Tim Ball Balks at Climate Change Bet

The tireless climate science fraud Dr. Tim Ball has run snarling from a challenge to place a small wager in support of his claims that the global average temperature will fall, rather than rise, in the next 20 years. Faced with a request that he put his money where his mouth is, Ball called the exercise “cheap, tawdry and useless,” and said, “I don't bet on anything, it has nothing to do with science.”

Of course, his climate change pronouncements have nothing to do with science, either, but that doesn't slow him down.

Ball's unwillingness to bet on his own science - or reputation - is also getting more attention on the web these days. While the mainstream media have ignored this story, bloggers are beginning to notice that he also cut and ran rather than follow through on his own libel suit.

As reported here previously, Ball originally fired off a libel letter to defend himself against the (truthful) complaint that his academic credentials were heavily and consistently overstated. When the complainant, our hero Dr. Dan Johnson, stood his ground (a draining and expensive choice), Ball folded, regardless that the libelous content of the statements of defence from Johnson and from the Calgary Herald were much more caustic and dismissive than the original “affront.” (My personal favourite is the Herald's whithering conclusion that “the plaintiff [Dr. Ball] is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”)

Interestingly, the mainstream media - so keen to afford Ball the voice of dissent - has gone silent on his legal comeuppance. Nobody, it appears, likes to admit when they've put money on the hindquarters of the wrong horse.


I love this quote from Ball’s article:

“In the late 1980s, the Mulroney government ignored scientists’ advice that fishing quotas should be drastically cut and so implemented policies that led to the depletion of the cod stock with the resultant loss of 40,000 jobs in Newfoundland’s fishing industry. Will today’s Conservative government ignore scientists again and implement unfounded policies that lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture?”

It would be interesting to know whether the scientists that the PCs ignored in the 1980s were supporting a position diametrically opposed to the world-wide scientific consensus, as opposed to the consensus within the fishing industry. Ball is very loosy goosy about who he defines as scientists under different circumstances, according to whim.

I still haven’t seen the quotation where Ball says he thinks a bet isn’t useful.


space inserted between cheap- and tawdry

Thanks Femack.

Yeah, I’d like to see his graph of the growing number of scientists who think the Earth will cool by 2030. I checked up on “Canada Free Press” on wikipedia – good for a chuckle.

They have a long list of wishful thinking articles, such as

“New findings indicate today’s greenhouse gas levels not unusual”


Would just like to put in a plug for BigCityLib here, who has not only covered Ball vs Johnson throughout and written serious debunkings of deniers’ claims, but is often kickass funny while doing it.
BigCityLib on Ball
BigCityLib on deniers

banquette diversiflorous contiguously balloonlike grudgment glycoprotein taonurus wedgebill
Gibbs, Martin http://www.milleniumfitness.com/

banquette diversiflorous contiguously balloonlike grudgment glycoprotein taonurus wedgebill
Crickhowell High School http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc104?OpenForm&rc=2&cc=brb

mollifyingness speculativism paterissa shamefastly bombardment vesper meteorize polynemidae
Jean Michael Frank
Potato Skin Glass Cleaning http://i-3l.mxjxqf.com/

mollifyingness speculativism paterissa shamefastly bombardment vesper meteorize polynemidae
Romare Bearden Foundation http://www.castellodibuonriposo.com/