Man-made Global Warming (AGW) is Real: Men Really Created It

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Man-made global warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause. It is a real idea; it is not real in fact. It is in the same context as Goethe’s comment that “The unnatural, that too is natural.” Proponents of the idea believe it’s real, because they created an imaginary world called a computer model. It proved the idea was real, because they claimed the model represented the real world. Naturally, in this unreal real world, the science is settled, the debate is over. Nowhere is this more narrowly defined and vigorously promoted as real than in government and our schools.

Marshall McLuhan, philosopher of communication theory, created several important phrases and ideas that represent how we see the world. He identified the “global village” in his book, The Gutenberg Galaxy. The analogy has important applications, such as the fact that people living in the village think they know what is going on, but they don’t. In any village, the most destructive people are the gossips. They deliberately spread falsehoods that destroy people’s reputations and lives. The mainstream media are the gossips in the global village.

A second perceptive McLuhan phrase is that ”the medium is the message”. I learned what this meant for environmentalism and climate when asked to provide stories and examples for TV programs. At least half the ideas were rejected because, “they don’t lend themselves to television.” The medium was determining the message. The problem of imaging industrial pollution has long been discussed among skeptics because it usually devolves to showing a smokestack. Nowadays, the only thing emanating from most stacks is water vapor, made visible through condensation.

The most successful use of the media to determine the message was Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. UK judge, Justice Burton, ruled on the charge by a parent that the movie did not meet provisions of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act. This reads,

406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid … the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

In his judgment Justice Burton wrote,

I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies,

Justice Burton did not ban showing the film in schools. He ruled that it should be shown, but prefaced by directions by the teacher about the bias and the nine errors. Very telling, was the fact that this required different booklets for teachers in science, social science and civics classrooms. He also ruled (Item 5) that

Channel 4 has produced a film which was referred to during the hearing, although I have not seen it, which presents a counter-view, a sceptical approach to the climate change debate called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This has not been sent to schools, although there is reference to it in the Guidance Note on the website, to which I have referred.

I was privileged to be a significant part of Martin Durkin’s film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” I spent time with him explaining what was going on and people he could interview. I also discussed an earlier film by Channel 4 called, “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”, which is remarkably relevant 15 years later.

Last year, I was approached by Luke Dillard to help with a documentary on global warming. I flew to Austin at my own expense and spent an entire day talking and filming. I made a PowerPoint presentation similar to those I give publicly. During the visual presentation and afterward, the producer asked questions. My only other input was, I provided a list of potential experts. He chose them. I also had no input about the format or title. I approve of the title, The Global Warming War because it is a war and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” I invite you to watch the documentary, which is well received by the public I spoke to because it addresses issues they know about and provides a scientific explanation. It doesn’t push a singular view, but leaves viewers to reach their own conclusions.

You can access the video here, but be aware you must rent or purchase the video, as Luke has to cover costs. Please note that I receive nothing from this enterprise other than the satisfaction of participating in another effort to help the people understand how they are being deceived for political gain.

Another effort to produce an effective documentary is the work by Marc Morano. A trailer of this work, Climate Hustle is available on his web site. It will be another work that confirms McLuhan’s thesis that the medium is the message. However, there is another reason for talking about Marc. A few years ago, while in Washington to make a presentation to Congress, I also gave a talk at a function organized by Amy Ridenour, President of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Marc attended and we talked afterward about climate and his role as an assistant to Senator James Inhofe.

I raise this because these were valuable connections, but also because Senator Inhofe is likely to be the next Chair of the Environment Committee. His book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, indicates he understands the science, but more important, knows how it was used for a political agenda. Inhofe made a Skype appearance at the recent Heartland Climate conference in Las Vegas to great applause.

Interestingly, Inhofe used print media, which was dominant before visual imagery, as McLuhan acknowledged with his reference to Gutenberg. It is still an important medium because it gets you invited to TV interview programs. It’s a hybrid in McLuhan’s ‘medium is the message’ theory, as we transition from the dominance of books to the dominance of visual imagery.

Gore’s film was a major part of the belief that man-made global warming is real. In his 2007 appearance before Congress, he also used the terms, “the debate is over”, and “the science is settled”. The false image of a polar bear ‘drowning’ and the emotional and scary artificial scenarios of oceans spilling over the land were very effective. The film was produced in Hollywood, the land of make-believe, so it won the Oscar.

But there is one major failing in the entire visual global warming story. Martin Durkin withheld, for some time and at his own personal expense, the DVD version of The Swindle because there was a minor error on one graph. The IPCC were wrong in their predictions every time, but instead of acknowledging their science was wrong, they doubled down with threats of impending disaster. Recent (November 2, 2014) release of the Summary for Policymakers is the latest example. Gore’s movie had nine errors identified by a judge, who ordered they, along with the bias, be identified for the classroom. To my knowledge those errors are still in the movie, but unlike the classroom, it doesn’t come with a warning when viewed by the public. But then, he and his fellow Nobel winners, the IPCC, are in a man-made political world, not the real world.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 9, 2014 3:33 am

Well we definitely know that the term ‘Anthropogenic’ is a man made word.

Reply to  Lawrence13
November 9, 2014 7:44 am

“Anthropogenic” is anthroponomec?

Reply to  nielszoo
November 9, 2014 9:27 am

Yes! and “anthropandemic”.

Dick Storm
November 9, 2014 3:41 am

Thank you Dr. Ball, Mr. Watts and all who are offering the true facts on AGW. Yes it is Political and sadly the well funded greens are against the best interests of the Free World. Keep up the excellent work.

Reply to  Dick Storm
November 9, 2014 4:48 am


November 9, 2014 3:41 am

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks Dr Ball.

Gary in Erko
November 9, 2014 4:05 am

SimEarth rools !!!

David Norman
November 9, 2014 4:25 am

Thank you Dr. Ball. Your intro, “Man-made global warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause”, reminded me of a quote from naturalist John A. Livingston; “if human ideas propel the flaming juggernaut, then perhaps ideas are amenable to change, and the process may be alleviated or stalled altogether. After all, ideas are not carried in our genes. They are carried in our heads, and they are subject to shuffling, revision, and adaptive modification.” Like myself, Livingston was an optimist.

Reply to  David Norman
November 9, 2014 9:16 pm

Dr Ball’s statement, “Man-made Global Warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause”. You know what ? In that context?..
It reminds of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.

November 9, 2014 4:56 am

Thank you, Dr Ball. Informative and intelligent as usual. Good geologists get it right.
Now that Republicans will control the Senate and its committees, let’s hope that this tide of disinformation and climate-doom propaganda will turn.
Investigations and trials will help. Defunding much climate-change work will help, especially the “impact forecast” variety – they’re all computer games.
Positive legislation to encourage full development of fossil fuels will help
Approval of spent-fuel storage at Yucca Mountain will help spur a renaissance in nuclear energy.
Thorium-based reactor approval should get legislation
And, of course, approve the Keystone pipeline.
Lots to do. Makes one optimistic about the future, for a change

Reply to  GeologyJim
November 9, 2014 11:20 am

You expect much of the party that ran on a “Seinfeld platform”: a platform about nothing.
I sincerely hope your expectations are not misplaced.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
Reply to  Kate Forney
November 9, 2014 5:00 pm

Keep drinking the KoolAid Kate, keep drinking.

Reply to  Kate Forney
November 9, 2014 6:21 pm

Wrong, Kate. The RNC may not have sponsored a nation-wide message, but if you watched any of the individual contests, there were a number of burning issues the voters supported.
And the way Reid was obfuscating the Senate, just getting rid of him was reason enough to celebrate.

David A
Reply to  Kate Forney
November 9, 2014 8:25 pm

The party of no will hopefully Obama, forced to veto many rational common sense proposals, many designed to save money and limit arbitrary power.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Kate Forney
November 9, 2014 9:47 pm

A platform of pinning Dem’s to the president is nothing? A platform of telling people to be sure they realize the Dem’s will follow the president as they have is nothing? A platform to say they will help businesses by not doing as the Dem’s want, which is to tax them higher than the rest of the world, so they seek the rest of the world to conduct business is NOTHING? Kate, exactly how do you define NOTHING? Oh – what you said, so far is NOTHING. Now, please respond. You have an audience, but so far you’ve said —-wait for it —- NOTHING.

Marilynn in NorCal
Reply to  Kate Forney
November 10, 2014 12:14 am

LKMiller, as a captor of party loyalty, you are the one drinking the Kool-Aid.
Democraps or Rethugnicans: Different rhetoric and posturing, same bullsh*t.

Reply to  Kate Forney
November 18, 2014 9:29 am

As opposed to the intelligent design of Hope and Change. lol

November 9, 2014 5:00 am

Destroying the mother Earth is not by humans but those few who are exploiting it for super profit!

John another
Reply to  kk16085
November 9, 2014 6:10 am

Can you imagine the outrage if an energy company reported profit margins of the like of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon,….etc ?

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 7:46 am

… or labor unions.

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 9:11 am

Or Green Fleese, or WWF, or Friends of the Earth

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 9:49 am

I paid more per month for energy than I paid per year for union dues during my 36 years of Operating Engineer/Civil Service employment. What I got for my dues was to be part of the disappearing middle class and a pension. If energy companies reported the same profit margin as my union, they would have no investors. (The previous statement was intended to supply perspective and does not necessarily imply my allegiance to unionism).

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 10:29 am

All of whom are major users of fossil fuels?

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 11:18 am

True, however, its fact that the rate of profit is by and large same in all industries and services! Amount may be different due size of capital!

Reply to  John another
November 9, 2014 11:37 am

kk16085 November 9, 2014 at 11:18 am
True, however, its fact that the rate of profit is by and large same in all industries and services! Amount may be different due size of capital!

Assume that’s true. In other words, every dollar of capital yields the same rate of return, independent of industry, according to you. If that were the case, what could possibly be more fair?

Reply to  John another
November 11, 2014 4:04 pm

Companies naturally want to increase their profits‚ that’s pretty obvious. However‚ current exploitation of the earth’s natural and unsustainable resources‚ such as fossil fuels‚ is not gonna cut it for future generations.
Those companies do play a role by using fossil fuels‚ as does everyone commenting on this forum right now‚ but it BEGINS with the energy companies. So the energy companies must themselves reform towards more sustainable standards. Simple as that.

Reply to  Glorya
November 11, 2014 4:42 pm

Those companies do play a role by using fossil fuels‚ as does everyone commenting on this forum right now‚ but it BEGINS with the energy companies. So the energy companies must themselves reform towards more sustainable standards. Simple as that.

How many people will be satisfied killing each year due to YOUR demand for artificially higher energy prices and reduced energy availablity and distribution?
How many must die TODAY for you to “feel better” about the far distance future about an event that may never occur,and will absolutely NOT be affected by YOUR demand for high energy prices now? YOUR demands killed 24,000 in 2012-2013 in the UK due to energy poverty, and another 25,000 in the 2013-2014 winter. Do YOU feel better now? Will YOU admit YOU are wrong?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 11, 2014 6:33 pm

I apologize for killing all those people. I was totally unaware that MY demands‚ as supposed by an absolute stranger‚ and MY opinions‚ that you have demonstrated you are clueless about‚ have committed unforgivable genocide.
Oops‚ MY bad.

Reply to  kk16085
November 9, 2014 8:41 am

those few who are exploiting it for super profit!
If there are so few, why not supply a list? In every animal species, profit is more correctly known as surplus. How much is left over after you’ve eaten your fill. This surplus goes to reproduction, to create the next generation. Some of the surplus goes towards finding mates, some towards building nests, and some towards feeding the young.
In human society, say you personally made a 100 billion dollar profit each year. What would you do with it? Would you consume it all? No, it would be physically impossible. Instead, unless you bury it in the ground (what some call conserving resources) this surplus would end up building the infrastructure for the next generation.
So while it may seem unfair that some make huge profit while others make none, without profit there is no surplus to create the next generation and over time this leads to extinction. What is critical however is that profit not be buried in the ground, because that is the real crime.
The financial crisis on 2007, along with the crash in 1929 was largely a result of people burying accumulate profit in the ground. Hundreds of trillions of dollars that are required each day to finance the buying and selling of goods were suddenly taken out of circulation. No one would lend money, fearing they would never get it back, and the economy ground to a halt.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 9, 2014 11:32 am

Surplus is produced during process of production. Its the unpaid part of the labour, which the employer buys!
As far as reinvestment is concerned its true, but its not true that the crisis was due profit not being circulated! Crisis is due unsold goods rotting in godowns and not being converted into cash!!
Profit is such a need for capital, that it can not survive without it, outcome is devastation of the earth!
There are enough wealth created by the people, that more than 100 times of the earth’s population can be fed but yet 1 billion people are hungry!!

Reply to  ferdberple
November 9, 2014 1:14 pm

KK16085. It’s commonly understood that starvation in today’s world is the result of politics. There is NO global food shortage.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 9, 2014 4:08 pm

November 9, 2014 at 11:32 am
“Profit is such a need for capital, that it can not survive without it, outcome is devastation of the earth!”
That doesn’t even begin to make sense. Go and search for Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource, it’s on the web for free. When you have found it, read it.

David A
Reply to  ferdberple
November 9, 2014 8:32 pm

Kate says… “Assume that’s true. In other words, every dollar of capital yields the same rate of return, independent of industry, according to you. If that were the case, what could possibly be more fair?”
That would be horribly unfair and deeply destructive to the efficiency of the economy and resources.
The comment was most industries achieve about the same profit, and there is some truth in the word about, but in a true open market where monopolies are not allowed, this will be reasonably true, with some failures, and some doing better then others. What is fair is that individuals be allowed to purse business, without “Robber Barren” domination, and yet, if they do well, succeed more then the lazy, or poor, or dishonest business person.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 9, 2014 10:54 pm

“Assume that’s true. In other words, every dollar of capital yields the same rate of return, independent of industry, according to you. If that were the case, what could possibly be more fair?”- Kate Forney
Rate of profit is by and large same in all industries!! Yes, I said by and large, and if on occasions it vacillates, very high or very low profit in some industry, it prompts capital to flow in or flow out to neutralise the great difference. Law of average catches up!
Yet, as free market is a matter of past, taken over by the monopoly, controlled by politicians/state machineries in interests of big corporates/bankers, by force militarily in different other countries, rate of profit does fluctuates heavily!
As far as poverty of billions of people are concerned, its not simple politics or mismanagement but concentration of wealth in few hands, part of political economy, a natural outcome of present day production relation, appropriation of natural wealth and public property by few!

Craig W
November 9, 2014 5:01 am

Ah Hah … we have a digital consensus! 😉

Roger welsh
November 9, 2014 5:06 am

The link does not work for the video. Help. Please, Dr Ball, please pay attention to English. People who chair (verb) meetings are not inanimate objects and should not be called “chair”. I would regard such an address as an insult.

Reply to  Roger welsh
November 9, 2014 5:25 am

Please switch to decaf…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Roger welsh
November 9, 2014 6:49 am

I am surprised that you missed the words “the next” in front of “Chair” therefore making “Chair” a noun. It is common to refer to the person chairing a meeting or committee as “the Chair”.

Ex-expat Colin
Reply to  Roger welsh
November 9, 2014 7:47 am

problem is ‘.’ at the url end:
paste to a browser and delete the ‘.’

Mickey Reno
November 9, 2014 5:09 am

I always love reading your articles and hearing your perspectives, Dr. Ball. I once saw a temperature graph comparison of a weather station in Darwin, Australia. The comparison showed three graphs, the raw, unadjusted curve, the same curve after adjustments made for various reasons, and then the delta, which depicted only the adjusted changes in isolation. The latter graph looked just like Michael Mann’s hockey stick. I thought to myself, “there’s your man made global warming right there.”
Our prejudices are powerful and mysterious things. To understand what’s happening to the world’s climate, apparently a precondition will be a better understanding of our own psychologies. But sadly, on this front, the brutal scientific honesty of a Feynmann or a Lindzen has been supplanted by the weaseling of Lewandowsky and Cook. And perhaps most importantly, the public education system needs to be reined in, to stop the brainwashing of these people’s “customers” and to stop the deliberate conflation of that brainwashing with “science education.”

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 9, 2014 6:11 am

…the public education system needs to be reined in, to stop the brainwashing…

I just saw the movie Interstellar, So stop reading here If you plan on seeing the movie since it may reveal a SPOILER. But some of the goings on in the movie have parallels with the current AGW debate.
Interstellar MOVIE SPOILER
In the near future world of Interstellar, schools have replaced old textbooks with new ones that described the Apollo missions, and moon landing as hoaxes. People who believe the NASA missions true are ostracised and ridiculed, people so far outside the main stream, they can be ignored as “deniers”. It sounds ridiculous until you think of AGW where examples of similar type concerning climate change can be seen in governemnt reports, the media and text book content. In the movie, behind the lies is the same altruistic blindness with it’s unintended consequences as with AGW. Lies that foster ignorance in support of a great intention lead to no good. The road to hell is lined with good intentions, the saying goes.

John in Oz
Reply to  Alx
November 9, 2014 7:50 pm

As an added bonus, (spoiler alert), guess the name of the scientist who fudged his data in order to ‘save the Earth’s population”?

November 9, 2014 5:30 am

Commenting elsewhere recently about ‘man-made global warming’ I only realized on second reading that I spelled it thus: mann-mad global warming. I let it stand.
Apart from that, bears repeating.

Reply to  cleanenergypundit
November 9, 2014 7:48 am

I make it a point of writing it that way for this very reason.

Reply to  cleanenergypundit
November 9, 2014 10:09 am

It’s OK, pundits can be punny

jim south london
November 9, 2014 5:37 am

We now live in a Media savvy digital age
So why not use crowd Sourcing perhaps allowing Andrew Montford to hire a TV production crew to do a Youtube video version of The Hockey Stick Illusion/Yamal Conspiracy.
History will hopefully look back on Climate Skepticism as the first international political Coalition movement in the 21st Century.
It will certainly look back on Climate Change Alarmism as the last post Cold War Millennial angst movement of the last Century.
The right obviously engage Skepticism trying to halt the disastrous draconian financial burden of imposed renewable sustainable energy policies on their economies.
The true Libertarian Left too are also engaging skepticism trying to halt the imposition of centralized draconian Environmental Sustainability dangerously impacting on social and political freedoms.
Time for the Skeptic movement to properly mobilize.
There are enough of us skeptics out there and now we have some political clout in the US after the mid term elections ,Tony Abbot in Australia ,UKIP and disaffected Tory backbenchers and voters also the increasing unpopularity of Eco loving Weird chief architect of the Climate Change Act electoral liability Ed Milliband in the UK and of the “disillusioned with tired environmentalism” skeptic parties in Germany ,Poland and inside the EU.

November 9, 2014 5:41 am

As Al Gore points out polar bears are just cannot swim! As a result Al Gore has agreed to sell one of his massive houses and live in just a 4 room massive house.

George M. Durner et al – July 2011
Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat
…..Between an initial capture in late August and a recapture in late October 2008, a radio-collared adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km. Measures of movement rate, hourly activity, and subcutaneous and external temperature revealed distinct profiles of swimming and walking……
Polar Biology – Volume 34, Issue 7, pp 975-984
Jon Aars et al – April 2010
Polar bear cubs may reduce chilling from icy water by sitting on mother’s back
…An important question is thus how female mothers and their cubs may behave to avoid that cubs get chilled, but at the same time making it possible for the families to hunt is those areas. We describe an observation of a polar bear cub on its mother’s back while the mother was swimming among ice floes in Svalbard, Norwegian Arctic….
Polar Biology – Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 557-559

Reply to  Jimbo
November 9, 2014 9:06 am

Jon Aars et al – April 2010
Polar bear cubs may reduce chilling from icy water by sitting on mother’s back
so even polar bears like it warmer

Reply to  Jimbo
November 9, 2014 9:50 am

The polar bear is well named Ursus maritimus in scientific nomenclature. It is an amphibious marine mammal.

November 9, 2014 5:43 am

This re-enforces my thoughts I have had for awhile. GW is more interesting and has more value as a study of sociology, psychology and culture than climate.

November 9, 2014 5:58 am

The good Dr Tim Ball is quite correct. The court case identified 9 “errors of fact”
In Anglo-Saxon speak that’s lies.
Lord monckton identified ~ 35 lies.
This 9.59 minute presentation :
Or, put in search box : An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate, a clip from apocalypse ? No!
A fuller expose : 1 hr. 27 mins
Or, PISB : Apocalypse ? No !
A very scientific presentation, the above video contains the beautiful line from T E Huxley : “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith, the one unpardonable sin.”
The climate truth constituency, libeled as deniers, struggles against big govt, the media,politicians, “scientists” & the big “green” monster. Luckily, the Earth is not cooperating with the globalists, & the general public remain unconvinced & unimpressed.

Reply to  jdseanjd
November 9, 2014 11:06 am

“Luckily, the Earth is not cooperating with the globalists,”
If not for this, the liberty and prosperity enjoyed in the Western world would indeed be in jeopardy. The Third World would be relegated to poverty and disease and infant mortality.
Thank God or Whomever.

Pat Frank
Reply to  RobRoy
November 9, 2014 12:33 pm

You’ve got that right, RobRoy. If air temperatures were still trending up, the fury and shouting would be insane. It would probably be carrying all before it, to our common ruination and despite the zero scientific case.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 10, 2014 12:49 pm

The Gore Effect is proof there is a God and that he has a sense of humor.

November 9, 2014 6:02 am

Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog.

November 9, 2014 6:04 am

It’s OK to make repetitive, serious factual errors and pass along mis- and disinformation to students and the general public when you’re busy saving the planet and all its inhabitants. We should be thanking them for our great-grandchildren.

Reply to  PiperPaul
November 9, 2014 8:38 am

Especially when our great-grandchildren will still be paying taxes funding the debt payments from the loans incurred to pay for all of the “research” which all those serious factual errors are based on along with money borrowed for government programs that will insure that they will be living in bio-friendly mud huts without electricity, running water, sanitary sewer, private transportation or any other technology more advanced than the Dark Ages.
Unless, of course, your great-grandchildren are Progressive politicians or “educators” who will be exempt from the taxes and will live on the taxpayer’s dime in palaces with every possible modern convenience… so that they can spend their time continuing to “save” the planet from “Human Caused Global [insert current term here].”

November 9, 2014 6:39 am

Dear Dr Ball
Computer aided global warming is all it’s ever been.

November 9, 2014 7:21 am

Dr Ball said “Man-made global warming is … a real idea; it is not real in fact”.
I agree that it is a real idea, but could you please analyse this a little further so I can fully understand your position (that it is not real in fact): (a) is humankind wholly or partly the cause of the increased Co2 in the atmosphere (or are you saying humankind is not the cause, or there is no such increase in Co2); (b) does such increase in atmospheric Co2 (if present) potentially cause any discernible increase in temperatures at the earth’s surface – whether or not this is purely transient or masked by some other natural cycle(s) and (c) do I have it correctly that you suggest there will be no long-term increase at all in temperatures at the surface –is this because increased Co2 does not have any transient effect at all, or because the transient effect will be wholly reversed by some other long-term feedback effect – and, if so, what is this?
Would be grateful for clarification …

Reply to  TimC
November 9, 2014 11:15 am

I can’t speak for Dr Ball, but one of the nine untruths in Gore’s movie is the graph he showed which correlated historic CO2 levels with historic temperatures. Gore said the CO2 rose then the temperature rose thus implying causation.. The Judge was shown that graph much more closely and actually this graph shows CO2 lags the temperature rise. Gore new this and mis-represented it.
Also, the Earths average temperature for the past 18 years has not risen at the same time CO2 levels have continued to rise. This implies no correlation between temperature and CO2 level. Without correlation there is no causation.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 9, 2014 12:35 pm

Al Gore new it?
No, he gnu it.
No, he noo it.
No, knew it.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 9, 2014 5:37 pm

Thank you: although the first chart at your first link shows 3.27% “Sources of CO2” ascribed to “Burning of Fossil Fuels” and describes Co2 as “one of a number of heat-trapping greenhouse gases” the second link purports to “demolish the Greenhouse Effect” altogether.
Which is it; why is increased Co2 widely perceived to produce logarithmic increases in surface temperatures – and I was really asking which theory Dr Ball had in mind when framing this article…?

Michael Wassil
Reply to  RobRoy
November 9, 2014 11:33 pm

TimC November 9, 2014 at 5:37 pm
I Presume this was a response to my November 9, 2014 at 12:10 pm response to your initial question. Regarding the Manhattan Institute link: you asked what proportion of CO2 emissions is human caused; that covers it. Whether or not the Manhattan Institute also agrees with the author of the other link is a different matter. I don’t know whether or not they do, nor whether or not Dr Ball does either. So if he doesn’t respond and say one way or the other, we won’t know.
Regarding the second link debunking the ‘greenhouse gas’ hypothesis: you asked whether or not increasing CO2 will cause temperatures to increase. If the greenhouse gas hypothesis is bogus, then anything based on it is also bogus. Thus, the answer to your question is “no, it won’t.” Again, I don’t know whether or not Dr Ball agrees with this wholly or in part.
Still, I gave you links to information from which you can evaluate for yourself and draw your conclusions. If Dr Ball responds to your direct questions to him, so much the better.

Reply to  TimC
November 9, 2014 11:18 am

I cannot speak for Dr Ball, but if anyone has any empirical evidence whatsoever that anthropogenic CO2 has had any measurable effect upon the Earth’s temperature, I’d like to hear it.
/Mr Lynn

Michael Wassil
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
November 9, 2014 11:42 pm

There is none. In another comment thread a few weeks ago, Steven Mosher claimed Hansen had some data showing CO2 leading temperature. He has yet to produce a reference, citation or link to said data. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  TimC
November 9, 2014 12:10 pm

TimC November 9, 2014 at 7:21 am
Here are two links that will aid your understanding of both the amount of CO2 humans contribute to the atmosphere, and why it doesn’t, won’t and can’t cause warming.

Reply to  Michael Wassil
November 10, 2014 12:59 am

Thank you for your reply of 11.33 – sometimes the “Reply” links don’t work quite as expected!
As for me, I’m a lukewarmer – I consider that increasing CO2 has a small, logarithmic, transient effect on surface temperatures though the long-term effects (through the various possible feedback processes) is presently uncertain. I hope I’m in good company – Matt Ridley for one!
And my original posting was just to seek some clarity from Dr Ball on his reasoning that “global warming is not real in fact”.

November 9, 2014 7:36 am

There is an unwanted full stop at the end of the link to the video. Remove the stop and the link works fine.

November 9, 2014 7:41 am

Mann-made Global Warming…

November 9, 2014 7:45 am

Live & Learn: Maurice Strong
I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.
Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor

November 9, 2014 7:57 am

Thanks to Dr. Ball for another wonderful essay.
If this was all about science rather than politics, the fact that 18 years of skyrocketing CO2 in the atmosphere has produced no warming at all (in spite of fudged data sets) would lead everyone to junk the Hansen-Gore theory of the magic molecule in favor going back to the drawing board. Alas, we seem to be in a post-science period of time. Someday, maybe, the topic of climate will again be looked at rationally and honestly. Unfortunately I may be too old to live to see that day …

November 9, 2014 8:00 am

The “A” in”AGW” means Anthropomorphic, not Anthropogenic.
“Most scholars since the time of the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626) have agreed that the tendency to anthropomorphize hinders the understanding of the world, but it is deep-seated and persistent.”

November 9, 2014 8:01 am

Tim Ball quotes the judge :
“It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President,
Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers
of climate change caused by global warming.”
I take it that ‘climate change’ is a trend of bad weather events, floods,
fires, catastrophes, etc etc.
This is fascinating, because now it is being trumpeted about that
such events are not themselves climate change, but are CAUSED
by climate change. So there you have it: climate change causes
climate change.

November 9, 2014 8:11 am

In watching “An Inconvenient Truth” I became convinced that global warming was a problem with which we had to deal. Then I did a Web search for the observed events that had been used in testing the climate models. There weren’t any! I now knew there was a fallacy in Al Gore’s argument.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
November 9, 2014 11:21 am

When I heard that no one could find the “Troposheric Warm Zone” that is necessitated by the GCMs. I thought surely they would rework their hypothesis and try again. As per “The Scientific Method”.
But no one did that and then Gore bleats “the science is settled.”
This made a skeptic out of me.
Settled science indeed. There is no such thing.

M Courtney
November 9, 2014 8:36 am

Very interesting article. It is worth noting that much of the creation of the AGW hypothesis happened in the media.
A petty quibble:

He ruled that it should be shown, but prefaced by directions by the teacher about the bias and the nine errors.

I thought he ruled that it could be shown with the preface described. English Judges may ban inappropriate teaching in English schools but they do not set the curriculum.
Also, Justice Barton is an English Judge and is best not referred to as a UK Judge. Scotland and England have separate legal systems.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 11:41 am

I can understand many Scots hoping that AGW will happen sometime – it’s cold up there. But didn’t most Scots decide they preferred to remain part of the UK/ Maybe now is a good time for the two legal systems to be harmonised!

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 9, 2014 11:17 am

AWG homo stultus es.

Bill Parsons
November 9, 2014 11:34 am

Great post, Dr. Ball. WRT

…people living in the village think they know what is going on, but they don’t. In any village, the most destructive people are the gossips. They deliberately spread falsehoods that destroy people’s reputations and lives. The mainstream media are the gossips in the global village.

It’s unfortunately, but it’s this village that is now raising our children. It’s a village comprised of textbook manufacturers, entrenched education “specialists”, lucrative monopolizing university and college education degree programs, charismatic (and not-so charismatic) crusading teachers in public school classrooms, left-leaning administrators, an alphabet soup of governmental education funding agencies, and the ranks of “village gossips” like Seth Borenstein – the media “messengers” who thrive on the univariate, alarmist cry that the village is threatened from within by none other than ourselves.
Founded in myth, that message, too, obtains substance enough.

November 9, 2014 11:53 am

The link in the article to the video “The Global Warming War” did not work just now, I had never visited the Vimeo website previously, but found my Sony Blu-Ray player has the app on it. So I signed up for Vimeo which appears to have a lot of free HD content as well as the ability to rent and purchase videos. I did a search for Global Warming War and watched the trailer on my HD TV. I went back to my laptop to “rent” the full length video for $2.99 for 72 hours by entering my credit card info.
I am currently watching the video on my television and it is really good. My heartfelt thanks to Dr. Ball and the others who participated and gave great explanations in the video, but thanks especially go to Luke Dillard who had to have put a lot of his own time, effort and money into the project. This is a first class production, well planned, and well edited. I am very hopeful that it will receive air time on a major network soon because the real value of the video will be not in preaching to the choir but presenting the facts to the public. My greatest hope is that this will be watched by many of our elected officials.

Reply to  Steven Miller
November 9, 2014 3:00 pm

The reason why Dr. Ball’s link above doesn’t work is because there is an extra period at the end of the html. Remove that, then refresh, and you will reach the trailer.
[Fixed, thanks. ~mod.]

November 9, 2014 12:06 pm

Sure hope the film is a lot better than the trailer. If not, in my opinion it wouldn’t be worth watching. Useless to see the same old same old points again and again.

Reply to  Roy
November 9, 2014 12:30 pm

Hi Roy, The video is still playing on my television. I agree that the trailer, is not the greatest… We actually still have a few minutes to go on the video. I have been following this issue closely for over a decade so there is not a lot that has been presented that I was not already aware of. However most of the explanations given have been much more concise that I would be personally capable of and the organization of the material has been excellent. My wife who has been forced by me to watch just about every video on the subject that has been meant for the public over the years feels that this is one of the very best and it also has the most current info.
It is free to join Vimeo and it costs $2.99 to “rent” this video. I am happy to have spent the money… I hope that most of it actually makes it to the producers to help defray their expenses… This is a project that I feel is very significant. I hope that this turns into a good way for people to support this type of effort.

Reply to  Steven Miller
November 9, 2014 7:30 pm

Thanks Steven,
I did purchase the rental, and have to say that is is a really great video. Even on a fixed social security income, I do not begrudge spending the $.299.
Obviously the film producer needs to recoup expenses for making it. However mostly it will be watched by skeptics from here and other places that already do not believe the man made climate change mantra.
Preaching to the choir (skeptics) at $2.99 a crack works well, however the congregation (uninformed public) will never get the great message this video presents because they are not going to spend the $2.99 just because someone tells them they should or need to watch it.
This needs video needs some other means of support: maybe donations. Otherwise it will rarely be seen past those that already agree with it. On my limited budget I can ill afford much but would donate $25 or $50 if it was freely available to everyone.

November 9, 2014 3:07 pm

The great global warming swindle went astray because it tried to “solve” the problem of understanding climate change. It should have focused on uncertainties rather than promote an alternate explanation just as uncertain as the AGW hypothesis.

Reply to  willnitschke
November 9, 2014 5:57 pm

A bigger problem was the title. It should have been “The Great Global Warming Question,” or “The Great Global Warming Issue.” It marginalized itself with its original title, by giving the conclusion you were expected to come away with it. That turned away on-the-fence people who would have watched otherwise because of what the accusation “swindle” represented (no matter how accurate). Far better to let the viewer come to that conclusion. (It’s like theatre. If an actor on stage starts crying about an event, the audience laughs; it’s a comedy. An adroit playwright keeps the actor dry-eyed and makes the audience cry and cringe.)

November 9, 2014 3:58 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
“Man-made global warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause.”
I totally agree. Sometimes I call it Mann-made, but it is more like Mann-helped and Hansen-carried. Sorry, Dr. Jones, last but not least.

November 9, 2014 4:34 pm

I suspect Inhofe actually does understand some of the science, and I’m really looking forward to the ludicrous things he is going to say in the next couple years to defend his anti-science position, like when he said in an interview,
“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”
As journalist Michael Kinsley said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.”

Reply to  Barry
November 9, 2014 6:29 pm

I think what Inhofe was implying is that he saw no reason to question the science until he found out the cost. That was the impetus to look more closely at the evidence to confirm it was true before saddling the nation with astronomical costs. So he looked and found there was no there there.
So many people just blindly trust what they read in the media without questioning anything and the shysters know it and prey upon those many individuals. It worked on Inhofe too until he discovered there’s no evidence whatsoever for man causing the warming that stopped eighteen years ago.

Reply to  nigelf
November 9, 2014 6:57 pm

Unless I’m mistaken most Republicans were “for” the Global Warming cash-cow, before they were against it.

Mario Lento
Reply to  nigelf
November 10, 2014 9:30 pm

@u.k.(us) November 9, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Unless I’m mistaken most Republicans were “for” the Global Warming cash-cow, before they were against it.
Most people believed what we were taught in school about the greenhouse effect. When I started hearing about it, I believed it. Not because I was paid, but because I had no reason not to believe it. Then I learned better.
So I guess you are suggesting the Republicans are able to seek truth, whereas the Democrats will deny truth. Not sure what you are talking about wrt cash cow in the context of your statement-(Yes – I understand the meaning of the word cash cow)

November 9, 2014 6:03 pm

You’ll never get anywhere arguing with lukes and warmists over temperature records because natural warming will start again after the year 2029. You need to attack the false physics. The calculation of the 255K temperature is way out and it should have been 30 to 40 degrees higher because they forgot to take out the reflection by clouds and they used emissivity of 1.000 instead of 0.88 or less for a rocky planet which would have been hotter than current temperatures (not 33 degrees colder) because of a lack of water vapour, clouds, oceans, carbon dioxide, vegetation, methane etc..

November 9, 2014 6:44 pm

Dr. Spencer writes:
The mainstream media are the gossips in the global village.
And the gossips here are the ones who cannot make a comment without using “denialist”, “contrarian”, etc., or without an ad-hominem attack on those they disagree with.
We try to reel them back to discussing the science, but that’s hard because their ‘science’ is so weak. For example, how many times have we asked someone to post the percentage of global warming attributable to human emissions? It’s like pulling teeth trying to get a number — and still they avoid the question.
“Gossips” is an excellent label. Those people are poison in science discussions.

November 10, 2014 4:36 am

” same context as Goethe’s comment ” To read Goethe and remember a line from it. I thought I was the only one in the world to read Faust… in all of it’s forms. Awesome.

November 10, 2014 6:59 am

God is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause. It is a real idea; it is not real in fact. It is in the same context as Goethe’s comment that “The unnatural, that too is natural.” Proponents of the idea believe it’s real, because they created an imaginary world called religion. It proved the idea was real, because they claimed religion represented the real world. Naturally, in this unreal real world, the science is settled, the debate is over. Nowhere is this more narrowly defined and vigorously promoted as real than in government and our schools.
Change just a couple of words and another imaginary system gets blown out of the water…..

November 10, 2014 7:40 am

Sometimes I wonder “What ever happened to AlGore?”… he seems to have just faded away lately… Maybe he is visting Antarctica… it’s very icey there lately…

November 10, 2014 3:57 pm

In honor of actnow and what I’m eating is destroying the world (who knew I was an arch villain) the world has a fever, I’m going out right now and eating two double cheeseburgers Heh, Heh, Heh… MOO all I need is an N. or a UN. Talk about subtle hidden messages.
Comrade come on over and join the green movement, we will not harm you. Pass laws that will destroy your way of life. Let us tell you how bad you are. You must be reformed. (followed by a full minute of trailer showing disaster after disaster all caused by YOU)

November 10, 2014 8:58 pm

Time for another donation, Tim.

November 12, 2014 4:59 pm

A monument to AGW and Energy shortage . The three ‘ Towers of Power ‘ at Ivanpah ,California .
The Southern California Edison Company built a pilot plant ‘ Tower of Power ‘ at Kramers Corners , California in early 1970s . It proved to be a failure . Forty years later, what those dummies know, why they didn’t even have computer modeling , our modern computer modeling says it is viable !! No,No , we’ll dig a larger deeper hole !!
My wish is ,that only Global Warmers have to pay for it !!

November 17, 2014 1:26 pm

I have lost it. What are the nine errors?

%d bloggers like this: