From We are Change Victoria: (h/t Pauli Sommer)
Dr. Tim Ball and his HUGE climate debate announcement!
The renowned Dr. Tim Ball was recently on our TV show, Freedom Free For All, to announce his upcoming debate with Green MP Elizabeth May. The debate will be on CFAX 1070AM radio and you can listen to it live on the internet <here> So be sure to tune in on March 16th at 1:00pm PST. This has been a long time coming since Miss May had a debate set up for last summer but could never find the time to get on Ian Jessop’s show the same time as Dr.Ball.
We will also have Dr. Tim Ball on our live show for our viewers to ask questions to him. so be sure to tune into Freedom Free For All tonight(Mon March 2) at 7:30pm Pacific time, and log into the livestream so you can get in on the live chat during the show. So log in here http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4937810/events/3369679
Here is the recap of what Dr. Ball had to say last week on our show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3pJqDLwUBs
***********************************
To listen to the complete debate above, click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FYI-Elizabeth May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and one of the two Green Party members of the Canadian Parliament.
It’ll be May Day… LOL
lol and SHE will be the one wailing it as her tiny plane spirals to the ground, heh.
She an American sitting in our gov’t house.
Shameful
time to ban Dual Citizenship
She gave up US citizenship.
PS:
She’s also eligible for British citizenship, since her mom was from England.
Unless, as I seem to recall, the law was different for children of male and female subjects of the Crown when Liz first polluted the planet.
What are the Canadian rules for eligibility for election? In Britain, any Commonwealth citizen is eligible. In Australia, for Federal Parliament, only people of single (Australian) nationality are eligible. (There is a whisper of doubt about whether Tony Abbott formally renounced his British citizenship. It’s a bit late now to raise the question.)
And the only one who was actually elected as a Green (the other one crossed the floor, i.e., changed parties, something that definitely needs to be banned).
Personally, I believe idiots should have the right to out themselves. The Republicans down here are suffering from an excess of Cryptocrats.
She is a political flake. A political flake with a political agenda. Dr. Ball wiped the floor with her. She only got elected as a backlash against the Conservative MP who was much reviled.
I will listen to that. May is one of the smartest and quickest people I’ve ever met.
funny she’s in the Green Party then Flashy……..don’t suppose she saw her equivalent here in the UK making what can only be described as an “impact” during a TV interview. Impact as in facepalm.
Was that when the member of the Green Party in Britain demanded equal human rights for rodents? Seriously, that is part of their platform. Equal rights for all sentient beings.
She can’t be all that smart if she believes in AGW
There are rodent rights deniers on this thread!
I will have you know that 97% of rodents are more intelligent than climate “scientists”!
“Was that when the member of the Green Party in Britain demanded equal human rights for rodents?”
Well it HAS been done before:
One of the most bizarre human-animal trends of all recorded history took place in Europe during the Middle Ages. This was the formal prosecution of animals accused of committing crimes against people. Animals charged with such crimes (usually murder) were brought to court, appointed a lawyer, and tried, just as a person would be. Records show that hundreds of animals were found guilty and then executed by hanging.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2149/History-Human-Animal-Interaction-MEDIEVAL-PERIOD.html?PageSpeed=noscript
And the best lawyer representing barley eating rats was a French lawyer named Bartholomew Chassenee. “The judge ordered local priests to announce, from their pulpits, that all the rats in their respective parishes had to appear for trial on a specific day. But …. no rats showed-up at the appointed time. Did that mean the rats were in contempt of court? Chasseness, counsel for the rats, had to defend his clients’ absense. There was a law, he pointed-out, which applied to humans. It stated that no one could be ordered into court if making the journey to the courthouse put one’s life in danger. Shouldn’t that law also apply to rats? It was, after all, the perfect explanation for their absence. In order to get to court, all the rats had to pass through an area filled with … cats. Why should they be ordered to do such a thing? It would clearly put their lives in jeopardy.This time … the rats were legally safe from execution and were free to continue their barley-chomping ways.”
https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/ANIMALS-as-DEFENDANTS-RATS-Animals-as-Defendants
I remember when I was younger that to describe someone as “green” meant that they were very naive and gullible, didn’t know much and really weren’t safe to be let out on their own until they had grown up a bit. So no real changes then!.
@BFL, thanks for that detour.
Ha ha!
Well, Sir, that may have made her a darn good ping pong player, but…..
***************
One of the smartest … you have ever met. That says a lot. Actually makes me feel sad for you. Go make a few engineer friends. You will learn a lot and have fun doing projects and, to your delighted amazement, Ms. May will then be one of the dumbest and dullest people you’ve ever met.
Dear Sir,
Don’t be fooled. Clever and fast-talking do not equal intelligent and educated.
Sincerely,
Janice Moore
In this case we don’t have to engage in fruitless argument; we can just listen to the debate.
Sir Harry Flashman, You are quite right.
Let’s reserve judgement until the debate has happened.
I enjoy a partisan ding-dong as much as anybody and will happily bat on the front foot for my side.
But opinions all founder on evidence.
[Note: A link to the entire debate has been added at the bottom of the article above. ~mod.]
Elizabeth May said she’d rather people did not fly by plane. Here she is in an interview on a plane? [video link & photo below]
Global News – December 7, 2014
‘Plane Talk’ with Elizabeth May: her biggest regret, alternative career and hero
http://globalnews.ca/news/1713284/plane-talk-with-elizabeth-may-her-biggest-regret-alternative-career-and-hero/
http://i2.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/702/751/PLANE_TALK_MAY_WEB_848x480_368100931950.jpg?w=670
Well dang. Does this mean Sir Harry is a Canadian … or did he meet Elizabeth May at a Sierra Club coordination meeting. American born, family moved to Canada when she was 18. She is very smart, astute, and very able at politic speak meaning she can deflect questions with considerable expertise.
She will have lots of “facts” from a left wing Green perspective.
I don’t support her or her party, but have no doubt she is a very strong personality. Tim may have his hands full.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May
Born in US, came to Canada as a child.
MCourtney says:
…opinions all founder on evidence.
Except in climate ‘science’, cf: Flasherman.
IMHO this debate will be more like a trigonometry professor vs a dog. Ms. May won’t even understand the questions. She will just use this opportunity as her green pulpit.
I have to aggree with Wayne on this. She is very good at debating.
Personaly, I just can’t handle people who come from other, “more enlightend”, countries and try to educate us. You know what? We were doing just fine before you brought your BS up here, and we will be fine after you are gone. This is Canada! We club baby seals to death, we frack the SH17 out of the bedrock to get hydrocarbons, most of us own guns (and know how to use them), and we drive big trucks. We are not Elizabeth May’s version of ‘nice Canadians” Get lost!
Harry u forgot the sarc tag …. Elizabeth May bright …. that is a good one!
She has a diploma in Restaurant Management – she should be able to cook up something! If all the global warming/climate change scientists lose their jobs, I’m sure she will be able to find them a job flipping burgers!
It’s a real job in the real world.
Don’t know if she ever used her diploma but if she has it’s better than most politicians.
Pffft, can’t you get PhDs in Restaurant Management these days?
– – Don’t know if she ever used her diploma but if she has it’s better than most politicians.- –
Well most politicians are lawyers, and we know how good they are at making unreadable fine print that is incapable of being understood.
you must hang around some real idiots then.
She’s so smart she never get caught out! It’s worse than we thought!
11 years later her view on flying have changed as global warming gets worse and we have just experienced the hottest decade and year evaaaaaah!
Just doing her job as an MP.
Conspiracy theories are her stock and trade. She claims there was a conspiracy to suppress the Green vote in 2008, and in 2011 that there was a national campaign to suppress all opposition votes using misleading phone calls (although her website has since taken down some of the most outrageous claims). There has never been any actual evidence presented and Elections Canada reported a grand total of 1000 for all telephone related complaints for the 2008 election and 1200 for the 2011 election (just to put things in perspective there were 1400 such complaints in 2006) .
Despite her claiming for years that hundred of thousands (100,000s) of opposition votes were suppressed and getting national media coverage, a grand total of one (1) person in a nation of 36,000,000 has stepped forward to claim that they didn’t vote because of a misleading phone call (no evidence provided, just making that claim), one order of magnitude less than the number of people who have claimed to have seen bigfoot, and two orders of magnitude less than the number of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. She still makes those claims to this day.
She is convinced that the only possible reason her party gets 4% of the vote is due to some vast right wing conspiracy to disenfranchise the Green vote, rather than consider the possibility that most Canadians have no interest in her lunatic fringe party.
Here is the ever smart Elizabeth May, the 9/11 Truther petition handler. Here she is on science.
Homeopathy was removed from the platform a few years ago, quite rightly. And the jury is till out on wifi – in many countries they take a much more stringent approach towards having it in schools than we do in North America. Every party has its share of wingnuts.
It spent some time there under May, the science gal. She became leader in on August 26, 2006. In 2011 homeopathy was included in the Green Party’s health care policy.
As for WiFi which jury are you talking about? You need to back up any link with evidence of harm. Otherwise it’s just more speculative drivel from you. Even the Guardian thinks the idea of WiFi harm is daft.
SIR LARRY FLASHMAN
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h–/q-95/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2012/9/27/1348755461206/Tinfoil-hat-008.jpg
Ah, the usual dignified, logical and not-at-all crazy reply I’ve come to expect here at WUWT.
The jury is totally out on wifi; we simply haven’t had widespread exposure long enough to understand the possible long-term effects. Here’s an article from that left-wing rag, Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/01/13/study-suggests-wi-fi-exposure-more-dangerous-to-kids-than-previously-thought/
You must not know many smart people.
Doesn’t say much for your circle of friends ? et pour les franc-anglais. Vous n’avez pas bein choisi vous amies.
That begs two questions: How many people are in that group “smartest and quickest you’ve ever met”? And which one is she? I wonder if you are getting out enough.
Harry Harry Harry I’m Canadian and she is not a sharp person!
You must be thinking of another May. Elizabeth May is neither smart nor quick.
That’s funny…oh you are serious
Don’t get out much do you Flashy
You need to hang out with people who didn’t ride the short bus to school.
“…ride the short bus to school.” Had to look that up. It’s an obnoxious term that doesn’t fit into any context.
Sir Harry:
If she’s one of the smartest and quickest people you’ve ever met, then you don’t get out much.
Not only is her platform flaky and ill conceived, at the only English language election debate that she participated in, she would not let anybody else speak, she constantly interrupted to insult and demonize. If an election debate was merely a name calling competition, then she won hands down, if was about ideas, she showed herself to be totally vacuous.
I have yet to watch the link, but I would be shocked if she demonstrated any actual knowledge on the subject, as thus far, on any topic, her information seems to come from blogs. I expect she will respond to someone who is knowledgeable on the topic with slander and insults, as per usual.
I can well believe that.
After listening to her, I can honestly conclude you know either very few people or very stupid people.
I’ll wager that you don’t know may people then. She once told me that she idolizes Bob Brown. I happen to live in the Australian State that that dirty *&%#( did his best to destroy. Then he went to work on the entire country. It’s a lot like idolizing Mohamar Gaddafi.
Dollars to donuts she doesn’t show.
That was my initial reaction.
Agreed. Warmists almost always have “something come up” just before these debates. My guess is most of them have never really addressed the actual skeptic position, only the caricatured version. As they prepare for the debate and begin to realize how weak their position really is they get cold feet.
I will be shocked if she actually shows.
I thought all Greenies believed “the time for debate is over. The science is settled”
@wickedwenchfan
As far as Climate Change goes, the science is settled and there is no debate; climate changes. I’m guessing MP May will be there to pound the politics and her agenda.
It will be two, one-sided debates. MP May will ignore Dr. Ball’s points regarding the science and carry on about her or her party’s proposals while Dr. Ball is left to debate the science.
I can imagine a typical May scientific counterpoint now. “All those facts you’re spouting on about, Dr. Ball, are neither here or there. What we must focus on is the horrible consequences of carbon pollution and here is what we should be doing… (20 minutes of Green Party platform with no one getting in a word edgewise)” …and so on.
That’s my call on the ‘debate,’ but we’ll see. She may be well versed in the usual appeals to authority.
.
.
OT P.S. I’ve always wondered; are you a fan of wicked wenches or are you a wicked wench who is a fan of something or other? I can’t quite parse your handle.
P.P.S. I’ve been married to a wicked wench for 38 years and I’m a big fan of hers.
Oops! Obviously missed closing an italic. Sorry. Ya’ll are sharp enough to figure it out, though.
[Fixed, ~mod]
Agree with you. Like all politicians, she is very good at the old segway into her party line. This is just a pre-election platform.
Thank you, ~mod. Much obliged.
Caution. These “debates” are usually not really debates. They are sound bite opportunities, and different rules apply. For instance, you need to act appropriately shocked by what your opponent says, regardless of what she said. And some condescending chuckles here and there work well.
This will be a hilarious matchup, in that E. May’s only recourse will be to cite authority, like the authority figure opposing her.
A debate about climate change! Are you sure? Is she in over her head?
Jimbo, you’re a treasure…
Might be in over her mouth. Flashman will help her.
Rick K — You are SO right. And I’ve told him and told him (and he almost NEVER responds).
Stephen Richards — LOL — love it. Flashman to the rescue!
So Dr. Ball’s last peer reviewed paper was 30 years ago.
@chris
… while May’s last peer reviewed paper was… never?
If you look at the link to the CV I put lots of dots after the last paper to convey that the list actually goes on. Below is a pdf paper published in ‘Ecological Complexity’ 2007 p73 – 84 which is on the list I linked to. I also note that his CV for published works may require updating.
What’s the status of his lawsuit with Mann?
My understanding is that Mann’s modus-operandi is to sue until discovery, inflicting as much cost as possible on the defense. Once the defense asks for Mann’s documents for discovery, the suit is dropped or just stops. This is precisely the reason Mark Steyn has counter-sued. Whether Mann continues or not, Steyn’s suit will proceed, including discovery.
For what it’s worth, Canada’s Green Party supports a lot of junk science scares. The dangers of WiFi radiation and GMO foods for example, as well as supporting the precautionary principle.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/15/elizabeth-mays-so-called-party-of-science-seems-to-support-a-lot-of-unscientific-public-policies/
There was almost NO science on the safety of GMOs until many people came up with a weird new illness. It traced to a natural-looking supplement called L-tryptophan, an amino acid that was prescribed by many doctors to help people fall asleep. Many people died. The FDA pulled the supplement off the market. When it turned out that every single incident of death or illness traced to a single manufacturer, they refused to allow the safe manufacturers to make the product.
I just found out that the one manufacturer with a devastating product had produced it by genetic modification of bacteria to triple the production rate of L-tryptophan. Subsequent investigation found that this bacterium produced a lot of novel chemistry never seen before. Of course, all that was purified out of the sale product–it was very pure. Normal standards of lab chemicals are over 99.9% pure and are often 10 times better than that. I do not know the tolerances of pharmaceutical-grade products. I would expect that they are higher.
Biological substances often have effects in parts per million (example CO2 at 400 ppm in atmosphere is the basis of all terrestrial life). Hormone mimics have been found to cause harm in parts per billion.
The only reason all this came out was because the symptoms were so weird.
This case proves beyond the faintest doubt that genetically engineered products are dangerous. There could be some safe ones out there, but the testing needed to prove it would be prohibitively expensive.
300 million Americans eat genetically engineered food every day, usually from several sources. Obviously, these foods are not very harmful in the short term. But a number of diseases are on the increase and it is probable that some are caused by GMO’s and it is probable that somebody dies every day. The deaths are buried under a mountain of other deaths. Does that make it okay? Maybe it does. We accept auto accidents and various other preventable deaths. After all–nobody gets out of this world alive.
The L-tryptophan story should have been a major scandal. The industry successfully buried it. They bury a lot of the truth about climate, too.
This is very relevant to this site because of the biotech assumption that something that was not even examined was understood by thought alone. We demolished that very thoroughly in my high school physics class. Over and over, we would examine one of Aristotle’s “perfect” ideas–and then we would test it. Aristotle never won.
Creation “science,” climate “science,” GMO safety, bureaucracy, and many other things have in common the idea that if one’s idea is intelligent, then it must be right. No amount of counter evidence can ever prove the case to a True Believer. That is not science, that is the opposite of science.
Oh, and don’t kid yourself that I am ignorant of genetic technology. I have done site-directed mutagenesis and other research.
That is fascinating – I have an abiding love for good science with a bit of training in Geology, Botany and Archaeology – I would love to dig a little deeper – do you have websites you recommend? Or some google search terms that would work best?
@ladylifegrows
So, what you are saying is that the effects of GMOs are unquestionable nefarious due to the unequivocally fatal consequences on those that consume them yet, simultaneously, the effect of GMOs is undetectable when 300 million people consume them.
And you also claim to have a degree in what again…
@Brute
My degree is in Animal Physiology.
The L-tryptophan result proves that people have died from GMOs and that these organisms cannot truthfully be presumed safe without extensive and sophisticated testing. Untruthfully is another matter–the corporations know how and have the funds to lobby both Congress and regulatory agencies extensively.
The fact that hundreds of millions of Americans have eaten GMO foods several times per day for decades, and still have children and live to 80 proves that there is a limit to how harmful these crops are, at least in the short term. A number of diseases are rising–there is no practical way to tell which ones are due in part to GMO’s.
America’s life expectancy is now below that of other advanced countries–most of which do not allow GMO’s or which require labeling. Some of the higher death rate is almost certainly due to GMOs–but how much? The data do not exist to answer that question.
Go, Tim Ball! Good for you to step up to fight for truth in science. You will do great. You have evidence and facts, Ms. May has, well….. what DOES she have? Hm. Speculation and junk science. If the ref is fair, you’ll win easily.
And a very quick wit…
(assuming you are referring to Ms. May):
In a real debate, a quick “wit” may impress those who admire empty words uttered rapidly, but it will not win.
My bet is that she will raise everything BUT debate.. Including Vanuatu which would not be bad, because I would love to know what the difference is between an AGW Cat5 and a non-agw Cat5
Bob, weave, divert, ad hom, cuss and insult. Those are the very fleet-of-foot tools of Ms May. I find her to be engaging in social settings, and terribly obnoxious and ugly in debate. THis will not be a debate, I’m afraid, but a fishwife’s assassination attempt, in my opinion.
“but a fishwife’s assassination attempt” I laughed… Tuna at 10 paces.
If Ms May is at least to be admired if she goes ahead with this. The most august scientists on the warm side don’t have the courage to debate. They leave that to political scientists, sociologists, psychologists and antediluvian philosophers.That is most telling of the confidence they have in their theory since the dreaded pause got longer than the warming period we are all supposed to be worried about. Ms. May will be entertaining and she is smart and quick on her feet. I certainly don’t have any time for her politics and I think any golden opportunity for green politicians has long past, thank goodness. I only regret that such an intelligent woman is wasted in such a dead end party.
Dear Gary and Mick,
You are too kind. It is only her ENORMOUS EGO and her narcissistic look-at-me personality which give her the audacity to leap up on stage to “debate” today. Yes, indeed, she will put on a fine performance. Basically that of a clever, twisted, clown.
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
Intelligent? I can’t bring myself to think that. Her debating Tim ball runs a hell of a lot of risks for the AGW movement, its like bringing a plastic sword to a gun fight. Tim will make her look foolish to anyone but blind followers of their cause and how does this help them?
I think her inability to intellectually beat Tim will turn her into a ‘go for the throat’ and question Tim’s ‘links to fossil fuels’ etc. Even though there probably are none, they like to push this meme as they did recently with Willie Soon.
“Lawsuit-Plagued Meanyhead D*nier Verbally Abuses Cute Fluffy Environmentalist”
Gary. There is a good reason why the scientists do not want to debate. At one of the last debates “Global Warming is not a Crisis”, Michael Crichton and Richard Lindzen debated Gavin Schmidt. The result was a disaster – 15% of the audience switched sides. Before the debate a substantial majority opposed the motion. After the debate the motion passed by a small percentage.
I watched that, and as a result immediately concluded that CAGW was a hoax. No science from Gavin at all. A shocker.
Anyone have a link to that debate?
Here’s a link to that debate: http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
“…such a dead end party”
It seems every philanthropic or ecological cause quickly outlives it’s beneficial juncture in society, once the charlatans infiltrate and subvert them to the purposes of political and personal gains.
This will be like when they have an evolutionist debating a creationist. Neither side will be converted.
And May is not too bright, I know of her and her party. She is brave though, going up against Dr. Ball.
I do commend her for that.
Any chance of a typescript or resume afterwards for those of us the other side of the pond?
Just listened to the “debate”. Thanks for the link.
FWIW, the green lady was the first to lose her cool, albeit almost at the end.
May is pretty brave to debate climate science with a climate scientist/sceptic. Her crowd usually surrounds themselves with other members of their flock, descent is not allowed.. She is either crazy, an imbecile, reckless, or all of the above. Her only basis for debate is “consensus-based” junk-science and the usual screams of “denier” and “shill for big oil” the AGW alarmists use frequently.All Dr Ball has to do is argue facts and science, he doesn’t need to do anything else to make this woman look like a fool. Al Gore was smart enough to never debate anyone, EVER. Can’t wait.
It is good that she is willing to debate.
I suspect its because she knows of Dr Ball’s more outlandish views and thinks she can make him a laughing stock. She may be right.
He needs to stick to the science and avoid his political views for this discussion. It’s always wiser to play on home turf anyway.
And you think May’s views are not outlandish? She’s a certified truth-er in many categories.
Dr. Ball needs to be prepared for the expected ad hominem attacks. There are useful tactics, such as:
“Ms. May is deliberately misrepresenting my position/what happened/the science. My qustion was: “____”. Please respond, Ms. May. Do you understand the difference between the adiabatic rate and the lapse rate? You need to, in order to understand what we’re discussing here.”
I’ve heard both of them. May is a far better speaker and she knows her science inside and out. Ball, for his part, has some, hmmm, let’s call them unorthodox ideas. Anyway, all the WUWT sneering in the world won’t affect the outcome so let’s just see how things play out. .
dbstealey said: “Ms. May is deliberately misrepresenting my position/what happened/the science. My qustion was: “____”. Please respond, Ms. May. Do you understand the difference between the adiabatic rate and the lapse rate? You need to, in order to understand what we’re discussing here.”
To which the politician will, with derisive tone, say, ” If 97 doctors say you’re sick, and 3 say you’re not, are you gonna take the medicine? Of course you will.” There is likely no way to win a “debate” like this. All the good doctor can hope for is that some number of people are actually listening to what he is saying.
You must have missed my comment and references above. What you say on the junk science of homeopathy? She was there when her party backed it! She tweeted on the alleged dangers of Wi-Fi networks! Her party is a party of swivelled eyed loons and she is anti-science in and out.
Flashman says she knows her science. OK, if you say so, but others see a different Elizabeth May – an anti-science leader of highly deranged, sad individuals.
Sir Harry, I’m not sure you’ve met Ms. May.
Or heard my father speak.
Such judgments are subjective. I’m certainly willing to listen.
You made the claim, Harry. Where and when did you hear my father speak? Can you remember the topic?
Date? How many were there?
On video online, and the details escape me. I cannot claim to have heard him in person.
If you haven’t already done so, get yourself a copy of Tim Ball, PhD’s 2014 book, THE DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE. Read it cover-to-cover. You will feel so much better!
A Canadian Green MP, eh? Does that mean she will be briefed by the likes of Suzuki?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
NOAA agrees with Dr. Ball:
See: Antarctic and Greenland Synchronised Deglacial Ice Core Time Scales
Here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=519:1:0::::P1_study_id:10588
Just one of the examples of Greenland Ice Core Data found in this list:
Greenland
ACT1,ACT3,ACT4,ACT2 – Melt Layer Thickness
ACT2 – Toxic Heavy Metals Data
AICC2012 800KYr Antarctic Ice Core Chronology
Antarctic and Greenland Synchronised Deglacial Ice Core Time Scales
Byrd, GISP2, GRIP – Greenland/Antarctic Synchronization Data
Byrd, GRIP – Nitrous Oxide Data
Camp Century – Microparticle Data
Camp Century – Oxygen Isotope and Accumulation Data
Camp Century – Trace Element Geochemistry
Crete, Milcent – Oxygen Isotope and Accumulation Data
D4 – Black Carbon, VA, and nssS Data
D4 – Greenland Positive Matrix Factorization Model Results
D4,D5,Katie,Sandy – Central Greenland Ice Core Net Snow Accumulation Data Dye 3, Dye 2, Summit – Oxygen Isotope and Accumulation Data
*
*
*
{on this site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core –> click “List of Ice Core Datasets by Location Name” on that page under “Browse Data Sets” }
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
I find it rich that warmists planned to sample these ice cores, got funding based on the assumption that it would help them understand ACGW better. Then when it didn’t show what they wanted, they brush the results off as “local weather”. Moving Goalposts.
A bit like extrapolating global temps from one tree in Yamal…
…sorry for the snark, but I’m afaid I just couldn’t help it.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Given the ease with which you could have figured that out for yourself, icouldn’t,
you obviously lack either the willingness to seriously consider and/or the ability to understand such an explanation.
I won’t waste my time.
Not stupid? Well, then, you should change your name to “iwouldn’thelpit.”
icouldnthelpit is turning into a troll.
No explanation of what bothers him, just a drive-by comment.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnthelpit says:
Is this the same Dr Tim Ball, PhD that thinks Greenland Ice Core Temps are a good proxy for Global temps?
This may surprise someone who is clearly not up to speed on the subject, but polar temperatures are a proxy for global temperatures. That is one of the reasons they are drilled.
Ice cores show temperature trends over time, and both poles show the same trends. If May is as clueless as ‘icouldnthelp’ it, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Part of Greenland lies north of the Arctic Circle.
For example, this NOAA Greenland ice core data set comes from there:
DATA COVERAGE: North-bound Latitude: 75.1 * South-bound Latitude: 75.1
{Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/f?p=519:1:::::P1_study_id:2494}
“The Arctic Circle is one of the five major circles of latitude that mark maps of the Earth. As of 16 March 2015, it runs 66°33′45.7″ north of the Equator.”
{Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle}
Greenland is close enough.
So, in your expert opinion does that mean Vostock Station too far from the South Pole?
(Another very long, but wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Mike Borgelt says:
There is no ice core data from the North Pole
No, Mike. We know that. There is GISP-2 and others in Greenland, and there is Vostok and other sites in the Antarctic.
But you knew what I meant, didn’t you? They both show the same trend.
icouldnthelpit says:
An ice core shows is a proxy for the temperature where it is taken, nothing more nothing less. This is surely obvious to everyone.
You need to go back and get educated. Often what is “obvious” is wrong, and you’re wrong, as shown in the charts below.
The chart below shows an overlay of Greenland [Northern Hemisphere] and Vostok [Southern Hemisphere]:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Ice-core-isotope.png/800px-Ice-core-isotope.png
Anyone can see that temperature trends are the same at both ends of the planet. Thus, ice cores are an excellent proxy for global temperature trends.
(Another very long and detailed post by a banned sockpuppet. Sorry. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Mike Borgelt,
I corrected my comment. Surely you understood what I meant. Didn’t you? If not, I can explain it in more detail. The same rising and falling trends are visible at the same time in both hemispheres. They show the same declining trend beginning around 130,000 ybp, and then rising again toward the beginning of the Holocene. That is so clear that anyone can see it. Further, there are many smaller changes that are reflected in both hemispheres. You can see them easily.
@Icanthelpmyself:
As your pals are always trying to lecture us, proof is for mathematics. Alley was talking about small time frames on the order of years, which are crtainly not visible in a chart covering more than 140,000 years. But when viewing the clear long term trends, it is very evident that the same trends that take place in one hemisphere take place in another, and thus they are an excellent proxy for global T.
Sorry.
Mike Borgelt says:
Didn’t your mother tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source?
Hi Mike! No, Mom never told me to not use Wikipedia. But since you’re taking her place here, I’ll try to remember that.☺
(Another very long comment by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icanthlpmyself says:
Read Dr Tim Ball’s article original article again… then read my post again.
No.
You’re trying to assign homework, and I have better things to do than re-read whatever you assign. You’re a noob on this issue and as always, I advise newbies to go back and read the WUWT archives. Do a search on keyword “ice” if you want to get up to speed.
For example, you say:
Look at the temperature scale. Do you think global average temperature over the last 10,000 years has ranged from -28.5 degrees C to -32 degrees C?
Since you’re still a noob, you probably don’t understand that ‘global warming’ happens most at night, and in winter… and at the higher latitudes.
That means that at the highest latitudes [the polar regions], temperature swings are the greatest. Prof Richard Lindzen points out that at the equator, temperatures have not changed more than ±1ºC for more than the past billion years. But at the poles, changes can be many degrees.
When you say “Dr Ball is wrong”, you are trying to tell us that a professional Climatologist who has spent his career studying this subject doesn’t know what he’s saying… but you do??
Read at last a few months of the WUWT archives. Try to get up to speed… Socrates. You’re still a novice. You don’t even know the basics yet.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
imadope,
Everything I wrote whizzed rtight over your head. You gave it zero thought, which is your problem anyway.
Go away, noob. You’re bothering the adults. Pester someone at your own level, we don’t have time for someone who argues talking points.
I always admire your style db – demand that every statement made, however trivial, be documented up the ying-yang, but refuse to attempt even the most minimal research yourself because you’ve “got better things to do.” When it’s clear to any objective observer that you’ve lost the argument, wave your hands dismissively and tell the other person to go away. And you’re considered one of the great defenders of of the “skeptic” position on this site? Good Lord.
(Another very long, extended effort by a banned sockpuppet. Too bad, comment DELETED. -mod)
iamhelplesstounderstand,
Still deflecting, eh? I am uninterested in discussing this subject with someone who didn’t know that latitude has an effect on temperature. Once again, please quit pestering the adults here. Your time would be much better spent reading the relevant archives, rather than cutting and pasting passages that have little to do with the topic.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
I…pit;
Your initial comment meets your own defn of whataboutery. Replies in kind are met with derision from you.
I always wonder if this kind interaction comes from intelligence and an intentional attempt at manipulation? Or is it just ignorance, as a result of selfishness and an inability to see yourself as you see others? Or is it something else altogether…?
Help me out here.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnhelpit,
What about your comment that global temperature trends cannot be discerned in both hemispheres?
When I’m wrong, I admit it. That doesn’t happen often, because I’m careful, and I’m knowledgeable about the subject.
You were wrong @12:55 pm above. So, ‘What about’ that? Will you admit you were wrong? A stand-up guy would admit it. Or will you prevaricate, dissemble, and deflect, like almost all climate alarmists?
The ball is in your court.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icanthelpmyself, says:
Greenland and The South have been anti phased in the past.
Got charts? Make sure they show “anti-phase”, and different hemispheres at the same time. The only charts I have show a clear correlation, but I’m happy to learn.
Icouldntunderstandit
@ur momisugly Icouldnothelpit. “An ice core shows is a proxy for the temperature where it is taken, nothing more nothing less.
So according to you: There is no connection between Greenland ice cores and Antarctica ice cores? Right?
So,
A drought in Cal is a local event? Right?
So, a hurricane (Cyclone) in the Pacific is a local event, Right?
A snowstorm in Boston is a local event Right?’
Sea level rise around NY is a local event, Right?
(I can go on)
But would your assumption not shoot AGW out of the water? They are all just “local” events. Right?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Many places around the northern hemisphere show proxy data that matches the Dnasgaard-Oeschger events seen in the Greenland ice core data. Ocean proxies from Santa Barbara and Baja match.
I see it says 1PM PST. Is California still on standard time?
U.S. is now on daylight savings time. 1pm is the old 12pm 🙂
Thanks. I guess it was a typo. We’re on CDT here in Illinois.
But!, Dawtgomis, it was a good question, given how wacko California’s government is.
Folks here call it “the land of fruits and nuts”. But we’ve got a glass house here, at least while Cook County is still part of this state.
Ill give her credit for even acknowledging a skeptic and appearing on the same stage.
I think she also has a law degree. Still no preparation for any discussion of climate, but she does talk well and smoothly. If I didn’t know better I would probably believe her. As another poster noted, it is too bad that she wastes her time on the Green Party.
Ian M
Knowing both of these “personalities” especially May, this will not be a debate, but an argument.
I have met and listened to both in the early ’90s. Surprisingly, I “believed” Elizabeth back then, and was dismissive of Dr. Ball. Ten years later, I started to check the science, and found that the CAGW people were spinning tall tales, meanwhile, Dr. Ball was courageously standing up for facts and the truth. I had to admit that I was ashamed of myself for “believing” in the CAGW theme. It just never occurred to me that Dr. Weaver, Gavin, etc, would tell me less than the truth, full truth, etc. It is like Enron re-visited, except 100 times bigger. I wish I could get my money back that I wasted on Dr. Weavers book. He still irritates me for being so slippery about the full truth in his book. He does not lie, nope, but he leads you into thinking along a certain path.. the effect is to have me as the reader duped.
Dear ECB,
Congratulations on being the possessor of such a fine, discerning, mind as yours! You are a genuine scholar of integrity and wisdom (i.e., you did not cling out of foolish pride to your original position) and a bona fide truth-seeker. Thanks for sharing your inspiring story.
Truth wins with healthy, able, minds which, fortunately, is the majority of the population (and truth succeeds in marginalizing the trolls and rats to the frontiers — thus, we must always be vigilant, the icouldn’ts will slither, watching with the “dull cunning of the snake” for opportunities to spew venom for as long as dark corners and holes in the ground exist).
Warm regards from your truth-in-science ally,
Janice
It could have been worse. You could have wasted your money on Twilight in the Desert, a true waste of paper and trees on peak oil predictions to juice up the oil market by an energy fund manager.
A heck of a lot of other people are exactly like you. I too found the “An Inconvenient Truth” compelling and believable back in the day, but quickly learned from my background in finance and statistics that the math and science didn’t make any sense. The margins for errors in the climate modelling projections were so large the conclusions could only be categorized as “speculative”. How can one make obscenely expensive policy changes and forced investments in CO2 reduction when the temperature increase predictions are so speculative? How can you focus on only ONE variable (CO2) when the rest of the drivers of climate are chaotic and uncontrollable by man? For these reasons alone i am a sceptic and will remain so until irrefutable evidence comes forth that The AGW warmists had it correct.
ECB, The truth has set you free.
Mostly it will be May raising her voice and interrupting.
An enviro lawyer versus a scientist, not interested. It will be more about debate tactics and hysteria than science process and model error evaluation. As seen in the EPA testimony, there is no model on which the policy reach is based and therefore no model error to consider in evaluating the policy directive. It might as well be directions to march over a cliff at this point. Of course that only works in a non-science world. See famous quotes by Feynman and Keynes on theories versus error evaluation for the sane version.
American ex-pat Elizabeth May is so effective in laying down suppressing verbal fire, I wonder if Tim Ball will be able to insert a word, let alone an idea.
He might ask about her Green, island dwelling constituents protesting ferry fares hiked by BC’s carbon tax imposed on diesel fuel, a large part of the cost.
Explaining her opposition to “smart meters” (her science advisor Trent Univ. Dr. Magda Havas believes wifi is a government plot to sterilize the population) made necessary for load shedding “demand management” for uncontrollable Green solar and wind electric power would be entertaining.