Global Warming Swindle

[rlg94086]

Untrue

The only material I have read about Ball is either by his own hand or the brief that his lawyer filed in his libel suit.

In one of these lengthy and numerous and circular and repetitive threads I responded point by point to one of his articles (I’ll have to go search for it)
Some statements I agreed with and said so while other statements were… not quite correct

Ah…yes, I stand corrected. I do remember you posting a point-by-point to one of his articles, because I complained afterward that you provided no citations to any of your points.

My original request at the time was for articles by other experts (that wouldn’t be you) who countered Ball’s arguments and data. I have yet to see that.

steveandersen:

IIRC other than a quip that they “were not impressed” no one responded point by point to me.
In Fact I don’t think anyone has responded point by point to most of what I have posted although I try to do that to others.

Yes. That quip was from me for humorous effect after you said you “were not impressed” with anything you had read from Ball. I thought your comment smacked of arrogance. Why should anyone care whether or not Steve Andersen is impressed with the writings of a very respected climatologist? Does Steve Andersen have the same credentials?

It would be like me saying “I’ve read Shakespeare’s plays, but I was not impressed.” I’m sure the literary world would sit up and take notice.

steveandersen:

shrug

shrug, shrug.

 

[MikeWM]

It was a problem right up there with Spontanious Human Combustion and Crop Circles.

And while you are at it try to explain a couple more things…
Why was the ozone only thin over areas of little or no industrial activity?

Why was it thinnest over Antarctica?

Why do all of the animals indigenous to Antarctica have skin that has adapted to resist the far stronger solar radiation in the region due to the thinner atmosphere?

Do you think that adaptation occurred over the past few decades?

Okay then. If you’re not even convinced that there was a hole in the ozone layer, that we caused it by pumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and that we’ve solving the problem (for the future, at least) by agreeing to stop pumping CFCs into the atmosphere, then I have to agree with Steve that it is absolutely pointless arguing further. The science behind what was/is happening to the ozone is well-defined and well-understood. Healthy scepticism about climate change is one thing, but denying the facts behind what happened with the ozone layer is just getting silly.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okay then. If you’re not even convinced that there was a hole in the ozone layer, that we caused it by pumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and that we’ve solving the problem (for the future, at least) by agreeing to stop pumping CFCs into the atmosphere, then I have to agree with Steve that it is absolutely pointless arguing further. The science behind what was/is happening to the ozone is well-defined and well-understood. Healthy scepticism about climate change is one thing, but denying the facts behind what happened with the ozone layer is just getting silly.

Mike

Now there ya go again.

The hole in the ozone layer was vastly overplayed – just as Global Warming is being overplayed.

 

[2shelbys]

Now there ya go again.

The hole in the ozone layer was vastly overplayed – just as Global Warming is being overplayed.

No question about it. The ozone over Antarctica is still just as thin as it was when it was the cause celebre`.

 

[MikeWM]

I gotta say I didn’t realise ‘ozone hole deniers’ still existed, but after a quick search of the web I seem to have found a few. A small number, though.

This has confirmed something else to me though. No matter how much scientific evidence we get for climate change, there are going to be some people who are just going to refuse to believe it, point blank. We’re just going to have to go ahead and do what we need to do to fix it without your support, I guess.

Mike

 

[steveandersen]

… I complained afterward that you provided no citations to any of your points…

And he provided none for his
You could have addressed my points with your own citations…but you didn’t.

So it looks like we’re all even all around.

Some of the items he mentioned such as ocean levels and the historical CO conc/-average temp relationship had already been posted or is common knowledge/commonly available.

His denial of the physical chemical properties of CO2 is contrary to any undergrad P-Chem. book.

I really shouldn’t have to do your or especially his homework for him.

If you want me to dig up his articles and address them point by point with citations you may have to wait for the weekend.

 

[rlg94086]

Can you provide a citation by an expert in the field that Ball was wrong? That’s all I’m asking. You are claiming that he is lying and/or doesn’t know information from an “undergrad P-Chem book.” That is a pretty strong assertion. I would like to see it made by someone in his field - another climatologist

Regarding his lack of citations, why are you laying that on me? I know his credentials, but I don’t know yours. Why should I believe you without citations?

Regarding my lack of citations, I linked to Ball…that’s my citation. I haven’t made any other assertions except those of logical reasoning, which don’t require citations. You, on the other hand, have made scientific points without citation.

As a non-scientist, I put more stock in someone who is recognized Climatologist in the scientific community. You don’t need to do “my homework.” I haven’t asked you to. But, don’t expect me to take your word for it. On the other hand, please don’t put yourself out this weekend for my benefit. If it’s not important to you to make a decent argument, then that’s okay with me.

And he provided none for his
You could have addressed my points with your own citations…but you didn’t.

So it looks like we’re all even all around.

Some of the items he mentioned such as ocean levels and the historical CO conc/-average temp relationship had already been posted or is common knowledge/commonly available.

His denial of the physical chemical properties of CO2 is contrary to any undergrad P-Chem. book.

I really shouldn’t have to do your or especially his homework for him.

If you want me to dig up his articles and address them point by point with citations you may have to wait for the weekend.

 

[Orogeny]

Can you provide a citation by an expert in the field that Ball was wrong? That’s all I’m asking. You are claiming that he is lying and/or doesn’t know information from an “undergrad P-Chem book.” That is a pretty strong assertion. I would like to see it made by someone in his field - another climatologist

Steve will answer this himself, but I want to interject here. Steve doesn’t have to be a climatologist to make an assertion about chemistry. Other fields of study besides climatology study that subject. In fact, I would not automatically assume that a climatologist has taken p-chem (p-chem is short for physical chemistry). Steve is an engineer and, depending on his specialty, did take p-chem.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but since you have made a point of the fact that you are not a scientist, I thought I would clarify that point. Keep in mind that “logical reasoning” will not necessarily give you the correct answer in science. If you don’t believe me on this, google quantum physics and hold on to your hat because your logical reasoning is about to be blown away!

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks Tim. I’m glad to hear that scientists don’t believe in logic.

Regarding the p-chem situation…I have no idea if Dr. Ball took p-chem, but I also have no idea whether Steve is representing the facts correctly. When considering climatological issues, I trust a climatologist with a long track record and respect in the community much more than an engineer. As a salesperson, I work with engineers all the time and know their capabilities, so an engineering degree does not impress me much.

If Dr. Ball is wrong, I’m sure someone can find a fellow climatologist who can refute his claims. I don’t think that I am asking too much here.

[EDIT add] BTW…I am open to the fact that Dr. Ball may be wrong. His points make sense to me, but I sure would like to see a debate between him (or one of his colleagues) and someone on the other side with similar credentials. It would help out the non-scientists like me tremendously. [end Edit]

Steve will answer this himself, but I want to interject here. Steve doesn’t have to be a climatologist to make an assertion about chemistry. Other fields of study besides climatology study that subject. In fact, I would not automatically assume that a climatologist has taken p-chem (p-chem is short for physical chemistry). Steve is an engineer and, depending on his specialty, did take p-chem.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but since you have made a point of the fact that you are not a scientist, I thought I would clarify that point. Keep in mind that “logical reasoning” will not necessarily give you the correct answer in science. If you don’t believe me on this, google quantum physics and hold on to your hat because your logical reasoning is about to be blown away!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

If Dr. Ball is wrong, I’m sure someone can find a fellow climatologist who can refute his claims. I don’t think that I am asking too much here.

[EDIT add] BTW…I am open to the fact that Dr. Ball may be wrong. His points make sense to me, but I sure would like to see a debate between him (or one of his colleagues) and someone on the other side with similar credentials. It would help out the non-scientists like me tremendously. [end Edit]

I don’t know much about Dr. Ball, so I did a quick Google on him. Almost everything I found is in popular media. I didn’t find much in the way of peer-reviewed publications. Those are the ones I would be most interested in along with any scientific discussion they generated.

The problem for a layman with a debate between experts is that we don’t really understand the points being argued. Trust me, the differences can be very subtle and technical and at the same time very substantial. If someone like myself reads a debate on climatology between two experts, there will be very important points that I will likely miss because I don’t have the background or education to understand them.

Science isn’t very amenable to debate because the winner of a debate is usually the best debater, not necessarily the one with the facts.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Okay, your assessment is accepted. Resistance is futile. I will withdraw from any further discussion on Global Warming. Neither I, nor any of my fellow posters, are qualified to make a determination either way on the subject.

I will now relax in my ignorance and go buy a Hummer.

I don’t know much about Dr. Ball, so I did a quick Google on him. Almost everything I found is in popular media. I didn’t find much in the way of peer-reviewed publications. Those are the ones I would be most interested in along with any scientific discussion they generated.

The problem for a layman with a debate between experts is that we don’t really understand the points being argued. Trust me, the differences can be very subtle and technical and at the same time very substantial. If someone like myself reads a debate on climatology between two experts, there will be very important points that I will likely miss because I don’t have the background or education to understand them.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Okay, your assessment is accepted. Resistance is futile. I will withdraw from any further discussion on Global Warming. Neither I, nor any of my fellow posters, are qualified to make a determination either way on the subject.

I will now relax in my ignorance and go buy a Hummer.

How do you know if any of your fellow posters are qualified?

Perhaps your point is made to other posters, but not to me. You keep asking for a scientific rebuttal of a postion the Dr. Ball has taken. I am simply making the point that that may or may not help you in your decision making process. As far as I know, your background as a salesman greatly outweighs those of us who have science backgrounds and that makes you considerably more qualified to interpret the data or decide who has made the best scientific argument, but then again, maybe it doesn’t.

Dr. Ball doesn’t seem to have much of a publishing record (at least in technical journals) when it comes to this topic, so there isn’t a whole lot of scientific debate of his ideas.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

How do you know if any of your fellow posters are qualified?

Merely an assumption based on logic…if there is a poster on the forum who is an expert in climatology and/or global warming, they have been silent on this matter.

Silly me…using logic.

I will take your word on Dr. Ball, based on your Google abilities, that he doesn’t have much of a publishing record.

 

[Orogeny]

I will take your word on Dr. Ball, based on your Google abilities, that he doesn’t have much of a publishing record.

Don’t take my word for it. Do a search for yourself and help me out if you find something.

Peace

Tim

 

[2shelbys]

I gotta say I didn’t realise ‘ozone hole deniers’ still existed, but after a quick search of the web I seem to have found a few. A small number, though.

This has confirmed something else to me though. No matter how much scientific evidence we get for climate change, there are going to be some people who are just going to refuse to believe it, point blank. We’re just going to have to go ahead and do what we need to do to fix it without your support, I guess.

Mike

Once you get some actual scientific evidence pass it on and we will certainly look at it. So far there is nothing solid to look at.

 

[2shelbys]

I don’t know much about Dr. Ball, so I did a quick Google on him. Almost everything I found is in popular media. I didn’t find much in the way of peer-reviewed publications. Those are the ones I would be most interested in along with any scientific discussion they generated.

The problem for a layman with a debate between experts is that we don’t really understand the points being argued. Trust me, the differences can be very subtle and technical and at the same time very substantial. If someone like myself reads a debate on climatology between two experts, there will be very important points that I will likely miss because I don’t have the background or education to understand them.

Science isn’t very amenable to debate because the winner of a debate is usually the best debater, not necessarily the one with the facts.

Peace

Tim

A good observation. This is true when anything is debated.

 

[rlg94086]

Don’t take my word for it. Do a search for yourself and help me out if you find something.

Peace

Tim

I did…and you may be correct. From Dr. Ball’s own site there is a link to a summary of peer-reviewed work to back up his group of scientist’s claims. His name is not on any of them.
friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf (short version)
friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf (long version)

Logically, if he has a peer-reviewed paper, it should be on Dr. list he posted on his own website. nrsp.com/news.html
Sorry for doubting you.

Hopefully, Dr. Khandekar’s list of peer-reviewed papers (by a number of scientists) will be helpful to you.

 

[Orogeny]

I did…and you may be correct. From Dr. Ball’s own site there is a link to a summary of peer-reviewed work to back up his group of scientist’s claims. His name is not on any of them.
friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf (short version)
friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf (long version)

Logically, if he has a peer-reviewed paper, it should be on Dr. list he posted on his own website. nrsp.com/news.html
Sorry for doubting you.

Hopefully, Dr. Khandekar’s list of peer-reviewed papers (by a number of scientists) will be helpful to you.

Thanks. And just to be clear, I don’t really have a firm position on this topic. The climate seems to be in a warming trend, but I don’t know how much man-made causes are contributing to that nor do I know what we can do to change if change is indeed necessary. I do know that the topic is much more complicated than many on both sides are making it out to be.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks. And just to be clear, I don’t really have a firm position on this topic. The climate seems to be in a warming trend, but I don’t know how much man-made causes are contributing to that nor do I know what we can do to change if change is indeed necessary. I do know that the topic is much more complicated than many on both sides are making it out to be.

Peace

Tim

Here, we are in agreement Tim. This is what frustrates me…trying to find out who is right, when I am not an expert in their fields. The “man-made” side tend to make claims of consensus to shut down any argument. I find that disturbing, even if their argument may be correct.

BTW…I did find a site that gave the following list of Dr. Ball’s peer-reviewed publications. They are a little dusty and focused on Canadian climate change and one does not have a link…

1. 
   *]“Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada” Climatic Change 1986
   *]“Instrumental Temperature Records at two Sites in Central Canada, 1768 TO 1910″ Climatic Change 1984
   *]“The migration of Geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson-Bay region between 1715 and 1851,” Climatic Change 5, 85-93 (1983).
   *]“Climate of 2 locations of the southwestern corner of Hudson-Bay -AD 1720-1729.” International Journal of Climatology 14, 1151-1168 (1994).

 

[jman507]

The problem for a layman with a debate between experts is that we don’t really understand the points being argued. Trust me, the differences can be very subtle and technical and at the same time very substantial. If someone like myself reads a debate on climatology between two experts, there will be very important points that I will likely miss because I don’t have the background or education to understand them.

Science isn’t very amenable to debate because the winner of a debate is usually the best debater, not necessarily the one with the facts.

Peace

Tim

That’s what worries me in this case. It’s a good thing scientist can challenge their theorys to try to come up with better refined one. The problem is when it comes to application. The ones who understand the problem the best, are not the ones allocating the money. The ones allocating the money do not understand the problem enough to understand what needs to be addressed and how to most effectily do it, without creating a lot of waste.