party is wacko Elizabeth May. Thanks. Weaver is wacko too, one of the angriest, most conceited people I’ve ever seen. Check him out unedited. https://www.leg.bc.ca/content-hansard/pages/channel-guide.aspx Dare I suggest that EllBee is a paid shill for one of the Rockefeller/Tides/Soros cabal?
Obviously an attack dog. References SKS? That’s a great big STFU right there.
Reply