World Leaders’ Ignorance About Climate Change Continues Despite Simple, Obvious Evidence.

Guest opinion Dr. Tim Ball

“To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization.” Arnold Toynbee

Until Trump, and very obviously with his exception, weak, ignorant, pandering, people lead the western nations. They want leadership positions but with no intention of doing the job, or, for that matter, any talent to do it. 

We are a long way from Toynbee’s “last product of civilization.” Worse, we are moving further away every day. What can you say about America, supposedly the most advanced civilization in the world, with a regular TV program about 600-pound people in prime time? Is that filling leisure intelligently? What can you conclude about western leaders listening to and, worse, heeding Swedish teenager, Greta Thuneberg about climate change who claims she can see carbon dioxide in the air? This skill may be because she is a 16-year old child who, regrettably, has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Asperger’s Syndrome. We know this because her mother, who needs for child abuse, told us so in the family book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate.’ Historically, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Now the ill-informed, used and abused, children are pointing out the emperor is wearing a cloak of green. 

None of this is surprising as the world moves past madness into insanity. A US Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is running for President. This after admitting she claimed a non-existent native heritage to jump the line at Harvard Law School and to get called to the Bar. There is another Senator also a lawyer, Richard Blumenthal, sitting on the Judiciary Committee where he cynically sits in judgment of other people’s truth and credibility. He claimed involvement in live combat in Vietnam when he was never even in the country. How can such exposed and admitted liars continue to retain positions of power? Sadly, it is easy, have you watched debates and proceedings in any legislative body from the US Congress, through the British Parliament and beyond. It is a zoo of childish one-upmanship and petty name-calling, but what makes it worse is they think it is clever. No wonder the ratings of all such bodies are so low.  

The major reason for the problem of poor leadership is that natural leaders, who are born, not nurtured, know the populace is not ready to be led. They also know that anybody who steps forward to lead immediately becomes the target of a media who believes its divine function is to destroy anybody and everybody. Understandably, they are not prepared to put their heads on the media chopping block. The impact on society is more than the loss leadership. This creates a vacuum that is almost immediately filled by people who want to lead but have nothing but ambition. These people want the job but lack the skills. They say whatever you want to hear or what they think you want to hear. The sincerity is as thin as the ability. Most of these are the people that Daniel Boorstin identified as being famous for being famous. They are so shallow that they are more vulnerable than most to misinformation and false stories that can become the basis of a political campaign. The biggest of these is the human-caused climate change issue. They, along with everybody else, didn’t understand it, but they deliberately exploited it. Everybody thought climate change was a problem, they didn’t care because it was a superb political opportunity.  

A Yale University test on climate titled American’s Knowledge of Climate Change” proved it. The test was designed to find out from

a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.

The test given to 2030 American adults resulted in catastrophic results. A full 77% of them achieved a grade of only D or F (52%). I know from 50 years of talking to and dealing with politicians at all levels that their knowledge is as bad. In one way it is worse because politicians take stronger, more definitive positions that preclude an open mind.    

With this ignorance, these leaders established energy, environment, and economic policies that are completely unnecessary, very expensive, and all at the expense of identifying and dealing with real problems. For example, the world was led to believe that it was overpopulated and unable to feed itself. The major culprit in this lie was by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, which predicted the failure of food supply, mass starvation, and societal collapse by the end of the 20th century. This distracted us from the real issues that are storage and distribution, so we are just now dealing with them. The world produced enough food for triple its population. In most of the world upward of 60% of this never made it to the table. It is lost in the field and during storage to insects, diseases, and decay. Even if the product made it out of the field a high percentage, probably some 20%, was never distributed. Store and transport the food more efficiently, and you solve most of the problem. We know this is true because in developed nations refrigeration reduced loss by 30%. 

Ignorance is a problem in itself but it is compounds itself because people, especially leaders, will lie and deceive to hide that ignorance. When the leaders learned that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas was increasing, and global warming was inevitable they didn’t know enough to even ask the right questions.  They didn’t know that it was only 4% of the total greenhouse gases and the human portion was only 0.4% of that. They didn’t know the people presenting this information deliberately limited themselves to only looking at human causes of climate change thus ignoring all natural, that is non-human causes. It was like buying a car after a garage assured you it was good. They didn’t tell you they only looked at one bolt on the right rear wheel to make that assessment. 

The leaders didn’t know they were caught up in the green hysteria of the environmental movement and climate change was just a small part. However, they did know that it was political suicide not to do anything considered as saving the planet. The attempt was what mattered not the accuracy of the information. Unfortunately, that situation applies in all aspects of the public perception of climate change. 

Leaders know virtually nothing about climate as they demonstrate every day. They don’t even know that the claim that CO2, especially from human sources is causing climate change, is completely without theoretical basis. They don’t know that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and is effectively left out of the official studies, along with natural causes. They also don’t know that the only evidence that supports the claim comes from a computer model deliberately programmed to show that a CO2 increase results in a temperature increase. If the leaders who used climate change to produce their devastating policies did even cursory research, they would know how wrong it was. They would know that every forecast made by those models was wrong. If they looked at the Third UN Climate Report, they would find this statement.

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

I know that no world leader read this because if they had, they wouldn’t daily display their ignorance. We are led by ignorant, uninformed, people who introduced legislation and rules that cost trillions. In doing that they ignored real problems, so millions die and suffer unnecessarily. The best example was the lie about DDT identified in Rachel Carson’s that triggered the environmental hysteria. She claimed DDT caused her husband’s cancer and death. There was no proof, but it got DDT, the major scourge of malaria-carrying mosquitos, banned worldwide. Since then at least 130 million people have died unnecessarily. Paul Driessen called this eco-imperialism when these ignorant leaders imposed their ignorance on other leaders. 

We are led by fools and incompetents who deliberately choose to stay stupid by not looking at even the simplest of information. Now with the Internet it is easily available so the only excuse left is personal incompetence.

[Title edit, .mod]

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “World Leaders’ Ignorance About Climate Change Continues Despite Simple, Obvious Evidence.

  1. Blaming everything on CO2 allows the Left to conveniently ignore those things which are actually causing environmental degradation.

    • And notice how it’s always marketed to be “carbon” C, a solid, as in “carbon” footprint, “carbon” taxes, “carbon” pollution, etc.

      As for the neo-Marxists, unproductive bureaucrats, & politicians:

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
      – Upton Sinclair

      • Politicians are empty suits doing the bidding of those with money who put them in office. The politician doesn’t need to know or be informed, he just needs to carry out instructions.

      • “And notice how it’s always marketed to be “carbon” C . . .”

        From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
        “Carbon (C), nonmetallic chemical element in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Although widely distributed in nature, carbon is not particularly plentiful—it makes up only about 0.025 percent of Earth’s crust—yet it forms more compounds than all the other elements combined.”

        Note that CO2 is only one of “zillions” of unique molecules that contain carbon yet CO2 is being branded as carbon. What a huge deception.

  2. Guess who’s NOT a “world leader” after today? Dedicated warmist, Bill Shorten of Australia. Resigned in shame! He lost the “unlosable” election!

    • It’s happening all over the world. The “Left” who have been pushing climate alarmism are being voted out by the people. It’s not just their stance on climate but every one has made it part of their platform. Let’s see what they stop supporting first to win back voters …. CC, open borders, or Globalism? I believe CC will go first, then open borders, but Globalism will remain as that’s the backbone of their financing.

      • Abbott was defeated though.

        But on the bright side, BoJo is probably the next UK PM.

        • I certainly hope so. As far as I know Boris is one of the very few politicians who isn’t a climate doom monger – in fact several years ago I do recall reading a piece by him that mocked the doom mongers.
          My other favourite is Owen Paterson, who I believe coined the phrase “Green blob”.
          Either of these would make a PM several million times better than the one we have now – though hopefully not for much longer!
          Chris

          • Both the oaf Johnson and Paterson meet the description of being ignorant as laid out by Tim Ball. They have shown no ability to learn which is no surprise when it comes to the oaf but is disappointing with regards to Paterson who I had considered leadership material until he went mental over Brexit. Having once been a supporter of the only plausible route out of the EU – Efta/EEA membership – he joined the ‘no deal’ morons like Johnson and spouted the most amazing ignorant drivel over the Irish border.

      • Meanwhile, we in New Zealand have to tolerate hopeless communist Princess Adern, she of the limited employment experience flipping burgers but currently illuminating the world in yet another Paris gathering of “world leaders”. What a fine show of resolve by our friends across the Tasman – how could anybody have voted for Shorten when his standard response to anything promoted by his opponents was “we’ll equal that”. Not an original thought in his brain!

        • In 2007 KRudd won with a “me too” campain. Then held his 2020 summit to come up with ideas.

  3. In 1982 a forecast was made that predicted both 2019 CO2 levels temperature increases.

    https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/growth-of-atmospheric-co2.png?w=400&h=502

    They also predicted a cooling of the stratosphere amd a warming of the troposphere

    https://scontent.fyyc5-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60722387_10157584921999349_628153419604951040_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc5-1.fna&oh=0e3f5f96a7fc009b53ad261bcf2ca8b9&oe=5D564936

    http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png

    http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/C25/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C25_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

    Dr Ball is wrong to claim “They would know that every forecast made by those models was wrong. ”

    BTW – any guesses as to the source of the forecasts?

    • People tend to confuse correlation and causation, then infer or predict the future based on hypotheses (e.g. models), which will intersect and diverge from reality, and confirm their closely held beliefs.

          • Try using a 1960 baseline. Your are trying to compare anomalies from two different means.

          • Jack Dale:

            Don’t be silly!
            Choose the same zero-point and you’ve resolved the perceived ‘problem’ of using the ‘incorrect’ reference period!
            The slope of the anomaly curve is determined solely by the dataset post the zero-point. The reference period gives you your zero-point.
            Either you were unaware of this (excusable) or you are smarter than that and are spreading BS. Can’t have it both ways!

          • Jack Dale,

            You’re still being silly.
            The RSS data start in 1979.
            You yourself used RSS data to underline your claims earlier. The Exxon Report, ostensibly from 1982, clearly claims an increase from 1980-2019 of 0.9 deg. C.
            Hänsen 1988 and IPCC 1990 both estimated 0.9 deg. C over the 30 y to come.

            The HadCRU plot you provided shows 0.6 deg. C from 1980-2019.

            Fail.

            I think you are suffering from confirmation bias. Be well.

          • Jack,

            You need to go back and re-read the 1982 ‘Exxon graph’:

            You wrote,
            “RSS data does not go back to 1960. HADCrut does. Now we are using the same start point.

            http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2019/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2019/trend

            Slightly more than a 0.8C increase. Just like the Exxon forecast.”

            If you still believe that the Exxon graph which you posted shows a predicted temperature trend from 1960 (and not from 1980), you need to go back to your grad school for Future Studies in Houston and politely request a refund.

            https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/growth-of-atmospheric-co2.png?w=400&h=502

        • I should point out that comparing forecasts of global mean surface temperature anomaly with actual temperature datasets is done with the tacit assumption that ALL observed warming is due to increased human CO2/GHG emissions, which is of course difficult to prove (or to disprove).

          That is, if some of the observed warming could be ascribed to other factors than human GHG emissions, the credibility of the models would be eroded correspondingly.

    • Jack Dale:

      Your first graph would appear to be an estimate of future CO2 levels and GMST as a function of time (I’ll assume for a “Business as Usual” human CO2 emissions scenario). But do please share the background.

      Eyeballing, it would appear that the assumed CO2 sensitivity (assuming all observed surface warming would have been due to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) was on the order of 3.0 deg. C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      Comparing the actual temperature record since 1980, I would argue that the prediction here is on the high side. The prediction was for about 0.9 deg C over 40 y, whereas the actual figure has been more like 0.6 deg. C.

      Interesting that in 1988 and 1990, when the expert scientists ostensibly knew more (Hansen et al. and the IPCCs FAR), the prediction was for about 1.0 deg. C over 30 years. The actual figure was about half that. Their estimates of Climate Sensitivity were 3.0 and 2.5 deg. C per doubling of CO2 concentration.

      Of course, the IPCC lowered the temperature trend projections in 1999/2000 to 0.2 deg. C per decade over the near-term. Yet the claim is still being made that an additional 3 deg. C increase in GMST will transpire over the current century.

      In order for these predictions to come true, we would have to see an acceleration in actual planetary warming. Unfortunately for the alarmist camp, this is not taking place. There is no long-term acceleration signal in the Global Mean Sea Level Record, for example.

      So Tim Ball is in fact correct in stating that the model-based forecasts (of future climate as a function of human CO2 emissions) have failed.

      • Kurt:

        Climate model-based forecasts cannot fail as climate models do not make forecasts. These models make “projections” that are widely but inaccurately assumed to be forecasts. Also, that there is such a thing as a “climate sensitivity” lacks empirical support.

        • ‘These models make “projections” that are widely but inaccurately assumed to be forecasts.’

          And there we have it.

          • Peter GB,

            Well put.
            If getting the future projections for BaU wrong by 50-100% can be excused, how can these clowns claim 95% certainty with a straight face?

        • Terry:

          I agree, a projection does not equal a forecast. Semantics aside, a future temperature ‘projection’ for ‘Business as Usual’ [human GHG emissions] does begin to approximate the meaning of the word ‘forecast’.

          Note that our alarmist friend Jack Dale used the term ‘forecast’, however (likely because he believed the projection to have been ‘nailed’. This might explain his cognitive dissonance at hearing that it wasn’t ‘nailed’ after all.

          We’ll have to wait and see if he is capable of auto-criticism (a rare feature among climate alarmists).

          • I am using the language I learned in graduate school, Studies of the Future (University of Houston, Clear Lake)

            BTW – semantics is what gives words meaning.

        • Terry,
          We have to start somewhere. ‘Climate Sensitivity’ is assumed by mainstream climate science to be roughly 3.0, but highly likely to fall between 1.5 and 4.5 (without excluding figures outside that range), so in order to rate future climate projections, we need to use the key assumptions made by those postulating the future climate.

          After 30+ y of such projections, we still don’t have any improvement in the brackets for climate sensitivity, equilibrium or transient.

          Doesn’t sound like ripe enough science upon which to plan a keg party, let alone to remake industrial society.

  4. Thanks Tim. Our only hope is that eventually the people will be shown to be wiser than their leaders. Perhaps the Australian election result gives us hope.

  5. Accurate but why are they proceeding headlong into the scam without proper knowledge? Who’s pulling the political strings? The UN says it’s not possible to make long term predictions yet that’s exactly what their Reader’s Digest version for leaders does. Until we recognize and neutralize the people behind the curtain we will constantly be on the defensive.

  6. From the results of the Yale test that Dr Ball uses to claim “politicians at all levels that their knowledge is as bad.”
    Climate Skeptic Arguments
    • Many Americans incorrectly believe that since scientists can’t predict the weather more than
    a few days in advance, they can’t possibly predict the climate of the future (42%) or that
    computer models are too unreliable to predict the climate of the future (37%).
    • A third of Americans (35%) incorrectly believe that in the 1970s, most scientists were
    predicting an ice age.
    • A third of Americans (33%) also incorrectly believe that since the Earth’s climate has
    changed naturally in the past, humans are not the cause of global warming today.
    • Relatively few (19%) incorrectly believe that any recent global warming is caused by the sun,
    that the record snowstorms last winter in the eastern U.S. prove that global warming is not
    happening (18%), or that the Earth is actually cooling, not warming (15%).
    • Only 12 percent of Americans say that global warming is happening, but will be more
    beneficial than harmful.
    • All of these items, however, include from 19 to 47 percent of Americans who say they don’t
    know whether these statements are true or false.

    Did he bother to read the study, because it fails to support many of his own previous contentions.

    • Alas, this so called test is itself based on ignorance, as the report of what people supposedly “know” begs questions of what the researchers WANT the people to “know”:

      57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;

      Even this 57% is ignorant, because no gases TRAP heat.

      50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;

      50% of Americans, thus, have been fooled by sophists posing as scientists.

      45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;

      This 45% has the wrong understanding of carbon dioxide. No “trapping” — it’s wrong, wrong, wrong terminology.

      25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification.

      This 25% would do well to learn the flaws in how these terms are misused.

      These seem to support the claims of the article, JD.

      • Also, “Yale UniversityAmericans’ Knowledge of Climate Change47•In the past, rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have caused global temperatures to increase [true] ”

        In the PAST, CO2 increases have generally FOLLOWED temperature increases, an indicator that Henry’s Law affected atmospheric CO2 more than atmospheric CO2 affected temperature.

        It also stated CO2 is increasing exponentially. IF CO2 is increasing exponentially,
        1,2,4,8,16,
        then since the effect of radiation is proportional to the logarithm of CO2, radiation should be increasing in the ratio
        0,1,2,3,4.

        Since temperature is proportional to the 4th ROOT of radiation, the RATE of temperature increase should be DECREASING! TEMPERATURES in the above model, with initial radiation X, would increase with the ratios,
        4th root of (X), 4th root of (X+1), 4th root of (X+2), 4th root of (X+3), 4th root of (X+4)

        • It is true that temperatures in the past preceded CO2 increases. Milankovitch cycles would produce warming which released CO2 which in turn caused more warming and increased H2O vapour and increased CO2 releases.

          We longer need Milankovitch cycles to release CO2, because 250 years ago we started to do it all by ourselves. by burning fossil fossils which sequestered for millions of years the carbon that we now used for fuel.

          • Jack,

            Those two studies are so flagrantly full of spin as to be laughable.

            Of course more plants means more pests. It means more biology – more of everything on down the food chain.

            More CO2 also means more nutrition. But since the nutrition increase isn’t as great as the biomass increase, one can spin this as the crops being less “nutritious.” That is, the nutrition is less concentrated.

            This is just silly.

            In the spirit of silliness, let me ask why the lowered nutrition doesn’t seem to bother the pests.

          • Jack Dale:

            You wrote, “Milankovitch cycles would produce warming which released CO2 which in turn caused more warming and increased H2O vapour and increased CO2 releases.”

            Could you explain for us why this unstable positive feedback mechanism which purportedly characterized each of the interglacials (initial warming, causing more CO2, causing more warming, causing more CO2, …) always ended up with a rapid cooling?

          • What part of “cycles” do you not understand? Eventually there is decreasing insolation and cooling starts. There is an uptake of CO2 by natural sinks and further cooling occurs.

            The Holocene Optimum was 6,00 to 8,000 years ago and followed by long term cooling , which abruptly reversed approximately 200 years. Why was that? BTW – Coming out of a Little Ice age is not the answer. See: https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082

          • >>
            Jack Dale
            May 18, 2019 at 3:43 pm

            It is true that temperatures in the past preceded CO2 increases. Milankovitch cycles would produce warming which released CO2 which in turn caused more warming and increased H2O vapour and increased CO2 releases.
            <<

            What you are describing is a completely bogus mechanism. If CO2 is controlling the temperature on the upswing, then what is controlling the temperature on the downswing? CO2 follows the temperature curve with about a 800-year delay. Then as the temperature drops, the CO2 level remains high for a while and then slowly drops at about half the rate of the temperature drop. Why isn’t this much higher CO2 level forcing the temperature up?

            It’s the usual problem that people are trying to apply incomplete linear system thinking to non-linear systems. Non-linear systems, especially non-linear chaotic systems like the climate, need no external forcing to change their states.

            Jim

      • I also noted the preferred answer tick for an incorrect answer:

        Q4. Assuming global warming is happening, do you think it is…
        Caused mostly by human activities (√) 50
        Caused by both human activities and natural changes (vol.) 6
        Caused mostly by natural changes in the environment 35
        None of the above because global warming isn’t happening 7
        Other 2
        Don’t know (vol.) 1

        One could have (in my opinion) selected either the ‘both’ causes response or the ‘mostly natural’ and would have been correct for either.

    • ***• A third of Americans (35%) incorrectly believe that in the 1970s, most scientists were
      predicting an ice age.
      • A third of Americans (33%) also incorrectly believe that since the Earth’s climate has
      changed naturally in the past, humans are not the cause of global warming today.
      • Relatively few (19%) incorrectly believe that any recent global warming is caused by the sun,***
      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    • Jack,
      Most people don’t even know what “heat” is, or why it can’t be “trapped”. I don’t think you do either, based on the way you talk about it. Heat is not a basic physical property of matter; it is a conceptual property used to describe our biological reaction to the energy levels of things around us. It is really just a proxy for energy, but being an integrated value care must be exercised when using it. And in “climate science” they are quite sloppy in this regard.

      • I understand the process of radiative forcing. I also understand the “greenhouse ” is a metaphor.

        • As I thought, you don’t really understand what heat is, you are still clinging to this notion of “heat” as some sort of unique type of energy. It is not. What we experience as heat is just the result of the Brownian Motion of molecules – kinetic energy. Temperature is simply the highly localized measurement of energy density. This is why the temperature of a gas goes up as you compress it; energy is not being added, the existing energy density of the gas is simply going up. This makes it obvious that talking about “head fluxes” in something as large as the atmosphere of a rotating planet so imprecise as to be almost meaningless. It’s the total energy in versus the total energy out that we need to understand, but currently we have no way to do that, so people use proxies and crude models instead. That’s fine as a mental exercise, but I don’t think for a second that it’s accurate enough to base any kind of government policy on. If you wish to alter you own life, feel free, just to try to force me to do the same.

          • Arg, “heat fluxes”

            And “…just *don’t* try to force me to do the same.”

            Shouldn’t try to make a post like this after a couple of bottles of “The Sixth Glass”.

          • I think that Paul Penrose is also mistaken about heat. The temperature of a gas goes up as it is compressed because work is performed on it – therefore the energy of the gas increases. Pressure times Volume of an amount of gas equals its energy at constant temperature.

    • Jack:

      The climate models do not “predict” as you seem to think. The climate models “project” and this is a different though related concept. Underlying a model that “predicts” is a concrete statistical population but underlying a model that “projects” is no such population.

  7. A major problem is that most of the press are also examples of ignorance and lack of curiosity, so if one only relies on the legacy media for information, one will be as ignorant as the reporters and writers.

  8. Politicians don’t care about science. Never have, never will. When scepticism garners more votes, then they will proclaim they have always supported healthy realism.

  9. One shouldn’t be greatly surprised at the current repeating of “history” like that which occurred 2,000 years ago as witnessed and described by the Jewish historian, …… Flavius Josephus, …. to wit:

    Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.
    (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

  10. “A US Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is running for President. This after admitting she claimed a non-existent native heritage to jump the line at Harvard Law School and to get called to the Bar.”

    Shameful for her to do without reservation.

  11. What I find absolutely hilarious is that Joe Biden is now coalescing as the Democrat’s clear-front runner for the nomination. And that is solely because he is seen as having one “quality” the other 22 (at last count) don’t: Elect-ability in the General election over Trump.

    Biden is polling at about a 39% in that field, almost 23 points ahead of 2nd place Bernie Sanders, according to Real Clear Politics’s latest polling of likely Dem primary voters.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

    That’s 2 out of every 5 likely Dem voters see Biden as their only hope in 2020 vs. Trump and a strong economy.

    Now I can be pretty confident in saying that those other 3/5th’s of Democrats probably aren’t too keen on having to vote for a septuagenarian white heterosexual, non-socialist male who has spent his entire adult life in Washington DC, 36 years as a US senator then 8 years as Obama’s VEEP. What kind of impact will that have on voter turn-out in 2020? Probably not good for Democrats.

    Think about that for a moment: Basically the inescapable conclusion is that 40% of Dems realize none of the others in that diverse field of 23 has a realistic chance in defeating Trump. While the other 60% are off chasing their unicorns and fairy fantasy candidate of (select one: Bernie, Buttigieg, Harris, O’Rourke, or Warren).

    But then how will Biden have to sell himself to the general public?

    – Will he sell himself as The Obama Do-Over Guy?
    America gave Obama his “do-over” with his 2012 re-election and he failed that test miserably, as Trump’s election and rejection of Hillary showed. Besides Hillary’s serious ethical problems, her other big handicap is she couldn’t criticize to any real extent Obama’s record.

    – Will Biden try sell himself as “The Guy who can fix Washington DC?”
    A man who was an insider in the DC power elite for 44 years? Hilarious!

    And we haven’t even got to see Biden much publicly since 2017. His appearances so far are either private fund raisers or scripted presentations. When he goes off-script is when he famously becomes the Biden Gaffe Machine, regularly saying something cringe-worthy for his base. And now his age is showing in his speech as well with regular word slurs and mispronunciations. So far its been the saving grace of video editing by a complicit media that has stopped a wider acknowledgement of this issue.

    Conclusion: Those gaffes and speaking problems will only get worse as a grinding campaign appearance schedule and the need to speak off-script becomes more frequent. And he can’t shake-off the life-long DC insider stench. And since he was Obama’s VP for 8 years, he won’t be able to criticize the Obama economic record or Obama’s use of unconstitutional “pen and phone” power grabs to pursue an agenda he couldn’t get through Congress.And Biden already is having to tread lightly on Climate Change nonsense of GND, because the the GND alienates the white working class voter, but not doing so enrages his lunatics of the Left in his party. As such Biden probably is un-electable versus Trump and a strong economy. And the wiser Democrats understand all this and are likely in a panic.

    • Joe Biden

      Has been given ten times as much favorable press coverage as the other Democrat candidates. The MSM are fawning all over Biden just like they did Obama.

      Has not faced a serious interview yet.

      Has not declared a Climate Change policy yet. If he doesn’t toe the AOC line then there’s going to be hell to pay.

      Bernie may have harmed his own image a little with his advocacy of allowing terrorist bombers to vote from prison. A really stupid idea that a lot of people, even Democrats, see as stupid.

      Biden is not a very good public speaker. And apparently can’t write them either since he was caught stealing from others.

      Biden has a LOT of things to answer for within the Democrat Party, and if he were to win the Democrat nomination he would have even more things to answer for, like what was he told in that January 5, 2016 Oval Office meeting where Trump spying was discussed. The same meeting where Susan Rice went into the electronic records a week or more after this meeting and wrote that Obama instructed the attendees to “go by the Book”. Can you say: “Covering your tracks?” Biden will be asked about this by congress and possibly by a grand jury.

      So Biden has a long way to go to the presidency. Trump will demolish him if he is the nominee.

      I love the way Biden says he and the Democrats are the ones to unite the country and then immediately goes into telling lies about Trump and his supporters which divide the country. Biden, like most democrat elites is a hypocrit who accuses others of doing what he is doing.

      The fight for the Democrat nomination is going to be very interesting. We are going to see some pretty radical ideas put forward. I don’t see any of them being a big challenged to Trump.

  12. DR Ball writes “They don’t know that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and is effectively left out of the official studies, along with natural causes. ”

    Did he not bother to read Chapter 8 of AR5: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

    How did he miss this?

    “Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    • Dr. Ball was talking about the politicians, who apparently have not read Chapter 8 of AR5. Apparently neither they, nor the media have read it.

      I presume you have read it , though. If so, why do you believe that climate models can accurately predict future climate when the 3rd climate report said it was impossible?

      • Dr Ball clearly has not not read Chapter 8 of AR5. I have; that is why I knew his assertion was wrong.

        You need to learn the difference between precise prediction and a forecast based on alternative assumptions, which is what climate forecasts do.

        BTW – did you look at the very accurate predictions I posted above?

        • Your comments are sophistry at it’s best. There is no differentiation that could possibly make a difference. Climate models are nothing but weather forecast models configured to handle large time integrations.

          In order to do develop them, grid sizes that are used for the computation of vorticity, divergence and convection, all parameter requirements to accurately model the hydrological cycle with, are compromised to larger sizing of the grids to maintain computational stability.

          This leaves no hope that any of this critical cycle can be computed to any degree of accuracy required to get any realistic assessment of the true radiation balance. It is no surprise,then, as a result, weather systems become latitude displaced, cloud formation and destruction prediction is sacrificed as very small errors in this lead to large errors in energy transfer through the system.

          This mathematical limitation was known about years ago, and yet, those limitations were bypassed, “climate models” were developed as open systems and the rest is history. The creation of a “Wizard of Oz” machine can then be arbitrarily used to claim it has exceptional predictive power and can “crystal ball” future climate through running them and to scare the public with and make disingenuous public policy with. The excuse that was fronted to claim they would still work, is that “we don’t have to get the weather systems correct in the model. The earth is round and somehow, we think this will magically balance the radiation transfer out”. What complete nonsense! But that is what the rational is for claiming predictive skill of these overrated heaps of junk. These models are “adjusted” with tunable variables to curve fit results which is further proof these models have no demonstrable skill in predicting anything of climate value.

          The result of all of this is that these Oz machines were then made tools of the academic establishment that can and do fit “hand in glove” for self service to government grants and the political establishment uses the results of the CO2 warming to force outrageous public policy with that always involves taxation to “control the climate thermostat”. This very invented premise that CO2 can control earth temperature ( at odds with the established founding principles in atmospheric science) was then coupled to modeling with that assumption. With this and tunable models, the sky is the limit to get any desired result. Just tune the systems’ other variables arbitrarily to get the closest match to temperature. The truth about this doesn’t matter.

          There isn’t a conflict of interest that I know of that has beat this in this century. The only thing I would add to Dr. Ball’s essay is that I blame academia for most of what has happened. They have misrepresented the skill they possess with their Oz machines and thru the use of them gave cover to the stupid political class that doesn’t have the scientific prowess to differentiate the truth from reality and have been played in that regard to the advantage of the failed climate modelers and all of the grant money they produced.

          • Jack: That is a typical response from those that engage in climate sophistry…accuse others of what they have been doing themselves. If you are going to make that claim, you should back it up with something other than nothing, like I did.

            Climate models are exactly what I state they are and they are hobbled by mathematical limitation to useless junk in making climate predictions with, and their construction certainly realized the challenges they had to overcome before being trusted, and yet all of these steps were bypassed.

            Any reputable engineer would have built a beta test model to validate skill before releasing any result to the public or political class with. This was never done. Why?

            I submit because the modelers have ego’s the size of Jupiter and wanted money and recognition for what they claimed they had accomplished. And at some point, lies about their skill began to be told, and when the results gave them spurious warming trends from increasing atmospheric CO2, at odds with founding principles from modern atmospheric science, they should have immediately stopped and realized they have problems, likely being caused by these same pesky limitations they certainly knew existed.

            Instead, they pressed forward, leaking the results and realized soon, this could become an academic gravy train to getting $ billions in public money if they represented to government and the political class that the results could be trusted.

            This has led to an unjustified, systematic manipulation of the surface temperature record to cover-up unsatisfactory model performance that in the real temperature record, cannot be validated.

            These are not honest mistakes, and look where these academics have led us.. The Green New Deal? Their continued fake climate narrative is unforgivable in my opinion and it’s precisely what happens when you end up digging yourself into a hole that will be very embarrassing to climb out of. These people have shamelessly wasted $ billions in taxpayer money using these Oz machines to generate climate hysteria with, and this fake narrative has been emulated to every level of public education to brainwash and condition our youth into accepting the fake premise about CO2 causing “climate change”

            As silly and ignorant as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is about science and climate, the parade of jokes about her makes me very sad. She is a perfect example of how badly public education has failed this country…but it started with those in academia who developed the first climate model Oz machine and began to lie about skill.

    • He’s not talking about AR5, he’s referring to what politicians don’t know!
      How did you miss that?

      • What part of “effectively left out of the official studies, along with natural causes. ” do you not understand? Is AR5 not an official study?

        • **What part of “effectively left out of the official studies, along with natural causes. ” do you not understand? Is AR5 not an official study?**

          What he means is that they are ignoring water vapour and using the “theory” that CO2 has caused and will cause most of the warming.

          • **Who is ignoring water vapour? Nor the IPCC.

            BTW – http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#vapor
            **
            Again, Jack did not answer the question. The reference at http refers to some modelling and analysis.
            When I said the IPCC is ignoring water vapor, I said they are not using it in the temperature change. They use forcing to try to show that CO2 causes most of the forcing. The forcing calculations are NOT measurements. Therefore water vapor and clouds formed by water vapor have NOT been used in the amount of warming. Part of this is feedbacks and the IPCC has not been able to measure feedbacks so they use theory and ASSUME certain feedbacks and ASSUME CO2 is causing most of the warming.

    • ***Did he not bother to read Chapter 8 of AR5: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

      How did he miss this?

      “Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere***

      They STATED that water vapour is the primary gas. However, they ignored it in the equations. They have no measure of how cloud affects the warming or cooling. The so-called “forcings” they use to compute “warming” are only theoretical calculations and are NOT measurements. They do not know if the feedbacks are net positive or negative which is why the “climate sensitivity” CALCULATIONS vary from about 1 deg to 4,5,6,7 etc.

  13. Our so-called Leaders have seized their power by tickling the ears of the masses into believing they are being “saved” … and “cared-for” by the elites. They haven’t seized power and authoritarian control by brute force … nope … they’ve done it with kittens, rainbows, and unicorns. They’ve simply USED “climate change” as an existential threat that THEY can save us from. Because they *care* for us. And everyone wants to be suckled by mother-Government … so they keep getting elected.

    Clive Staples Lewis said it best …

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    Shit! They even got a majority of Californians to sell their futures for a really FAST choo choo train that will be “cheaper”and “faster” than a 40min. plane ride. Just think of allllll the Obbamakkaresque FAKE Economic calculations that went into selling that fantasy! The elites finally have the dumb and docile subjects they’ve dreamed of. And they’re actively recruiting another 100k/mo. to hop our borders and vote. And breed. Yes … they will eventually collapse the system. And we will all be living in government-provided hollowed out logs. Most likely all supplied under generous government contract by the Native People’s of North America … because our leaders *care* about Native Americans.

    • “It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”

      I love that part! 🙂

  14. Great article, Mr Ball, which throws much needed light on the incompetence of those who see it as their pre-ordained right to instruct the rest of us on how we might live our lives. So much of what is wrong in our world is purely and simply the result of “vote catching” and excessive hubris on the part of politicians.

    I realise the Yale survey was included to prove a point, but it is a dubious document, many of the questions being either self contradictory or having confirmatory bias. Knowledge or ignorance on the part of participants is difficult to prove when the question master has such a poor and fundamentally biased grasp of the subject. Is there a more recent (than 2010) and less biased survey which might have been referred to?

    Having written all that I have just looked back to see that Jack Dale May 18, 2019 at 11:19 am has made a similar point – apologies for duplication!

    • That’s HATE speech for you having said so. I hope your IP address isn’t in Canada … or a very large transgendered RCMP Officer will be paying you a visit.

      • Transgender/crossover or neosexual females (still a male sex, with the associated physiological differences). Neosexual males are still a female sex. Male and female homosexuals do not differ markedly in their physical attributes from normal males and females.

        • Has anybody created a laminated, wallet-sized multi-color card that covers these/this naming/labeling convention yet?

  15. I remain to be convinced that leadership is born not nurtured.

    I am sure that in each generation, certain traits may predispose to leadership potential, combining an understanding of the key issues facing that generation with the social demeanours leading to acceptance by others of their leadership qualities.

    However, I am equally convinced that you can have the best seeds to sow on earth, but put them in the wrong soil, have them experience frosts, drought, pestilence or vandalism and your crop harvest will not be of high quality.

    Resilience, equanimity, stability and the like are traits influenced by nurturers. So if leadership of one generation needs those qualities, leadership potential at birth can be nurtured to fruition in adulthood.

    For leadership qualities to be completely impervious to environment suggests the qualities needed are things like insensitivity, bullying, brute strength, machiavellianism and dogmatic intransigence.

    There are times when such qualities are needed, but the spectrum of leadership traits is very broad, since different scenarios predicate different leadership styles and image.

    With the earth fully conquered, we are witnessing an emergence of more traditionally feminine traits needed in leadership.

    Conquering is less important than dialogue. Dialogue is a learned trait, capable of huge lifelong development. Children brought up in jungles by animals do not learn dialogue, they learn it from humans…

    Pioneering leadership is very different to systemisation leadership. Pioneers often have egos, arrogance, hypercompetitive natures and great conceptualisation skills. Leading them is very different to leading completer-finisher OCD-style techies. Some people expand their leadership skils as companies grow, others become serial company founders. In no small measure does mentoring affect which route entrepreneurs will end up taking…..

    Leadership qualities are latent in most people, but may only emerge if environmental conditions favour them.

    Murdering was the favoured leadership quality in warring kingdoms 800 years ago.

    It is close to coming to the end of its respectable period of ‘leadership’…….

  16. Dr Ball clearly has not not read Chapter 8 of AR5. I have; that is why I knew his assertion was wrong.

    You need to learn the difference between precise prediction and a forecast based on alternative assumptions, which is what climate forecasts do.

    BTW – did you look at the very accurate predictions I posted above?

        • Jack Dale,

          You wrote, “Your (sic.) missed the decimal places.”
          Are you suggesting that Jim Hansen might have exaggerated?
          You also wrote, “Really? – Tony Heller?”
          Are you in dee Nile of the historical record (the news clippings which Tony Heller posted)?
          Would you like to challenge Ross McKitrick’s critical assessment of land-based temperature dataset quality?

  17. Historically, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Now the ill-informed, used and abused, children are pointing out the emperor is wearing a cloak of green.

    None of this is surprising as the world moves past madness into insanity

    “The Emperor’s New Clothes” and the “Mad Hatter’s Tea Party” all rolled up in one.

    Excellent observation Dr. Ball

  18. Mass Hysteria is amazing to watch in action.
    Sorry about our short term future.
    We are in the Fat,Happy and tolerant of Stupidity part of our cycles of civilization.
    Those with Delusions of Adequacy lunge for the reins of power, they really believe they are helping us.

    As Dr Ball points out,those of a practical bent will not step into the political realm, no one in their right mind wants the job.

    Hopefully the madness will burn itself out soon,there are some hopeful signs, as the “Left” are currently devouring their own.
    The sad fiasco of women’s sports being a classic symptom of these times.

    When the cities burn, then I will start to care,as my vote counts for nothing against the mad masses in those cities, obviously clueless of supply chains and weather.

    The “climate Emergency” has no meaning outside the urban areas,there it becomes weather,something we know we cannot change, we can but adapt our plans to what nature brings.

    This madness,which repeats through out our history, is regrettable but only a fool stands in front of a stampede.
    Sure I counter the meme where I can, but logic,history and rational POV have no place in when you are faced with a true believer.
    Hopefully the silent majority can see through the Emperors fine fabric, elections seem to say so.

    What makes this really egregious is the very agencies entrusted with preventing governments getting carried away by fads and delusions,are the creators of this attempted panic.

    Evidence based policy making.
    Purpose?
    Prevent pseudo-scientific crazes.

    Policy based evidence manufacturing
    Purpose?
    Propaganda.

    • From the work titled: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

      Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

  19. Dr Tim Ball Re: “. We know this because her mother, who needs for child abuse, told us so in the family book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate.’ Is there a word missing from this sentence?

  20. Love ya work Dr Ball. You’ve got a big set of your surnames. I think someone like your good self displays excellent leadership qualities. Anyone that is able to excercise one’s mind truthfully according to reason and logic during an age of herd suggestion and virtue signalling is exactly the sort of men we need to lead us out of this shit these fools have put us in.

  21. Dr. Tim Ball

    “The best example was the lie about DDT identified in Rachel Carson’s (book?) that triggered the environmental hysteria.”

  22. The current situation is what happens when rich leftist power brokers think the way to run a country is to promise to fulfill the wish-lists of sophomore-Marxist suspended adolescents. The stupid, it burns.

  23. One real interesting thing about the Yale study back n 2010 is just how much the authors believed that simply was not true. And with 2018 being cooler than 2010 one can only chuckle at their ignorance.

  24. Has this axiom been posted yet –

    Hard times create strong men. —- Our founding fathers thru, say, ~1960
    Strong men create good times. —- Our fathers and mothers gave us this
    Good times create weak men. —– we have been living through this period
    And, weak men create hard times. —- Presently we are here

  25. “She claimed DDT caused her husband’s cancer and death.”

    Her imaginary husband. How interesting….

  26. Speaking of simple. obvious evidence.

    One of the heated issues (cuwt, huh.) underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.

    It is neither.

    By definition and practice temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the vacuum of space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined.

    However, any molecular stuff (ISS, space walker, moon, earth) placed in the radiative energy pathway of the spherical expanding solar photonic gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.

    Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.

    This intuitively obvious and calculated scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory that has the atmosphere warming the earth and no atmosphere producing a frozen ice ball at -430 F.

    No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming, no man caused nor cured climate change.

    Go ahead, snip it. You’ve seen it.

    • re: “Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.

      And, the blanket, LIKEWISE, between the camper and ‘space’ impedes the flow/reduces the flux density of LWIR to the ‘sink’ (think: heatsink, if you will) of space … rendering “No greenhouse effect” in the strictest sense inapplicable. THIS keeps the earf (sic) a little warmer, i.e., the rate at which thermal energy (via LWIR to space) is reduced.

      Did you just accidentally miss the “camper to space” step?

      Alternatively, what did I get wrong?

  27. Great [article] Dr. Ball! Hilarious seeing sad attempts to argue against too. The truth is very obviously in front of us, but there are those who would keep trying to spoon feed us crap regardless. The world appears to be gaining it’s collective sanity and booting the “Jacks” from their soapboxes. Well said Dr. Ball!

    • Dr Ball has included at least three three egregious errors in this post:

      1) Rachel Carson was not married.
      2) The IPCC does account for water vapour and has a side bar to this effect.
      3) He misquotes and contextomizes the IPCC AR3 with respect to non-linear, chaotic systems.

      For an academic that is pretty sloppy research. It would seem he is spoon feeding you crap and you are gleefully swallowing it.

      • >>
        Jack Dale
        May 20, 2019 at 9:34 am

        Dr Ball has included at least three three egregious errors in this post:

        1) Rachel Carson was not married.
        <<

        You seemed to have missed the important point in Dr. Ball’s post. Banning DDT resulted in more than 130 million deaths. Dr. Ball’s link discusses how DDT saved more than 500 million lives over two decades. The link goes on to document over two dozen falsities and misstatements by Carson.

        My favorite is Carson’s dedication of Silent Spring: “To Albert Schweitzer who said ‘Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth.’” However, in his autobiography Schweitzer writes, on page 262: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us . . . but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.” Schweitzer was concerned about nuclear war and not DDT. He was also concerned about human lives.

        So at least 28 misstatements by Carson to Dr. Ball’s one.

        >>
        2) The IPCC does account for water vapour and has a side bar to this effect.
        <<

        The IPCC is just covering their bases. They don’t actually account for water vapor. For example, when they calculate the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of greenhouse gases, they specifically leave out water vapor and ozone. Those are two very powerful GHGs–water vapor which nearly blocks the entire EM spectrum, while ozone has an active band around 9 microns–smack-dab in the middle of the IR window. Yet there’s no GWP for either.

        >>
        3) He misquotes and contextomizes the IPCC AR3 with respect to non-linear, chaotic systems.
        <<

        Actually, once you state there’s a non-linear, chaotic system involved, then predictability goes out the window–at least for weather and climate. It’s called the horizon of predictability of chaotic systems. Mathematically, the horizon of predictability is defined as the reciprocal of the system’s Lyapunov exponent. The solar system has an estimated horizon of predictability on the order of a few million years. It appears that weather is limited to two weeks–maximum. The horizon of predictability of climate might be longer, but that’s not how climate is modeled. In fact, I’ve never seen a complete set of climate differential equations. I doubt that any exist.

        A typical climate model is a GCM (General Circulation Model). GCMs are global weather models. They don’t have the resolution of regional weather models, but like regional weather models many of their calculations are parametrized—meaning they are made up. To obtain climate from a GCM, you have to average its results over at least thirty years. With a horizon of predictability of less than two weeks, they are essentially averaging nonsense.

        Then we have this silliness about projections that aren’t predictions—yet they are treated as predictions. The terms are even used interchangeably–forecasts, projections, predictions.

        So when the IPCC correctly states: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible;” but tries to discount that fact with a lot of bogus words, it’s not Dr. Ball taking things out-of-context.

        Jim

  28. “The authors conclude that the past 5 centuries have been relatively cooler. They also find the 20th century to be slightly warmer, but the warming was discontinuous. However, the 20th century warming eventually collapsed due to late 20th century cooling, which they deem common across the mountains of China and Nepal. They also find that solar cycles and volcanic activity were the major reasons for temperature anomalies during the past 5 centuries—not carbon dioxide. ”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/16/no-hockey-sticks-studies-reveal-long-term-lack-of-warming-and-a-recent-cooling-trend/

    You can always look out the window. I myself have noticed a cooling (though not in China and Nepal) . . . maybe it’s due to my age. I remember much hotter times in my youth . . . anecdotal but convincing to me.

  29. Could someone please tell me where I can find Dr. Ball’s quote from the “Third UN Climate Report?” Having trouble finding a report with that name.

    • He is referring to TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, often called AR3.

      Dr Ball took the sentence out of context. The practice has become so pervasive it now has a name “contextomy”, which is an intellectually dishonest practice.

      Here is the context and the full paragraph. I have provided a link and page number for you to follow.

      “Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute,
      and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to
      project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for
      additional systematic observations, modelling and process
      studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational
      networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:

      “• Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration
      of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models.
      The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,
      and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states
      is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction
      of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible
      states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
      Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is
      computationally intensive and requires the application of new
      methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information
      is essential. ”

      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf page 771.

      Earlier I noted:
      DR Ball writes “They don’t know that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and is effectively left out of the official studies, along with natural causes. ”

      Did he not bother to read Chapter 8 of AR5: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.

      How did he miss this?

      “Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

      He makes a great many spurious claims.

      • A lot of words but the IPCC did not read it either. They went on to ASSUME that CO2 causes most of the warming, then went on to put out a projection/forecast based on scores of bad models. Then the media and pseudo-scientists quote it,

    • BTW – He managed to mangle the quote? That makes it hard to search.

      You should also read the entire chapter to get the context for the the IPCC statement.

  30. It is rather hypocritical of Dr Ball to point out the claims of Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal.

    From Dr Ball’s Wikipedia bio.

    Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, “Canada already had PhDs in climatology,and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball’s years as a full {tenured] professor.In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere, ignoring the fact Ball’s PhD thesis in 1983 was on climate and weather.” …

    In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson’s statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball “…never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming,” and that he “…is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.”

    Surely he remembers this episode in his life.

    • Gee. So the Calgary Herald is now able to determine “who” has the “proper” reputation to be a climate scientist?

      Science has ALWAYS and ONLY been advanced by the ones who are brave enough to CHALLENGE “accepted science” and “doctrine from authorities” as the “valid source of truth”!

      • That is a huge stretch. Ball was called out by Dan Johnson. Ball was not the first Canadian climatologist, his degree and thesis are in geography and he was a tenured geography professor for 8 years, not 28. During that time he published little or no research on climate.

        The Herald did call out Ball as well. In a Statement of Defence filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Herald dismissed Ball’s “credibility and credentials as an expert on the issue of global warming,” saying: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

        • **“The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”**

          So has Jack Dale or the Calgary Herald proved that Dr. Ball is a “paid promoter”??

          • Ball withdrew his lawsuit after the Herald’s statement of defense. The case never went to court. Ball conceded.

            Ball was not the first climatologist in Canada. He was not a professor for 28 years. His published little or not research in climatology.

            Why WUWT and its followers give the man any credibility is beyond me. Perhaps he appeals to your confirmation bias.

            As I have pointed put his missive above is riddled with errors unbecoming a so-called academic.

Comments are closed.