The Climate Dichotomy: A Scientific Not A Political Difference

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Attempts to understand climate are stalled. The standstill parallels the pre-Copernican state when the Ptolemaic model had held sway for 2000 years but no longer fit the data. The Catholic church perpetuated Ptolemy similar to the religious adherence of climate science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their model is inadequate like the Ptolemaic model because new data doesn’t fit their model. The Copernican debate involved re-examination of planetary cycles and required Tycho Brahe’s long detailed records for confirmation.

Brahe’s data fit the Copernican model (heliocentric), but not the religiously supported 2000 year old Ptolemaic model (geocentric). A chapter titled Climate Theory versus Models and Metaphors in Essex and McKitrick’s excellent book Taken By Storm has a section titled Marooned Halfway up Mount Climate Theory. They identify the limitations facing official climate science including; working from averages, an inability to deal with turbulence and Navier-Stokes, and chaos. They conclude “Global climate is not treatable by conventional means. These are internal functions.

The recent WUWT article by Luedecke and Weiss addressed the issue of climate cycles and generated the usual divisions and arguments. It is a debate essentially ignored by the IPCC. Part of the reason for both the article and the IPCC ignoring cycles is because neither generally looks at records of adequate lengths to determine most climate cycles. For example the Milankovitch cycles are not included in IPCC models because they considered the time scales are too long. Another reason is the lack of records with adequate length to detect cycles through spectral analysis. There is also the historic division on climate between the west and the east ( in Cold War terms).

There are certain real measures of success rarely officially acknowledged. In climate one measure is to be mentioned negatively in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). On May 22, 2008 Phil Jones to Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I’d never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is.

He refers to a book edited by Raymond Bradley and Phil Jones published in 1992. In other words it preceded the shift into corrupted, manipulated, politicized climate science publicly manifest in the 1995 IPCC Report. Benjamin Santer’s unsupported insertion of the phrase discernible human influence was clear evidence of what was happening. It is pathetic to see him now claiming the victim’s role. Part of the IPCC problem was to offset material in the 1990 Report that contradicted their new agenda. Chief among these was the graph (7c) showing the Medieval Warm Period. The book appears to indicate the CRU gang still recognized that lack of long term data was a problem, as Lamb identified. Instead they chose to play with a broken hockey stick.

Content of the book illustrates how much climate changes through time and provides extensive data and analysis from different sources and regions. My chapter in the historical climate section is titled “Historical and Instrumental Evidence: Central Canada, 1714-1850. One valuable benefit was the editors required each author review another chapter. (Is that a form of peer review?). I had the privilege of reviewing the chapter by E.P. Borisenkov Documentary evidence from the U.S.S.R. His major source was the Russian Chronicles, a collective of weather and crop conditions essentially from 1000 AD in conjunction with arrival of Vikings in what is now Moscow and the beginning of the Romanov regime. Borisenkov and Pasetsky (1983) established the occurrence of 350 “hungry” years in the intervening1000 years. They identified a long term awareness of the relationship between weather, crop conditions and peasant unrest.

During the time I was reviewing Borisenkov’s work I was also working with the Canadian Wheat Board and Chinese climatologist who sought help regarding increasing crop production. China realized that just as the US seeks energy independence they needed food supply independence. They were already producing triple crops in most of China south of the Yangtze river. The river is a very significant divide in China, especially with regards precipitation. The greatest potential for expanding food production was north of the river, but involved grains other than rice. Canada was a logical case study. They were successful as production data shows (Figure 1).


Figure 1

I was aware of Chinese climatology and their lengthy records because I gave a paper at a climate conference in Bologna Italy in 1988.[2] Several papers given at the conference illustrated the extent and potential of their historic record. Another example was the vast Vatican archives just beginning to be examined. However, the most impressive was the length and extent of the Chinese records. Emperors knew food production failures created potential for social unrest so, like the Tsars, they kept detailed weather and crop records.

Development of climate as a vehicle for political control was achieved through various meetings that culminated in Rio 1992 at which Agenda 21 established the political agenda and the UNFCCC set up the IPCC to predetermine the scientific proof that CO2 was causing global warming. An underlying division emerged that few recognized or understood that is very important in today’s debate.

Eastern nations led by the Soviets and Chinese argued that the weather patterns (climate) were cyclical. A factor in learning about Soviet science occurred because Jewish people escaped and set up translation services in Israel of material not previously available. The west led by the US and Europe could not allow the idea that weather and climate is cyclical so they pushed chaos theory. They ignored the contradiction created by claiming weather was chaotic and unpredictable and then making predictions (projections). The public understood the contradiction because they had a low opinion of weather forecasting and knew they had little or no skill beyond 72 hours. The response was that there is a difference between weather and climate predictions, which ignores that climate is the average of the weather. Essex and McKitrick note The truth is, we have much less reason to ascribe certainty to climate models than we do to weather models.

Throughout the Kyoto Protocol negotiations Russia and China kept their own counsel based on a much better understanding of the science. Putin said Russia would not ratify Kyoto. The Russian vote was critical. It was the only remaining country with sufficient carbon dioxide production to achieve the 55 countries producing 55 percent minimum. It produced 17.4 percent of emissions in 1990 bringing the total to 61.6 percent. Russia actively promoted its rejection as President Putin’s economic adviser Andrei Illarionov gave first class public presentations on why Kyoto was unnecessary and wouldn’t work. Suddenly Putin announced he would ratify – Illarionov resigned. Putin publicly explained that EU members persuaded him they would support Russian application to the World Trade Organization (WTO) only if Russia ratified Kyoto. Russian joined in November 2004 and was admitted to the WTO in 2012 after 18 years of trying.

Despite this Russian climate scientists maintained perspective. Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President said in 2005 there was no evidence of a human signal. Remember this is 10 years after Santer had altered the 1995 Summary for Policymakers to say there was a discernible signal. This was a Science Academy that rejected the political campaign deliberately orchestrated by the Royal Society in England and fully supported by the US Academy of Science to push AGW.

The difference in analyzing climate science patterns and mechanisms between the IPCC approach and climate cycles is a false scientific difference. The IPCC has influenced and controlled the thinking to promote their political climate science. If they acknowledge there are cycles they have to abandon the simplistic linear trend approach developed in The Limits to Growth and applied in their computer models ever since. Failure of the IPCC approach was accentuated by their disregard of the scientific method. Instead of disproving the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming they only considered material that appeared to prove it. They we’re able to manipulate data, method and models to apparently accommodate what was happening. They led the public to believe their models worked by constantly changing terminology – failed predictions became projections and global warming became climate change. Finally, they lost the ability to manipulate the temperature data when satellite data became available. After 2000 the natural cycle, mainly dictated by the sun, asserted itself and the gap between their model projections and reality widened.

The IPCC kept climate science marooned half way up Mount Climate Theory. Meanwhile those not caught up in the deliberate corruption, like the Russians and Chinese and a few brave mostly unfunded western scientists pursued the cyclical pattern of climate. The IPCC made chaos out of climate science so it got stuck on the mountain where it remains today. It will stay there until the IPCC is disbanded and the proper scientific method includes re-examining the hypothesis when the data doesn’t fit and consideration of the null hypothesis is allowed.


[1] “Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa

[2] “Historical and Instrumental Evidence of Extreme Climatic Conditions in Central Canada: 1770-1820”, Annales Geophysicae, Proceedings of the Annual Geophysical Society General Assembly, Bologna, March 1988, p. 84


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Philip T. Downman

Pardon me, but there are just about 1400 years between Ptolemaios and Copernicus, not 2000.


A significant factor is the sponsorship of ‘science’ by governments. We have seen over and over again that grants are approved by narrow interests and any grant request that seems to rely upon a novel approach rejected out of hand. This is true in all nations and diverges greatly from the industrial approach which is goal oriented and not necessarily process oriented. Climate is by no means alone. Cancer cure progress virtually came to a halt as research rutted out for a decade with mere repetition of failed approaches. Now that has changed as new drugs developed by private firms demonstrated that new approaches were plentiful and productive.


“Brahe’s data fit the Copernican model (heliocentric), but not the religiously supported 2000 year old Ptolemaic model (geocentric).”
As far as the data went, both systems had the exact same errors, and were forced to use the exact same minor epicycles. The heliocentric model allowed one to dispose of the two largest epicycles, but all the smaller ones remained. That method of calculating had been known for centuries prior to Copernicus, and was said to be used only by the laziest of astrologers.
No improvement on predictions of planetary motion result from continuing to use circles as the mode of motion, no matter where the centre of those motions be pinned.
It was Johannes Kepler’s revolutionary heliofocal system of elliptical orbits, placing the sun at the focus of an ellipse, that resulted in planetary predictions more accurate than the margin of error of the measurements of the time.
Since concepts like ‘equal area over equal time’ make no sense geocentrically, or epifocally, the vast improvement in planetary prediction of Kepler’s ellipses swept aside all possibility of the Earth as the centre.
Copernicus and Galileo get far more credit than they deserve for their broken celestial mechanics, and Kepler far too little for his workable system.

Galileo bemoaned that the most learned refused to look through is telescope. The Dominicans dominated the Universities and the scholastic movement, wedding their authority to Aristotle. The Jesuits were not so invested and were eager to see how the heavens looked. They quickly supported Galileo. Likewise today, some of the most educated have wedded their academic and political authority to GLobal Warming theory and so refuse to look at any contrary evidence, but instead embark on a campaign to suppress debate.

Would it be overly crass to mention Tim Ball’s book is being released tomorrow and is available via Amazon pre-order now? Kindle too.

Pamela Gray

Dictated by the sun or the location of warm and less warm pools of water affecting and reacting to atmospheric parameters? The Sun just kept shining. The Earth dictates how much or how little of it gets to the surface. This is what sets up/recharges our weather pattern variations.


Ken Coffman:
At January 20, 2014 at 10:36 am you ask

Would it be overly crass to mention Tim Ball’s book is being released tomorrow and is available via Amazon pre-order now? Kindle too.

No, it is not “crass” in any way.
Clearly, Tim Ball should have provided this information for those who may wish to obtain the book.
Thankyou for correcting his error by your providing the publicity for the book which he failed to provide with his article.

John Tillman

Kepler used Tycho’s observations of Mars, with its more elliptical than usual orbit, thanks to the proximity of Jupiter, to discover that planetary paths describe ellipses rather than circles. Since Copernicus retained Aristotle & Ptolemy’s perfectly circular orbits, his sun-centered system still needed epicycles. And of course Copernicus (1473-1543) himself didn’t have access to Tycho’s data (1546-1601), although later “Copernican” heliocentrists like Kepler did.


Tim Ball wrote –
.”The Catholic church perpetuated Ptolemy similar to the religious adherence of climate science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their model is inadequate like the Ptolemaic model because new data doesn’t fit their model. The Copernican debate involved re-examination of planetary cycles and required Tycho Brahe’s long detailed records for confirmation.”
That paragraph is the usual empirical bluffing and although I haven’t seen the Pope’s valid objections other than a second hand commentary,to make it understandable for readers here ,the argument boils down to whether the system which predicts astronomical events such as eclipses,transits and so on as days and dates within the calendar system be also used to prove the Earth’s motions –
“Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’ position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair.”
Empiricists today believe that a rotating celestial sphere framework which uses timekeeping averages within the 365/366 day framework can prove the motions of the Earth and therefore affect how we perceive the motion of the other planets and the structure of the solar system.
This is why,for all the fuss,not a single one of you can follow the Earth’s rotation via a simple daily temperature graph as the ‘predictive’ framework of the RA/Dec system calls for four phantom rotations than there are days in four orbital circuits.
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
People try to rewrite history all the time like you have done but that statement above with a NASA / Harvard name attached is a direct result of an attempt to tamper with the technical details of the great astronomers and if it doesn’t shock people as they try to match the daily temperature fluctuations in the graph above with the underlying cause of our planet’s rotation then clearly our civilization is finished.

The IPCC has influenced and controlled the thinking to promote their political climate science.
My jonova comment on peer review in climate science:
The effectiveness, and the desirability, of peer review is negated where a ostensibly scientific subject is politicized.
If one side ends up controlling peer review, and if that side is pushing for a “cause” that has nothing to do with the science, peer review is worse than worthless. Clearly, climate science fits that bill. The Climategate emails illustrate how, regarding AGW, peer review has becomes a corrupt and incestuous system where a small group promote and protect papers that advance their “cause,” while excluding all others.
Notice how today’s climateers like Mann and Peter Gleick can be seen almost daily hobnobbing with leftist politicians. That’s no accident. Virtually all the Chicken Littles in the forefront of promoting the agw scare … are leftists. True. And they certainly all have internalized the words of the leftist US senator Tim Wirth (1993): “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” And they’ve come to believe that their “cause” supersedes everything else, such that improper behavior is explicitly condoned … encouraged actually … if it’s for the “greater good.”
You can expect that they also internalized this 1988 pronouncement of lead ipcc author Stephen Schneider: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
For a brief but relevant digression, let’s talk about the hockey stick. In 1998, Mann’s fault-ridden bogus hockey stick paper overturned decades of accepted thinking about the past climate. Normally this type of revolutionary paper would have been met with intense scrutiny and taken a long time to gain full acceptance. But the leftist climate (and scientific) establishment fully accepted Mann’s thesis in months, without question. This article, just out, a very good (the best I’ve seen) summary for the layperson on the hockey stick, tells that sorry tale:
So they accept the idea that pushing the leftist climate policies is the right thing to do regardless of any science, and that being dishonest in “offering up scary scenarios” is condoned to be applauded. Period. That’s undeniably what the words of Wirth and Schneider spell out. And that’s exactly what the hockey stick was: a “scary scenario” where the author was attempting to be “effective” (per Schneider) by being dishonest. And the climate establishment that immediately accepted the dubious hockey stick paper without question, they were also following the advice of Wirth and Schneider, because Mann’s hockey stick advanced the “cause.” Not good.
In climate peer review, we can also see the repugnant ideas of Wirth and Schneider at work. That makes climate peer review ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. Reform it, or junk it.

China and Russia may understand the hard science better, but they are also better aware of the deliberate use of UN entities to game this area for global political purposes going back to the Stockholm Conference in 1972.
I mentioned a related point on the previous thread but Donella Meadows was very graphic in her 1982 book that the Limits to Growth models are designed to alter human systems, not model and predict physical realities. The UN sponsored Bariloche model was even more graphic about its political purposes. walks through those declarations as well as the 2006 documents now being pushed in earnest by the OECD globally and NSF and the Tellus Institute in the US.
If we ignore the declarations of political intent, we are wide-open to extraordinarily pernicious ideas.


excuse; no sarc [sarc off]
Ptolemaic model (works within some limitations)
Circulation model (GCM) (not working)


Gkell1 says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:53 am
Galileo might have gotten off if Pope Urban VIII hadn’t felt personally affronted by the scientist’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Systems”.. Then Maffeo Cardinal Barberini had been GG’s patron & eventually friend in Florence, but felt betrayed. Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about their relationship:
“Upon Galileo’ s return to Florence, in 1610, Barberini came to admire Galileo’ s intelligence and sharp wit. During a court dinner, in 1611, at which Galileo defended his view on floating bodies, Barberini supported Galileo against Cardinal Gonzaga. From this point, their patron-client relationship flourished until it was undone in 1633. Upon Barberini’ s ascendance of the papal throne, in 1623, Galileo came to Rome and had six interviews with the new Pope. It was at these meetings that Galileo was given permission to write about the Copernican theory, as long as he treated it as a hypothesis. After the publication of Galileo’ s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World, in 1632, the patronage relationship was broken. It appears that the Pope never forgave Galileo for putting the argument of God’s omnipotence (the argument he himself had put to Galileo in 1623) in the mouth of Simplicio, the staunch Aristotelian whose arguments had been systematically destroyed in the previous 400-odd pages. At any rate, the Pope resisted all efforts to have Galileo pardoned.”
Too bad that somebody like Cesare Cardinal Baronio (1538-1607) wasn’t pope in 1633. He had told GG,, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”.

David Harrington

Why isTaken by Storm so bloomin’ expensive on Amazon?

John Peter

Re adjustment of temperatures by members of the Team look at Steve Goddard here and earlier

Stephen Richards

mainly dictated by the sun,
No definitive evidence yet.


From your comments, you continue to propagate that the Church was (and continues to be) responsible for bashing Science. So here’s a few facts to enlighten YOUR ignorance. 1) Copernicus was entirely educated in Catholic institutions, and took minor orders in the Church. Galileo was a staff professor at the University of Pisa, a CATHOLIC institution. He was supported by the Church when he did his seminal work on bodies in motion, which resulted in his title, “The Father of Physics”. And relevant Catholic work continues today – the “Big Bang” Theory was first developed by Georges Lemaitre, based on the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Actually, he was Fr. Georges Lemaitre, another CATHOLIC priest. His story shows the reverse side of the coin. After Fr. Lemaitre introduced his theory (probably the 2nd most important theory of the 20th Century), he was heavily criticized by the Scientific Establishment – Prof. Hoyle laughingly stuck the phrase “Big Bang” on Lemaitre’s work, in derision. Only later did the discovery of cosmic background radiation prove Lemaitre to be correct. So definitely, it should not be called “The Big Bang Theory”. It should be called the “Fr. Georges Lemaitre Theory”, and given the same respect as Einstein’s theory. But it will not be so, because the Scientific Establishment wishes to hide it’s dismal failure with the whole matter. So please, it’s time to educate yourself and refrain from bashing the Church. One only has to see the support of the Church in Art, Architecture, and yes, Science.

Luther Bl't

Galileo’s telescope, and what he discovered about Venus, turned out to be the crucial fact on which the Ptolemaic worldview broke, for it could not give an account for the observed phases of Venus.


Milodonharlani wrote –
“Too bad that somebody like Cesare Cardinal Baronio (1538-1607) wasn’t pope in 1633. He had told GG,, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”.”
I am a Christian and I am well aware of the uneasy relationship between theological necessities and the intricate reasoning that goes into interpreting astronomical observations and putting things in order .You should try Augustine in this respect as he brings up a point that the late 17th century guys never learned when they decided that stellar circumpolar motion could be used to explain the daily and orbital motions of the Earth –

“Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so; but to undertake this and discuss it is consistent neither with my leisure nor with the duty of those whom I desire to instruct in essential matters more directly conducing to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church.” St Augustine
When John Flamsteed decided in 1677 to stupidly assert that stellar circumpolar motion proves the Earth’s rotation is constant and thereby lump in the orbital motion of the Earth he set in motion a series of events that led to the modeling mania that plagues this planet.
You are not getting it, when you see the inability to mesh with cause and effect at the daily level of temperature fluctuations then that alone is cause for investigating that something has gone catastrophically wrong rather than just a history lesson. It should be intolerable for any reader here to see a temperature gauge indicating a rotating Earth over a 24 hour period and these do not fall out of step with a dumb conclusion that says they do and promoted in the education system as ‘fact’ by very large organizations.
I have never known any organization to move a muscle on this dire situation but what I have seen is a wilfull determination to protect the ‘predictive/speculative’ agenda of Newton by trying to rewrite history and especially the technical details of discovery.Not even the Church wants to know about the mess that it has caused.


richardscourtney, you are right! There is a new book out by our author, strangely entitled, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”. I looked on Amazon UK and as it was available today I downloaded it to my Kindle – another late night ahead – oh well!

Gkelli says Galileo would have gotten off if…No, you are deluded. Galileo totally forced Rome’s hand with his rude and offensive libelling. He was also wrong, as has been shown. He created hs own misery,Galileo did and had every chance to avoid any inconvenience.

Crispin in Waterloo

“Russia actively promoted its rejection as President Putin’s economic adviser Andrei Illarionov gave first class public presentations on why Kyoto was unnecessary and wouldn’t work. Suddenly Putin announced he would ratify – Illarionov resigned. Putin publicly explained that EU members persuaded him they would support Russian application to the World Trade Organization (WTO) only if Russia ratified Kyoto. Russian joined in November 2004 and was admitted to the WTO in 2012 after 18 years of trying.”
Missing from this paragraph is the money Russia got for signing the treaty. They refused to sign saying (correctly) they didn’t have money to waste on CAGW bunkum (мусор). During the extraction of concessions for inkin’ the stinkin’ document they received as I recall something like 7 billion Euros, presumably to pay for the things Russia was to do during the life of the agreement. As long as they didn’t waste money on it, they were OK.
Note that when the money stopped so did their participation in the scam. Sounds like one of several solar cell manufacturing companies. Is it any different for windmill manufacturers?
Why the attitude? Because they are not stupid, that’s why. Climate is cyclical. Declaring otherwise at Rio or Copenhagen raises the snoot and the hoot at Canute.


Luther wrote –
“Galileo’s telescope, and what he discovered about Venus, turned out to be the crucial fact on which the Ptolemaic worldview broke, for it could not give an account for the observed phases of Venus.”
This is pure fiction and the words of Galileo himself put the reasoning of Copernicus central to the huge shift which introduced planetary dynamics as a cause of so many terrestrial effects such as the seasons and the day/night cycle .
“But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded and distinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a very large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same disc when it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning appearances.
SAGR. O Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been for you to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear an experiment [Telescope]!.
SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be celebrated among the learned! For as I said before, we may see that with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict. I cannot get over my amazement that he was constantly willing to persist in saying that Venus might go around the sun and be more than six times as far from us at one time as at another, and still look always equal, when it should have appeared forty times larger.” Galileo
This era simply conjures history out of thin air and it is as corrupt as any time in human history. Are the original discoveries not exciting and satisfying enough that you downplay the great achievements for the sake of science fiction on an industrial scale.

Luther Bl't

Joe says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:42 am
Only later did the discovery of cosmic background radiation prove Lemaitre to be correct.
An analogy with Galileo is apposite – in both cases a new instrument is central to providing a key fact to adopting a different view of things: the optical telescope, and the radio telescope. However, alternative accounts for the CMB do exist and are prima facie credible to lay people (and it is they who will ultimately determine if the new account holds sway), for example that the signals are not cosmological in origin, as claimed, but local galactic in origin. And what of the new instrument itself – can it, like Galileo’s telescope, withstand similar sort of rigorous scrutiny? Some think not:
“Pierre-Marie Robitaille, a Professor of Radiology at Ohio State University, is an expert when
it comes to instrumentation and signal analysis. It was Robitaille who conceived and directed
the construction of the world’s first 8 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner
[1,2]. In doing so, he nearly doubled the maximum field strength in MRI and gave birth to
Ultra High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (UHFMRI). Robitaille’s scanner
immediately revealed anatomical structures within the human brain that were previously
never seen on human scans [3]. In recent years, Robitaille has applied his skills to
astrophysics, and his findings are very significant.”
Read the rest of the article ‘COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?’
by Stephen J. Crothers (if you dare) at:
Or simply skip it to get the references to the original papers by Robitaille.

A great post by Dr. Tim Ball. That was very educational. I had never heard most of these details before now. I find that MWP chart extremely interesting. Note that the gm of 1470 is followed by a warm upswing, after which it then descends deeper into the cold phase of the main section of the LIA. What this reminds me of is a chart of the Warm Periods turned upside down. Note that the Warm Periods all step up in stages as they progress. Do the cold phases do the same? That particular chart by Lamb? seems to suggest that is the case. I had a similar impression from looking at the JG/U tree ring study, but it was not as clear to visualize. The Warm Periods certainly step up in stages.
There is another tree ring study from eastern Europe that was made using data from historical buildings, which depicts May to June weather. It is a very interesting picture to study….
It shows a clear, long term, upward stepping movement in late spring temperatures, all the way to the present. The MWP at the end suggests that the late spring change over recent decades is what has produced the extra warming, which created the MWP. Is there a tinge of man caused warming, which makes that graph spike so high? or is that just the last growth spurt of a final warm period before the descent into a cold phase? Perhaps a special growth spurt which denotes the end of a cycle?

Brian D Finch

Tim Ball: ‘Brahe’s data fit the Copernican model (heliocentric)’
No it didn’t. And Kepler couldn’t make it fit, no matter how hard he tried.
It was only when he considered the possibility of elliptical planetary motions,
with two foci (of which the sun was but one) that Brahe’s data fitted the theory.

Tim Ball says, “After 2000 the natural cycle, mainly dictated by the sun, asserted itself and the gap between their model projections and reality widened.”

Christopher Hanley

“Copernicus and Galileo get far more credit than they deserve for their broken celestial mechanics … ”
Copernicus’s great achievement was the paradigm shift against all the opposition, exactly what IPCC-sponsored science needs right now.

Tim Ball’s new book is also available from,
This is not a radical book. It is a very easily understood read, however, the information and chronology, and yes the obvious deliberately perpetrated fraud by the few over the many will be hard to read for many of the many. Therein lies the problem, Dr. Ball lays out quite succinctly who did what, why, when, and the results of the actions. Most will know, or have heard enough to know, what he relays is accurate and correct. For those that doubt, they can check the public record, Dr. Ball’s account will stand up to scrutiny.
But that is not going to be the problem the book presents to many of it’s readers. The problem will be people will not want to accept what he describes because of their political views / beliefs, and their received (but incorrect) understandings of “the science”. Some will already know when Dr. Tim Ball describes the problems, and the deliberate frauds of the Hockey Stick, computer climate modelling, and the (near) surface temperature records that he is correct. Most will also know he is correct as he describes the timeline of the bureaucracy built up at the UN by Maurice Strong. Most will know he is correct when he describes the formation of the IPCC to find a human signal by Maurice Strong, in spite of the science method (actually abandoning the scientific method). Most too will also be aware he is correct in his description of the who, the when, and the why the peer review process was deliberately corrupted. So, what does this book present that so many will have a problem accepting?
Government funded science, usurped by the UN’s IPCC and geo-politics have combined to make what was a one man scam in to a global scientific, bureaucratic and political cock up of hither to unknown proportions in human history. In short, Maurice Strong started, very deliberately, a ball rolling, he re-packaged environmentalism, but the ball became an unstoppable gravy train that all have jumped aboard.
Strong’s original intention was to bring down the developed West, make a bit of money along the way, and hopefully have a less populated planet for the few rich people left to enjoy, “sustainably” of course. But, the gravy train had developed a life of it’s own, way beyond anything he could have imagined, or controlled. The catalyst for the transformation from a rolling stone to an unstoppable PC gravy train was James Hansen’s 1988 presentation, he successfully sold AGW to the politicians. Hansen also sold AGW to the career minded scientists and academics, by his own meteoric rise, from unknown to world famous overnight. The rest as they say is history. However, it is a history of deliberate corruption, regardless of the scientific method, regardless of the truth of the matter, regardless of honesty, and most importantly regardless of the cost to the rest of humanity. All because of the environmental dictate that the end justifies the means. It does not. We will have to pay for this, if the IPCC, AGW, and all the related bureaucratic, political, and academic fraud is not exposed and thrown out wholesale asap. There will be many egos, reputations, fortunes, and pensions, lost as the scam collapses, but, and this is the problem the reader is left with, what the cost if we do? What the cost if we do not?
It is a catch 22, the corrupted science has been made too big to fail, but fail it must. Dr. Tim Ball’s book is probably the most easily understood explanation of this to date. It will not be the last. It is arguably not the first book either, that accolade may well be best given to Green Hell by Steven Milloy. There will have to be future books by other authors in regards to the (political and bureaucratic) dangers geo-politics poses to the nations and peoples of this world, that we all seem so naive about at present.
As I have tried to communicate, this book is an easy read, but, what it contains is not an easy read in what it understandably exposes to the reader.


it isn’t just their modelling that is poor. It is their ethical standards that are the problem
Note with contempt this statement.
“”Melbourne’s average temperature on Thursday was 35.45 degrees, narrowly eclipsing the previous high of 35.4 set on January 30, 2009.””
and of course our own Southern Pravda lap it up like dogs at a bowl.

Gail Combs

Robin says: @ January 20, 2014 at 11:09 am
…If we ignore the declarations of political intent, we are wide-open to extraordinarily pernicious ideas.
Robin you missed these declarations of political intent. (You might be interested on this article for teachers: Web of Interdependence and Common Core lesson plans aimed to promote globalization and interdependence )

Lamy: Whither Globalization?
…The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple…..
In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….
Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?
How to provide global leadership? Mobilizing collective purpose is more difficult when we no longer face one common enemy….
The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed….
All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.

So politicial leaders have been planing a world government since the 1930’s. A key point is interdependence. This bring us to

“Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,” International Security, Vol. 20, no.4 (Spring 1996)
Does economic interdependence increase or decrease the probability of war among states?
…The unsatisfactory nature of both liberal and realist theories is shown by their difficulties in explaining the run-ups to the two World Wars….

So the Progressives like Al Gore and Bill Clinton have bet the farm on the theory that interdependence DECREASES the probability of war. Base on this assumption Clinton handed US technology including military technology to China. See Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy
The big problem is can you trust China to go along with the idea of Interdependence? Geopolitics, Currency and Trade Wars: Why The Risk of World War Is Rising Also this is from “The China and Latin America blog features news and commentary from the China and Latin America Program at the Inter-American Dialogue, a leading U.S. center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs.”

China’s Agricultural Engagement in Latin America
As has been the case since the Mao era, self-sufficiency in staple foods is a primary objective of the Chinese Communist Party. China’s National Medium-Term Priority Framework promotes 95 percent self-sufficiency in grain (corn, wheat, and rice, specifically) in the coming decade….

Clinton on food interdependence:

BILL CLINTON: Since 1981, the United States has followed a policy, until the last year or so when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food… link

Comments by Al Gore on Interdependence:

… Now, let us use our new tools and technology to build on that interdependence – to build a stronger global community, and make real our common values.
Today, I want to pose five great challenges that still remain to be met.
Together, they make up a Digital Declaration of Interdependence that can create a brighter world for us all….
we must create a Global Knowledge Network of people who are working to improve the delivery of education, health care, agricultural resources, and sustainable development – and to ensure public safety.

The Earth Charter is referred to as the Declaration of Interdependence by many. Note how it makes a mockery of the Declaration of Independence.
More on the interdependence:
Interdependence and the Luxury of War

Gail Combs

Dr. Ball brings up the point there are two theories. Chaos Theory and Climate Cycles. As Dr. Brown has pointed out you get a bistable/multistable system and whether you are talking chaos (Dr.Brown) of Climate cycles you get the climate oscillating between bounds. In neither of these theories do you have a run-away system minus feedbacks aka CAGW.


Ken Coffman says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:36 am

Would it be overly crass to mention Tim Ball’s book is being released tomorrow and is available via Amazon pre-order now? Kindle too.

Only if you’re Phil Jones or Michael Mann.
The rest of us appreciate the news.

Gary Pearse

Good review of the poliSci of climate. One reason more that there was no attention paid by IPCC to long series, of course, is that CAGW was only to have been going on for 1/2 a century. They only began to back into the 19th century when the cycles there appeared to mimic the present ones. Since, they have had to back up AGW to the LIA because they could no longer bury it. Some author, I forget who, even saw significant AGW developing from pre-historic man. Soon, the apes will be culpable, too.

Greg Goodman

“Attempts to understand climate are stalled.”
No. Attempts to NOT understand climate are stalled. Those trying to understand it are still working hard.

Gary Pearse

Also, since we touch on chaos theory, which I know is favored muchly, apparently by both sides of the debate, I would say if the climate is cycling over 100s of thousands of years between two well established highs and lows only several degrees apart, the “chaos” is in the details only. If an event takes 5 minutes, there is probably millions of nanoseconds we can’t really describe or predict in between, so chaos would seem to be a matter of the degree of graininess we are prepared to contemplate.
Chaos, like the usual use of the word reflects frustration of full understanding. Quantum mechanics is statistics dealing with the impossible and unnecessary task of accounting for all the details of what is going on. Chaos is a throwing up of hands.

Gail Combs

Mods my post from over an hour a go disappeared. please fish it out of the ether. Thanks


Luther Bl’t says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:43 am
Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus falsified Ptolemy without necessarily vindicating Copernicus. It didn’t rule out Tycho’s revised geocentric system, for instance. But it did have the effect of advancing heliocentric thought.
What finally convinced hold-out geocentric astronomers to adopt heliocentrism was Newton’s 1687 theory of gravitation, which explained Kepler’s elliptical orbits, derived from Tycho’s observations. But the Copernican model had already grown in favor throughout the 17th century, during the 54 years since Galileo’s heresy trial.
The Church in 1758 removed from its Index of Forbidden Books the overall prohibition of works advocating heliocentrism. But it didn’t rescind the 1633 judgments of the Inquisition against Galileo nor permit uncensored versions of Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus or Galileo’s Dialogue. In 1820 the Church’s censor refused to license a book by a canon (same church position as held by Copernicus) which treated heliocentrism as physical fact. The canon appealed to Pope Pius VII. The Congregation of the Index & the Holy Office then overturned the censor’s decision. Thus, when the next edition of the Index came out in 1835, Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus and Galileo’s Dialogue were finally omitted from it.


As a norwegian:
A: Dr. Tim Ball .Yyour reasoning might be the lack of my english skills or just top shelf
B: When the russian bear is grunting you need to pay attention. They might be ruthless enough to disregard human life to the extent of being the first and only nation to put an nuclear powered aircraft in the air. Nevermind the pilots flying a nuclear reactor with no shielding. Stupid americans. But when they do science, we should not run to our professors or concensus should we?
No matter what you believe, if the russians speak up, you better pay attention

Rud Istvan

Chaos and cycles are not necessarily in conflict. As Ed Lorentz first elegantly showed, chaotic systems will cycle reliably around their strange attractors (like warming and cooling) until flipped from one to the other (as by a simple bifurcation event). (there maynof course be any number of strange attractors innthe state space depending onnthe complexity of the model). In such systems, the precise specifics of any future state cannot be determined, but the general behavior around the attractors in N-1 Poincare space can still be reliably described. Since any nonlinear (meaning feedbacks) dynamic (meaning the feedbacks have time lags) system is by definition mathematically chaotic (meaning among other things sensitive dependence on initial conditions), it is trivial to the point of axiomatic that climate is chaotic. That does not mean it cannot be reliably modelled. It does mean it cannot be modeled with great numerical precision, that this imprecision will increase with time, and that other systems descriptions should also be employed to characterize the behavior.
False dichotomies do not advance the credibility of skeptics.


Christopher Hanley says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Catholic Church canon Copernicus waited until the end of his life to publish the theory on which he had been working for over 30 years. He was finally persuaded to do so by a Lutheran student, who arranged to have the book printed. Darwin waited only a little over 20 years before being forced into print by Wallace’s potential scooping of him.
To what extent Copernicus’ delay was from fear of Church disapproval or from the desire to support his theory well cannot be known. He dedicated it to Pope Paul III.
He held a copy of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres just before he died. So while heliocentrism did have to fight for acceptance against the authorities’ support for geocentrism, as climate skeptics do today,, Copernicus himself died at the moment when the struggle began.

Gail Combs

Rud Istvan says: @ January 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Chaos and cycles are not necessarily in conflict….
Thanks for that. Saves me from the trouble of trying to articulate the same thought (with less elegance).
(And thanks mods :>) )


Gail Combs:
I think you know I like your posts and I follow them with interest, so I am sure you will recognise the sincerity of this post.
I am concerned that you are still at your keyboard with your migrane attack. Please consider your health and wellbeing.


Talking of Russia and China.
lt looks like there will to be a very interesting weather pattern setting up in that part of the world over the coming week. Because looking at the jet stream forecast charts am expecting some ice age like weather in that part of the world over this week. As warm moist air gets drawn up from the south and then flows along in the Arctic circle and then it comes back down south again across Russia as a “arctic blast”. So expect heavy snow and some very low temps turning up in northern asia over the coming week.


Gkell1 says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:51 am
I don’t get your point.
I am familiar with Augustine’s “De Genesi ad literam”, often translated as “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”. He wrote it to persuade his colleagues among the Early Church Fathers to quit taking all of the Bible literally, thus arguing for a flat earth covered by a solid dome or tent-like structure, ie the firmament (Jerome’s Latin firmamentum from Hebrew raqiya’ via Septuagint Greek stereoma).
He felt that such literalism discouraged the propagation of the faith, which was his main concern. Once the Church adopted the Ptolemaic system of earth-centered spheres as consistent with the Bible, this problem was solved, until a churchman over 1100 years later proposed a sun-centered model.

Gail Combs says:
January 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Dr. Ball brings up the point there are two theories. Chaos Theory and Climate Cycles.
They are not mutually exclusive. Earth’s ocean tides are chaotic. Any attempt to calculate them forward in time using first principles would suffer the same problems as climate models.
Yet, we are able to calculate the tides for thousands of harbors for years in advance with a high degree of accuracy using cycles. Which when you think about it, it rather amazing. Here we have a problem that on one hand science tells us cannot be solved, yet the real world tells us there is a solution.
And even more amazingly, the solution to the ocean tides rests on Astrology. We observe the tides at a specific harbor and also the position of the sun, moon and planets in the heavens. Any when the pattern of the heavens repeats, so do the tides.
So, if there is any possibility to forecast climate, as Dr. Brown tells us, chaos dictates that it cannot be calculated from physical laws. On the other hand, as Dr. Bell tells us, the only known method to calculate future behavior of chaotic systems is by decomposition into cycles.
Thus, why waste time on climate models – they are doomed to fail. This was established by the IPCC years ago. The only technique that we know of that might work is decomposition into cycles. True, there is no guarantee of success, but that isn’t the same as a guarantee of failure. Not the same by a long shot.


David G says:
January 20, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Gkelli didn’t say that. I did.
I wonder what you think Galileo was wrong about? The issue at his trial was Copernicanism, ie the theory that the earth goes around the sun. About that GG was right. He was wrong about circular orbits (about which Kepler was right) & that the sun lies at the center of the universe, but then just about everyone in 1633 was wrong about that.
The pope & the Church in general would have let GG publish if he hadn’t put the pope’s own arguments in the mouth of his character Simplicio, whose position is in effect ridiculed in the Dialogues. So I agree that GG brought the Inquisition down on his own head to some extent.

Rud Istvan says:
January 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Chaos and cycles are not necessarily in conflict.
An elegant description. Quite correct, chaotic systems can be calculated. And the calculated result is guaranteed to diverge from reality over time, no matter how precise your work. No matter how hard you try, errors will creep in and overwhelm the answer.


Joe says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:42 am
Dr. Ball wrote about the Galileo affair, not the whole history of Christianity & science. In that case, the Church was wrong & GG right. The earth does go around the sun, while turning on its axis & wobbling. It is not at rest at the center of the universe, as advocated by the Church in 1633.
Of course you’re right about Christianity & science in general. Any list of the ten greatest scientists might well include eight devout Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants. Regrettably members of some ostensibly Christian sects today do reject science, but the denominations with the largest number of adherents don’t, to include the Roman Catholic Church.

Henry Bowman

I note that Mr. Ball’s plot of wheat production in China shows a maximum in 1997 or 1998. I note that this period was a very warm period. While it seems unlikely that the increased warmth directly influenced wheat production, it’s certainly possible, though a myriad of other factors could easily be more influential.
I think it would be worthwhile, whenever possible, to point out the many benefits of a warmer planet. I for one think that the overall effect of warmer temperatures would be quite positive.