Tim: They're Trampling on the Truth

Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long been one of the most prominent skeptics taking a stand on corruption and unethical practices. Two exponents of the global warming scare Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are now suing him for libel.
Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.
(Above from WUWT)   Dr Tim Ball's page is HERE.

Tim Ball talked this week with 2GB's Alan Jones (LISTEN) as part of Alan's series on the Galileo Movement.

Tim Ball explained how the whole hoax started. Tim talked about:
"....Maurice Strong setting up the IPCC.  He very deliberately did it.  He set up the United Nations Environment Program and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological Organisation and the IPCC was set up by them.  That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC.  They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it and they also of course provide the funding and that has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate and Strong knew this.  But this is why he organized it that way through the WMO."
Ball then said there was an important point.  He served on commissions of enquiry and he thought they would be independent and politically free.  He continued:  
  The first commission of enquiry I served on set the terms of reference which limited what we could look at and in other words pre-determine the results.  When Maurice Strong set up the IPCC the first thing they did was set the definition of climate change that we will look at are only they changes caused by human activity.  They don’t look at natural variability and you can’t possibly determine what effect natural effects are having if you don’t know how much it varies naturally and then they wrote their computer models only looking at human causes so they pre-determined the results and of course as I say very few people are aware of how narrow their definition of climate change is. 

As to the science of AGW, Tim said
"The IPCC  created a false positive feedback which doesn’t exist in reality."
When asked about the 90,000 CO2 measurements recorded over the last 182 years and were some omitted, Ball replied:
Yes, not omitted but they manipulated them.  Starting in 1812 because we were starting to learn about the composition of the atmosphere scientists starting measuring CO2 in the atmosphere – they produced about 90,000 atmospheric measurements and these were known about but starting with a British chemist by the name of Calender he just selected a few in the lower register that is below 250 parts per million and then claimed that that was representative of the pre-industrial CO2 level.  A German by the name of Dach re-examined all of that data and showed that the actual pre-industrial level was 360 ppm which is not a lot different from today.  But you see what they have to show is that it was the industry that was causing the increase in co2 that manipulated the data.

When asked by Alan Jones Is it true that during the Great Depression CO2 levels continued to rise, Ball replied:
That’s correct.  But in fact in the 20th century the global temperature rose the most from 1900 to 1940 and CO2 levels from humans were minimal.  And then from after the war 1940 to 1975/1980 human production of CO2 increased dramatically but global temperatures went down during that period .  So at no point does the temperature record match with not only human CO2 but natural CO2.   

Alan asked is it true that the oceans contain 50% more CO2 than the atmosphere.

Absolutely.  The oceans are the main controller of CO2 and when we mentioned sources of CO2 because the oceans are by far the largest and again there we don’t know within 10 gigatonnes annually how much goes in and out and again that exceeds the amount they claim humans produce.  But the oceans- the amount they absorb depends on the temperature, and the colder the water the more they absorb; the warmer the water the more they release.  
Consensus is not a scientific fact.  As Einstein said - I could be a 100 facts right but I have only got to have one wrong and I am out of business.  There is an awful lot of scientists and a growing number disagree and the more scientists look at, the more they see what nonsense it is .... I also know because of law suits like I have that an awful lot of scientists are afraid to say anything or speak out....   So there is all kinds of intimidation and limitations on why scientists won’t speak out.  Plus of course their funding is in danger. 

Alan asked aren’t scientists meant to be skeptical and and put the onus of proof on those making the claims?

Well of course and that is what amused me when I was called a global warming sceptic.  Well, all scientists are sceptics.  Yes, the normal scientific method set up by Karl Popper is that you create a hypothesis based on certain assumptions and then other scientists test and challenge and try to disprove that hypothesis.  What’s happened in the case of global warming hypothesis is - and Richard Lindzen said this 20 years ago -  that the consensus was reached even before the research was done and then, of course, what they did was they marginalized anyone who dared to question so they were attacked like I was – oh you were paid by the oil companies and all these other things – so they very effectively thwarted the scientific method.  Now what that has done for them, Alan, means that if you say that the science is settled and it isn’t just Al Gore that said that there are some of the IPCC people who have said it – then you are on a treadmill.  Because if data comes up that shows you are wrong you are either going to cover it up or alter the data.  And that is what they have been doing.

Alan asked about the law suit against NIWA for doctoring the records to make warming appear much more than the reality:

Yes, what they did was they lowered the older temperatures and that of course increased the slope of the curve upwards to make it look like warming was going greater.  And there is a good example by the way that the government were ready to go to court - but at the last minute they backed off and said oh we will set up a commission of enquiry.  As soon as I heard that, I knew that the fix was in.  And who did they appoint but people from the Australian weather office who had been playing the same game.  One of the things that people don’t know is they not only they modify every weather record around the world but they have reduced the number of weather stations that they used to determine global temperatures and as Ross McKittrick said in a wonderful study that you can explain all of the supposed warming of the 1990s simply by showing how they reduced the number of stations they were using to achieve their record.

Alan asked isn’t the data skewed to produce higher temperatures?
Absolutely.  And that urban heat island effect- by the way- we have known about that – Professor (Chandler) at the University of London, was doing studies in 1952 of the heat island of London and so we have known of the distortion but the question is how much do you allow for that in the estimates of the real temperature that you are measuring.  And we know that they are not using that properly.  The other thing is that in all of the early records they were using basically only land based stations and we know that those were warmer than the ocean ones and as you correctly say we have got virtually no record for the oceans of the world, we have virtually got no records of the deserts of the world which are 19% of the land surface, we have virtually no record for the nature forest regions of the world, and the mountains regions of the world.  And we have no record for the arctic ocean yet they keep telling you it is getting warmer up there.  We have got no weather stations on the arctic ocean.  So everywhere you look none of this bears any investigation, Alan. 

Alan asked isn’t it true that the only place in the world where CO2 increases precede temperature increases is in the UN IPCC climate computer models?

That’s correct and of course that pre-determines the result.  But of course one of the things is that we know is that they now say they don’t make predictions.  After the first 2 reports they changed from making predictions to creating scenarios and they did that because their predictions were so wrong and even their scenarios which give a range of temperature increase from a low range to a high range even their lowest estimates of what the temperature would increase have been wrong.  The temperature has in fact been cooling since 2000 and of course that created that wonderful comment from those leaked emails from East Anglia.  It’s a travesty that we can’t account for this.  Well mother nature wasn’t playing along with their game.  They got caught with their pants down.
On being a sceptic and the Law suit against him:
".....the thing that has concerned me is that my family don’t suffer and in terms of my ability to earn money and get research funding - it’s hurt me tremendously, no question.  But I don’t regret it.  If you see the truth being trampled on you just gotta speak out and by the way, Alan, having said that, the one thing if you do that is to keep right in front of your forehead is that if someone shows me I am wrong I have got to be the first one out there to say I am wrong but nobody’s done it yet.

For More of Alan Jones go to TCS blog - the Galileo Movement HERE
Talking to Richard Lindzen, Malcolm Roberts and David Karoly.

For YouTube Videos of Tim Ball go HERE.


  1. PART 1

    You mention a possible source of funds supporting the Dr. Mann and Dr. Weaver’s libel specialist but nothing about Dr Ball’s source. John O’Sullivan tells me that he is deeply involved in representing Dr. Tim Ball in his two libel cases. John’s present fund-raising focus now seems to be on the libel actions against Dr. Ball and is claimed to be going well. An indirect link to the Paypal site is provided by John on his “Puff Daddy Sings for Climate Scientists Tim Ball and Michael Mann” thread (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/37591.html) for anyone who is inclined to donate.

    If their hoped-for defeat of those lawsuits materialises then their attention may return to getting funding to set up Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company (CIC - http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/). My understanding is that they had hoped to set this up at the beginning of this year and a funding appeal for people to “ .. Give generously for this good cause .. ” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/28963.html) was started (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s) but seemed to stall after about a month. I understand that at one stage the proposed Board of Directors was Dr. Timothy Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO), Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer), Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson but it looks as though this is all on hold now pending the outcome of these libel suits.

    The proposed Board of Directors was published on the PSI Web-site (http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-cic) in January. The PSI Web-site also appeared to claim that from 30th September Principia Scientific International(PSI) had been " .. a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community. Principia Scientific International is mandated under law to serve the community PSI is a Community Interest Company (CIC). .. Thus PSI is a business trading with a social purpose (“social enterprises”) carrying out projects supportive of good science involving activities for the benefit of the community and not for private profit. PSI .. operates under UK law as per our Articles of Association in accordance with The Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 (see our ‘About US page for more info). Our legally binding structure permits us to hold assets on behalf of our trustees". In January I drew their attention to this misleading statement and now the Web-site simply says “This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon”.

    The Daily Mirror of 27th May had an article about a CIC called QUOTE .. BrightHeartUK - looks like a charity but it's a "community interest company" UNQUOTE (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/05/brightheartuk---looks-like-a-c.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mirror%2Finvestigations+%28Mirror+-+Investigations%29). That article reflects one of the concerns that I had back in January about the dangers of getting involved with PSI as a CIC (subject only to the “light touch” scrutiny of the CIC Regulator) rather than a charity (subject to the much closer scrutiny of The Charities Commission). My big worry was the possibility that after a while control of a CIC could fall into the hands of those with different objectives from the original founders, just as any private company, or even a charity (like Greenpeace?) can.

  2. PART 2

    In following up on these libel suits I came across staunch CACC doctrine supporter Richard Littlemore’s threads “Andrew Weaver Sues Tim Ball for Libel” (http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel) and “Michael Mann suing Tim Ball for libel” (http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-suing-tim-ball-libel). In the latter Littlemore says “Ball's last foray into the court ended badly. Ball attempted to sue another Canadian scientist, Dr. Dan Johnson, in 2006, complaining that a letter that Johnson had written to the Calgary Herald suggested that Ball had lied about his resume. When Johnson's Statement of Defence demonstrated that Ball HAD lied about his resume, Ball abandoned the suit”. Littlemore provides a link to his 2006 thread “Tim Ball vs Dan Johnson Lawsuit – Documents” (http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents). All of those Littlemore articles provide links to relevant court documents that are worth reading by anyone who wants to get a balanced understanding of the arguments.

    “Richard Littlemore, Editor of DeSmogBlog, considers the industry campaign to confuse the public about the science of climate change and to block action in North America and around the world. “ (http://www.climate-change.tv/richard-littlemore-december-2009?where=un-climate-change-conference-copenhagen-2009-interviews). He can be seen pontificating in Copenhagen at the UN’s December 2009 COP15 Climate Change Conference fiasco just after the Climategate scandal broke. He can be heard proclaiming that he is “ .. against global warming but very much in favour of the science. In saying that the climate cover up is people making a concerted 20-year effort to delude us about whether the science of climate change is strong. At Desmogblog .. we do research on people who deny climate science .. ” and so he goes on.

    I don’t know many “deniers” who deny climate science, only who deny the conclusions drawn from a poor understanding of it, however, the links that he provides to the libel suit documents do help us to get a balanced view of those arguments. After all, there are two sides to every disagreement.

  3. PART 3

    BTW Geoff, I prefer “ferret” to “Israeli Nazi Hunters” or “fanatic” (http://justgroundsonline.com/group/climatscepticsparty?groupUrl=climatscepticsparty&test-locale=&exposeKeys=&xg_pw=&xgsi=&id=3535428%3AGroup%3A4207&xgi=&xn_debug=&test_embed=&test_baz_7722=&test_baz_6713=&categoryId=&page=1#comments). After all “A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965) “ (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/773.html). That’s not me at all.

    Talking of changing the subject, I’ve been having some interesting exchanges on the Science Forum of Cambridge University’s “The Naked Scientists” that you might like to take a look at (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39542.0 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38796.0 )

    Somebody hiding behind the false name Yelder has taken an interest in “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and is encouraging further discussions about those attempts by paleoclimatologists to tell us what the atmospheric CO2 concentration was hundreds and thousands of years ago from air allegedly “trapped” in ice (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39542.0). There’s still keen interest in the subject if the viewing figures on my original thread are anything to go by. The moderator, a Swede who hides behind the false name yor_on, is a staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine and locked the thread before the discussion was over. He/she, being a CACC “disciple”, seems not to appreciate reading what “deniers” say.

    I challenged the forum administrators over this aparent censorship of the climate change debate and was ultimately banned from the forum by the founder of The Naked Scientists, Dr. Chris Smith. I’m enquiring about the sponsors to see if they support censorship, or as this article so nicely puts it “ .. Trampling on the Truth”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  4. Please note that my mistaken reference to “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (an excellent book about Michael Mann's reconstruction of mean global temperature during the past millennium) should have been to "Another Hockey Stick Illusion?" (my thread on The Naked Scintists' Science Forum.

    Pete Ridley

  5. PART 1

    When speaking towards the end of his interview with Alan Jones about those law suits against him and the heavy cost to those who dare to speak out against the CACC nonsense Professor Ball said “ .. in terms of my ability to earn money and get research funding it’s hurt me tremendously, no question, but I don’t regret it. .. if you see the truth being trampled on you’ve just gotta speak out .. ”.

    I fully agree with that and admire his courage for persistently speaking out against the CACC nonsense. It’s just a shame that so many CACC doctrine supporters all over the Internet have chosen to challenge Professor Ball’s integrity rather than challenge his arguments against the consensus. I recall seeing lots of these, particularly by Richard Littlemore but also by a “public relations professional” who hides behind the false name of Montag.

    (You can access Jones podcast interview with Dr. Ball and with CACC doctrine desciple Professor David Karoly via The Lounge (http://new.thelounge.com/uk/content/podcast/1277608-2gb-alan-jones-daily-highlights). Both are worth listening to although as expected Alan Jones interrupted Professor Ball far less than he did Professor Karoly.)

    Littlemore linked to the 2006 “Statement of Defence of Dr. Daniel Johnson” (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Johnson%20statement%20of%20defence.pdf . In paragraph f this challenges a claim that was made that Professor Ball was “ .. a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years .. ”.

    According to Montag in 2004 “ .. Tim Ball seems to have traded his professional pride - not to mention ethics! - for easy money and an invitation to play with the big boys .. So Mr. Ball's performance as a mouthpiece for Big Oil and Conservative think-thanks is rather disappointing .. ” (http://worldofspin.blogspot.com/2004/05/good-dr-ball-gets-another-hit-for-big.html).

    Both of those provide a link to the web-page of Envirotruth where the claim about being a Professor of Climatology was supposed to have been made but the page no longer exists.

    I Googled - Envirotruth Ball Professor – and came across a Littlemore page dedicated to knocking Professor Ball (http://www.desmogblog.com/people/tim-ball?page=12). One of Littlemore’s articles “Tim Ball: Finding New Ways to Fudge His Credentials” starts QUOTE: In a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as "Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg ..". If you follow the link you’ll see that the lead signatory is “Sincerely, Dr. Tim Ball Retired Professor of Geography (1971 -1996) University of Winnipeg” (http://www.nhinsider.com/nhigb/2006/9/29/george-c-marshall-institute-letter-to-congress.html). Littlemore appears to have made a blatant lie.

    Also according to Envirotruth’s “Some of the Many Experts Who Contest Kyoto's Scientific Foundation” Dr. Tim Ball’s “Position/Organization .. Environmental Consultant - 32years climatology Professor -University of Winnipeg .. ” (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ExpertsRebutt.pdf)

    Does anyone know what was actually stated in that original Envirotruth article? According to WebArchive.org it said “ .. Dr. Timothy Ball Environmental consultant and 28 years Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg .. ” (http://web.archive.org/web/20060205093317/http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm)

  6. PART 2

    There is another article about a 2006 “Open Kyoto to Debate: An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper” of Canada (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605) which is lists among the 61 well-known CACC deniers “Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant”. I recall that there was some debate in relation to the discussions about whether or not Professor Ball deliberately misled others over his academic status at Winnipeg University about the significance of the use of capital or small letters in decriptions like this. It is noticeable that the positions held by most if not all of those signatories uses small letters. For example well known sceptic Dr. Ian Plimer, who I understand has the formal title of Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, is described as “professor of geology”.

    This all begs the question why did Professor Ball drop his 2006 libel suit against Professor Johnson, considering that Dr Johnson’s defence included such a lame argument.

    Of course all of this mud-slinging between CACC doctrine disciples and deniers leaves poor joe-public in the position of not trusting anyone about any of it, but it is noticeable how it is the CACC disciples and supporters who resort most frequently to attacking the individual rather than the science.

    While looking for sources who promulgated the suggestion that Professor Ball was Professor of Climate Change for decades at Winnipeg University I came across an excellent set of “Climategate News” interviews (http://wn.com/ClimateGate_Interviews) worth seeing. Represenataives of The Sierra Club, Greenpeace (which lost its appeal in New Zealand against having its charitable status removed due to its political activities - http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2011/05/12/political-greenpeace-loses-charity-status-in-landmark-court-ruling/) and The Centre for American Progress all get a chance to try to minimise that scandal.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  7. PART 1

    I had a further look at the claims made by Professor Ball himself about his backgrouind, as opposed to others on his behalf, and see only one thing that might cause questions about his integrity being any less than any other individual involved in the CACC debate.

    The biography that is currently displayed on Dr. Ball’s blog (http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf) differs from what was presented in the web.archive.org snapshot of 6th May 2003 on the Envirotruth.org page (http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030501000000*/http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm) only in the addition to his career from 1996 onwards of “Environmentalist, Public Speaker, Consultant, Author, columnist” of the word “Author”. That is correct because he was a co-author of “Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay” in 2004 and of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” recently.

    The big discrepancy on that archived page is the statement at the start claiming “Dr. Timothy Ball: Environmental consultant and 32 years Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg”. Dr. Ball’s CV says “1988-96 Professor, University of Winnipeg”, only 6 years not 32, so who was responsible for that misleading entry in Envirotruth, was Dr. Ball aware of the error and did he try to have it corrected. I can’t find anything on the Internet to clarify that so I’ll drop Dr. Ball an E-mail.

    The Envirotruth home page is http://www.envirotruth.org/96.html which could be understood to mean that it was published in 1996, which is the year that Dr. Ball left the University of Winnipeg. The site also indicates that property rights are with the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org/) and I recall a suggestion that Dr. Ball joined that organisation. A Google of – “the National Center for Public Policy Research” “Tim Ball” – took me almost straight to good old Richard Littlemore again (http://www.desmogblog.com/how-can-i-get-on-amys-guest-list) claiming that “ .. Amy Ridenour, friend of big tobacco, big oil and the big Jack Abramoff, and proprietor of the National Centre for Public Policy Research, recently held a Deniers' Luncheon with Tim Ball as the guest of honour. Amy has even provided a photo on her blogsite in which you can see Dr. Ball showing the gap between what he says about climate change and what honest-to-goodness climatologists hold to be accurate science. .. ” with a link to the photo’ (http://www.nationalcenter.org/uploaded_images/BallTim031207c-787903.jpg).

  8. PART 2

    Here’s some of what Amy Ridenour had to say about that article. “I owe a debt of gratitude to the anti-skeptic environmental attack website DeSmogBlog .. the website that, in its rush to attack those of us who are not losing sleep over global warming, used a picture I had taken of my husband without first getting permission. I offered to let them off the hook for a buck, which I would donate to charity. DeSmoggian Richard Littlemore responded by sending me a $20 check made out to the left-wing political organization Greenpeace. I didn't forward the check.

    DeSmoggians take the position that disagreeing with their cataclysmic views on global warming is a moral failing, and as such, that it is OK for DeSmogBlog to print vile and, amazingly often, false things about those people. .. If there is any one person that the DeSmoggians just can't stand, it is Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Over and over again they attack him, using the same silly and fallacious arguments and sophomoric insults. .. I'd never met or otherwise been in touch with Tim Ball. I'd read his writing many times; I even wrote about him when silly lefties falsely reported that he was employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, and again when the Long Beach Press-Telegram falsely reported that the National Center was "promoting him." And, of course, I'd see the lefties go absolutely nutty over him, in the deranged meaning of the term.

    So when I heard that Dr. Ball was going to be in Washington, I knew I wanted to meet him. Anyone who drives the lefties this nuts, I figured, must be darned effective. I've noticed also that his critics never seem to lay a glove on the actual arguments Dr. Ball makes. Insults appear to be their substitute for argument .. ” (http://www.nationalcenter.org/Z031307=tim_ball_climate_change_desmogblog.html).

    From those supporting the other side of the debate there is the Center for Media and Democracy’s 2006 SourceWatch overview “Tim Ball” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball) which covers most of the aspects I have been talking about. The SourceWatch “purpose” page (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Purpose) claims that it is a “ .. specialized encyclopedia .. ”. The usual definition of an encyclopedia start “ .. A comprehensive reference work .. ” which leads most of us to expect to get reliable information from one. SourceWatch seems not to be very reliable, since it finds it necessary to state the disclaimer “ .. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in SourceWatch; much of the time you will. However, SourceWatch cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. .. ” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:General_disclaimer). At least Dr. Ball has the courage of his convictions.

    My attention was drawn to this disclaimer by John O’Sullivan’s article “Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout” (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8858-top-climate-skeptic-seeks-help-in-double-barrel-courtroom-shootout). Someone hiding behind the false name Gator commented on 9th April @ 12:04 with “ .. Only a moron would quote 'sourcewatch' .. ”. SourceWatch is another organisation with its hands outstretched for donations (https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/t/10397/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=6325) which always makes me suspicious.

    As someone who hides behind the false name AmericanBelle said just after the Climategate scandal broke ahead of the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive” (http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=3444728&sort=1&start=301&CurrentPage=11).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  9. Pete says:
    "You can access Jones podcast interview with Dr. Ball and with CACC doctrine desciple Professor David Karoly via The Lounge."
    Pete, I mentioned in the main post that the Tim Ball interview was "as part of Alan's series on the Galileo Movement."
    That Galileo link contains links to the Karoly Interview as well as interviews with Richard Lindzen and Galileo project director Malcolm Roberts.

  10. Orato

    Global Warming Debate

    By Timothy Ball, May 28th, 2006

    I have an extensive background in climatology, the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history. I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England, and for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the global warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause, nobody listens?

  11. one of 10 found with google just now. Wednesday, June 04, 2003
    The Honourable Paul Martin, P.C.
    Member of Parliament
    House of Commons
    Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
    Dear Mr. Martin:
    signed by:
    Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant, 28 years Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.

  12. Anyone interested in recent comments about Principia Scientific International and the "Slayers" should visit http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/ and http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!