From We are Change Victoria: (h/t Pauli Sommer)
Dr. Tim Ball and his HUGE climate debate announcement!
The renowned Dr. Tim Ball was recently on our TV show, Freedom Free For All, to announce his upcoming debate with Green MP Elizabeth May. The debate will be on CFAX 1070AM radio and you can listen to it live on the internet <here> So be sure to tune in on March 16th at 1:00pm PST. This has been a long time coming since Miss May had a debate set up for last summer but could never find the time to get on Ian Jessop’s show the same time as Dr.Ball.
We will also have Dr. Tim Ball on our live show for our viewers to ask questions to him. so be sure to tune into Freedom Free For All tonight(Mon March 2) at 7:30pm Pacific time, and log into the livestream so you can get in on the live chat during the show. So log in here http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4937810/events/3369679
Here is the recap of what Dr. Ball had to say last week on our show.
***********************************
To listen to the complete debate above, click here.
This should be frustrating to listen to. On one side you’ll have a scientist trying to discuss data, observations, etc. And on the other side you’ll have a politician ridiculing him. It might make a good drinking game though. Let’s tip one back every time she says “97 percent”.
Good idea, rh. Our chance to get something positive out of this debate. I’m not expecting MP May to outshine Gavin Schmidt’s debate performance on the science. So… we’ll get some Climate Science, some Green Politics, and “The Effects of Alcohol on Radio Listeners.” What’s not to like?
My line, “100% of thermometers disagree. Who are you going to trust? A dodgy survey by an Aussie activist or reality?
Me, I’ll stick with observations of the real world.
If the science was right you world only need one scientific paper to prove your belief in the end of the world. Let’s talk about that one, which is it?”
The answer is always, the IPCC.
So then you can talk about Box 9.2 of IPCC AR5. The models are all wrong – systematically wrong.
They are too hot.
Ask again, “What’s the problem, in the real world?”
@MCourtney – you wrote in part;
“My line, “100% of thermometers disagree.”
Pardon my one-track mind, but are those alcohol thermometers? ;o)
I’m inclined to agree with your comment, but if we use your 100% to trigger throwing back a shot of nectar, we’ll all be stone cold sober at the end of the show.
You also wrote, “[…] If the science was right you world only need […]” (bold mine)
No fair! You have a head start on the game! ;o)
.
.
Kidding aside, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Let’s be careful.Alcohol poisoning is a real thing.
Are you yanking our collective chains, RobRoy?
http://liquor.com/recipes/rob-roy/#l9fl2rW0q0vRTXj3.97
FYI: I have seen the term “MP May” used here alot. The honorific for an MP here in Canada isn not MP. The correct term would be “Ms. May”, you could add “Ms. May, MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands”.
I think this is more dangerous for Tim. A ,slimeball lawyer/politician against an honest climate scientist. Mmmm.
Debate is usually good however a scientist against a politician is questionable. Each will insert talking points but no answers. The only outcome of interest is who will control the momentum? Listener bias in this case is predetermined so don’t expect any “aha” moments.
Perhaps ms May is suffering from Dunning-Kruger. Little actual knowledge, plenty of bluster, egomania, and the usual Climate Liar bag-o-tricks.
The only thing wider than Elizabeth May is her ego.
The whole outcome is going to depend on how whoever is in the chair runs the show. If they are firm and fair, Tim wins. If they are not strong enough to control the debate, I suspect May might just win.
For “May” read “Elizabeth”.
Sorry,
May will either do pure Ad Hom or not show up
Tim will need to load up a few ad hom bombs himself. She is target-rich.
It all depends who the audience is. You could debate Duane Gish on Creationism vs Evolution at a Southern Baptist Church. I don’t care how good your arguments are or how good your counterexamples to Dr. Gish’s examples. Chances are you will not change any minds in the audience.
Same here – unless you have an audience where people have not made up their minds who are prepared to change their minds, nothing will change.
WUWT listeners will think that Tim Ball demolished Elizabeth May, and Green listeners will think that Elizabeth May won hands down.
When all is said and done, scientific facts are not determined by debate.
Scientific facts are not determined by debate.
Scientific facts are identified by debate.
The Creationists actually won the debates in Oxford against the Darwinists… but in doing so they laid out in entirety their strongest arguments.
That refined the facts from ‘statements summarising theories’ into ‘rational concepts that defined the thinking behind the theories’.
In turn that meant the type of evidence that would be required to disprove the theory was agreed. And making a theory falsifiable makes it more scientific – a better truth.
Until it isn’t.
Elizabeth May is an American leftist, who lives in Canada, and fits in with a small community of wackos rather well.
She is a pseudo-fact, clakitty, clak, mechanized, flood of noise, and eco sound effects.
Tim Ball, despite a minor defect, is rational, scientific, and reasonable.
These two kinds of people cannot debate. She is a great big ROUND MOUND of SOUND. He is a pure facts. Spaghetti and meatballs.
Even though I am happy Dr Ball is debating, and that the greens are crippled necessitating engaging in debate, the stress of listening to the fat disgusting picket fence gob puts me off. I will put on Tchaikovsky’s “Hymm of the Cherubims” in protest of her vocal cords.
Dr Ball, better you than me sir!
More junk science from the scientifically and statistically illiterate Green Party of the Great White North:
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2014/02/chronic-lyme-disease-creeps-into-green-party-bill/
At least some GP candidates also oppose vaccinations in general or mandatory vaccination.
Considering the following % of popular vote, the Green Party of Canada gets far more publicity than it should:
1984 0.21%
1988 0.36%
1993 0.24%
1997 0.43%
2000 0.81%
2004 4.32%
2006 4.48%
2008 6.80%
2011 3.91%
Although to give May credit, the increase in 2008 was very much her doing. Then again, so was the drop in 2011…
Thanks, Dr. Ball.
Don’t get too close.
This just in: Vegas odds-makers have suspended the book on this event as the money is pouring into the Ball camp so vigorously that the Casino underwriters are predicting huge losses. One long time actuarial for Wynn Resorts was quoted as “we’d like to think that here, in Vegas, you can place a bet on anything, but this was kinda like a bout between Mike Tyson and Marie Osmond, it just didn’t make no sense.”
The CTV link reported “I do not agree with petition,” she said. “It is an obligation of an MP to present every petition submitted to them.”
So if Ms. May is serious about her obligation to present petitions submitted to her as an MP, even if she doesn’t agree, then a few of her constituents have a responsibility to assist her. Just submit a petition stating that Obama is wrong, That there is no established link between CO2 and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That the so claimed 97% consensus is a false.
The problem is her constituency, Saanich—Gulf Islands, is full of greenie tree huggers. They are mostly all just like her.
It’s these kind of silly insults and generalizations that ensures this site isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs and PR shills for the Heartland Institute.
SHF,
You bury your head in the sand. This site has gone from zero to almost a quarter of a billion unique views, and more than a million reader comments — in only 8 years.
Do you believe that was a fluke? It wasn’t.
WUWT allows and encourages all points of view. That’s what the public wants, so readers can make up their own minds based on all available information.
Readers also like the many comments and articles by very knowledgeable folks who are climatologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, geologists, and others working in the hard sciences. There is more to be learned about “climate change” here than anywhere else.
So you can believe that WUWT “isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs”. No one is stopping you from believing anything, as readers can see. But really, the fact is you just don’t want to admit that it’s you who is on the outside, trying to promote your failed ‘man-made global warming’ and climate catastrophe narrative.
SHF, you have not a single clue as to the barbs and insults alarmists sling like monkeys at war. I am always polite and have cogent rebuttal and information regarding assertions (from either side).
I submit that you have no idea how vicious your side is. Continually. The slanderous barbs and propaganda of DesmogBlog alone should fill you with revulsion. Greenpeace defacing extremely important archeological sites. Why do you vilify someone who only has questions about the science? Are we not allowed to question? If not, why not?( I don’t want to hear any “do it for the children” garbage)
I will do it for the children when the evidence substantiates the action.
So far, I see nothing to worry about.
I’m not about to take responsibility for what others say; I know DeSmogBlog has had unkind things to say about your dad which when I dug seemed a little dubious. Not something I support.
However I submit that by the time we have enough climate chaos to “prove” to skeptics (I am not allowed to use “deniers”, though “alarmist” is ok) that this is really a problem it will be far too late. It may be far too late already. By the end of 2015, the top ten hottest years ever recorded will likely all be in the 21st century – in the meantime, extreme precipitation events are rising at an unprecedented rate along with accompanying flooding, the Arctic is melting (slight recovery in sea ice notwithstanding) and you folks are talking about a “pause” when at best it’s a slowing of the rate of increase. Temperatures will not rise in lockstep with greenhouse gases, but they are rising nevertheless, and while the earth will be fine, our civilization is optimized for the current climate and it’s unlikely that 7 billion of us are going to adapt easily.
“However I submit that by the time we have enough climate chaos…. it will be far too late. It may be far too late already. By the end of 2015, the top ten hottest years ever recorded will likely all be in the 21st century – in the meantime, extreme precipitation events are rising at an unprecedented rate along with accompanying flooding, the Arctic is melting (slight recovery in sea ice notwithstanding) and you folks are talking about a “pause” when at best it’s a slowing of the rate of increase. Temperatures will not rise in lockstep with greenhouse gases, but they are rising nevertheless, and while the earth will be fine, our civilization is optimized for the current climate and it’s unlikely that 7 billion of us are going to adapt easily.”
Hogwash. “Highest ever recorded” doesn’t mean highest ever. “Extreme precipitation events…unprecedented…flooding” is simply not true if you look at the facts that have been recorded. “Temperatures will not rise in lock step with greenhouse gases” is something you just made up….let’s call it excuse #88. And yes temperatures will probably rise until we enter another cooling period which we may or may not be at the beginning. This statement is really precious – “our civilization is optimized for the current climate”. And you know this because? The gratuitous inclusion of human adaptation means nothing to the AGW crowd or they would spend more time and money planning for it instead of bloviating about it which makes sense because it’s not about temperature anyway.
Trying to respond to db, but the nesting won’t allow it…
” This site has gone from zero to almost a quarter of a billion unique views, and more than a million reader comments — in only 8 years.”
Above Top Secret ranks twice as high on Alexa as WUWT, and all they do is paranormal and conspiracy. Infowars gets 5 million unique visitors a month, and they’re certifiably insane. Internet popularity has nothing to do with accuracy. It’s about generating controversy and confirming bias.
I see that I’ve cut SH Flashman to the quick by pointing out the immense popularity of this site. He can’t admit that lots of well educated people crave a place where they can get the straight skinny, without being spoon-fed only what the blog owners want them to read.
I resopnded to SHF’s comment that…
…silly insults and generalizations that ensures this site isn’t taken seriously by anyone except conspiracy buffs and PR shills for the Heartland Institute.
You really have no sense of irony, do you? Heartland is a pro-American outfit that has more worthwhile info than any of the blogs you get your misinformation from, and FYI this site doesn’t allow what many alarmists would love to discuss: fake moon landings, chemtrails, etc.
People click on WUWT because they want to read the opinions of professionals who are active in the field. You don’t like that, we get it. But that’s your problem, not ours.
Finally, you disclose your wild-eyed alarmist motivation by writing:
It may be far too late already.
Evidence, please! We keep asking for evidence that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are in the works. But you never produce any evidence, for the simple reason that there is no evidence. Humanity has been very fortunate for the past century and a half, to be living in what is truly a “Goldilocks” climate, and there is no indication that anything has changed. But some folks are programmed to see the glass as always half empty; to presume that the worst is happening… without ANY evidence.
That’s you. If you have any evidence of doom and gloom, post it here. Otherwise, you’re just a crank.
See my comment above about how crazy sites draw big hits.
There’s no point in linking to anything for you , db ; you reject all the science which has emerged over the last three decades because you don’t like it. Every climate scientist except for the lonely half dozen that get trotted out at every “skeptic” conference knows it, and even the Curries and Christys are starting to sound suspiciously lukewarm.
Nevertheless, a random selection of things for you to dismiss without any supporting evidence whatsoever:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observed-change
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/
Tim could get his butt handed to him in this. There is a propensity amongst politicians, especially politicians who are greenists, to toss “psuedo-info grenades” (“accurate, but fake”) into a discussion, and let the poor sap on the receiving end sputter on trying to point out why they are grenades. Typically the factoid is reasonable on the surface, popularly understood to be true, nukes the opposition superficially, and requires the respondent to provide an education to the listener before he can even challenge the statement, all of which can’t occur in the time allotted.
Exactly what happened.
Go to about 23:15 in the video. Kid is doing just great presenting some science. The blurb lists two guests, but only names one. uh oh
Ignore that comment. Wrong link. Blush.
IMHO Ball stumbling during intro. We’ll see how May does
She is waffling
Agreed – but he is a more polished speaker. I suspect the listener found her more convincing 🙁
She makes a lot of interesting comments regarding what a changing climate may/might be, but nothing that shows conclusively that the changing is caused by slightly increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
No debate yet – at least she showed up…
she, not he
Listening to debate, May ignores complete predictive failure of “the [CO2] science”, ignores utter failure of “green” wind and solar energy in practice in Europe…[questioner did in fact mention “Danes”, not merely Sweden]
She has made a complete error in insisting that the only reason that we are not in a “ice age” period is completely due to man-made co2 emissions. Her science is so incorrect I feel sorry for our Canadian cousins that they have to combat her type of “fuzzy” thinking.
Yeah, that was really bizarre…..
As mentioned above, the Green Party of Canada received less than 4% of the votes in the last election. They have a media image that far outshines their true support.
So is ‘Global Warming for Dummies’ targeted at warmists ?
Yea we’ve got some nutjobs up here but it doesn’t thin out south of the 49th 🙂
Pity. It would be nice if one of us could have sane people but we seem to be similarly plagued by “ID10T” errors of the human species.
She has made a complete error in insisting that the only reason that we are not in a “ice age” period is completely due to man-made co2 emissions.
==========================================
If the last one is anything to go by, an “ice age” period would render Canada, the northern USA, most of Europe, virtually all of Russia and northern China uninhabitable. That’s well over 1 billion people looking for somewhere new to live a.k.a. “climate refugees”.
If there’s a better argument for continuing to emit CO2, I have yet to hear it.
And if true, would being in an ice age right now be a good thing, or a bad thing?
May: “the science”=solely,”CO2 is a ghg”= not really [empirical] Science; Ball is now smashing her “myth of doubt” and “the [alleged] science” by suggesting ~skepticism is at the heart of real Science, of which warmists like May have none
May: Gulf Islands Secondary School Solar Project – highly subsidized by BC Hydro and other measures, panels have a 20 year life (maybe) with a 50-year payback. Good only for bumper sticker attention, otherwise BS. But a few rent-seekers and subsidy seekers get a boost.
May hasn’t even caught up with the Warmist’s retraction of their “2014 is the warmist year evah!”
Ball finally scores