Will Tim Ball be our wrecking Ball?

photo-illustration by John O'Sullivan
Upcoming trial- Mann v Ball 

See LINK John O'Sullivan in Climate Change Despatch.

Facing each other is Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann (he of ‘hockey stick’ graph infamy) representing so-called UN ‘consensus’ climate science. Mann claims his work proves humans are dangerously warming the planet.

Defendant, retired Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball believes Mann was a key player in the Climategate scandal and has hidden his dodgy tree-ring data for over 13 years to cover up fakery in the numbers. Mann and his ilk are not only responsible for scaring the bejesus out of our kids but of being a part of a bigger plot involving population control and wealth re-distribution; none of which is good for your family or mine.

See also: Tim: They're trampling on the truth 
               Tim Ball Interviewed


  1. Tim Ball is no climate expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

    After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball's credential were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

    In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

    1. "...that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

    2. "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

    3. "The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

    4. "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

    5. "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

    Ball dropped his lawsuit.

    Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

    More at:

  2. On David Appell:
    Of course David Appell consistently hawks Al Gore's discredited line that man's CO2 is causing dangerous warming.

    Many times I have asked him for evidence for this claim and the best he can come up with is the IPCC (you know, the UN organization that got caught pawning off greenie propaganda as real science) line that the climate models (you know, the ones that the climategate 2.0 emails discredit) cannot predict the current climate without adding man's CO2. Of course they never seriously considered the fact that the solar cycles are a much better fit to climate than CO2. They are silent about the fact that warming stopped around 10 years ago.

    So, David, can you come up with any actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming?



    "jim karlock"

    (email verified)

    Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:26 PM
    As to whether or not we are climate scientists, Alarmists like David Appell define as 'climate scientists' ONLY those who spout their politicized version of Anthropogenic Global Warming. George Taylor, who was forced out as Oregon's State Climatologist for failing to toe the party line and replaced by Mote is therefore not a 'climate scientist.' OSU-trained Meteorologist Chuck Wiese who famously said years ago that "the case for Global Warming has completely collapsed" is therefore not a 'climate scientist.' And an Astrophysicist like me who has almost identical training as the principle climate alarmist, James Hansen, but substantially disagrees with him cannot possibly be a 'climate scientist.'

    As it turns out, one of the things that I will present to the Oregon AMS when our OMSI meeting is rescheduled at a venue that respects science enough not to censor us is my own work on one of the hottest topics in climate science today: the connection between galactic cosmic rays, sunspots, and the cloud mystery. This is known as the "Svensmark Hypothesis," named after the famous Danish Physicist. My work has been peer-reviewed and published. But unlike Mote's infamous "shrinking NW snowpack," my work actually turned out to be correct!

    Thanks to all here who took the time to support the right of scientists to engage in the dialogue with other scientists that is so vital to our profession.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago)

    Corbett, Oregon USA


    P.S. Other scientists who do not meet Appell's criteria for 'climate scientists' include:

    Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, widely acclaimed as the greatest meteorologist alive today,

    Professor Will Happer of Princeton University, a physicist who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences,

    Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever,

    Professor of Physics Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University (Albert Einstein's old hangout,

    and many others.
    "Gordon J. Fulks, PhD"

    (email verified)

    Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:15 PM


Post a Comment

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