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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3pJqDLwUBs
***********************************
To listen to the complete debate above, click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a link to the debate:
http://youtu.be/k0Ih2Wi8AAQ
Tim did a great job. Ms May simply repeated CAGW dogma about the 98% consensus, 2014 being the warmest year evaaaaa, need to take immediate action, we’re all going to die, blah, blah, blah…
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
After carefully listening to the “debate” there is no doubt that Dr Ball wiped the floor with Elizabeth May. All the callers backed Dr Ball. The climate nutters were nowhere to be seen.
Ms. May was more knowledgeable than I expected. She was not at all convincing to me, because I know better. I’ll be interested in reading some feedback from the public.
May went somewhat ballistic at the end regarding the Climategate emails — she was very defensive. She said she had read “every one” of thee emails. As if. There’s no way she did that; even Tom Fuller, who wrote a book on the email dump, admitted that reading all of them was very tough slogging. May tried to say there was no corruption exposed, but anyone who visits this site regularly knows that the principals constantly discussed ways to game the system, cheat on their taxes, etc..
Anyway, it’s clear that the public isn’t in the same place they were even 2 – 3 years ago. You can see it in various media comments, where articles about ‘climate change’ now get lots of ridicule. A few years ago, there was still some real concern about ‘global warming’. But no more. Now it’s laughed at.
[A link was added to the bottom of the article, where readers can listen to the entire debate.]
This CO2 ppm issue; the graph posted by Bubba Cow March 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm above
shows a timeline of 600 MILLION Years. 800,000 years sounds a lot to us but on that
timeline it is not much. In fact the CO2 error shading could support Ms May’s claim.
But so what? Back when CO2 was some 4,000 ppm the atmosphere was so dense some
dinosaurs were flying. Global temperatures were certainly not harmful to life back then.
Crocodilians have been around all that time. Barely changed. The limiting factor for them doesn’t appear to be the air. Just how warm the water is.
Controversial Leftist Green MP & Eco-Activist Elizabeth May does not want listeners to know about the corruption of science, the peer-review process and the fear mongering that was demonstrated by the FOIA whistle-blower Climategate leaks. She showed her true colors when she tried at the tail end of the program (40:58) to intimidate Dr. Tim Ball by stating “your going to get yourself sued again Dr. Ball”. Intimidation is the Leftist politician and eco-activist goto weapon to silence the unbelievers of their faith.
See also this followup discussion with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains some of the points in the Debate further.
Marginal win for Ball, methinks. For all the usual stock phrases and less than subtle emotive appeals from May, Ball managed to get his points across better. Unfortunately, despite having most of an hour to discuss this, neither side really hit a home run, nor were they likely to. The devil is in the detail and a radio show just can’t get to the level of depth required. Opportunities to knock May’s case out of the park were not taken. He knows their arguments and I would have liked Hall to have lined them up and pulled the rug from under every one of them.
As for the energy generation discussion, Ball had May beaten, as it was clear she had no concrete or credible figures for substituting carbon fuels with renewables; saying ‘it’s in our literature’ is frankly pitiful. If she had any credible figures, she should have had them on hand, ready to go. Instead, we hear the usual vague, open ended ‘wishlist soundbites’ with no substantive details on how to achieve the transition.
Dr Tim Ball made the key point in his 5 minute opening.citing the IPCC:
“In climate research or modeling we should
recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system,
therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not
possible.”
This is the crux of the matter. It is not even possible to model the climate system in detail. Therefore any effort to do so is futile.This is why all the models are unsuccessful at modeling reality, and this is something that can not be fixed, simply by adding more data or refining the models.
Dr Christopher Essex has a complete lecture devoted to this. (It is referenced at WUWT).
The use of models is not the crux of the whole argument, but it ably highlights the widening gap between projections and observation, together with the disconnect between the review of the data made available and the summary for policy makers.
I listened to the end. Not only was that shameless book hustle off-base, but so was the mocking laughter of her grating supercilious voice.
The format of the debate was very poor. The “call in questions” were more distractions than helpful. I’m used to debates where you state your case, and then other side has a rebuttal, then you cross-examine. Because of the poor format, neither side really got to address the other in depth, because each of the callers had some tangent they wanted to drag the participants down. The callers were all trying to score points (on both sides) which made the whole thing a debacle. I don’t know who designs such an idiotic forum, but it doesn’t nothing to advance understanding of the issues – whenever some hysterical caller makes a nonsense point (which happened on both sides), I would imagine it just causes those who hold the other viewpoint to tune it out. Case in point – the person who wanted to talk about the magnetic field, who said something about us “depleting it”. May didn’t bite *at all* – and I wish Ball hadn’t either. The Earth’s magnetic field affecting weather sounds like pseudoscience to me. Maybe there is something to it, but when Ball latched onto it, it sounded like he was grasping at straws – any reason to reject the “rational science” of the warmists. A better response would have been “this has been generally ignored in the past, but there may be some merit to it”, and then end it, rather than try to do an elevator speech about it. It bears repeating – piss poor debate format.
You are correct. The format was totally screwed up as far as the participants being able to actually debate/discuss the subject. The moderator seemed more interested in answering more callers than getting a correct answer to their question. He actually never let it get past the opening statements.
I enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the alert, Anthony.
It was well-argued from the standpoint of civility. The main problem is that the debate would have been more interesting had it been between two scientists, even if from different spheres (physics and geology). If there is a goal of educating the public about the different views, this would have been more informative. Instead, Ms. May’s reference to 3rd grade knowledge just does not wash. It’s a matter of how we lean on and interpret scientific evidence. When we talk about policy, this is an entirely different of discussion. Environmental goals and standard-setting always are. Once we had a US Congress that wrote laws setting national direction and USEPA that interpreted them and solicited and considered the views of the public. Now, we sit in a blur: Which is science and which is politics? How would a third grader possibly know the difference?
Where I enjoyed conversation most was about electrical energy. No question we have loss. Substantial loss in generation through use. Our problem is the amount we demand, because we would not settle for less, nor should the billion who have none.
The Climategate emails not evidence of corruption? Wow. A true believer. Shows that this is not about science. It is about partisanship. Any objective person would be deeply troubled by these emails — that’s why they were released.
In my opinion, they both failed at getting their point across.
I don’t give a damn about E-May or T-Ball, because I believe this is really about something else.
I believe its an attack on personal freedom i.e. your overall way of life and that includes your right to property. More specifically its an attack on your capabilities to travel as you choose, its an attack on self determination, its a freaking attack on the those who choose to heat their homes with wood and harvest rain water. Its also an excuse to go ballistic with the GMO, all in the name of saving the earth.
Its all bull!!.
If you want to make an argument for reducing emissions, at least do it for reasons related to pollution levels and not some co2 smoke screen red herring bull.
May is to naïve and Ball is simply making guys like me look stupid. The only part of the debate that mattered to me, was Ball stating the obvious with respect to H2O as a “GHG” other than that, they sucked!
This is not about the climate, its about control over you and property.
think about it…
All easements, regulations, acts, statutes, idling by-laws (revenue) and don’t forget your neighbour calling the green police on you because you decided to cut a tree down on YOUR PROPERTY…. its all made possible under Agenda 21, which in-turn is only made possible because of the global climate hysteria.
kenin,
I agree, and that’s always how I’ve viewed the man-made global warming (MMGW) debate.
But you can’t just say, “This is an attempt to pass massive ‘carbon’ taxes!” or something like that, because the alarmist crowd will come right back with their ‘reasons’ for the taxes [or for limiting personal freedom, etc.]: “The earth is burning up! We’ve got to do something!!”
Unfortunatly, crying “WOLF!!” has been effective for them. The public tends to believe scares, especially when “every professional society, and every government, and etc…” agrees.
The best way to fight it is to tell the truth. That requires educating the public to a certain extent — a long process.
I think that process is working. It will still take more time. But the alarmist crowd faces a dilemma: the planet is clearly not doing as predicted. Sea level rise is not accelerating. Tuvalu is not sinkiing beneath the waves, nor is Manhattan. Arctic ice is recovering, and global ice is still right at its long term average. And the big enchilada — runaway global warming — has never happened. Neither has ordinary global warming; that has stopped, too. It turns out that CO2 just does not have the predicted effect.
It is also helpful that the man-made global warming scare is getting old. People don’t maintain high adrenaline levels constantly, they get over it if the scare was a false alarm. That’s what is happening.
So now is not the time to take the pressure off. E. May’s voice was screeching at the end, out of frustration. She is losing traction, and she knows it. So joining the public in ridiculing the MMGW scaremeisters in the general media is a good thing. Ridicule is one of the best ways to fight a false alarm.
If you value your property, fight them in the media. That’s where they’re getting vulnerable. When you ridicule their nonsense, you’re using an Alynski tactic back on them. He was a nogoodnik, but he understood human nature.
Lawyer/Politician/Believer vs Scientist. I listened to the “debate” a couple of times and have an opinion now on both the outcome and some learning we could do.
As has been mentioned before, if you are a believer, you would still be a believer. If you were a sceptic, you are still a sceptic.
Ms. May is a polished politician who (as a lawyer) has constructed a “closing argument” for a public jury. Her declarative style tells an understandable story that integrates “facts” who’s purpose is to convince the jury (the public) they should believe the story of man made CO2 driven catastrophic Climate Change to be true. She asks the jury to convict CO2.
Dr. Bell is an accomplished scientist who understands what is “fact” and what is “fiction” and uses that expertise to dismantle the foundations of the story Ms. May tries to tell. He asks the Jury to exonerate CO2.
If you are reasonably well versed with the topic such as readers of this site then your vote would be for exoneration. If you were not following the debate closely then you would likely find Ms. May’s argument to be compelling and based on your natural desire to remove risk from your environment you would vote to convict.
The learning for me is that we need to construct a clear and understandable “closing argument” regarding “man-made” Climate Change (few people understand the term anthropogenic. Ms. May never used the term once and in fact deliberately chooses words that lead the listener to believe all current change is the result of human activity) . Any lawyers reading this up for constructing a closing argument to exonerate CO2?
+1 Skeptics (and sceptics) could be a viable majority but remain fragmented/unorganized. Maybe the NIPCC should become more active and political. Unfortunately I see many who naively believe “the truth and science will win in the end” which translated means “we’ll win the battle eventually but lose the war”.
Dr Ball could have better destroyed Ms May’s credibility by questioning more closely her claims for the viability of alternative energy. eg on the potential of solar energy to replace fossil fuels:-
American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked. Solar energy still makes up less than 0.3% percent of total electricity generation in the US.
MR Ball kicked but
The chart below is what should be shoved into Elizabeth May’s legal snout…
http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-images/Climate-Timeline-10000yrs.png
This annotated chart is derived from the Climate Chart of Christian Dietrich Schönwiese. German climatologist and Emeritus Professor at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt. It speaks for itself. The little bump toward the end of the Modern Warm Period = Global Warming Hysteria. Note that the Modern Warm Period is no greater than the Medieval Warm Period, and certainly less than the earlier peaks. Note the natural upward swing of temperature after the Glacial Period and the subsequent overall downward trend following (dotted line), not to mention the current transition from the Solar Max to Min, which should produce a period of global cooling. Clearly there are greater cycles driving global temperature fluctuations.
Reference: Part 8: Dynamic Solar System – the actual effects of climate change. Future Development and the temperature fluctuations. EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/teil-8-dynamisches-sonnensystem-die-tatsaechlichen-hintergruende-des-klimawandels/ (in German) English Translation Link.
My take:
Dr. Ball’s strong points:
was calm and decisive (didn’t come across like a zealot)
clear command of facts
good use of logic
Was assertive without being combative
Dr. Ball’s weak points:
Did not have strong tone
At times too technical (too verbose) for a general audience
Missed opportunities to expose his opponent’s mistakes
Ms. May’s strong points
Strong, even tone
Polished speaker (didn’t fumble for an answer)
Had enough detail to sound like an authority
Ms May’s weak points:
Not as strong on facts or logic (i.e. I don’t know anything about magnetic fields or what it may mean to climate)
Made grand claims without support (i.e. burning fuel saved us from an ice age)
Pretty much like you’d expect. The scientist scored well on the facts and logic portion of the debate, and the politician scored well on the presentation.
Speaking of Elizabeth May and her “polished” views – particularly those on Climategate – here’s the intro to her December 9, 2009 ‘assessment’ of the Climategate files, which as I had noted also received honourable mention from newbie Judge Emily in Weaver vs National Post:
To May’s credit, at least she had the decency to acknowledge that her all-encompassing speculation was merely a “guess”.
But speaking of May in 2009 – and debates (which this particular broadcast really wasn’t) – how unfortunate that May declined to mention a real debate in which she had participated on the very early heels of Climategate. As I had also noted in the same post mentioned above:
“[…] if you happened to miss it at the time, you can see May – teamed up with the equally Green, George Monbiot – in losing action against Bjorn Lomborg and the UK’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson during the course of a December 1, 2009 Munk Debate.”
Amazing, eh?!