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]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Tim Ball
“The best example was the lie about DDT identified in Rachel Carson’s (book?) that triggered the environmental hysteria.”
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.
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.
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
“She claimed DDT caused her husband’s cancer and death.”
Her imaginary husband. How interesting….
Good catch. Just one of the many “alternate facts” presented by Dr. Ball.
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?
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
“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.
In Canada:
Climate Barbie becomes UNHINGED – Red-Faced McKenna Goes Nuts In Question Period, Shouts And Yells At Conservatives.
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/05/17/unhinged-red-faced-mckenna-goes-nuts-in-question-period-shouts-and-yells-at-conservatives/
A link *I* could get to play:
https://globalnews.ca/video/5280622/liberals-face-simultaneous-attacks-on-climate-change-strategy
(Not all sources are equal today, esp. if one runs Xp SP3 and Chrome)
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.
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.