Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die
The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.
But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles.
He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.
Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you'll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."
Here you'll find a podcast of Dr. Ball talking to the Ottawa Citizen , saying that he goes out of his way to ignore who might be paying his bills, but crediting the energy industry lobby firm, the High Park Group . And here, you'll find High Park Group veteran Tom Harris, telling the Toronto Star that his new industry front group, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project , was created at the suggestion of High Park Group president Timothy Egan.
Tom Harris, executive director of the NRSP, is credited by New Orleans Lady for passing along this version of the Ball tirade, also printed Monday on the right-wingy website, Canada Free Press. Yet all of these factual inconsistencies have been brought to Harris's attention on previous occasions.
It is inevitable that this post will be criticized as an ad hominem attack on dear Dr. Ball (and perhaps on Harris, as well). But how can you argue science with someone who doesn't feel bound by the limits of truth?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just endured an unprecedented process of vetting and peer-review to produce a document, the veracity of which has been double-checked and endorsed by thousands of the best scientists in the world. It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d622e9fa-cdc8-4163-8292-a1a554f58f94 Aussies' Suzuki heavier on rhetoric than on science Tim Ball For The Calgary Herald Wednesday, April 19, 2006 Unknown to most Canadians until this week, Australians have their very own David Suzuki, a self-promoting zoologist who has garnered a large and loyal following for his sensationalist views on climate change. Like Suzuki, Aussie zoologist Tim Flannery has no professional credentials in the field and so blunders regularly while pushing governments to save the world from global warming. Sadly, both men have considerable influence over politicians and their unscientific rhetoric is
blah blah blah spit fuss slobber
I don't need to read past this part of the Curriculum Vitae
"Richard Littlemore has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."
professor al gore, one of the most TRUSTED and RESPECTED names in climate change
I suppose you've seen the "rebuttal" that's been liberally cut 'n' pasted around the denialist sites, from talk-radio host Neil Boortz. Nearly every item on his list embodies a logical fallacy or two, but I love that my favorite:
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
seems to be getting the most attention. I was prepared to take it as tongue-in-cheek, but many seem to be taking at face value.
My second favorite:
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
This is what we're up against.
Of course, it's an article of faith that the UN is not to be trusted. After all, the IPCC scientists were the architects of the disastrous oil-for-food scam.
I suppose our friends, Johan I Kanada and ZOG, who are tireless defenders of intellectual rigour in the search for the truth, would make short work of a fraudster science denier like Boortz.
A related point: I have seen it asserted that the degree of "Doctor of Science" is a more prestigious one than a Ph.D. That may be the case, since in many universities the Doctor of Science degree is an honorary one -- it's awarded for non-academic contributions to the university and/or the community. So it's really irrelevant that Dr. Ball doesn't hold a Doctorate of Science -- neither do most academics.
What may have got people mixed up is that Dr. Ball's Ph.D. was awarded, as I understand it, by a Department of Geography, not a Department of Climatology. That may or may not be significant.
You're quite right that Ball's Ph.D. is valid and the previous commenter is right that Doctor of Philosophy is the title that attaches itself to most degrees, scientific or otherwise.
Doctor of Science, however, is a degree of high honour, rarely accorded and only then to the truly outstanding. THAT's what Ball is claiming he has. And that, like much else that he claims, is not quite close enough to the truth.
If ball is such a martyr for the deniers why doesn't orpose a hypthesis, test it and publish in a peer reviewed journal?
That's science, anything else is just got air from a has been retired crank that's getting more attention than he ever did in his career.
As for "attacking the messenger', in a sense that's the whole point of this website. Some messengers are paid liars, and they deserve to be exposed as such.
Wonderful letter by Dr. Ball. The Beast has featured excerpts from it on his blog, with a little original commentary too - about two thousand words worth, with pics.
And how dare you think this is a blatant effort to draw hits to the site?
Happy Trails
THB
Beast, you just show your ignorance of the whole subject when you refer to Ball as Bell. I can assume that this signifies the level of your competence in all other areas you discuss on your blog. Time to spend more time on your high school (or is it junior high school) classes, since you must have skipped a few to spend so much time on idle and incorrect chatter.
I am the first etc. etc. and have extensive background [in something barely related] etc. etc. and have an unbelievably long period of being so etc. etc. indicating my recognition, and I say that X, therefore you can believe X.
It is a perverse form of argument, which invites correction, even when it is used by a bonafide authority. The user of such an argument is often aware that he can deflect the truth by crying "ad hominem, ad hominem, they're picking on me personally". It is a cowardly defense for an unjustified method of persuasion, and no real scientist or anyone else trained in methods of discovery would ever use it. (It may be correct to apply in some cases of technology or skill, for example shoemaker, artist, judokan, mechanic, etc.) Similarly, no real scientist would be motivated to say, or would have to say, "I have an extensive background", so believe me, or "Few listen to me despite the fact that I was the first etc." What kind of reader or even camp follower could be convinced by such a claim, even if it were true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
ZOG if you're going to be accusing others of ad hominem attacks, you should really not engage in your own. Doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility. Can you prove that Hoggan's PR flacks are paid liars? I'm all ears.
DAN The truth is, the "ad hominem!" defense is the only one still open to most deniers. Sadly, they chose their version of the truth for non-scientific reasons--generally it's libertarian ideology, sometimes it's a xenophobic hatred of environmentalists, often its both--and that truth is crumbling around them. Going on the attack with their "ad hominem" claims, or their "priests of global warming" actually helps them avoid a much more painful reality: the unravelling of their whole worldview. There's a lot more at stake for them than we realize. I would feel sorry for them if they weren't so mean-spirited, or if they weren't messing around with my children's future.
For example, you are a numbskull (ad hominem) for making baseless accusations that you cannot back up (fact).
See how that works?
"First of all, Tim Ball's PhD in geography was entirely appropriate and his dissertation on the climate changes in Canada did indeed make him the first climatology PhD in Canada." (false)
"Educated at Nipissing University College (English and Psychology), the University of Western Ontario (Law for the Journalist), UBC (Economics and Art History) and Simon Fraser University (Japanese Language Studies), Richard spends his spare time chasing children"...
It is unclear whether Mr. Littlemore recieved any degree or diploma, we must assume that he did not as it is not stated but that may be just an oversight.
A scan of 22,000 peer reviewed papers shows Littlemore as having 0 articles on climate or climate change. Therefore, he has no credibility to speak to the science.
James Hansen is one of the "good guys" he doesn't need a degree in climatology, proctology would have been good enough. Just because he has been paid by John Kerry's wife through the Heinze Foundation shouldn't make you question his motives, he's a truth speaker.
Oh ya, Jimmy says the new flood height will be 80 feet, not 20, Al's still working on the powerpoint slides.
Well, I saw Tim Ball last nite, and I can tell you honestly, he comes across a whole lot better than your blog.
"It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience."
Sorry - what were your qualifications in science again?
" But how can you argue science with someone who doesn't feel bound by the limits of truth?"
Exactly.
I'm the guy behind Convenient Untruth, but why do you call me right wing? I hope you understand that, just as you don't necessarily have to be liberal to have been hoodwinked by the hoax that is anthropomorphic global warming, you don't have to be right-wing to realize it *is* a hoax.
Take your labeling machine and use it to pry your eyes open!
I took a course from Prof. Tim Ball at the University of Wpg and he taught climatology.