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.
Interesting that every caller seems to identify as a skeptic, through the direction of their questions. May on defensive. She’d be great in sales. Oh wait. She IS in sales.
And Victoria is Environmental Left capital of Canada-strange
Victoria’s long-delayed sewage treatment plans have become an international irritant, with Washington State demanding the B.C. government step in to stop the flow of raw waste into the ocean.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee sent a letter to Premier Christy Clark demanding she order local Victoria-area governments to step in after more than 20 years of debates and promises about treating the region’s sewage.
Yep…very environmentally left. Do as I say, not as I do.
That station is not the local CBC, from what I can tell, so there’s the clue as to who is (not) listening.
And again!
Ms. May claims she “read every single email” from Climategate? Wow.
‘No corruption’ she claims too, tensely suggesting that Ball will ‘get (him)self sued again’ using terms like that! She is off her rocker.
She’s obviously lying, thinking that there were only a few hundred at most and that such a claim wouldn’t be questioned. There were 61 Megabytes in the files. Blazing Knickers!
Re the debate between Dr. Ball and Green MP Elizabeth May:
In response to a question about whether magnetism is a factor in global warming (around 1:40-45), Dr. Ball said “magnetism is an important source.” He did mention the sun’s magnetic field but the question (and I understand the answer) was about the earth’s magnetic field. Can anyone comment on any relationship between the earth’s magnetic field and “global warming?”
Overall a good debate with most listener questions being “skeptical.”
Most? I think all the callers were skeptical.
Re: earth’s magnetic field
Here’s a post by Dr. Tim Ball:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnections-2/
Some excerpts to give you an idea of its content:
“… everybody talks about El Nino and La Nina and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals, but surface ocean currents are created by wind, so the wind has to reverse first. But what makes the winds reverse? … what was the mechanism?
“The Earth’s magnetic field has been weakening for approximately 1000 years (Figure 2) and a simple trend extension suggests it will weaken to zero in the near future. … it is nothing new. Reversals occur on a regular and relatively frequent basis. Periods called Epochs fluctuate between Normal, as at present, with Reverse conditions. Discovery of these polarity reversals was important in establishing the continental drift theory. … lava layers are a record of the changing polarity. …
What do we know about relationships between the Earth’s magnetic field and weather? The answer is very little, … .”
Hope that helps. Sounds pretty speculative to me… . However! Unlike the UNSUPPORTED (by observation) speculation of AGW, this has some rough observational evidence behind it, if I’m not mistaken… .
Janice
Janice Moore March 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm
Re: earth’s magnetic field
Here’s a post by Dr. Tim Ball:
Thank you Janice.
I think I will put towards the bottom of my worry list; particularly since I can’t do anything about it.
(smile) pmhinsc — You’re welcome and… you are a wise individual.
That wasn’t very helpful. The trouble with scientists debating politicians is that scientists are constrained by the truth at least real scientists like Dr Ball are.
Exactly.
Just finished listening.. Good arguements, May thinks she lost, I say this because she completely loses her cool in the last seconds. Well done Tim
Agreed, it is always best to remain calm when you know you are being recorded.
Loses her cool? Nah. She’s a pro ( at her gig ). She was just playing to HER audience if they were tuned in.
The indignant ‘high umbrage’ tone is intended to reassure that she will not be moved and to elicit eye rolling in the faithful.
OMG – More science mombo-jumbo from May. I can see why the Green’s get such a small percentage of voter turn-out. Interesting that I believe that none of the callers were pro Man-made climate change.
Trying to listen as a neutral (though I’m not) all we got was some “facts” you have to go and check against some others – most people won’t bother and will just have heard what they wanted to hear – although Tim was stronger towards the end there was no knockout – just a cheap book plug.
The most interesting thing was that 97% of all the people who called in did not agree with AGW and all the billions spent on it……
Two points after listening to the CFAX debate. Dr. Ball won hands down. The listeners who called were 100% skeptical. One other note: May was selling her book, nothing more but nobody was buying. lol
She has a saleperson’s chutzpah to throw that in at the end, drowning out the host, doesn’t she? Conclusioin: no one will buy her book off the back of that crass display.
As I understand it, CO2 levels have been much MUCH higher in the past, yet May twice cited a figure of 280ppm, unchanged for the last 800,000 years, only to be topped up by humans of late to 400ppm. Ball never challenged this. Comments?
They went to a commercial break right after that misleading (net current atmospheric CO2 may be entirely from natural sources which outweigh human by a factor of 2 (native sources of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr (per Dr. Murry Salby at about 36:34 in his April, 2013 Hamburg lecture on youtube))) statement by May. Perhaps, Dr. Ball forgot to bring a pad of paper and pen? Decided to let it slide? Who knows?
Later, at about 55:00 (thanks for the link, Oakwood!) Dr. Ball does address the CO2 ppm issue.
from – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Couldn’t listen to the debate so can’t comment on that.
Nice graph, Bubba — thanks for sharing that.
That being the case, that is one for the ‘other side’ and I don’t blame her for stressing it, and also laying out the possibility that our ‘average temp’ would be lower if not for ‘global warming’. I think Ball missed an opportunity to stress the unimportance of it all, though he did say that CO2 is not the driver of climate that the likes of Lizzie May claim it is – and he is a scientist so I think most would who listened would have lean to his side on the strength of expertise alone. The opportunity he missed is to hammer home the futility of modeling and the inaccuracy of the entire affair. ALL of May’s arguments fall to naught in the light of that. CO2 up, temps even or down, then about those models that you base your dogma on Ms. May? What about that? (Thanks for the graph and responses, all.)
Looking at the wuwt CO2 Reference Page I’d say she was close to correct.
According to ice core data CO2 was about 260 ppm 7kya and by 1kya it had climbed to about 280 (Maybe someone could ask where it remained until the Industrial Revolution and then it increased to about 400ppm today.
But this winter has been an example of our need for cheap fossil fuel.
What would Boston look like without hydrocarbons to keep them warm and dig them out.
We see the good fossil fuels do daily.
The real question is, Where’s the catastrophe from CO2?
I know of no honest connection shown to date…none.
I thought this was interesting about whether it was possible to get a good measure of CO2 and other stuff
http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-last-battle-of-climate-alarmism.html?utm_campaign=mar-12-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
heysuess March 16, 2015 at 2:07 pm
…May twice cited a figure of 280ppm, unchanged for the last 800,000 years, only to be topped up by humans of late to 400ppm. Ball never challenged this. Comments?
Actually Ball did challenge that statement to which May responded something to the effect that during those periods the earth was roasting and she wants to keep the earth livable. He didn’t challenge the “roasting” comment. Nor did he make the point that high CO2 in the past demonstrates that natural variability can, and has, caused CO2 to rise significantly above current levels. He also made a minor mistake of saying at one point that GHGs are 97% water vapor and at another point he changed that to 95%. IMHO Ball started out weak and ended strong and May started strong and ended weak. All-in-all a respectable show by Ball and not so respectable by May.
Hello heysuess.
As at this point I have no idea how Dr. Ball has responded to that 280ppm argument, but is not difficult to see that this particular argument is usually served by what some call the “trick ponies” . It is actually a trick to put your opponent to argue in too many fronts, not only about AGW.
Arguing the 280 ppm in the last 800K years means arguing also the accuracy of paleo climate data interpretation, so arguing also in some way even the estimation and understanding we have about natural climate.
It opens a lot of ground to cover and in the same time will make one to be perceived as a denier while actually that may not be the case at all, especially when the argument live in media.
Actually is method and trick of the desperate ones.
In the last 18K years, the Inerglacial period, the temp swing is estimated to have been somewhere at 4.5C to 6.5C and the ppm swing of the CO2 has been some where at 180ppm to 380\400ppm, in good enough correlation.
So when some one favors a 280ppm in a 800K scale by ignoring 10K to 20k scales (or periods) then that some one loses totally the right of considering a 150 years as meaningful in his her argument.
Only desperation and a need to uphold irrationality as a reasonable approach in an argument will make one to bring up such as innuendos.
Hope you at least get the point I am making here,,,,,, you definitely are not obliged to accept it.
In the end of the day, the point raised by you, really means nothing as a support in regard to AGW.
Is only some more gibberish from desperate people who try to defend desperately something they may not really even understand.
Cheers
How about saying it was 2000 ppm during an ice age.
Yeah, I met those 2 guys from the radio show back in Victoria BC at a Dean Clifford seminar. a real man people….. Dean Clifford. You should check it out.
I guess the world now knows why Ms May can only get elected on the outer fringes of the left coast of Canada. Just an FYI, she had failed in all previous attempts in several other locations and had to keep moving all around the country in search of an electorate she could bamboozle. Turned out the hippes on the gulf Islands were the only ones brain-damaged enough to fall for her BS.
Note how she grabbed the mike and hollered the name of her book at the last moment before they went off air. She is famous for that sort of thing.
(Preferring to refering to myself now as a Climate Agnostic. Still means skeptic but also says show me some evidence.)
Climate Agnostics, such as myself, have long been yearning for some debate. Elizabeth May has stepped up to defend her settled science” . I applaud her.
Pop the corn.
Hey Rob, if you are still reading, as an climate agnostic, how did you proceive the result?
Is there any way to hear this interview retrospectively?? could you post a link?
[Reply: A link has been added at the bottom of the artice. ~mod.]
Its not really worth it – unless you’re really bored or want to make yourself angry as she keeps repeating a few mantras most of which are not true……
To hear the debate, go to link below and scroll down to Ian Jessop at 1PM.
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts
thanx
My quick impressions:
— Dr. Ball was far and away the master of the facts and the subject matter. Ms. May had only error and outright propaganda.
— Ms. May’s speaking style is fairly smooth and sometimes-authoritative, but often too slick.
— Dr. Ball’s speaking style is weak (content great) both in voice and in style (much too verbose and often poor choice of words and of points emphasized).
My main take-away from listening just now:
We are in a war for truth. If we want to win, we must fight effectively. Effective communication requires TWO main things:
1. Powerful content stated with clarity and brevity.
2. Firm, confident, voice and style.
Conclusion: Dr. Ball, if he wants to win the battle for truth in science, should be a silent (but powerful) consultant. Someone such as An-thony, with the gift of a lovely, strong, speaking voice along with excellent public speaking skills should be the one to sit behind the microphone.
May was AVERAGE at speaking and POOR at content. She is easily beatable.
Note: If Anth-ony is not available for such a role, we have a WUWT regular who would be GREAT. Mario Lento is:
— a naturally gifted, articulate, confident, public speaker;
— with professional experience as a D.J. and making professional demonstration videos for his engineering and science work; and
— he is also well-versed in the facts about human CO2 emissions and a quick study (of content provided to him by, say, Dr. Ball).
If anyone wants to contact him, the mods will give him your e mail if you ask them.
Sorry to say this Dr Ball but I am with Janice on this… If ehem we… that is truth and science .. are to win this war we have got to be more media savvy.
I think you need to give Ball more credit.
May: … When you are spouting party-line spin you can waffle all day with pseudo-science, because who the heck cares if most of it is meaningless waffle.
Ball: … If you want to tell the truth, you have to marshal many different facts, be very precise, and be very careful in explaining complex issues in a simple manner while still retaining their accuracy. And sounding like a careful scientist, instead of a forthright desk-thumping politician, is to his benefit.
Politicians will take May’s position, because it is much easier – just learn three bullet-points and keep repeating them endlessly. Spin works, which is why politicians use it. Explaining science to the masses is tricky.
But I was interested to hear that all the callers were climate realists. Normally the guys behind the scenes will line up a few from each side of the debate. The fact they they could not find any to support Ms May indicates that every caller, perhaps 50 or more, were all against Global Warming. Interesting.
Ralph
I agree with you… Tim Ball is a star… but to hear his message people have to listen, there in lies the rub. Much as we might not like it learning three bullet points and thumping the table does work and people will remember the three bullet points. Who will remember a long exposition on how the cloud feedback in the water cycle affects the albedo of the earth? All they will remember is that he said something about sex drive and co2!!
I think Tim Ball did OK too – I think if they had debated more rather just answer questions MP May would have quickly unraveled but they each got their few minutes to speak and people will have largely just listened to the bits they already agreed with and dismissed anything else.
Its funny though they must have tried and couldn’t find one caller who was pro AGW
Good point Sly. I try to always have 3 hard hitting bullet points that people can identify with. After the NA winter fo 2013/14, it was easy. “The coldest/worst winter in over 100 years”. that worked well, and everyone could relate. We had all lived through it. I guess this winter would work fine for those in eastern NA as well (out in the west, it has been the nicest/warmest winters I can remember). People don’t want to listen to a 10+ min data filled rant. Ocasionaly, you will find people who want facts, then hit them with the facts. Everyone else just wants a headling.
Except that the cold winters in Eastern NA were likely caused by a melting Arctic creating changes in the Jet Stream and shifting Arctic air south. Because of AGW. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weird-winter-weather-plot-thickens-as-arctic-swiftly-warms/
Also these winters weren’t even particularly cold by pre-1980 standards; it’s just a matter of shifting baselines. What we consider freezing now would have a been a pretty normal winter in the mid-20th century.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/The-Changing-Northeast-Climate.pdf
So your “skeptical” talking point confirms AGW to anyone who’s paying any attention.
Sir Harry Flashman March 17, 2015 at 8:24 am
Harry, if the recent string of “cold winters in Eastern NA…weren’t even particularly cold by pre-1980 standards,” then they weren’t “weird winter weather”; and they don’t ~”confirm AGW to anyone who’s paying any attention,” because nothing new compared to the Natural Climate has occurred over that time span, which you say involves the ~”pretty normal winters in the mid-20th century”. Instead, assuming your facts are correct, all we’ve found is the same thing happening before a ~”swiftly warming arctic” as has happened during a swiftly warming arctic, with the recent Arctic or Global warming therefore likely having nothing to do with the “cold winters in Eastern NA” – because the warming didn’t produce anything different from what came before it; and the cold winters then remain intact as components of the Null Hypothesis as usual features of a Natural Climate. They certainly don’t “confirm AGW”.
Another myopic post revealing the ignorance of the subject, by Sir HF.
Give it up. You are getting boring.
Dr Ball got fired up in the middle of the debate and did very well. His opening wasn’t polished which will to many make him appear more honest. Keep in mind the audience. By voice they were Canadian, and mostly older.
These folks are not going to be swayed much by a smooth talker. No con-man or con-woman survives without a polished voice. So, the less polished your delivery, the more likely you are honest. One gal stood out as younger and very confident. Saw right through the religious angle.
Yes, we call Victoria Gods waiting room.
MP May was really quick to disavow any influence from Maurice Strong on the IPCC when Dr. Ball mentioned his name. Strange, it’s not hard to verify at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong#Earth_Summit
MP May was really quick to disavow
===========
Too many Canadian still alive that remember Trudeau and the National Energy Program and Strong’s involvement.
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/short-biography-mainmenu-6
In 1976, at the request of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Strong returned to Canada to head the newly created national oil company, PetroCanada. In an editorial the New York Times paid an exceptional tribute to his service to the U. N. He then became Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government-owned corporations.
Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Quite fascinating to see how somebody (Elizabeth May) without any technical expertise on the subject has the unmitigated gall to parrot the party line in opposition to sincere discussion. It is a scary peak into one kind of political mind.
I never heard such strident balderdash in my life from a politician,
since ….last week, haha.
But seriously folks in my opinion, Dr. Ball, as usual stated the facts, and his opponent merely spouted out a diatribe of parroted balderdash, with the old canards about consensus, and harking back to errors of the past, and appeals to authority, head count, and many other aristotlean fallacies of logic, as usual. Callers were quite telling with their questions, an Ms. May was reduced to hearsay, innuendo, and repetition of hokum and bogus factoids.
An edited version of this radio broadcast, without commercial breaks
and music is available on Youtube, courtesy of C-FAX Radio, and
YouTuber Alex Garcia. Thanks for the fast upload !
Dr. Tim Ball & Elizabeth May MP – Climate Debate C-FAX Radio
Well done Dr. Ball. She seemed a little rattled there at that end bit. A bit too touchy. A bit too defensive. Had a whiff of “How dare you skeptics peek behind the scene at our Hadcrut temps. Don’t listen to that guy over there. East Anglia’s climate bureau was declared 100% totally innocent {by their pals}.”
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
When May commented about the possibility that we are holding off the next ice age I would have commented that if we are holding off another ice age, why is that not a good thing? Nearly the entire record of human civilization as we know it lies within the warming period after the last glaciation, 12-20,000 years ago. Mostly within the last 6,000 years.
Prior to that we struggled to survive. We had little time to think, dream, invent and enjoy,
Because it wouldn’t be true Dave Worley. Just because the changers grab whatevers handy to use as a club, doesn’t mean we can.
I had to laugh at the “extra layer of glass” analogy. Jeez, if climate was only as simple as she appears to be…
@Dawtgtomis:
Better than that, she was trying to coin new term, ‘double-glazed greenhouse’
Lots of skeptical listeners. The public is not buying it any more.
Wow.. Elizabeth is hopelessly self deluded. I would give my 6 year old better grades for understanding science. She does throw off a ton of “sciency” buzz words though. I expect that true believers lap it up. Myself.. not so much. I am ashamed that I got personally hoodwinked by her many years ago.
Canadians help me out: is she in the same Green party as prof. Andrew Weaver? The one who runs to court every time somebody writes something he doesn’t like? Dr. Ball should be careful with his words here…
Tell me the magic phrase to get Weaver after me to take to court. I’d love it.
Yes
Elaine Dewar’s book Cloak of Green: The Links Between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business has a lot to say about a younger Elizabeth May. The book is twenty years old but still applicable to today.
Here is a review of the book
http://resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.ca/2010/04/cloak-of-green-book-review.html
Same Green Party. The National Post is appealing the decision made in favour of Weaver by an inexperienced judge. Difficult to see how the decision will stand. Check out recent posts at Climate Audit.
No, different party. Weaver is a province of British Columbia provincial politician whereas May is associated with the Canadian Federal Party, two separate entities.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…..good ol’ CBC devoted an hour at 2100 (ADT) to the “Ideas” program in which Tim “Flummery” Flannery was permitted to repeat all the usual AGW porkies (Aussie slang, to suit Flannery). The host, Paul Kennedy, threw all slow pitches. Click on http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas and skip down to “Climate Hope”. Hint: take at least two Gravol pills before listening. (Note: I heard only bits of the program as I was also watching a TV program, but I will listen to it all Tuesday.)
Ian M
You’ve got a much stronger stomach than I do.
Fare Thee Well Dr. Tim.
Can we get a transcript of this to quote from? She’s an amateur at debate and resorts to legal threats when lacking in facts for counterpoint.
Good suggestion. I would love to see a transcript.
I was thinking the same thing,. but fourty minutes is an eternity to transcribe. Let’s agree to cut it up. Five minute chunks? Can we get some volunteers?
TB: Thank you very much. The entire debate about climate change which
was previously global warming initiated with the establishment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That occured in 1988, and it
set out to look at climate change. But people think they are looking at
all climate change and they’re not. In fact they’re quite limited in
their direction.
I want to start out with a quote, because very few people have actually
read what the IPCC people have written. If they do read it, they read
the summary for policy makers, which is vastly different than the
science reports, which even fewer people have read. This was done
deliberately when they established it. The summary for policy makers
which is of course what the media pick up on states things in a much
more extreme way than the science report. Th science report lists all
of the limitations, all of the serious problems with what they are
doing. Just to give you an example, a German meteorologist and physicist
by the name of Klaus Eckert Plusse.
He said, “Ten years ago I simply parrotted what the IPCC told us. One
day I started checking the facts in detail. First I started with a sense
of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered much of what the
IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsence and wasn’t even
supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I feel
shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without
first checking it.”
Now just to give you an idea in the 2001 report they made a comment
about what they are trying to do or what they claim they are trying to
do.
In that report they said, “In climate research or modeling we should
recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system,
therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not
possible.”
Now that’s why, that nonlinear chaotic, is why even short term weather
forecasts out beyond 48 to 72 hours become increasingly difficult to do.
So of course the weather is what you experience daily and the climate is
just the average of the weather. If you can’t get the weather right you
can’t get the climate right, and that’s from their own report.
One of the things that went on here is that they set up a hypothesis
which is called the anthropogenic climate hypothesis. And that is the
claim that human co2 is adding to the co2 in the atmosphere, and if the
co2 increases then the temperature increases. And because human industry
and growth is going to… gauranteed to increase that level then we will
have global warming.
Of course what has happened since is we have discovered, in fact we knew
it very shortly with the release of the Antarctic ice core record that
in fact the temperature changes before the co2. The co2 does not drive
temperature. It doesn’t drive it at any point in history.
Not only that, they don’t relate. We had The Ordovician Period where we
had an ice age when co2 level were at 5000 ppm. We’ve also had extremely
warm periods when levels were down at 250 ppm.
The more telling part about what the IPCC are doing is that they started
out by making predictions. The first report, 1990, they made
predictions. They were so wrong so quickly that they stopped making
predictions, started calling them ‘projections’ and they offered a range
of projections from low, medium, and high.
Every single prediction or projection they have made has been wrong.
Every one. {ending at 5:00 mark}
First five minutes transcript of the debate. Stopping to save my sanity and wear on the fingers.