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.
***********************************
To listen to the complete debate above, click here.
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
@ 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.
This should be frustrating to listen to. On one side you’ll have a scientist trying to discuss data, observations, etc. And on the other side you’ll have a politician ridiculing him. It might make a good drinking game though. Let’s tip one back every time she says “97 percent”.
Good idea, rh. Our chance to get something positive out of this debate. I’m not expecting MP May to outshine Gavin Schmidt’s debate performance on the science. So… we’ll get some Climate Science, some Green Politics, and “The Effects of Alcohol on Radio Listeners.” What’s not to like?
My line, “100% of thermometers disagree. Who are you going to trust? A dodgy survey by an Aussie activist or reality?
Me, I’ll stick with observations of the real world.
If the science was right you world only need one scientific paper to prove your belief in the end of the world. Let’s talk about that one, which is it?”
The answer is always, the IPCC.
So then you can talk about Box 9.2 of IPCC AR5. The models are all wrong – systematically wrong.
They are too hot.
Ask again, “What’s the problem, in the real world?”
@MCourtney – you wrote in part;
“My line, “100% of thermometers disagree.”
Pardon my one-track mind, but are those alcohol thermometers? ;o)
I’m inclined to agree with your comment, but if we use your 100% to trigger throwing back a shot of nectar, we’ll all be stone cold sober at the end of the show.
You also wrote, “[…] If the science was right you world only need […]” (bold mine)
No fair! You have a head start on the game! ;o)
.
.
Kidding aside, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Let’s be careful.Alcohol poisoning is a real thing.
Are you yanking our collective chains, RobRoy?
http://liquor.com/recipes/rob-roy/#l9fl2rW0q0vRTXj3.97
FYI: I have seen the term “MP May” used here alot. The honorific for an MP here in Canada isn not MP. The correct term would be “Ms. May”, you could add “Ms. May, MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands”.
I think this is more dangerous for Tim. A ,slimeball lawyer/politician against an honest climate scientist. Mmmm.
Debate is usually good however a scientist against a politician is questionable. Each will insert talking points but no answers. The only outcome of interest is who will control the momentum? Listener bias in this case is predetermined so don’t expect any “aha” moments.
Perhaps ms May is suffering from Dunning-Kruger. Little actual knowledge, plenty of bluster, egomania, and the usual Climate Liar bag-o-tricks.
The only thing wider than Elizabeth May is her ego.
The whole outcome is going to depend on how whoever is in the chair runs the show. If they are firm and fair, Tim wins. If they are not strong enough to control the debate, I suspect May might just win.
For “May” read “Elizabeth”.
Sorry,
May will either do pure Ad Hom or not show up
Tim will need to load up a few ad hom bombs himself. She is target-rich.
It all depends who the audience is. You could debate Duane Gish on Creationism vs Evolution at a Southern Baptist Church. I don’t care how good your arguments are or how good your counterexamples to Dr. Gish’s examples. Chances are you will not change any minds in the audience.
Same here – unless you have an audience where people have not made up their minds who are prepared to change their minds, nothing will change.
WUWT listeners will think that Tim Ball demolished Elizabeth May, and Green listeners will think that Elizabeth May won hands down.
When all is said and done, scientific facts are not determined by debate.
Scientific facts are not determined by debate.
Scientific facts are identified by debate.
The Creationists actually won the debates in Oxford against the Darwinists… but in doing so they laid out in entirety their strongest arguments.
That refined the facts from ‘statements summarising theories’ into ‘rational concepts that defined the thinking behind the theories’.
In turn that meant the type of evidence that would be required to disprove the theory was agreed. And making a theory falsifiable makes it more scientific – a better truth.
Until it isn’t.
Elizabeth May is an American leftist, who lives in Canada, and fits in with a small community of wackos rather well.
She is a pseudo-fact, clakitty, clak, mechanized, flood of noise, and eco sound effects.
Tim Ball, despite a minor defect, is rational, scientific, and reasonable.
These two kinds of people cannot debate. She is a great big ROUND MOUND of SOUND. He is a pure facts. Spaghetti and meatballs.
Even though I am happy Dr Ball is debating, and that the greens are crippled necessitating engaging in debate, the stress of listening to the fat disgusting picket fence gob puts me off. I will put on Tchaikovsky’s “Hymm of the Cherubims” in protest of her vocal cords.
Dr Ball, better you than me sir!
More junk science from the scientifically and statistically illiterate Green Party of the Great White North:
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2014/02/chronic-lyme-disease-creeps-into-green-party-bill/
At least some GP candidates also oppose vaccinations in general or mandatory vaccination.
Considering the following % of popular vote, the Green Party of Canada gets far more publicity than it should:
1984 0.21%
1988 0.36%
1993 0.24%
1997 0.43%
2000 0.81%
2004 4.32%
2006 4.48%
2008 6.80%
2011 3.91%
Although to give May credit, the increase in 2008 was very much her doing. Then again, so was the drop in 2011…
Thanks, Dr. Ball.
Don’t get too close.
This just in: Vegas odds-makers have suspended the book on this event as the money is pouring into the Ball camp so vigorously that the Casino underwriters are predicting huge losses. One long time actuarial for Wynn Resorts was quoted as “we’d like to think that here, in Vegas, you can place a bet on anything, but this was kinda like a bout between Mike Tyson and Marie Osmond, it just didn’t make no sense.”
The CTV link reported “I do not agree with petition,” she said. “It is an obligation of an MP to present every petition submitted to them.”
So if Ms. May is serious about her obligation to present petitions submitted to her as an MP, even if she doesn’t agree, then a few of her constituents have a responsibility to assist her. Just submit a petition stating that Obama is wrong, That there is no established link between CO2 and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That the so claimed 97% consensus is a false.
The problem is her constituency, Saanich—Gulf Islands, is full of greenie tree huggers. They are mostly all just like her.
It’s these kind of silly insults and generalizations that ensures this site isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs and PR shills for the Heartland Institute.
SHF,
You bury your head in the sand. This site has gone from zero to almost a quarter of a billion unique views, and more than a million reader comments — in only 8 years.
Do you believe that was a fluke? It wasn’t.
WUWT allows and encourages all points of view. That’s what the public wants, so readers can make up their own minds based on all available information.
Readers also like the many comments and articles by very knowledgeable folks who are climatologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, geologists, and others working in the hard sciences. There is more to be learned about “climate change” here than anywhere else.
So you can believe that WUWT “isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs”. No one is stopping you from believing anything, as readers can see. But really, the fact is you just don’t want to admit that it’s you who is on the outside, trying to promote your failed ‘man-made global warming’ and climate catastrophe narrative.
SHF, you have not a single clue as to the barbs and insults alarmists sling like monkeys at war. I am always polite and have cogent rebuttal and information regarding assertions (from either side).
I submit that you have no idea how vicious your side is. Continually. The slanderous barbs and propaganda of DesmogBlog alone should fill you with revulsion. Greenpeace defacing extremely important archeological sites. Why do you vilify someone who only has questions about the science? Are we not allowed to question? If not, why not?( I don’t want to hear any “do it for the children” garbage)
I will do it for the children when the evidence substantiates the action.
So far, I see nothing to worry about.
I’m not about to take responsibility for what others say; I know DeSmogBlog has had unkind things to say about your dad which when I dug seemed a little dubious. Not something I support.
However I submit that by the time we have enough climate chaos to “prove” to skeptics (I am not allowed to use “deniers”, though “alarmist” is ok) that this is really a problem it will be far too late. It may be far too late already. By the end of 2015, the top ten hottest years ever recorded will likely all be in the 21st century – in the meantime, extreme precipitation events are rising at an unprecedented rate along with accompanying flooding, the Arctic is melting (slight recovery in sea ice notwithstanding) and you folks are talking about a “pause” when at best it’s a slowing of the rate of increase. Temperatures will not rise in lockstep with greenhouse gases, but they are rising nevertheless, and while the earth will be fine, our civilization is optimized for the current climate and it’s unlikely that 7 billion of us are going to adapt easily.
“However I submit that by the time we have enough climate chaos…. it will be far too late. It may be far too late already. By the end of 2015, the top ten hottest years ever recorded will likely all be in the 21st century – in the meantime, extreme precipitation events are rising at an unprecedented rate along with accompanying flooding, the Arctic is melting (slight recovery in sea ice notwithstanding) and you folks are talking about a “pause” when at best it’s a slowing of the rate of increase. Temperatures will not rise in lockstep with greenhouse gases, but they are rising nevertheless, and while the earth will be fine, our civilization is optimized for the current climate and it’s unlikely that 7 billion of us are going to adapt easily.”
Hogwash. “Highest ever recorded” doesn’t mean highest ever. “Extreme precipitation events…unprecedented…flooding” is simply not true if you look at the facts that have been recorded. “Temperatures will not rise in lock step with greenhouse gases” is something you just made up….let’s call it excuse #88. And yes temperatures will probably rise until we enter another cooling period which we may or may not be at the beginning. This statement is really precious – “our civilization is optimized for the current climate”. And you know this because? The gratuitous inclusion of human adaptation means nothing to the AGW crowd or they would spend more time and money planning for it instead of bloviating about it which makes sense because it’s not about temperature anyway.
Trying to respond to db, but the nesting won’t allow it…
” This site has gone from zero to almost a quarter of a billion unique views, and more than a million reader comments — in only 8 years.”
Above Top Secret ranks twice as high on Alexa as WUWT, and all they do is paranormal and conspiracy. Infowars gets 5 million unique visitors a month, and they’re certifiably insane. Internet popularity has nothing to do with accuracy. It’s about generating controversy and confirming bias.
I see that I’ve cut SH Flashman to the quick by pointing out the immense popularity of this site. He can’t admit that lots of well educated people crave a place where they can get the straight skinny, without being spoon-fed only what the blog owners want them to read.
I resopnded to SHF’s comment that…
…silly insults and generalizations that ensures this site isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs and PR shills for the Heartland Institute.
You really have no sense of irony, do you? Heartland is a pro-American outfit that has more worthwhile info than any of the blogs you get your misinformation from, and FYI this site doesn’t allow what many alarmists would love to discuss: fake moon landings, chemtrails, etc.
People click on WUWT because they want to read the opinions of professionals who are active in the field. You don’t like that, we get it. But that’s your problem, not ours.
Finally, you disclose your wild-eyed alarmist motivation by writing:
It may be far too late already.
Evidence, please! We keep asking for evidence that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are in the works. But you never produce any evidence, for the simple reason that there is no evidence. Humanity has been very fortunate for the past century and a half, to be living in what is truly a “Goldilocks” climate, and there is no indication that anything has changed. But some folks are programmed to see the glass as always half empty; to presume that the worst is happening… without ANY evidence.
That’s you. If you have any evidence of doom and gloom, post it here. Otherwise, you’re just a crank.
See my comment above about how crazy sites draw big hits.
There’s no point in linking to anything for you , db ; you reject all the science which has emerged over the last three decades because you don’t like it. Every climate scientist except for the lonely half dozen that get trotted out at every “skeptic” conference knows it, and even the Curries and Christys are starting to sound suspiciously lukewarm.
Nevertheless, a random selection of things for you to dismiss without any supporting evidence whatsoever:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observed-change
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/
Tim could get his butt handed to him in this. There is a propensity amongst politicians, especially politicians who are greenists, to toss “psuedo-info grenades” (“accurate, but fake”) into a discussion, and let the poor sap on the receiving end sputter on trying to point out why they are grenades. Typically the factoid is reasonable on the surface, popularly understood to be true, nukes the opposition superficially, and requires the respondent to provide an education to the listener before he can even challenge the statement, all of which can’t occur in the time allotted.
Exactly what happened.
Go to about 23:15 in the video. Kid is doing just great presenting some science. The blurb lists two guests, but only names one. uh oh
Ignore that comment. Wrong link. Blush.
IMHO Ball stumbling during intro. We’ll see how May does
She is waffling
Agreed – but he is a more polished speaker. I suspect the listener found her more convincing 🙁
She makes a lot of interesting comments regarding what a changing climate may/might be, but nothing that shows conclusively that the changing is caused by slightly increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
No debate yet – at least she showed up…
she, not he
Listening to debate, May ignores complete predictive failure of “the [CO2] science”, ignores utter failure of “green” wind and solar energy in practice in Europe…[questioner did in fact mention “Danes”, not merely Sweden]
She has made a complete error in insisting that the only reason that we are not in a “ice age” period is completely due to man-made co2 emissions. Her science is so incorrect I feel sorry for our Canadian cousins that they have to combat her type of “fuzzy” thinking.
Yeah, that was really bizarre…..
As mentioned above, the Green Party of Canada received less than 4% of the votes in the last election. They have a media image that far outshines their true support.
So is ‘Global Warming for Dummies’ targeted at warmists ?
Yea we’ve got some nutjobs up here but it doesn’t thin out south of the 49th 🙂
Pity. It would be nice if one of us could have sane people but we seem to be similarly plagued by “ID10T” errors of the human species.
She has made a complete error in insisting that the only reason that we are not in a “ice age” period is completely due to man-made co2 emissions.
==========================================
If the last one is anything to go by, an “ice age” period would render Canada, the northern USA, most of Europe, virtually all of Russia and northern China uninhabitable. That’s well over 1 billion people looking for somewhere new to live a.k.a. “climate refugees”.
If there’s a better argument for continuing to emit CO2, I have yet to hear it.
And if true, would being in an ice age right now be a good thing, or a bad thing?
May: “the science”=solely,”CO2 is a ghg”= not really [empirical] Science; Ball is now smashing her “myth of doubt” and “the [alleged] science” by suggesting ~skepticism is at the heart of real Science, of which warmists like May have none
May: Gulf Islands Secondary School Solar Project – highly subsidized by BC Hydro and other measures, panels have a 20 year life (maybe) with a 50-year payback. Good only for bumper sticker attention, otherwise BS. But a few rent-seekers and subsidy seekers get a boost.
May hasn’t even caught up with the Warmist’s retraction of their “2014 is the warmist year evah!”
Ball finally scores
Interesting that every caller seems to identify as a skeptic, through the direction of their questions. May on defensive. She’d be great in sales. Oh wait. She IS in sales.
And Victoria is Environmental Left capital of Canada-strange
Victoria’s long-delayed sewage treatment plans have become an international irritant, with Washington State demanding the B.C. government step in to stop the flow of raw waste into the ocean.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee sent a letter to Premier Christy Clark demanding she order local Victoria-area governments to step in after more than 20 years of debates and promises about treating the region’s sewage.
Yep…very environmentally left. Do as I say, not as I do.
That station is not the local CBC, from what I can tell, so there’s the clue as to who is (not) listening.
And again!
Ms. May claims she “read every single email” from Climategate? Wow.
‘No corruption’ she claims too, tensely suggesting that Ball will ‘get (him)self sued again’ using terms like that! She is off her rocker.
She’s obviously lying, thinking that there were only a few hundred at most and that such a claim wouldn’t be questioned. There were 61 Megabytes in the files. Blazing Knickers!
Re the debate between Dr. Ball and Green MP Elizabeth May:
In response to a question about whether magnetism is a factor in global warming (around 1:40-45), Dr. Ball said “magnetism is an important source.” He did mention the sun’s magnetic field but the question (and I understand the answer) was about the earth’s magnetic field. Can anyone comment on any relationship between the earth’s magnetic field and “global warming?”
Overall a good debate with most listener questions being “skeptical.”
Most? I think all the callers were skeptical.
Re: earth’s magnetic field
Here’s a post by Dr. Tim Ball:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnections-2/
Some excerpts to give you an idea of its content:
“… everybody talks about El Nino and La Nina and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals, but surface ocean currents are created by wind, so the wind has to reverse first. But what makes the winds reverse? … what was the mechanism?
“The Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening for approximately 1000 years (Figure 2) and a simple trend extension suggests it will weaken to zero in the near future. … it is nothing new. Reversals occur on a regular and relatively frequent basis. Periods called Epochs fluctuate between Normal, as at present, with Reverse conditions. Discovery of these polarity reversals was important in establishing the continental drift theory. … lava layers are a record of the changing polarity. …
What do we know about relationships between the Earth’s magnetic field and weather? The answer is very little, … .”
Hope that helps. Sounds pretty speculative to me… . However! Unlike the UNSUPPORTED (by observation) speculation of AGW, this has some rough observational evidence behind it, if I’m not mistaken… .
Janice
Janice Moore March 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm
Re: earth’s magnetic field
Here’s a post by Dr. Tim Ball:
Thank you Janice.
I think I will put towards the bottom of my worry list; particularly since I can’t do anything about it.
(smile) pmhinsc — You’re welcome and… you are a wise individual.
That wasn’t very helpful. The trouble with scientists debating politicians is that scientists are constrained by the truth at least real scientists like Dr Ball are.
Exactly.
Just finished listening.. Good arguements, May thinks she lost, I say this because she completely loses her cool in the last seconds. Well done Tim
Agreed, it is always best to remain calm when you know you are being recorded.
Loses her cool? Nah. She’s a pro ( at her gig ). She was just playing to HER audience if they were tuned in.
The indignant ‘high umbrage’ tone is intended to reassure that she will not be moved and to elicit eye rolling in the faithful.
OMG – More science mombo-jumbo from May. I can see why the Green’s get such a small percentage of voter turn-out. Interesting that I believe that none of the callers were pro Man-made climate change.
Trying to listen as a neutral (though I’m not) all we got was some “facts” you have to go and check against some others – most people won’t bother and will just have heard what they wanted to hear – although Tim was stronger towards the end there was no knockout – just a cheap book plug.
The most interesting thing was that 97% of all the people who called in did not agree with AGW and all the billions spent on it……
Two points after listening to the CFAX debate. Dr. Ball won hands down. The listeners who called were 100% skeptical. One other note: May was selling her book, nothing more but nobody was buying. lol
She has a saleperson’s chutzpah to throw that in at the end, drowning out the host, doesn’t she? Conclusioin: no one will buy her book off the back of that crass display.
As I understand it, CO2 levels have been much MUCH higher in the past, yet May twice cited a figure of 280ppm, unchanged for the last 800,000 years, only to be topped up by humans of late to 400ppm. Ball never challenged this. Comments?
They went to a commercial break right after that misleading (net current atmospheric CO2 may be entirely from natural sources which outweigh human by a factor of 2 (native sources of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr (per Dr. Murry Salby at about 36:34 in his April, 2013 Hamburg lecture on youtube))) statement by May. Perhaps, Dr. Ball forgot to bring a pad of paper and pen? Decided to let it slide? Who knows?
Later, at about 55:00 (thanks for the link, Oakwood!) Dr. Ball does address the CO2 ppm issue.
from – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Couldn’t listen to the debate so can’t comment on that.
Nice graph, Bubba — thanks for sharing that.
That being the case, that is one for the ‘other side’ and I don’t blame her for stressing it, and also laying out the possibility that our ‘average temp’ would be lower if not for ‘global warming’. I think Ball missed an opportunity to stress the unimportance of it all, though he did say that CO2 is not the driver of climate that the likes of Lizzie May claim it is – and he is a scientist so I think most would who listened would have lean to his side on the strength of expertise alone. The opportunity he missed is to hammer home the futility of modeling and the inaccuracy of the entire affair. ALL of May’s arguments fall to naught in the light of that. CO2 up, temps even or down, then about those models that you base your dogma on Ms. May? What about that? (Thanks for the graph and responses, all.)
Looking at the wuwt CO2 Reference Page I’d say she was close to correct.
According to ice core data CO2 was about 260 ppm 7kya and by 1kya it had climbed to about 280 (Maybe someone could ask where it remained until the Industrial Revolution and then it increased to about 400ppm today.
But this winter has been an example of our need for cheap fossil fuel.
What would Boston look like without hydrocarbons to keep them warm and dig them out.
We see the good fossil fuels do daily.
The real question is, Where’s the catastrophe from CO2?
I know of no honest connection shown to date…none.
I thought this was interesting about whether it was possible to get a good measure of CO2 and other stuff
http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-last-battle-of-climate-alarmism.html?utm_campaign=mar-12-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
heysuess March 16, 2015 at 2:07 pm
…May twice cited a figure of 280ppm, unchanged for the last 800,000 years, only to be topped up by humans of late to 400ppm. Ball never challenged this. Comments?
Actually Ball did challenge that statement to which May responded something to the effect that during those periods the earth was roasting and she wants to keep the earth livable. He didn’t challenge the “roasting” comment. Nor did he make the point that high CO2 in the past demonstrates that natural variability can, and has, caused CO2 to rise significantly above current levels. He also made a minor mistake of saying at one point that GHGs are 97% water vapor and at another point he changed that to 95%. IMHO Ball started out weak and ended strong and May started strong and ended weak. All-in-all a respectable show by Ball and not so respectable by May.
Hello heysuess.
As at this point I have no idea how Dr. Ball has responded to that 280ppm argument, but is not difficult to see that this particular argument is usually served by what some call the “trick ponies” . It is actually a trick to put your opponent to argue in too many fronts, not only about AGW.
Arguing the 280 ppm in the last 800K years means arguing also the accuracy of paleo climate data interpretation, so arguing also in some way even the estimation and understanding we have about natural climate.
It opens a lot of ground to cover and in the same time will make one to be perceived as a denier while actually that may not be the case at all, especially when the argument live in media.
Actually is method and trick of the desperate ones.
In the last 18K years, the Inerglacial period, the temp swing is estimated to have been somewhere at 4.5C to 6.5C and the ppm swing of the CO2 has been some where at 180ppm to 380\400ppm, in good enough correlation.
So when some one favors a 280ppm in a 800K scale by ignoring 10K to 20k scales (or periods) then that some one loses totally the right of considering a 150 years as meaningful in his her argument.
Only desperation and a need to uphold irrationality as a reasonable approach in an argument will make one to bring up such as innuendos.
Hope you at least get the point I am making here,,,,,, you definitely are not obliged to accept it.
In the end of the day, the point raised by you, really means nothing as a support in regard to AGW.
Is only some more gibberish from desperate people who try to defend desperately something they may not really even understand.
Cheers
How about saying it was 2000 ppm during an ice age.
Yeah, I met those 2 guys from the radio show back in Victoria BC at a Dean Clifford seminar. a real man people….. Dean Clifford. You should check it out.
I guess the world now knows why Ms May can only get elected on the outer fringes of the left coast of Canada. Just an FYI, she had failed in all previous attempts in several other locations and had to keep moving all around the country in search of an electorate she could bamboozle. Turned out the hippes on the gulf Islands were the only ones brain-damaged enough to fall for her BS.
Note how she grabbed the mike and hollered the name of her book at the last moment before they went off air. She is famous for that sort of thing.
(Preferring to refering to myself now as a Climate Agnostic. Still means skeptic but also says show me some evidence.)
Climate Agnostics, such as myself, have long been yearning for some debate. Elizabeth May has stepped up to defend her settled science” . I applaud her.
Pop the corn.
Hey Rob, if you are still reading, as an climate agnostic, how did you proceive the result?
Is there any way to hear this interview retrospectively?? could you post a link?
[Reply: A link has been added at the bottom of the artice. ~mod.]
Its not really worth it – unless you’re really bored or want to make yourself angry as she keeps repeating a few mantras most of which are not true……
To hear the debate, go to link below and scroll down to Ian Jessop at 1PM.
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts
thanx
My quick impressions:
— Dr. Ball was far and away the master of the facts and the subject matter. Ms. May had only error and outright propaganda.
— Ms. May’s speaking style is fairly smooth and sometimes-authoritative, but often too slick.
— Dr. Ball’s speaking style is weak (content great) both in voice and in style (much too verbose and often poor choice of words and of points emphasized).
My main take-away from listening just now:
We are in a war for truth. If we want to win, we must fight effectively. Effective communication requires TWO main things:
1. Powerful content stated with clarity and brevity.
2. Firm, confident, voice and style.
Conclusion: Dr. Ball, if he wants to win the battle for truth in science, should be a silent (but powerful) consultant. Someone such as An-thony, with the gift of a lovely, strong, speaking voice along with excellent public speaking skills should be the one to sit behind the microphone.
May was AVERAGE at speaking and POOR at content. She is easily beatable.
Note: If Anth-ony is not available for such a role, we have a WUWT regular who would be GREAT. Mario Lento is:
— a naturally gifted, articulate, confident, public speaker;
— with professional experience as a D.J. and making professional demonstration videos for his engineering and science work; and
— he is also well-versed in the facts about human CO2 emissions and a quick study (of content provided to him by, say, Dr. Ball).
If anyone wants to contact him, the mods will give him your e mail if you ask them.
Sorry to say this Dr Ball but I am with Janice on this… If ehem we… that is truth and science .. are to win this war we have got to be more media savvy.
I think you need to give Ball more credit.
May: … When you are spouting party-line spin you can waffle all day with pseudo-science, because who the heck cares if most of it is meaningless waffle.
Ball: … If you want to tell the truth, you have to marshal many different facts, be very precise, and be very careful in explaining complex issues in a simple manner while still retaining their accuracy. And sounding like a careful scientist, instead of a forthright desk-thumping politician, is to his benefit.
Politicians will take May’s position, because it is much easier – just learn three bullet-points and keep repeating them endlessly. Spin works, which is why politicians use it. Explaining science to the masses is tricky.
But I was interested to hear that all the callers were climate realists. Normally the guys behind the scenes will line up a few from each side of the debate. The fact they they could not find any to support Ms May indicates that every caller, perhaps 50 or more, were all against Global Warming. Interesting.
Ralph
I agree with you… Tim Ball is a star… but to hear his message people have to listen, there in lies the rub. Much as we might not like it learning three bullet points and thumping the table does work and people will remember the three bullet points. Who will remember a long exposition on how the cloud feedback in the water cycle affects the albedo of the earth? All they will remember is that he said something about sex drive and co2!!
I think Tim Ball did OK too – I think if they had debated more rather just answer questions MP May would have quickly unraveled but they each got their few minutes to speak and people will have largely just listened to the bits they already agreed with and dismissed anything else.
Its funny though they must have tried and couldn’t find one caller who was pro AGW
Good point Sly. I try to always have 3 hard hitting bullet points that people can identify with. After the NA winter fo 2013/14, it was easy. “The coldest/worst winter in over 100 years”. that worked well, and everyone could relate. We had all lived through it. I guess this winter would work fine for those in eastern NA as well (out in the west, it has been the nicest/warmest winters I can remember). People don’t want to listen to a 10+ min data filled rant. Ocasionaly, you will find people who want facts, then hit them with the facts. Everyone else just wants a headling.
Except that the cold winters in Eastern NA were likely caused by a melting Arctic creating changes in the Jet Stream and shifting Arctic air south. Because of AGW. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-winter-weather-plot-thickens-as-arctic-swiftly-warms/
Also these winters weren’t even particularly cold by pre-1980 standards; it’s just a matter of shifting baselines. What we consider freezing now would have a been a pretty normal winter in the mid-20th century.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/The-Changing-Northeast-Climate.pdf
So your “skeptical” talking point confirms AGW to anyone who’s paying any attention.
Sir Harry Flashman March 17, 2015 at 8:24 am
Harry, if the recent string of “cold winters in Eastern NA…weren’t even particularly cold by pre-1980 standards,” then they weren’t “weird winter weather”; and they don’t ~”confirm AGW to anyone who’s paying any attention,” because nothing new compared to the Natural Climate has occurred over that time span, which you say involves the ~”pretty normal winters in the mid-20th century”. Instead, assuming your facts are correct, all we’ve found is the same thing happening before a ~”swiftly warming arctic” as has happened during a swiftly warming arctic, with the recent Arctic or Global warming therefore likely having nothing to do with the “cold winters in Eastern NA” – because the warming didn’t produce anything different from what came before it; and the cold winters then remain intact as components of the Null Hypothesis as usual features of a Natural Climate. They certainly don’t “confirm AGW”.
Another myopic post revealing the ignorance of the subject, by Sir HF.
Give it up. You are getting boring.
Dr Ball got fired up in the middle of the debate and did very well. His opening wasn’t polished which will to many make him appear more honest. Keep in mind the audience. By voice they were Canadian, and mostly older.
These folks are not going to be swayed much by a smooth talker. No con-man or con-woman survives without a polished voice. So, the less polished your delivery, the more likely you are honest. One gal stood out as younger and very confident. Saw right through the religious angle.
Yes, we call Victoria Gods waiting room.
MP May was really quick to disavow any influence from Maurice Strong on the IPCC when Dr. Ball mentioned his name. Strange, it’s not hard to verify at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong#Earth_Summit
MP May was really quick to disavow
===========
Too many Canadian still alive that remember Trudeau and the National Energy Program and Strong’s involvement.
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/short-biography-mainmenu-6
In 1976, at the request of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Strong returned to Canada to head the newly created national oil company, PetroCanada. In an editorial the New York Times paid an exceptional tribute to his service to the U. N. He then became Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government-owned corporations.
Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Quite fascinating to see how somebody (Elizabeth May) without any technical expertise on the subject has the unmitigated gall to parrot the party line in opposition to sincere discussion. It is a scary peak into one kind of political mind.
I never heard such strident balderdash in my life from a politician,
since ….last week, haha.
But seriously folks in my opinion, Dr. Ball, as usual stated the facts, and his opponent merely spouted out a diatribe of parroted balderdash, with the old canards about consensus, and harking back to errors of the past, and appeals to authority, head count, and many other aristotlean fallacies of logic, as usual. Callers were quite telling with their questions, an Ms. May was reduced to hearsay, innuendo, and repetition of hokum and bogus factoids.
An edited version of this radio broadcast, without commercial breaks
and music is available on Youtube, courtesy of C-FAX Radio, and
YouTuber Alex Garcia. Thanks for the fast upload !
Dr. Tim Ball & Elizabeth May MP – Climate Debate C-FAX Radio
Well done Dr. Ball. She seemed a little rattled there at that end bit. A bit too touchy. A bit too defensive. Had a whiff of “How dare you skeptics peek behind the scene at our Hadcrut temps. Don’t listen to that guy over there. East Anglia’s climate bureau was declared 100% totally innocent {by their pals}.”
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
When May commented about the possibility that we are holding off the next ice age I would have commented that if we are holding off another ice age, why is that not a good thing? Nearly the entire record of human civilization as we know it lies within the warming period after the last glaciation, 12-20,000 years ago. Mostly within the last 6,000 years.
Prior to that we struggled to survive. We had little time to think, dream, invent and enjoy,
Because it wouldn’t be true Dave Worley. Just because the changers grab whatevers handy to use as a club, doesn’t mean we can.
I had to laugh at the “extra layer of glass” analogy. Jeez, if climate was only as simple as she appears to be…
@Dawtgtomis:
Better than that, she was trying to coin new term, ‘double-glazed greenhouse’
Lots of skeptical listeners. The public is not buying it any more.
Wow.. Elizabeth is hopelessly self deluded. I would give my 6 year old better grades for understanding science. She does throw off a ton of “sciency” buzz words though. I expect that true believers lap it up. Myself.. not so much. I am ashamed that I got personally hoodwinked by her many years ago.
Canadians help me out: is she in the same Green party as prof. Andrew Weaver? The one who runs to court every time somebody writes something he doesn’t like? Dr. Ball should be careful with his words here…
Tell me the magic phrase to get Weaver after me to take to court. I’d love it.
Yes
Elaine Dewar’s book Cloak of Green: The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business has a lot to say about a younger Elizabeth May. The book is twenty years old but still applicable to today.
Here is a review of the book
http://resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.ca/2010/04/cloak-of-green-book-review.html
Same Green Party. The National Post is appealing the decision made in favour of Weaver by an inexperienced judge. Difficult to see how the decision will stand. Check out recent posts at Climate Audit.
No, different party. Weaver is a province of British Columbia provincial politician whereas May is associated with the Canadian Federal Party, two separate entities.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…..good ol’ CBC devoted an hour at 2100 (ADT) to the “Ideas” program in which Tim “Flummery” Flannery was permitted to repeat all the usual AGW porkies (Aussie slang, to suit Flannery). The host, Paul Kennedy, threw all slow pitches. Click on http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas and skip down to “Climate Hope”. Hint: take at least two Gravol pills before listening. (Note: I heard only bits of the program as I was also watching a TV program, but I will listen to it all Tuesday.)
Ian M
You’ve got a much stronger stomach than I do.
Fare Thee Well Dr. Tim.
Can we get a transcript of this to quote from? She’s an amateur at debate and resorts to legal threats when lacking in facts for counterpoint.
Good suggestion. I would love to see a transcript.
I was thinking the same thing,. but fourty minutes is an eternity to transcribe. Let’s agree to cut it up. Five minute chunks? Can we get some volunteers?
TB: Thank you very much. The entire debate about climate change which
was previously global warming initiated with the establishment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That occured in 1988, and it
set out to look at climate change. But people think they are looking at
all climate change and they’re not. In fact they’re quite limited in
their direction.
I want to start out with a quote, because very few people have actually
read what the IPCC people have written. If they do read it, they read
the summary for policy makers, which is vastly different than the
science reports, which even fewer people have read. This was done
deliberately when they established it. The summary for policy makers
which is of course what the media pick up on states things in a much
more extreme way than the science report. Th science report lists all
of the limitations, all of the serious problems with what they are
doing. Just to give you an example, a German meteorologist and physicist
by the name of Klaus Eckert Plusse.
He said, “Ten years ago I simply parrotted what the IPCC told us. One
day I started checking the facts in detail. First I started with a sense
of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered much of what the
IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsence and wasn’t even
supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I feel
shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without
first checking it.”
Now just to give you an idea in the 2001 report they made a comment
about what they are trying to do or what they claim they are trying to
do.
In that report they said, “In climate research or modeling we should
recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system,
therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not
possible.”
Now that’s why, that nonlinear chaotic, is why even short term weather
forecasts out beyond 48 to 72 hours become increasingly difficult to do.
So of course the weather is what you experience daily and the climate is
just the average of the weather. If you can’t get the weather right you
can’t get the climate right, and that’s from their own report.
One of the things that went on here is that they set up a hypothesis
which is called the anthropogenic climate hypothesis. And that is the
claim that human co2 is adding to the co2 in the atmosphere, and if the
co2 increases then the temperature increases. And because human industry
and growth is going to… gauranteed to increase that level then we will
have global warming.
Of course what has happened since is we have discovered, in fact we knew
it very shortly with the release of the Antarctic ice core record that
in fact the temperature changes before the co2. The co2 does not drive
temperature. It doesn’t drive it at any point in history.
Not only that, they don’t relate. We had The Ordovician Period where we
had an ice age when co2 level were at 5000 ppm. We’ve also had extremely
warm periods when levels were down at 250 ppm.
The more telling part about what the IPCC are doing is that they started
out by making predictions. The first report, 1990, they made
predictions. They were so wrong so quickly that they stopped making
predictions, started calling them ‘projections’ and they offered a range
of projections from low, medium, and high.
Every single prediction or projection they have made has been wrong.
Every one. {ending at 5:00 mark}
First five minutes transcript of the debate. Stopping to save my sanity and wear on the fingers.
Here is a link to the debate:
http://youtu.be/k0Ih2Wi8AAQ
Tim did a great job. Ms May simply repeated CAGW dogma about the 98% consensus, 2014 being the warmest year evaaaaa, need to take immediate action, we’re all going to die, blah, blah, blah…
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
After carefully listening to the “debate” there is no doubt that Dr Ball wiped the floor with Elizabeth May. All the callers backed Dr Ball. The climate nutters were nowhere to be seen.
Ms. May was more knowledgeable than I expected. She was not at all convincing to me, because I know better. I’ll be interested in reading some feedback from the public.
May went somewhat ballistic at the end regarding the Climategate emails — she was very defensive. She said she had read “every one” of thee emails. As if. There’s no way she did that; even Tom Fuller, who wrote a book on the email dump, admitted that reading all of them was very tough slogging. May tried to say there was no corruption exposed, but anyone who visits this site regularly knows that the principals constantly discussed ways to game the system, cheat on their taxes, etc..
Anyway, it’s clear that the public isn’t in the same place they were even 2 – 3 years ago. You can see it in various media comments, where articles about ‘climate change’ now get lots of ridicule. A few years ago, there was still some real concern about ‘global warming’. But no more. Now it’s laughed at.
[A link was added to the bottom of the article, where readers can listen to the entire debate.]
This CO2 ppm issue; the graph posted by Bubba Cow March 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm above
shows a timeline of 600 MILLION Years. 800,000 years sounds a lot to us but on that
timeline it is not much. In fact the CO2 error shading could support Ms May’s claim.
But so what? Back when CO2 was some 4,000 ppm the atmosphere was so dense some
dinosaurs were flying. Global temperatures were certainly not harmful to life back then.
Crocodilians have been around all that time. Barely changed. The limiting factor for them doesn’t appear to be the air. Just how warm the water is.
Controversial Leftist Green MP & Eco-Activist Elizabeth May does not want listeners to know about the corruption of science, the peer-review process and the fear mongering that was demonstrated by the FOIA whistle-blower Climategate leaks. She showed her true colors when she tried at the tail end of the program (40:58) to intimidate Dr. Tim Ball by stating “your going to get yourself sued again Dr. Ball”. Intimidation is the Leftist politician and eco-activist goto weapon to silence the unbelievers of their faith.
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
Marginal win for Ball, methinks. For all the usual stock phrases and less than subtle emotive appeals from May, Ball managed to get his points across better. Unfortunately, despite having most of an hour to discuss this, neither side really hit a home run, nor were they likely to. The devil is in the detail and a radio show just can’t get to the level of depth required. Opportunities to knock May’s case out of the park were not taken. He knows their arguments and I would have liked Hall to have lined them up and pulled the rug from under every one of them.
As for the energy generation discussion, Ball had May beaten, as it was clear she had no concrete or credible figures for substituting carbon fuels with renewables; saying ‘it’s in our literature’ is frankly pitiful. If she had any credible figures, she should have had them on hand, ready to go. Instead, we hear the usual vague, open ended ‘wishlist soundbites’ with no substantive details on how to achieve the transition.
Dr Tim Ball made the key point in his 5 minute opening.citing the IPCC:
“In climate research or modeling we should
recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system,
therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not
possible.”
This is the crux of the matter. It is not even possible to model the climate system in detail. Therefore any effort to do so is futile.This is why all the models are unsuccessful at modeling reality, and this is something that can not be fixed, simply by adding more data or refining the models.
Dr Christopher Essex has a complete lecture devoted to this. (It is referenced at WUWT).
The use of models is not the crux of the whole argument, but it ably highlights the widening gap between projections and observation, together with the disconnect between the review of the data made available and the summary for policy makers.
I listened to the end. Not only was that shameless book hustle off-base, but so was the mocking laughter of her grating supercilious voice.
The format of the debate was very poor. The “call in questions” were more distractions than helpful. I’m used to debates where you state your case, and then other side has a rebuttal, then you cross-examine. Because of the poor format, neither side really got to address the other in depth, because each of the callers had some tangent they wanted to drag the participants down. The callers were all trying to score points (on both sides) which made the whole thing a debacle. I don’t know who designs such an idiotic forum, but it doesn’t nothing to advance understanding of the issues – whenever some hysterical caller makes a nonsense point (which happened on both sides), I would imagine it just causes those who hold the other viewpoint to tune it out. Case in point – the person who wanted to talk about the magnetic field, who said something about us “depleting it”. May didn’t bite *at all* – and I wish Ball hadn’t either. The Earth’s magnetic field affecting weather sounds like pseudoscience to me. Maybe there is something to it, but when Ball latched onto it, it sounded like he was grasping at straws – any reason to reject the “rational science” of the warmists. A better response would have been “this has been generally ignored in the past, but there may be some merit to it”, and then end it, rather than try to do an elevator speech about it. It bears repeating – piss poor debate format.
You are correct. The format was totally screwed up as far as the participants being able to actually debate/discuss the subject. The moderator seemed more interested in answering more callers than getting a correct answer to their question. He actually never let it get past the opening statements.
I enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the alert, Anthony.
It was well-argued from the standpoint of civility. The main problem is that the debate would have been more interesting had it been between two scientists, even if from different spheres (physics and geology). If there is a goal of educating the public about the different views, this would have been more informative. Instead, Ms. May’s reference to 3rd grade knowledge just does not wash. It’s a matter of how we lean on and interpret scientific evidence. When we talk about policy, this is an entirely different of discussion. Environmental goals and standard-setting always are. Once we had a US Congress that wrote laws setting national direction and USEPA that interpreted them and solicited and considered the views of the public. Now, we sit in a blur: Which is science and which is politics? How would a third grader possibly know the difference?
Where I enjoyed conversation most was about electrical energy. No question we have loss. Substantial loss in generation through use. Our problem is the amount we demand, because we would not settle for less, nor should the billion who have none.
The Climategate emails not evidence of corruption? Wow. A true believer. Shows that this is not about science. It is about partisanship. Any objective person would be deeply troubled by these emails — that’s why they were released.
In my opinion, they both failed at getting their point across.
I don’t give a damn about E-May or T-Ball, because I believe this is really about something else.
I believe its an attack on personal freedom i.e. your overall way of life and that includes your right to property. More specifically its an attack on your capabilities to travel as you choose, its an attack on self determination, its a freaking attack on the those who choose to heat their homes with wood and harvest rain water. Its also an excuse to go ballistic with the GMO, all in the name of saving the earth.
Its all bull!!.
If you want to make an argument for reducing emissions, at least do it for reasons related to pollution levels and not some co2 smoke screen red herring bull.
May is to naïve and Ball is simply making guys like me look stupid. The only part of the debate that mattered to me, was Ball stating the obvious with respect to H2O as a “GHG” other than that, they sucked!
This is not about the climate, its about control over you and property.
think about it…
All easements, regulations, acts, statutes, idling by-laws (revenue) and don’t forget your neighbour calling the green police on you because you decided to cut a tree down on YOUR PROPERTY…. its all made possible under Agenda 21, which in-turn is only made possible because of the global climate hysteria.
kenin,
I agree, and that’s always how I’ve viewed the man-made global warming (MMGW) debate.
But you can’t just say, “This is an attempt to pass massive ‘carbon’ taxes!” or something like that, because the alarmist crowd will come right back with their ‘reasons’ for the taxes [or for limiting personal freedom, etc.]: “The earth is burning up! We’ve got to do something!!”
Unfortunatly, crying “WOLF!!” has been effective for them. The public tends to believe scares, especially when “every professional society, and every government, and etc…” agrees.
The best way to fight it is to tell the truth. That requires educating the public to a certain extent — a long process.
I think that process is working. It will still take more time. But the alarmist crowd faces a dilemma: the planet is clearly not doing as predicted. Sea level rise is not accelerating. Tuvalu is not sinkiing beneath the waves, nor is Manhattan. Arctic ice is recovering, and global ice is still right at its long term average. And the big enchilada — runaway global warming — has never happened. Neither has ordinary global warming; that has stopped, too. It turns out that CO2 just does not have the predicted effect.
It is also helpful that the man-made global warming scare is getting old. People don’t maintain high adrenaline levels constantly, they get over it if the scare was a false alarm. That’s what is happening.
So now is not the time to take the pressure off. E. May’s voice was screeching at the end, out of frustration. She is losing traction, and she knows it. So joining the public in ridiculing the MMGW scaremeisters in the general media is a good thing. Ridicule is one of the best ways to fight a false alarm.
If you value your property, fight them in the media. That’s where they’re getting vulnerable. When you ridicule their nonsense, you’re using an Alynski tactic back on them. He was a nogoodnik, but he understood human nature.
Lawyer/Politician/Believer vs Scientist. I listened to the “debate” a couple of times and have an opinion now on both the outcome and some learning we could do.
As has been mentioned before, if you are a believer, you would still be a believer. If you were a sceptic, you are still a sceptic.
Ms. May is a polished politician who (as a lawyer) has constructed a “closing argument” for a public jury. Her declarative style tells an understandable story that integrates “facts” who’s purpose is to convince the jury (the public) they should believe the story of man made CO2 driven catastrophic Climate Change to be true. She asks the jury to convict CO2.
Dr. Bell is an accomplished scientist who understands what is “fact” and what is “fiction” and uses that expertise to dismantle the foundations of the story Ms. May tries to tell. He asks the Jury to exonerate CO2.
If you are reasonably well versed with the topic such as readers of this site then your vote would be for exoneration. If you were not following the debate closely then you would likely find Ms. May’s argument to be compelling and based on your natural desire to remove risk from your environment you would vote to convict.
The learning for me is that we need to construct a clear and understandable “closing argument” regarding “man-made” Climate Change (few people understand the term anthropogenic. Ms. May never used the term once and in fact deliberately chooses words that lead the listener to believe all current change is the result of human activity) . Any lawyers reading this up for constructing a closing argument to exonerate CO2?
+1 Skeptics (and sceptics) could be a viable majority but remain fragmented/unorganized. Maybe the NIPCC should become more active and political. Unfortunately I see many who naively believe “the truth and science will win in the end” which translated means “we’ll win the battle eventually but lose the war”.
Dr Ball could have better destroyed Ms May’s credibility by questioning more closely her claims for the viability of alternative energy. eg on the potential of solar energy to replace fossil fuels:-
American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked. Solar energy still makes up less than 0.3% percent of total electricity generation in the US.
MR Ball kicked but
The chart below is what should be shoved into Elizabeth May’s legal snout…
http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-images/Climate-Timeline-10000yrs.png
This annotated chart is derived from the Climate Chart of Christian Dietrich Schönwiese. German climatologist and Emeritus Professor at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt. It speaks for itself. The little bump toward the end of the Modern Warm Period = Global Warming Hysteria. Note that the Modern Warm Period is no greater than the Medieval Warm Period, and certainly less than the earlier peaks. Note the natural upward swing of temperature after the Glacial Period and the subsequent overall downward trend following (dotted line), not to mention the current transition from the Solar Max to Min, which should produce a period of global cooling. Clearly there are greater cycles driving global temperature fluctuations.
Reference: Part 8: Dynamic Solar System – the actual effects of climate change. Future Development and the temperature fluctuations. EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/ (in German) English Translation Link.
My take:
Dr. Ball’s strong points:
was calm and decisive (didn’t come across like a zealot)
clear command of facts
good use of logic
Was assertive without being combative
Dr. Ball’s weak points:
Did not have strong tone
At times too technical (too verbose) for a general audience
Missed opportunities to expose his opponent’s mistakes
Ms. May’s strong points
Strong, even tone
Polished speaker (didn’t fumble for an answer)
Had enough detail to sound like an authority
Ms May’s weak points:
Not as strong on facts or logic (i.e. I don’t know anything about magnetic fields or what it may mean to climate)
Made grand claims without support (i.e. burning fuel saved us from an ice age)
Pretty much like you’d expect. The scientist scored well on the facts and logic portion of the debate, and the politician scored well on the presentation.
Speaking of Elizabeth May and her “polished” views – particularly those on Climategate – here’s the intro to her December 9, 2009 ‘assessment’ of the Climategate files, which as I had noted also received honourable mention from newbie Judge Emily in Weaver vs National Post:
To May’s credit, at least she had the decency to acknowledge that her all-encompassing speculation was merely a “guess”.
But speaking of May in 2009 – and debates (which this particular broadcast really wasn’t) – how unfortunate that May declined to mention a real debate in which she had participated on the very early heels of Climategate. As I had also noted in the same post mentioned above:
“[…] if you happened to miss it at the time, you can see May – teamed up with the equally Green, George Monbiot – in losing action against Bjorn Lomborg and the UK’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson during the course of a December 1, 2009 Munk Debate.”
Amazing, eh?!