Tim Ball Rewrites the "Truth" Once More

Read time: 2 mins

Richard Littlemore | January 24, 2007

By Richard Littlemore • Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 07:57

In this article in the Texas-based Energy Tribune, Dr. Tim Ball, lead spokesperson for the energy industry front group the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, says, “Current weather and climate changes are not outside long-term normal patterns.”

That's just not true.

He says, “Recently, focus shifted from global warming to climate change because global temperatures have declined since 1998 while human addition of CO2 has increased, thus confounding the theory.”

Per the attached graph , it IS true that 1998 stands as the hottest year on record. But it's hard to describe what has happened since as a “decline.”

Ball says that the whole theory of climate change - a theory endorsed by everyone from the Royal Society and the American Academies of Science to ExxonMobil - is part of a left-wing plot to de-industrialize society. Well, it's interesting to see Alcoa Inc. (AA), BP America Inc. (BP), DuPont Co. (DD), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), General Electric Co. (GE), and Duke Energy Corp. joining the “socialist plot” by calling for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions .

It is difficult to address the nature of Ball's arguments without straying into something that looks like an ad hominemattack. But when someone says things that are bizarre (the anti-industrial plot), misleading (the temperature decline) or demonstrably false (the normality of current weather or the details of Ball's own academic credentials), it seems that someone should rise to shout him off the stage.

Get DeSmog News and Alerts
Tags: 
NRSP
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Energy Tribue

Comments

Richard Smith replied on

It is hard to argue for or against global warming when there are so many factors, natural and man made that effect our world. The air we have around us, has gotten more and more dirty however. Even if it werent for polution however, it just makes sense to reduce our consumption of oil, and find alternatives that are substainable. Just my 2 cents worth…

Richard Littlemore's picture Richard Littlemore replied on

…global warming is like arguing for or against gravity; it's a fact, Jack (or Richard).

Ball may choose to dispute it, but he hasn't a shred of credibility - either on the strength of his “word” or the depth of his academic research.

But I love your logic: even if you were to cling to discredited stories about the climate impacts of solar forcing or fickle fate, it still makes sense to save money and preserve a finite resource. (Unless your income depends on speaking fees that are laundered through non-profit industry front groups.)

Zog replied on

Who are you, Richard Littlemore, and what is your area of expertise? I’ve never encountered anyone who speaks with such certitude, about anything, as you do about the “fact” of AGM. (Except for a certain Baptist preacher who assured me in my youth that I was doomed to fry if I didn’t change my naughty ways.) Hey, that has a newly familiar ring, doesn’t it?

Anonymous replied on

I love it!! Whenever the deniers are pigeon-holed, they turn to ad-hominem attacks. At the same time, they are always the first to complain that pointing out a scientific hack’s oil money backing is ad-hominen (which it isn’t). Zog, you crazy little “skeptical” “thinker” you.

Emily Murgatroyd's picture Emily Murgatroyd replied on

You've never encountered anyone who speaks with such certitude as Richard does about the fact of AGW?? I recommend that you chat with the folks at the IPCC, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society, The National Academy of Scientists and NASA to start. Then check out this study by Naomi Oreskes and heck….even your preacher might be on board considering that the (American) National Association of Evangelicals (representing over one million individuals) has joined forces with environmental groups to build awareness aroung AGW.

Zog replied on

Emily, as a recently retired scientist, I have met or corresponded with a few members of those august bureaucracies and they seemed reasonably sane. i.e. they recognize the uncertainties of computer projections based on imperfect data. Generally, people (like you) who approach the subject with rabid evangelical zeal haven’t a clue about the science and simply parrot what they have heard, provided that it fits their preconceptions. And Anonymous, since I started following this blog a couple of weeks ago, I’ve seen personal attacks on Richard Lindzen, one of the giants of modern climate science, so don’t talk to me about “ad hominem”. I really do want to know if Richard Littlemore has any credentials or if he’s just another propagandist for “consensus science” (Now there’s an oxymoron!).Is that ad hominem?

Ian Forrester replied on

As a still practicing scientist I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of scientists (climate and non-climate) are in agreement that AGW is happening and will only get worse if something is not done to control it.

The models, which people like you mock, are very rigid and have been able to forecast both the past and the future climate with amazing accuracy. Dr. Hansen is the leader in this field but there are many others.

Richard Lindzen is a “has been” in climate science these days for a number of reasons. You would be much better in reading the work of the many legitimate scientists who are now acknowledged as being leaders in the field. It is not surprising to me that you bring up Lindzen’s name since he is one of the very few scientists taking an anti-AGW view. Unfortunately for him, his theories just do not stand up to rigorous review, which after all, is the basis of science, as you should know if you are a “recently retired scientist”.

Zog replied on

I swear, someday when I hear that “overwhelming majority” canard I'mm going to have apoplexy. I must move with a bad crowd because only a couple of my acquaintances take AGM seriously.

Selling that particular bit of propaganda to the great unwashed has been one of the great PR coups of modern times but, as a scientist, you know that it isn't true. Even if it was, as I have said many times, the truth of an interesting scientific hypothesis isn't determined by a show of hands. You couldn't resist slagging Lindzen, therefore, I must conclude that you are an eminent scholar. Again, speaking of scholars, you know perfectly well that, worldwide, there a dozens of leading scholars who don't subscribe to the AGM theory.

Hansen is indeed a notable scientist but, he's in a bind. As the initiator of AGM theory, his personal credibility is totally entwined in its defense. (Sort of like Mann, although I'm certainly not implying that Mann is in the same league with Lindzen and Hansen!)

Most of the new (i.e. not rehashed) literature that I've seen in the last couple of years points to solar flaring as the most likely driver of climate change. Until the proponents of AGM can come up with something better than well-massaged computer models to suppoirt their notion, I'll stick to something more readily observable, which offers a reasonable explanation, not only for the minor climatic aberrations that we're seeing now, but for the really overwhelming changes that have occurred in the not too distant past.

Richard Littlemore's picture Richard Littlemore replied on

Zog, first of all, I prefer that you think of me as an “ink-stained hack.” Calling me a “propagandist” implies that I am engaged in some active and conscious misrepresentation, a bit of rudeness I hope you don't intend.

As for my academic bona fides, you can read my bio, or type my name into Google for that matter, and establish pretty quickly that I am not a scientist. That's why I provide links to reputable scientific sources (the NOAA counts; the NRSP doesn't) whenever I stray from talking about tawdry public relations tricks and obvious misrepresentations. And while you're Googling, type in “Oreskes” and read her Science article entitled “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” - it will help you choke down the words “overwhelming majority” as they relate to the general agreement on climate change theory. (Seriously, Zog, even Exxon says the evidence is undeniable.)

Still, you say that I “know perfectly well that, worldwide, there a dozens of leading scholars who don't subscribe to the AGM theory.”

Actually, I know no such thing. I know about Richard Lindzen. I can accept, maybe, Bill Gray (the retired hurricane guy), but I still have three fingers left before I have to start typing one-handed. If you have a list of “dozens of leading scholars” - and here I am going to insist that their scholarly activity actually relates to climate change - I'll be happy to publish it

Anonymous replied on

Well, Zog, reading your comments here suggests you should have retired much earlier.

Stephen Berg replied on

How the heck can Lindzen be called a giant of modern climate science when he continues to mislead the public by saying: “If they can’t forecast the weather a week from now, how can they predict the climate years from now?” No true scientist tries to confuse or obfuscate the public. He betrays the principles of science by doing this.

DEW replied on

I’ve never encountered anyone who speaks with such certitude, about anything, as you do about the “fact” of AGM.

ZOG, either this is a lie, or you don’t get out much. Have you ever met anyone who is without certainties? We all need them to live. I, for one, am “certain” that paedophelia is bad. Does that make me a religious fanatic?

Certainty is a fact of life. Applying the “religion” label is something anyone can do to anyone else, because we all have beliefs and make assumptions.

Being able to distinguish between certainties, and people’s attitudes to the truth, is where things get interesting. But that’s an exercise in nuance and subtlety. Regardless of whether it’s right or wrong, taking a cue from a credible consensus of leading scientists is very different than being a fire-breathing baptist preacher. If you can’t make such distinctions, there’s no point talking to you.

95% of the time, playing the “religion” card is just meaningless slander, as you’re doing now. If you want to make a point, make it a lot better than you’ve done.

Wayne Hall replied on

Rather than issuing abstract pleas for “someone” (who?) to shout the climate change deniers off the stage it would be more to the point for the climate change movement to overcome its own specific complex of denial in relation to “geoengineering”, climate change mitigation strategies etc. etc. The most powerful argument of all against the contrarians, which we are NOT USING. When it comes to demagogic shouting-off-the-stage strategies the contrarians will win hands down every time, so let’s not have any more of this pathetic daydreaming. Get real!!

Richard Littlemore's picture Richard Littlemore replied on

It wasn't an abstract plea, it was a rhetorical complaint. As in: how many times do we have to demonstrate that Tim Ball has no credibility before people stop giving him the soapbox? I know there is no answer to that question, either, but I can't help shouting it into the wind. I can't stop myself from hoping, pathetically, that Ball will suddenly realize the scanty nature of his cladding and have the decency to get embarrassed.

On another topic, you said:

“It would be more to the point for the climate change movement to overcome its own specific complex of denial in relation to “geoengineering”, climate change mitigation strategies etc. etc.”

Can you say more about this?

Colin Pacheco replied on

foxskin gibbals ramarama unexplicableness adenoidal impartment jynx chirologist
Multiple Expressions http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/01aurora.htm