The Extent of Global Warming Deception and the Damage is Not Hyperbole

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball.

Normally, I don’t respond to comments about my articles. However, comments about my last article raise questions that I think require context and explanation in the ongoing search for openness and free debate on climate. This applies to even the most extreme challenges to the status quo. Many of the comments are predictable because they come from people who constantly beat the same old drum. It is usually possible to predict who will respond to any subject and what they will say. They are not necessarily trolls, although trolls are ever present, and are usually called-out or ignored. The critical issue is the danger of skeptics becoming a narrow-minded, tunnel-vision group that attacks, rejects, or simply ignores skepticism about the skeptic’s position or views. This is always a problem but is particularly problematic when the prevailing view in this polarized world is that if you are not with me, you must be against me.

The global warming debate has divided into promoters of the claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the skeptics. It is the nature of any group behavior to become increasingly dogmatic. It is part of the conditions that create Groupthink. The promoters are de facto ensnared in Groupthink. The skeptics are in danger of falling into the same condition. Anthony does a very good job of publishing material from across the spectrum. He also struggles with censorship of comments, being as accommodating as possible under the circumstances. It is imperative that as skeptics we keep open minds – that is, skeptics must be open to skepticism about their skepticism.

One of the comments said the article was more reasonable than those I usually produce. The writer said he could understand my anger because of the attacks I experience. While I appreciate his claim, I reject it because the one thing you learn when you choose to challenge authority is that you have no idea how nasty and demoralizing it becomes. People have a sense of the cost, and that is enough to make the vast majority remain silent. There is a reason they pass whistleblower laws, even in America where free speech is championed. As Voltaire said,

“It is dangerous to right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”

The truth is I consciously moderate my writings because of Ingersoll’s comments. Unfortunately, because of events and facts fading into history and the relentless spin and cover-up by AGW proponents, the level of deliberate deception and extent of the damage done is not appreciated by most anymore. But don’t just take my word for it. Consider the words of the late Professor Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics, when he discovered that the executive of the American Physical Society (APS) had given their support, without consultation with the membership, to the AGW story. He resigned in a very public protest. As he wrote in his October 2010 resignation letter,

“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Challenges to official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began small and gradually grew. It was pushed harder than normal for a few reasons;

  • The people selected to participate in the IPCC were picked and controlled by the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
  • Because of protests, a charade of external examiners was created. It was a charade because none of the early submissions were included.
  • Several prominent people, like Richard Lindzen and Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in protest about the practices and procedures.
  • By 1995, the first major scandal involving Benjamin Santer and unauthorized alterations to Chapter 8 were exposed.
  • After the forecast failures of the 1990 Report, the IPCC created a range of projections to improve chances of being correct.
  • The IPCC did not follow scientific method because they set out to ‘prove’ the hypothesis rather than disprove it.
  • The attacks on scientists who dared to practice proper science by challenging the hypothesis drew concern and attention.
  • Growing awareness of the disparity between the Science Report and the Summary for Policymakers.
  • Many knew that Al Gore’s claim that the science was settled is wrong.
  • Important early skeptical web sites, like John Daly’s Still Waiting for Greenhouse, Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That?, Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, and Sherwood Idso’s CO2 Science, provided forums for the skeptical view suppressed by those trying to prove the AGW hypothesis.

The shameful behavior was and continues to be by the business world, especially the energy sector. They profess to have a social conscience and care about the environment, but their actions belie those claims. If anyone has the expertize to know that the science of anthropogenic global warming was wrong, it is the energy companies. Despite this, they chose to appease the environmentalists. They are now learning that you cannot appease extremists. Besides as Churchill said,

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Donna Laframboise wrote about the millions of dollars the appeasers paid out in a 2012 article titled, “Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee.”

When I think of the devastating cost to me, both financial and emotional, all based on lies and misinformation made by these receivers of oil money, it is surprising I am as calm and controlled as I am. Remember, the basis for their proof is that I am a liar and totally compromised because they say I received money from oil companies. The sad part is I never received a single penny from any oil company. Presumably, the environmentalists who did receive the money are the ones compromised. At the very least, they are absolute hypocrites.

The truth is the oil executives didn’t care about the scientific truth regarding global warming or carbon dioxide. It was profitable public relations to say they were saving the environment and the planet because they received tax write-offs for the contributions and simply passed on other costs to the consumer. They were also able to practice advocacy advertising, an activity environmentalists condemned in the 1970s and 80s. This was the charge that corporations were advertising political positions rather than a selling a product. Environmentalists, who said they could not afford such advertising, wanted a law requiring the corporation provide money, or pay for equal time and space, for their opposing view.

Perhaps the ultimate irony in all this expensive game-playing, or by its official name, politics, is that it could occur at all. The impact at the political level was not consequential or damaging, besides it is likely they were being paid off. The trillions of dollars Lewis speaks about all came out of the pockets of the people. Worse, it came at the expense of development and improvements in all sectors of the economy. This was starkly brought home when India said that the claimed damage to the environment that justified restrictions and imposition were as nothing compared to the number of people starving to death or without electricity. In this fatuous world, it is no surprise that the US Senate made somewhat similar first-world comparisons of hardship when they voted not to vote on the Kyoto Protocol (KP). They put on the cloak of green by avoiding a vote on the KP. Instead, they voted on the Byrd/Hagel resolution, which asked if they should vote on KP. The debate involved consideration of the socio-economic costs and benefits of implementing KP. They voted 95-0 not to vote on the KP.

A similar situation exists today concerning the Paris Climate Agreement. The energy companies and politicians could easily show that the science doesn’t justify the policy, but they continue to be complicit. They could also show that the environmental and climate impacts from implementing the complete Agreement are laughable. Bjorn Lomborg says,

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. (His emphasis).

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Notice that even if he is 100% wrong it is still inconsequential. How many real-world problems of suffering, misery, and death, could be eliminated using the billions of dollars wasted every day on the completely false claim of AGW? The underlying objective of the AGW deception was to reduce world population. It is not a problem, but if it was, the best solution is development using fossil fuels.

Climate is a vehicle for wealth transfer in the naive belief it will help ‘poor’ people. Ottar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC WGIII from 2008 to 2015, explained.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

It is another aid program, but like them all, it doesn’t and can’t work.

I listened to a professional emotion-laden plea for money for children starving in Ethiopia because of a drought. The problem is there are always droughts in Ethiopia. How did these people manage in the past? The children are dying because of the decisions of their parents and government and the abetting provided by our giving to such appeals for funds or our foreign aid. Why aren’t the adults and government of Ethiopia helping? They always have money for guns and bombs.

Ethiopia spent $5,438,000,000 on their military budget in the 12 years from 2001-2012. They reduced the amount as the civil war ended, although they still spent $329 million in 2012, but by 2015 it was back up to $404.5 million. Yes, the children are the innocent bystanders, but it is pure exploitation of emotions to make it my concern when the parents and people of Ethiopia can’t get their priorities right. Worse, we further the failures and distortions with any aid. As it is said, foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of the rich country and giving it to the rich people of the poor country. What this tells me is that there is a failure of leadership at both ends of the transfer of funds. I believe it will continue until we get angry enough to expose and stop it. Environmentalists and energy companies are complicit with the politicians in the perpetuation of abuse, death, and destruction.

I know this article will trigger the predictable narrow responses and the trolls. However, I also hope it will remind others of the extent of the deception, and loss of lives and lost opportunities of this greatest deception in human history.


Post Script:

Sad to lose John Coleman who I had the privilege of meeting at Heartland Climate Conferences. He was confident, forthright, and powerful, but not bullying in his views because he revered what Robert Ingersoll called the Holy Trinity of Science, Reason, Observation, and Experience. T.B.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 4, 2018 1:28 pm

Ditto current, recent and past postings.
Think my observations are incorrect? Step right up, bring science, etc.
As a retiree clipping coupons, corporate etc. back lash not of concern.

Stephen Duval
Reply to  nickreality65
February 5, 2018 8:09 am

Gorebull Warming is not science, it is a Public Relations campaign to justify looting the government and the poor for crony capitalists who profit from unreliables.
Rupert Darwall has written an excellent history of the Green movement “Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex”.
It traces Green history from the Nazis to Sweden (first climate change conference in Stockholm) to the New Left takeover of Germany in the 70′ and 80’s and their alliance with the Greens to the IPCC to the American Foundations and Green billionaires.
Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, who explains what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet.
Great interview of Darwall at

M Courtney
February 4, 2018 1:34 pm

It is another aid program, but like them all, it doesn’t and can’t work.

These are two different statements:

It is another aid program

OK. Your article proves that is true as the IPCC agrees that the Paris Accord will do next to nothing to affect the climate.

but like them all, it doesn’t and can’t work.

That is mere opinion.

Pompous Git
Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2018 2:07 pm

That is mere opinion.

But one shared by many:
Is Aid Killing Africa? Dambisa Moyo talks about Dead Aid on ABC

South River Independent
Reply to  Pompous Git
February 4, 2018 8:37 pm

Her book Dead Aid is available on Amazon.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2018 2:13 pm

Evidence-based opinion.
However, there should be a slight edit to the statement.

but like them all, the vast majority do not and can’t work.

There are a tiny minority of aid agencies that provide things the receiving peoples cannot. Expertise for infrastructure projects (the receivers actually do the work of building). Concrete things that the receivers do not have the natural resources to produce (no copper ore, no copper for transmission lines) – or that due to economies of scale, are economically ridiculous to set up in the host country (many drugs and vaccines).
But these ethical and intelligent aid programs are small in number, and chronically underfunded. Their results do not generate immediate “feels” to gratify their donors, nor are they acknowledged by the demanders of virtue signals.

Reply to  Writing Observer
February 4, 2018 2:15 pm

Gah. Strike “doesn’t,” unstrike “do.” Tag problems…

Reply to  Writing Observer
February 4, 2018 5:21 pm

Micro-finance programs may actually work. This is because they generally don’t involve a lot of money and are decentralized, which reduces their attractiveness as targets to be ripped off by corrupt officials. The latter part of this book on helping the poor discusses this approach:

Pat Frank
Reply to  M Courtney
February 4, 2018 2:17 pm

Hundreds and hundreds of billions spent in Africa since 1960, and what has it got? A bit of recent insight.

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 5, 2018 1:44 am

Money does not fix corrupt goverments. It makes it worse. Still, I’m giving some money to Zimbabwe to educate / feed my few children there. They’ll get their basic education and can then emigrate to RSA for income. Feeds 10 people in the long run.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 5, 2018 10:00 am

In your opinion, it is mere opinion.
However reality trumps your opinion.
All aid programs have failed, and most have made the problem they attempted to solve worse.

Reply to  MarkW
February 5, 2018 10:04 am

In the heat of the moment, I probably over spoke.
Let me revise that to say that “all government aid programs fail”.
Of private aid programs, many fail, but a few do manage to help.
The ones that do help are small programs that focus on helping individuals.
A previous church had a program where they partnered with local charities to drill wells for remote villages.
Providing access to clean water and freeing up women and children from having to spend hours a day trudging to the local river for water.

February 4, 2018 1:35 pm

May Mr. Ball live to the age of Moses, we need his voice, his experience and most of all his humanity.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  John D. Smith
February 4, 2018 2:14 pm

Agreed 100%. One of the most level-headed individuals involved in the debate.

Chris Wright
Reply to  AGW is not Science
February 5, 2018 3:30 am

I don’t agree 100%
I agree 110% !
Tim Ball is a voice of reason and sanity in a world that is completely barking mad – at least as far as climate change is concerned.

February 4, 2018 1:35 pm

the greatest impediment to human advancement in science, social standing, and wealth, is belief!

February 4, 2018 1:41 pm

Voltaire quote
“It is dangerous to right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”

Reply to  judtaylor
February 4, 2018 3:11 pm

Another typo: It’s Ottmar Edenhofer.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
February 4, 2018 10:25 pm

Also, the link for that Ottmar Edenhofer quote leads to an earlier WUWT post.
The link in that earlier WUWT post leads to a ‘404’ at the GWPF for me.
Perhaps the link needs to be updated?
I believe this is the correct GWPF link:

Ben of Houston
February 4, 2018 1:44 pm

As an employee of one of said energy companies, I can confirm that we know precisely what we are doing. The legal team actually pitched Carbon Trading to the environmental group by talking about how much money we were going to make off of it.
“Green” Investment decisions are made by public relations, not the HSE department. We are responsible for reducing real pollutants, such as VOCs, NOx, and HAPS. The solar investments are made by financing, not engineering. Real science need not apply because they are not relevant to making a profit.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Ben of Houston
February 4, 2018 2:14 pm

Ben, your outline of reality only identifies the true idiocy of the green blob apparatchiks. They have no concept of the proper quantification of things in decision making only the propaganda value of certain actions.
The real issue as I see it is the terrible damage they are and will keep doing to the reputation of ‘western’ culture, the ‘enlightenment’ etc and the free kicks they will give to the thugocracies such as Putin’s regime, Erdogans, the Ayalatollahs and the Chinese etc.
That these arrogant, propaganda driven narcissists have go this far is a disgrace and especially to the MSM who are supposed to be part of our gate keeping institutuions.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
February 4, 2018 5:41 pm

The MSM are only keeping the gate of those who pay them.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Ben of Houston
February 4, 2018 4:54 pm

From what I understand, the oil companies have been pitching to environmentalists at the same time they have been funding decades of propaganda and disinformation. Is that something you’d be privy to?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 5:42 pm

Propaganda and disinformation? Conspiracy much?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 5:45 pm

“From what I understand, the oil companies have been … funding decades of propaganda and disinformation.”
They have been funding pro-business think tanks that devote maybe 10% of their income to the climate change issue. (This is artfully concealed by accusatory alarmist newsletters and sites, who imply that all that money is going to the climate change issue by saying that ^oil companies have donated umpty million dollars to climate-skeptic foundations and think tanks.^)
In my guest-thread Notes From Skull Island I list 22 things that we climate contrarians (“skeptic” is too mild a term) would be doing differently if we were in fact well organized and well funded:

Roger Knights
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 4, 2018 7:31 pm

PS: Oil companies would still be funding those pro-business organizations even if there were no climate-change issue.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 5, 2018 1:54 am

An artful lie is where you imply things that you never said.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Kristi Silber
February 5, 2018 5:05 pm

Yes, it is something I’d be privy to, but it’s something that just hasn’t happened.
Any research that is funded is either published publicly, kept for internal profit, or spun by public relations. Otherwise, what’s the point of doing the research? As for funding of public groups, almost all of them are transparently oil-industry groups. High corporate fears both revelations from news organizations and the SEC far too much to do anything clandestine.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Ben of Houston
February 4, 2018 8:35 pm

Enron was desperately pushing for carbon-trading market and hoping to run it.

Gary Pearse
February 4, 2018 1:47 pm

Tim, you have the “redistribution to the poor” wrong. The redistribution is a basic one-off to impoverish America primarily. The unparalleled strength, innovativeness and productivity of America’s free-enterprise system is the bugbear of the Neo-Marxybrothers, whose record by comparison makes for poor advertising of their ideology. The Neo stuff is really тоталiтагеаиэм by Champagne Soshulists (Champs). The Davos gang will be fine but the rest of us will be completely controlled. You have an inkling of the truth re the oil companies, really, the Champs are paying off big industry to join them by ensuring big profits. Its exactly how Maurice Strong was using capitalism – to fund the elitist global control element. The poor are already screwed. The constituency for Trump was just such people and this may have been the last chance for a reversal because another election cycle with all the walking dumb having completed their non-educations and would then be of age to swing the “Progressives” agenda – they want the world’s poor to simply die off (that’s always been part of it). Third world countries are easy to control because you just have to give payola to the heads of state to do as they are told.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 4, 2018 1:50 pm

This is why they hate Russia, too – they won’t go along. They have no quibbles about some of the most barbaric despots around the world as long as they go along with the “Plan”.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 4, 2018 2:21 pm

True story. Anybody who opposes that plan is automatically assumed to be under the influence of Putin himself. It’s convenient for the shallow-minded and fits the religion of the media.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 5, 2018 1:59 am

The Trump deranged can’t decide if Trump has been bought by Putin or is going to start a nuclear war with him.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 5, 2018 2:40 am

Seen on a T shirt from USA

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
February 5, 2018 2:42 am
Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
February 5, 2018 2:44 am

Oh dear, the blue pill is slow today.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2018 1:50 pm

“It is imperative that as skeptics we keep open minds – that is, skeptics must be open to skepticism about their skepticism.”
Of course. But that assumes that our “skepticism” is simply a knee-jerk reaction. For many, if not most of us, our “skepticism” was not a priori. Au contraire, many of us were believers before, although it was because we simply didn’t know what the argument was. We simply assumed that what we were being told was true, having no reason not to. Therefor, it was precisely having an open mind which led us to skepticism in the first place. And now, you are telling us to “keep an open mind”. LOL.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2018 2:47 pm

Right Bruce, the fact that our individual intuitions became suspicious of the “settled science” is exactly the sign of possessing open and unbiased thought.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2018 3:24 pm

Actually, shouldn’t skepticism of skeptic views be confined to neutral third-party observations? Otherwise they are simply counter-arguments attacking the skeptic stance by definition.
Time for an argument clinic.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Pop Piasa
February 4, 2018 4:32 pm

Scepticism isn’t automatic or determined disbelief. It is just not automatic or uncritical or total belief. I originally accepted that AGW was the scientific consensus and therefore probably correct. I studied it more closely to satisfy myself that this was the case.
The degree of scientific fraud and corruption and strong linkage to the demented ideas of the Left were a shock to me as a long-time science buff but confirmed my cynicism about modern politics and the education system. We (Western civilization) are in deep , self-inflicted trouble!

Reply to  Pop Piasa
February 4, 2018 5:03 pm

John, i think that many of us assumed that climate scientists had all their ducks in a row (they did, it’s just that they weren’t all quacking)…

Leo Smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2018 9:32 pm

No: Its not about keeping an open mind, so much as looking at everything critically.
This article echoes many concerns I have had -some of te posts here simply dont stand up to scrutiny and are actually fodder for warmists to discredit the skeptical position. This is not one of them, though

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 5, 2018 10:10 am

I was skeptical from the git-go.
Not from any special knowledge. I had just spent a number of years fighting against the ozone hole scare story. I noticed that most of the same people who had pushed that sc@m were also leading the global warming push, I quickly jumped into skeptical mode.
After a few months of researching I determined that my initial instincts were dead on.

Reply to  MarkW
February 5, 2018 11:48 am

Ozone hole and acid rain scares.

Mike McMillan
February 4, 2018 1:55 pm

“It is dangerous to right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”
… to Be right …”

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 4, 2018 2:22 pm

Dr Ball is right about Big Oil. They don’t really care about climate one way or the other.
If the govt makes them reduce drilling, less oil but the oil price goes up, so they do okay. Drill all you want, more oil, the price goes down but they sell more oil, so they do okay.
The govt decrees that they must add alcohol and nitromethane and aspartame to their gas, the cost goes up, but so does the price, so they do okay. The thing is, no matter what, they know we can’t get along without oil, so it’s mainly PR with them.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 4, 2018 3:34 pm

“The govt decrees that they must add alcohol and nitromethane and aspartame to their gas”
Mike, don’t forget BP with invigorate. That explains the whole thing to the consumer (who buys the whole dog-and-pony-show so he can fuel his vehicles and implements).

A C Osborn
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 5, 2018 8:23 am

They have been involved in knocking Coal to get Gas to replace it. A win Win for them.

February 4, 2018 2:14 pm

I agree with your assessment but find no solace in a solution.

F. Leghorn
February 4, 2018 2:30 pm

Well said, sir. Live long and prosper.

February 4, 2018 2:32 pm

Dr. Ball ==> I have emailed you thru your website contact app.

Ron Long
February 4, 2018 2:33 pm

Unlike you Tim, I took money from an oil company. Big bucks from CONOCO! As a Geologist I wrote a Letter to the Editor for the Reno, Nevada newspaper talking about the unlikely validity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory based on common geologic markers showing normal variance. My house phone rang and it was this guy and his son waiting for me in my front yard to beat the hell out of me for my support of pollution. I was a concealed carry permit holder and I went out to eliminate this risk to my household. They fled immediately, but what a sobering experience for a scientist expressing a personal opinion about a scientific process. Your story reminds me also of Willie Soon and others like him. Thanks to Anthony Watts for great forums like this one where scientific opinions are shared.

Reply to  Ron Long
February 4, 2018 9:48 pm

bravo mr long! way to win without debate!

Reply to  gnomish
February 5, 2018 10:11 am

Are you implying that the man and his son were there to debate?

Randy in Ridgecrest
Reply to  Ron Long
February 5, 2018 6:07 am

On my property? Mossberg 500

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Ron Long
February 5, 2018 10:29 am

Reno, Nevada… I’m guessing he drove to your house to try to beat the hell out of you while complaining about fossil fuel pollution?

The Reverend Badger
February 4, 2018 2:55 pm

Dr.Ball’s work and efforts in this area are very much appreciated in the anti-CAGW circles which I frequent.
The comment about skeptic groupthink is quite important. We (anti-CAGW groups) still appear to have competing and mutually exclusive opinions on how the atmosphere really works.
For example there are those who agree almost entirely with the radiative forcing theories of CAGW but think the effect is smaller (e.g. <1 degree per 100 years) and therefore no cause for worry. There are those who believe there is no greenhouse effect at all and/or no such thing as a greenhouse gas. There are those who have some outlier theories about gravity / pressure such as Nikolov & Zeller and the charismatic Doug Cotton. There are also a few who are honest enough to admit that, being scientifically rigorous, we actually do not know for sure how the atmosphere works.
I suggest the time has come for all skeptic sides to unite under the idea of trying to find out exactly how the atmosphere does in fact work and to do so via carefully designed experiments which may eliminate or confirm one or more of the competing theories.
By carefully designed experiments I do not mean people who have doctorates messing about with hand held I.R. thermometers , heat lamps, trays of ice cubes or any nonsense like that.
Whatever your personal view on which theory is correct or which is BS you should not be afraid of seeing some experiments take place which may confirm or refute your view. If you are afraid or argue against conducting such experiments I would suggest you are a member of a "religion" and not a club of scientists trying to find out the truth.
I would therefore like to see some intelligent discussion of how we can test one or more of the theories of atmospheric heat transfer by real world experiments. We have had enough talking about it both from those who are highly qualified, from those who get even the basics wrong and even (as seen on WUWT) supposedly qualified experts who both get the basics wrong AND spend 50% of their time hurling insults around.
Enough already ! To the lab…… Who is with me?

Paul Blase
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
February 4, 2018 4:19 pm

The best, if not only, way to test these theories would be to thoroughly instrument a column of the atmosphere – say 1km on a side – and measure everything going into or out of it. Sunlight at the top, winds in and out, temperatures, humidity, and pressure everywhere at high resolution. Possibly you could do it with a few hundred thousand drones.

Reply to  Paul Blase
February 4, 2018 5:30 pm

This is – or will shortly become – reasonable.
If Amazon is delivering by drone, it’s cheap [I Guess].
And why not do this for lots of square kilometres. – perhaps thousands or tens of thousands.
Allows a better appreciation of the world.
Some 500 million square kilometres.
100,000 such areas – one in 5,000/. But a better idea than our present ideas.
The cost should not be horrendous.

Reply to  Paul Blase
February 5, 2018 2:56 am

There is little sense in chucking more scientific money at ‘climate change’. There are measurements and equipment Criss crossing the globe already and they only add complication to the debate.
I suspect your column concept would do the same, and the more columns added would further complicate matters with huge amounts of data which, if it could be computed, would simply throw up more conflicts.
The fact is, as Tim points out, the AGW movement has little to do with science, it’s a socialist wealth distribution system so the solution will be political, not scientific.
Trump seems to have grasped that concept and has begun to hollow out the EPA, thereby demonstrating that less science is needed, not more.

Reply to  Paul Blase
February 5, 2018 10:14 am

Auto, all those drones will so churn up the atmosphere that the readings taken will be meaningless.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
February 5, 2018 4:09 am

Dear Reverend:
Sadly I will not be joining you, although concurring with much of what you say.
My reason is that solvable linear equations are not able to deal with chaotic systems such as the climate and can only have validity where the principle of Ceteris Paribus is invoked; an impossibility in a chaotic system. Hence Lab. experiments are not very useful for prediction here.
Similarly, prediction in a chaotic system is precluded as its stability at any one time has the propensity to change for no apparent reason. This propensity being, I suspect, due to quantum mechanics properties.
Generally current science has a reductive mindset, whereby all may be explained by deeper and deeper observation and this has served extremely well over the years.
However, where chaos is involved a different mindset is required which is only just emerging; but I have no clue about that. What “Strange Attractors” and “Fractals”, etc. mean are quite beyond me in the field of Chaos Theory.
However, having said all that, I think that we should unite to challenge in detail the logical or otherwise route taken by the IPCC et al in arriving at the AGW conclusions.
To me this route is riddled with anomalies, dubious assumptions, inaccuracies and disregard for thermodynamic law and these need to be addressed rather than attempting to challenge manipulated statistic figures to prove a negative.
As an example: Does the IPCC definition of Radiative Forcing (RF) comply with Thermodynamic Law? I think NOT.
How say anyone?
My regards

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
February 5, 2018 10:12 am

You can’t drive out bad science, with more bad science.
We have to police our own as vigorously as we do the AGWers.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
February 5, 2018 10:35 am

I’m with you. I’d like to try an experiment in a tall column of non-GH air, say pure nitrogen, insulated from the outside as much as possible – maybe in the Vehicle Assembly Building. It doesn’t have to be kilometers high. Then I’d like to measure the air temperature at the top and the bottom, and put to rest the argument about steady-state lapse rate in a gravitational field in the absence of convection. (I don’t think a steady-state insulated column of nitrogen would experience any convection.)

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
February 6, 2018 5:06 pm

Very hard to replicate such a larger open system in a lab. Or on a supercomputer for that matter. You would have to replicate an enormous amount of variables that can all vary in extreme ranges individually. To know all the forces acting on that column of air on the planet earth would be a great start.

Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D.
February 4, 2018 3:08 pm

About the WMO…
Contrary to international treaties dating aback as far as 1833, the duly-enacted ISO Standard 6709, and all of the GIS software on the planet and all the maps, for that matter, which all insist that the proper range of lonbgitudes is from -180 to 180, the WMO continues to push its “standard” interpretation of Longitude as ranging from 0 to 360.
Enough said!

David McGruer
February 4, 2018 3:26 pm

Dr. Ball, reading this article invoked a feeling of deep sadness in me – sadness at the depth of the AGW deception, sadness at the loss of rationality in society and sadness at the harm to so very many human lives perpetrated by the AGW fear mongers. Thank you for caring so passionately and sharing your insights.

February 4, 2018 3:34 pm

Dear Dr. Ball,
You said:
It is imperative that as skeptics we keep open minds – that is, skeptics must be open to skepticism about their skepticism.
Sorry, but I do see some a fundamental lack of skepticism in your own writings of last time about ice cores. You still think that the late Dr. Jaworowski was right about what he wrote in 1992 (and repeated in 2007). Many of his objections against ice cores were already refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome.
Moreover, since that time ice core research didn’t stop looking for better methods. Where they needed a few meters of core in the 1980’s for a CO2 measurement, they now need a few cm3 and with the latest sublimation / mass spectrometer measurements, nothing can hide in the ice cores of any solid, liquid or gas in all its isotopes.
Skeptics indeed should be more skeptic about their own ideas and prejudices, especially where the other side is right or they discredit themselves where the other side is on more shaky gounds.
It is not because one accepts that ice cores are good quality – be it smoothed – stores of ancient air and that humans are responsible for most of the recent 110 ppmv increase in the atmosphere, that one does accept that much of the recent warming is from that increase. That are unrelated questions…
Thus please, while I do admire most of your work and your years of struggle with the money and power of the other side, a did expect a little more self-skepticism from you in the case of ice cores research…

Smart Rock
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 4, 2018 4:23 pm

Ferdinand – I read Dr Ball’s ice core piece as him being skeptical about his (and everyone else’s) skepticism. But I will agree with you that he could have been a bit more skeptical about his skepticism of his skepticism.
I hope I made that clear 🙂

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
February 6, 2018 7:08 am

Didn’t we give Dr. Ball a hard enough
time about his last article,
in the comments
following that article,
so that it is not necessary
to give him a hard time
about his last article again,
in the comments
for this new article?

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 6, 2018 12:09 pm

Richard Green,
I agree that I have been quite critical last time… But I expected some more reaction from Dr. Ball on the critique there – or here – on my objections…

February 4, 2018 3:39 pm

I have said this before, but the degree in which too much of academia has degraded in the last several decades is at a minimum juvenile, at the most criminal, as in varying levels of defamation. Some juvenile behavior might be expected in younger faculty and researchers, but seems to have crept into administration where the individuals are older and supposed to be responsibly wiser. I have experienced and observed this in parts of science relevant, but not limited to, the climate problem and some few other academic fields. Just read what is now allowed to be written in ‘scientific’ publications.
I was told from good authority that in Louisiana, at least, if you accuse somebody erroneously of a felony, you do not have to prove damage, but just that someone said it. It may have changed, but it doesn’t take much to accuse someone of a tort at least close to a felony.
Rumor and innuendo are all too human, but one would think that responsibility would be ingrained in an educated class simply by learning its operation and successful past. Outlining ethical behaviors, as is now common, means that the barn door has been long open, many horses lost. Dr. Ball, losing horses has repercussions. Hang in there.
Disclaimer, I have taken oil money, but they did not always like what I told them.

Reply to  HDHoese
February 4, 2018 5:33 pm

HDHoese wrote: “Some juvenile behavior might be expected in younger faculty and researchers, but seems to have crept into administration where the individuals are older and supposed to be responsibly wiser. I have experienced and observed this in parts of science relevant, but not limited to, the climate problem and some few other academic fields. Just read what is now allowed to be written in ‘scientific’ publications.”
Such administrators and gate keepers do not care about integrity of the research or the science, but about short term reputation of their institutions. They do not care about the long term reputations of their institutions because they know the public’s memory is short. Long term consequences are borne by other s or there will be no long term consequences- and least to them and the institutions they are part of. And then there’s the money aspect. Virtue signaling, or the opposite perception, has immediate short term consequences and rewards.
Oil company administrators have similar motives.

Bruce Cobb
February 4, 2018 3:56 pm

[snip -over the top -mod]

February 4, 2018 5:16 pm

I was raised, educated and worked as a scientist. I was taught that skepticism, especially of one’s own work was vital to the process. I was hanging around climatologists and oceanographers when AGW first begin to hit the mainstream. I was told by some of them to beware of what was coming. Like some others I started out believing that there was some truth to AGW. Yet as I dug deeper and paid closer attention I discovered that good science was certainly not the driving force behind those that were becoming ever more vocal about the issue. I was then asked by several high level officials in my state to delve deeper into the issue and give them my assessment. That led me to discoveries of behavior by people calling themselves scientists that made me ill. The gross manipulation of facts and data, the deliberate ignoring of historical perspective, all solely to support the “hypothesis” of AGW to the public and high official made me sad and to a certain extent angry. That almost all of the so called catastrophic warming predictions was based on computer models, well I had seen that story before working in marine fisheries management, which involved some of the same federal agency promoting AGW.

February 4, 2018 5:18 pm

” …. in Louisiana, at least, if you accuse somebody erroneously of a felony, you do not have to prove damage, but just that someone said it. ” Yes, under English Common Law, which applies to most of the UK Commonwealth (or former Commonwealth) countries, accusation of a felony eg an arrestable offence, is actionable per se. Common Law principles are now subject to erosion by “progressives”. Good luck claiming the right to self-defence, right to use reasonable force to repel trespassers etc.

February 4, 2018 5:49 pm

Did anyone here recognize AGW for the unscientific mess it is from the beginning?

Reply to  Sheri
February 4, 2018 8:01 pm

Yes, I was working in the UK electricity industry when Maggie wanted something to promote nuclear and destroy the coal industry ( late 70s, early 80s). The coolists had already changed into warmists, but Maggie gave it political clout and encouraged the setting up of bodies that were then used to promote an ideology on the back of pseudo-scientific nonsense. The electricity industry executives saw the opportunity to get rich on the promises of eventual privatisation ( 10 years in the making) and ‘going green’ was advertising heaven for promotion of a tasteless, smell-less,invisible product that everyone took for granted and didn’t want to pay for.
Everyone in the industry knew then and since that it was all hogwash. But politicians wanted it, and people went along with it if it meant personal wealth. Remember 70s Britain was pretty dire, and the idea that nationalised industry executives could dream of ‘private company’ rewards was very tempting.
Of course the whole thing was grabbed by socialists in western europe, and soon by politicians in the US who saw the opportunity to use it for power, and by the late 80s it had a life of its own across the western world.
I am not proud of my own position in any of this, I was never a ‘believer’ that found out the error of my ways.

Bad Andrew
Reply to  Sheri
February 5, 2018 6:48 am

I did, Sheri. The first time I ever remember even paying attention to the phrase “Global Warming” was when then Gov of California Ahnold said in press conference, “The science is iiiin. Man has created the Global Varmink” I knew right at that moment there was a problem. And it’s only gone downhill from there looking at the squiggly lines and the papers that assume the conclusion and the Warmer Trolling and the stupidity that currently has control of science culture.

Reply to  Sheri
February 5, 2018 7:21 am

I knew scientists in and around the field of climatology, oceanography, etc when this mess began. Initially there were just a few looking at what they concluded was an interesting hypothesis. At the time access to super computers and climate models was just expanding. There were at least two camps, one that had falling deeply in love with computer models and believed they were the be all to end all, our answer to explaining the natural world. The other group believed that climate (and most natural systems) was just way too complex to model accurately even with the fastest and most sophisticated computers. This last group knew we didn’t know enough to model the climate to be able to determine with any accuracy what the primary drivers if any, besides the oceans and sun. As I think I have written before remember that AGW suddenly became news about the time the money for meteorology, climatology and oceanography from DOD (although washed through many other alphabet agencies) appeared to be going to dry up. The UK government also funded such research. Both the USA and UK had recognized since D-Day that predicting weather was of strategic importance. Hiding nuclear missile submarines required knowing as much as possible about the thermal structure of the oceans. So with the possibility of the big money drying up for research what to do? Create a crisis! Sadly the socialists and environmental community were looking for some rallying point about the same time.

Reply to  Sheri
February 5, 2018 10:19 am

My early skepticism was based more on the character of those who first pushed the CAGW claim.
I had never looked into the science prior to that.
Based on my skepticism regarding the individuals involved, I did look into the science and found that there was nothing there.

Reply to  Sheri
February 6, 2018 7:16 am

Good question Sheri:
Took me two days,
back in 1997, after
I started reading
about global warming,
to wonder how anyone
could predict the climate
in 100 years, when they
were unable to predict
local weather beyond a week.
I’ve always had a BS meter
that goes off when someone
tries to predict the future,
and predictions of the future
were the entire argument
for CAGW … and still are !
It took me two days
because there WAS some
warming in the 1990s,
but as soon as I learned
there was cooling from
1940 to 1975, I dumped
the CO2 controls the climate
theory in the garbage can.
Also important was that
Al “The Blimp” Gore
was leading the charge —
he sounded like the
Bozo the Clown
of climate science
in the 1990s, and
still does.

February 4, 2018 5:49 pm

This is not about science. It is about money going somewhere or other people imposing their personal belief system on you.
If you want to pay money to someone and let them impose their beliefs on you, you can agree with the global warming religion.
Otherwise, you should DEMAND proof.

Gerald Machnee
February 4, 2018 5:51 pm

Dr. Ball’s remarks about the oil industry are correct.
However they will likely have to change their attitude and hire real scientists (skeptical version) to fight the scamming lawsuits in New York and California. They should not pay a cent.
Because governments like our own in Canada have accepted the “word” of the pseudo-scientists rather than real science could face the same problem. However politicians are not too concerned as they are playing with taxpayers money.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 4, 2018 7:15 pm

A development in the Exxon stockholder report is an interesting change, reported just recently:

February 4, 2018 6:04 pm

Dr Ball.
Another succinct and valuable contribution.
Some thought that the election of Trump would change things in short order. Now Trump is keen on renegotiation of Paris agreement. If he renegotiates it will be a form of endorsement.
The level of entrenched agw belief is so strong, it will take years and a lot more than trump to reverse. In New Zealand the AGW mandate is in full swing, with not a single skeptic heard on radio or TV. Trump is portrayed as a buffoon so anything he says on AGW is dismissed.
With regards.

Reply to  ozonebust
February 5, 2018 3:47 am

Ozone bust
I’m not sure anyone believes Trump can make an immediate difference, even if he gets another 4 years. I think his legacy will be starting the change of direction. When big business and governments begin to see profit and purpose in his early changes, the will begin to follow the money.
Trump is only the temporary Captain of a very large ship. We guys at the back, in steerage, will see change a lot later than the priveleged few at the front of the ship.
But at least Trump has taken the helm and changed course. Something no other politician has done for generations.

February 4, 2018 6:19 pm

The problem is you cannot deny pockets of pollution to air, water, soil, forests, etc.
Yes the earth is massive and has many pristine areas but you don’t have
to be a psychotic leftist from peta to recognize that we are being unnatural
in many areas of the world and it is not only affecting our health by statistics
but also the health of animals and our crops due to massive monofarming which
is unnatural and depleting the earth of its microbiome, as we our with our
own microbiome by living off fast food which is also unnatural.
People get pissed off because they don’t like the totalitarian aspect to many
environmentalists, you don’t have to associate with those (SNIP) to have
a balanced viewpoint about what is natural and what is destructive and
fake and that we should live and build upon the natural and not the fake
and destructive, it is the same in morality.
Global heat and global cold is mostly the sun’s effects, but our affects
are upon the soil, water and air and forests of portions of the earth
which is not eternally renewable UNLESS we use from the earth,
water and air and forests in ways that are natural which don’t destroy
Which of you would eat a fish from your local river? No one. Do you think
that is good that you would not? Do you think it is natural and
ok? Do you have to be an environmental extremist to accept
such a concept? No. Would you let your children play in
the local pond or stream? Most likely not because you know
the @#@ is filthy, why is it filthy? Not because of “global warming”
but because of local pollution and unnatural destructive habits
of your neighbors and large companies that dump @#$ in rivers, etc.

Reply to  Dylan
February 4, 2018 8:16 pm

I think most here agree with you, Dylan. I’ve seen many comments bemoaning the fact that real environmental and health issues are ignored, or at least underfunded, because an imaginary problem gets the vast majority of the money and attention.

Pompous Git
Reply to  Dylan
February 4, 2018 9:30 pm

“Which of you would eat a fish from your local river? No one.”

Er… we do. The Huon River in southern Tasmania used to be quite polluted. These days not so much. Such things can be remediated. I much prefer fresh fish straight out of the river to KFC, or Maccas. But then we don’t have KFC, or Maccas.

Reply to  Pompous Git
February 4, 2018 10:12 pm

Pompous Git, quoting Dylan

“Which of you would eat a fish from your local river? No one.”

I do. I have.
My relatives do. My relatives have.
My friends and co-workers do.

Pompous Git
Reply to  Pompous Git
February 4, 2018 11:17 pm

Not just me that’s “no one” then… 🙂

Reply to  Pompous Git
February 5, 2018 2:36 am

Me too. No problem there. It is more like the local Peta would like to stop this unnatural behaviour. The river is clean. Even the paper factories don’t destroy waterways these days.
I eat fish from the local Baltic Sea that environmentalists and local government call the most polluted sea in the world. It is mostly rubbish, though large quantities of fish might have lessened health benefits due to dioxin. There is little we can do to the dioxin problem – it was caused long time ago.

Reply to  Dylan
February 5, 2018 10:23 am

While few of us would eat a fish from a local river, most of recognize that the cost of cleaning up those rivers to the point where you could eat the fish from them would bankrupt us many times over.
Somethings are worth doing, many things aren’t.

Reply to  Dylan
February 5, 2018 6:07 pm

What are you talking about?
Millions of people eat fish from their local rivers all the time.
More importantly, what is this fetishization of the “natural”?
You know what is natural? Smallpox, famine, plagues, blights, infant mortality, ad nauseum.
I have no problem with reasonable pollution regulations but had we none we would still be vastly better off than when man lived in an all natural world.
The number of lives saved and the amount of misery and poverty eliminated by man’s modification of the natural and invention of the “fake” is immeasurable. In most ways it is the history of mankind; making the journey from Hobbes’ state of nature where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short to the modern one where it is, for most in the west, none of the above. That is primarily due to the taming and conquering of the sacred natural.

February 4, 2018 6:34 pm

Love the accusation that only skeptics suffer from GroupThink. What is the “97%” propaganda but GroupThink?

John Robertson
February 4, 2018 7:41 pm

Mass hysteria is expensive.
The damage is usually massively greater than any benefit.
The current promoters of CAGW, AKA Climate Change intend to profit, many are reaping a fine harvest of government subsidies, aided by so many gullible helpers.
Robbing the many poor to enrich the few well connected.
The “Planet Savers” are perfectly willing to destroy people lives and careers to enrich themselves, if they manage to destroy confidence in civic institutions, make a mockery of scientists and collapse national is all good.. because the ends justify their means.
I note they are usually careful to disguise their desired ends.
We, Western Society , attempted to grow beyond tribalism,soothsaying,witch craft and seeing patterns where none may exist, by adopting the scientific method.
Belief in science, especially “The Science”TM is to refuse to accept the foundation of rational enquiry.
Believing in the result while refusing to apply the method is hysterically deranged.
The result of this bureaucratically driven,policy based evidence manufacturing will be the bankruptcy and then destruction of the bureaus.
For we have been betrayed by our own government agencies in their lust for power and determination to nudge us in the “proper” direction.
The hubris of those who know better than you and I how we shall spend our lives, while they contribute nothing useful.

February 4, 2018 8:18 pm

I really think the fossil fuel industry does this to prop up non-competitive energy sources like solar and wind. They would hate to have to compete with the nuclear industry because they can’t compete. In fact, one of the first nuclear reactors that was shut down was opposed by people in the propane and other heating fuels industry as a “public service announcement” about the dangers of radiation.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
February 4, 2018 10:46 pm

I once attended one of Dr. Ball’s talks about 10 years ago in Ottawa Canada . He seemed to be very sincere and knowledgeable about climate. However Dr. Ball has to approach our politicians with taking a world view of global threats like China. The politicians may be able to fudge us because we cant prove AGW is wrong on account that noone really has proof of how our atmosphere works. Therefore we should be explaining to our politicians that their actions regarding AGW are only helping the Chinese and are harming us.
Don’t forget that the Chinese Communist Party who own 67% of China and who rule it with an iron fist are laughing at the West. China’s CO2 output is >29 % of world total US in 2nd place with 15%. China is financing coal plants all over the world while professing to cut back in China. They only cut back on plans to build more coal plants in China when they realized that natural gas was the way to go. The Chinese Communist party plans to buy up the rest of the world. They will get it at firesale prices because our politicians will have wrecked our economies. The intial startegy will be to buy up every media outlet they can get their hands on. Because our printed media is dying they will be bought for below firesale prices. Anyone that thinks that they will be able to sell in the Chinese market in the long run is a fool. Any trade agreement with China is a win lose proposition with China always winning. Our prime minister in Canada is determined to get a special trade deal with China. He just recently had exploratory talks with the Chinese on that matter.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
February 5, 2018 1:30 pm

Keep in mind that nuclear energy really is mortally dangerous. It all looks nice as long as everything works as intended. But in case of natural disaster or political crisis radioactive isotopes arent going to disappear. Civilisation may collapse and nuclear waste will still be there, and spreading it all over environment would indeed be disastrous, because (unilke CO2) really small quantities make big difference. The prize for the wonders of nuclear energy may turn out to be too high in long term, at least with today’s uranium/plutonium based technology.
I think the best realistic energy source (aside from fossil fuels) could be tidal energy. Unlike sun or wind it’s very reliable and good for energy storage, thus may easily accomodate in response to changing demands. All you need is to build simple stone walls around a shallow portion of sea and place electric turbines in it. It is puzzling that this technology remains so underdeveloped compared to solar and wind energy, especially given that tides in North Atlantic are very high and so it could be perfect solution for entire Western Civilisation. I guess it’s because of what you said, as this energy source could actually compete with fossil fuels, just like hydropower already does.

Reply to  notdavid
February 6, 2018 7:20 am

The history of nuclear power
shows it is the safest way to
generate a lot of electricity
in the day, at night, with or
without winds.
Your data-free concerns
make you part o the problem,
not part of the solution.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  notdavid
February 6, 2018 8:58 pm

“All you need is to . . . ”
That phrase sets off alarm bells, and rightly so.

Reply to  notdavid
February 6, 2018 11:50 pm

Actually small amounts of radiation has no biological importance. (Amounts that can be easily detected with a cheap primitive device.)
Heavy elements don’t travel far away. Even in the Chernobyl scenario, which is the worst case, radioisotopes pollution in remote areas is irrelevant.

February 4, 2018 10:52 pm

>”The critical issue is the danger of skeptics becoming a narrow-minded, tunnel-vision group that attacks, rejects, or simply ignores skepticism about the skeptic’s position or views.”
We sceptics tried civilised debate in the past, got nowhere, were viciously attacked many times, came to the conclusion that the other side were only interested in politics, power and money, and were not interested in good science and technology. The left have got so bad that they cannot be engaged with. I’m certainly not going to bother. They are doing their hardest to bring down Western civilisation. If they are really serious they need to withdraw completely and let the good guys and girls take over and sort out their mess. I’m not going to bust a got only to be kicked in teeth. I’m not going to engage to be insulted, disparaged, disrespected and bullied.
For me the case of the sceptics side – the science and the technology use – is very obvious and likewise all the many holes in the warmists’ arguments are also very obvious. I can argue them until I turn blue but I’m not going to go out of my way for them, I’m not going to waste my time on them. There are many good people in the world, on the right side of the world, and they are the people I engage with and support.
When the economy and society collapses the most important thing will be for the good guys and gals to survive and for them to pass on their knowledge and skills and their perceptions, understandings, insights and abilities.

February 4, 2018 11:31 pm

@ Dr. Tim Ball,
You must try to not take it personal.
Sounds easy, eh ?
Let’s get back to first principals (whatever the f that means).
Make no mistake, your cry into the wilderness is being heard.

February 5, 2018 12:47 am

Hal Stewart
““the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists”
Trillions of dollars of free carbon credits (license to produce CO2) were handed out to big business. In the absence of global warming, they would be worthless. That’s why the corporate funded media shamelessly promotes the lies.
“Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.

February 5, 2018 12:49 am

Hal Stewart
““the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists”
Trillions of dollars of free carbon credits (license to produce CO2) were handed out to big business. In the absence of global warming, they would be worthless. That’s why the corporate funded media shamelessly promotes the lies.
“Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.
(Sunday Times UK)

February 5, 2018 5:05 am

“As it is said, foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of the rich country and giving it to the rich people of the poor country. What this tells me is that there is a failure of leadership at both ends of the transfer of funds.”
A great summary of the real problem and the very reason it will only get worse.

February 5, 2018 7:24 am

Thank you for the deeply heart felt, and sadly accurate, essay.

February 5, 2018 8:03 am

I noticed the deception ten years ago and have been protesting, to no avail. I was working on “What Warming?” then and used temperature data from literature to construct a temperature curve in in figure 15 of my book. But to my surprise, before it went to press, the official data for that temperature segment had changed, showing a warming curve instead of a horizontal temperature curve. It rose rose at the rate of one degree Celsius per century, I had no choice but to add an explanation which appears as figure 24 on the book. And the deception did not just appear in one source. I found it in three official temperature curves. And maybe more I missed. They pretend that each temperature curve is their own work [but] in this case it can be demonstrated that they were all copied from a fake original. That fact is revealed to us because the original fake set used defective software that produced more than half a dozen tall upward sharp spikes that look like noise but aren’t. I did not catch on before the book went to press but they are easy [to] identify. The “noise” spikes are the same in all copies of the fake data set which proves they were copied. They do not exist in satellite data or in the original data used for figure 15. This set got copied by at least two other official temperature sources and maybe more, all displaying the same “noise” signature. They are absent in satellite temperature records and in my original data for figure 15 but can be seen in figure 234. Any authorities looking to pin down fake temperature records will profit from these revelations of of wrong-doing by the guardians of global temperature.

February 5, 2018 9:48 am

AGW or GW based on a CO2 conc of ~ 380ppm or so is the sort of theory a schoolboy might dream up after his first encounter with the classroom physics of light. The fact that it has been adopted as the basis of UK government and EU Brussels policy is mindboggling. Clearly policymakers are content to grasp a rather simple and puerile concept that is not too mentally taxing and squander trillions on it.

Weylan McAnally
February 5, 2018 10:59 am

The global energy companies try to appease the environuts by claiming all sorts of things. However, the proof is in their business related actions. Take a look at the Gulf coast from Louisiana to Brownsville. There are at least 2 dozen active or approved fossil fuel sites (LNG, ethylene cracking, natural gas electric) being constructed. All of these are very near the water and in low lying areas. These companies may spout the AGW drivel, but their business activities reveal their true beliefs.

Joel Snider
February 5, 2018 12:22 pm

There’s a ‘tit for tat’ mentality that has manifested among Progressives and is very visible in the AGW debate – basically ‘if you said this about us, we get to say it about you.’
The thing is, one side actually DID what we’ve accused them of. Mutual accusations are not ‘balance’ and make nothing ‘fair’ – the old saw about the ‘truth somewhere in the middle’ I mostly find to be opportunistic crap to be used when the other person is in the right.

Reply to  Joel Snider
February 5, 2018 9:54 pm

The thing is: “journalists” don’t even consider the idea of checking anything. I mean really directly checking, not checking what an “independent” “authority” (codename for subsidized advocacy group) says.
Checking = going as far as downloading the summary and conclusion of a scientific study (not even the study itself) and making sense of the study domain and conclusion. It’s like jumping in the middle of war for some people.
This is not even a matter of work overload. Often it takes me less than 5 min to refute a claim about a study or “all studies”. Sometimes less. (And I don’t have any of these studies bookmarked.)

Svend Ferdinandsen
February 5, 2018 2:57 pm

It is hard to fight the clever words of the proponents of AGW.
GW is happening for the moment and it is hard to rule out any human influence.
No one has been able to set a measure on to what extend humans have contributed.
Then we have the CAGW, where computermodels and wild speculations make up disasters. It works because a good horror story catches better than to say that i don’t see any problems.
Have you ever heard a climate scientist say that it was better than thought?
(Better and worse is personal judgement, not very scientific.)
The improvements seen around the world are wiped out by a single hurricane somewhere in a local community.

February 5, 2018 3:38 pm

Thank you for the dollop of common sense in this crazy sea of misinformation that abounds today. I pray that dissenting voices will get loud enough to drown out the nonsensical rhetoric that surrounds and invades is so regularly…..

Transport by Zeppelin
February 5, 2018 7:36 pm

Thanks again Professor Tim Ball for your insight.
I never miss, & always thoroughly enjoy & look forward to, every article you post here.

February 6, 2018 7:08 am

That is a lot of rhetoric about social issues while never addressing geoengineering methods under way for 70+ years such as Solar Radiation Management (go to ). Yes, the science is pure NASA bs. So what? Please include all of the facts. Many of us are, in fact, informed and wonder if your inability to be thorough makes you a shill (big oil, or not). Thx. Bill.

February 6, 2018 7:22 am

Mr. Ball:
This article
needed an editor
to remove
the first three
where you
seemed to be
letting off steam
about criticism
of your prior
You should have
followed your
own advice:
I don’t respond
to comments
about my articles.”
I have only one
minor issue
with this
current article:
A few times you
used “AGW”,
when I thought
“CAGW” would
have been better.
I believe the hardest
attacks from leftists
are reserved for
those skeptics
doing the best job
exposing the
smarmy politics,
and fake science,
of the climate cult.
If you get attacked
a lot, Dr. Ball,
that means
the leftists
are afraid of what
we already know:
You are one of the
best climate skeptics
on our side — very
passionate about
the big issues,
while many others
discuss minutia,
and are often
boring !
Edit out the
early paragraphs,
before the good
Voltaire quote,
… and IMHO
the article
is transformed
into the best
climate politics
article of yours
I’ve ever read,
and I’ve read
you’ve had here
since 2015.
So, I’ll just ignore
those paragraphs,
and proclaim;
Dr. Ball is back,
and better
than ever
in 2018 !
And here’s why:
The warmunists
want skeptics
with their heads down,
debating the near
meaningless minutia
of tenths of a degree C.
temperature anomalies,
and millimeters of
sea level rise.
Dr. Ball is busy
refuting the root cause
of climate science
Leftist politicians
trying to sell “save
the planet socialism”,
to increase their power,
and the thickness
of their wallets!
If Dr. Ball
takes a lot of flak
from leftists,
he’s doing
such a good job
— the most vicious
character attacks
are aimed at
the best skeptics!
Others should
the following
from the article,
concerning the
opportunity cost
of “fighting”
“How many
real-world problems
of suffering, misery,
and death,
could be eliminated
using the billions of dollars
wasted every day
on the completely false
claim of AGW ?”
There is a huge
amount of wisdom
in that sentence.
How about a few cheers,
for Dr. Ball, from others
here, to show appreciation
for his expertise on the
politics, and history of,
the climate change cult?
My climate blog:
[Why the eccentric layout? . . . mod]

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 6, 2018 11:03 am

I have a vision problem
that can’t be corrected,
making it hard to read my
own writing unless
typed in narrow columns,
(like in every newspaper)
Maybe that makes me
[No, definitely not eccentric.
Your columns are exactly
aligned with the left edge
of the screen,
making them left-centric.
Thank you for letting us
know about how you have been
able to compensate for the
vision problem. .mod]

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 6, 2018 2:30 pm

I’m not happy with
being called
but I guess
I’ll live with it.

February 10, 2018 12:41 pm

Tim, I hope you win. I studied and campaign on the very provable renewable energy subsidy climate change protection racket, conducted in the name of climate change that actually makes net CO2 emissions from most heterogenous grids expensivey worse, along with the other things claimed for it, adequacy, affrodability, sustainability and security, etc – usually versus gas then nuclear, the only adequately intense sustainable energy source available after fossil, at today’s prices for the life of the human race at least.
No one mentions the true cost of stand alone renewables that depnd on their fossil hosts for their parasitic subsidies and to fill the gaps they leave 66% of the time, and sometimes 100%. W/o their fossil “backup” their essential storage makes renewable energy a whole order of magnitude more expensive as well as inadequate, with whole countries turned into subsidy farms. Wholly pointless when nuclear can deliver every policy measure w/o lifetime, subsidy, all you can eat. But no quick ‘n easy profits by law. One enduring feature of any such reason was the immediate caim of “science denier” which I wuld point out my points were all grouded in solid enrgy science, to be met with the response that Iwas a claimte denier, for pointing out
Then I looked at the now well established critiques on climate and the causes of warming and found another nonsense, a tiny effect of 1.6W/m^2, possibly, within the natural variation of an average 340w/m^2 natural H2O driven IR back radiation, from an effect that diminishes logarithmically with concentration and actually shows strong negative correlation with global temperatures over multiple decades of the industrialisation event, as well as geological history.
Finally, most of the AGW claims cover periods that are insignificant in natural climate periodicity.
In particular the science fitted Feynman’s definitions of pseudo science so well, picking culprits, assuming guilt, then creating causal hypotheses from correlation using hy[otheses that can never be proven, or disproven. A classic cargo cult pseudo science, with the science approach of economists, weather forecasters and bookmakers, all honourable men, but not scientists.
I hope ypur case against Piltdown Mann goes well and you get costs as wel as a win. But of course, te law doesn’t work onthe independnently verifiable truth, humans prefer to win arguments than respect the facts, and the law works the same way………… the world is watching you, and now Peter Ridd, defend honesty in science, against its use as a religion to satisfy the need for power and the greed of those sociopaths who promote its clear deceits for their own profit at the people’s expense. I include the University boards and the academics who are knowingly complicit with the clear deceit they regularly promote as fact, without explaining the problems with their “science”. So few cliamte scientists have any real grasp of sciece, or the mora character to tell the truth. And we pay their salaries.W are not served by estabishment science for insider profit..IMO. Good luck. CEng, CPhys, MBA

February 11, 2018 10:02 am

One individual psychologically damaged through deception is a tragedy.
A million is a loony bin.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights