Tim Ball Sued Again

VANCOUVER, B.C. (CN) - A Pennsylvania State University professor claims climate-change denier Timothy Ball defamed him in an interview published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Winnipeg-based think tank.

Michael Mann, a professor in Penn State's meteorology department and director of the university's Earth Systems Science Center, claims that Ball defamed him when he said that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," for his alleged role in the so-called climate gate email tussle.

H/T Eli.  It is pointed out in the comments over at his place that Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer Chris Horner has offered to provide Mr. Ball legal advice on Canadian defamation law.  Perhaps Mr. Horner doesn't realize its a different country, and all. 

Mann's lawyer is Roger McConchie, who has also been representing climate scientist Andrew Weaver in his various defamation cases.

Tim Ball Leaves The Stage

While their abject apology to climate scientist Andrew Weaver appears to have gotten the Canada Free Press of the hook, Tim Ball, author of the original article--"Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years "--was not so lucky: renowned Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver has begun legal action (legal docs available through link). What I find most interesting is that if you go to the CFP website and to Ball's archive of articles--you find nothing. It appears that, being a small outfit with (presumably) limited legal resources, the CFP has decided that discretion is the better part of valour, and erased every one of Ball's 200 plus articles even, it appears, from Google's cache.

Which is good: you shouldn't give a soap-box to somebody who will use it to defame others.

Tim Ball De-Balled!

The Canadian Free Press issues a grovelling apology to UVIC Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver:

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

You can read the rest through the link; the extent of the mud-wriggling and self-abasement is quite astonishing. As a note to journalists: its always a bad idea to repeat material that is already subject to a defamation claim. As an aside to Dr. Weaver and any other climate scientist inclined to counter denialist lies with legal action: go for it, the beasts won't regulate themselves.

CRU Emails Prove Darwin Wrong!

I've been waiting for this. Science hijacked by the left and etc., authored by the dude from The Discovery Institute.

Mr. Meyer isn't the first to make a connection between the ID vs. Darwin and Climate Scientists vs. Deniers debate. Tim Ball and Tom Harris have already appealed to the Intelligent Design crowd in the name of AGW denial.

Why Tim Ball Is Crazy

From CanadaFreePress, where the crazy people go to write:

Who is speaking for the plants?

The full proverb says, “Give a dog a bad name and hang him.” They’ve given carbon dioxide (CO2) a bad name and it is now being hanged by draconian and completely unnecessary legislation.

[...]

There is no evidence CO2 is causing global warming or climate change but that is the basis for the slur and the proposed actions [...] So you have the paradox of environmentalists screaming to reduce CO2 to save the planet, while putting all life in jeopardy by killing the plants.

[...]

All climate policy is designed to reduce atmospheric CO2, but that is not what the plants would vote for

[...]

Environmentalists and governments have abandoned the plants in the false belief a reduction of CO2 would stop global warming. It is time to defend the plants from these misguided people. The obvious solution is to seek power of attorney for the plants to vote on their behalf against any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2.

If Brian Tobin is done speaking for the fish, maybe he could spare a few words...

Rearranging The Deck Chairs On The Good Ship Denial

There's a new skeptic's group out there, the International Climate Science Coalition. There's not much to see. Led by a Terry Dunleavy, who writes for New Zealand Wine Grower Magazine, its the same old gang peddling the same old tripe. Only interesting perhaps in that it provides insight into the staffing of these kinds of groups. As Tim Ball writes at the Climate Skeptics Cafe:

Tom Harris has been hired as Executive Director, myself and Bob Carter and I believe Lord Monckton are in a core group. I am taking over Tom's position at nrsp until a replacement is found. I look forward to working with them and other groups such as the Friends of Science. The more groups and representation we have the better and wider the message is disseminated.

Hundreds of groups, composed in total of dozens of people. Money to pay them all.

Deniers For Romney

Tim Ball and Tom Harris make their choice.

Tim Ball Denies Darwin!

You know I've been waiting months for this to finally happen.

Tim Ball has been making noises now and then at the Climate Skeptic Cafe, but now, in this Canada Free Press article co-authored with Tom Harris, the cork finally pops!

Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context. The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.

All the old Creationist tropes are here. 1) Its only a theory. 2) The "controversy" should be taught in public schools, and if it isn't 3) that's censorship.

Weirdly enough, Tim and Tom are willing to go even further, tracing the roots of "environmental extremism" to, of all places, Sir Charles Lyell:

A proper appreciation of time is essential to this discussion and the larger theme of climate change. Before Darwin, the English church accepted Bishop Ussher’s biblically-based calculation that the world was formed on October 23, 4004 BC. But Darwin needed a much older world to allow the sort of evolution he envisioned as driving natural change to occur. Religion said God created the world in 7 days; Darwin needed millions.

Sir Charles Lyell provided the answer in a book titled Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands. The combination of long time frames and slow development resulted in a philosophical view known as uniformitarianism.

If such a term sounds more appropriate to religion than science, that is because it is, in essence, another form of belief system. Uniformitarianism is the idea now underpinning western society’s view of the World. A basic tenet assumes change is gradual over long periods of time and any sudden or dramatic change is not natural. Employing a version of uniformitarianism adapted to their needs, environmental extremists can point to practically any change and say it is unnatural, which implies it is man-made.

Take THAT, Rachal Carson!

Tim Ball: He Was Denying Stuff Years Ago

From the Climate Audit comments section (Number 10):

When Environment Canada replaced most weather stations with Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS) the results were so unreliable they hired retired former employees and others to go out with hand held instruments to check. I have no idea what data was actually placed in the ‘official’ record. The stations were so unreliable that NAVCANADA, a government agency set up to run airports, refused to accept the AWOS instruments. This led to a government inquiry chaired by Senator Pat Carney, which as usual went nowhere, despite evidence there was a problem. Sadly and ironically, one of the motivations for closing weather stations was the advent of satellite data. Typically, they found out after the fact that the satellites were very limited in what they could detect, for example, precipitation type and amount. Then they decided that the temperature data from the satellite which was better than their surface data was unacceptable because the record wasn’t long enough. At the same time they were using similar length Total Ozone Measuring Satellite (TOMS) data to introduce draconian and totally unnecessary CFC policies. These issues quickly become juggernauts, especially in governments, that it becomes the unwritten policy to continue the lie rather than determine the truth.

Mr. Timothy F. Ball, probably Canada's best known climate change skeptic, once published a letter to the editor (in the June 12th, 1996 edition of the Globe and Mail) in which he bitched about global warming and, more to the point, referred to the "so-called" ozone hole and the "Draconian policies" it had inspired.

Mr. Ball has been on the conspicuously wrong side of the great scientific debates of the late 20th century and, as the above makes clear, has been content to remain on the wrong side for decades after the science has been decided.

Ozone depletion denial competes with anti-Darwinism for the title of the "fringiest of the fringy" science award, so it is interesting to point out that not only Mr. Ball, but several of his "friends" at the Friends of Science (like Sallie Baliunas), Canada's best-known climate change denial organization, were also out fighting against the Montreal Protocol in the mid-1990s.

Tim Ball Jumps The Shark

Canadian Uber Denier Tim Ball (and his consort in Denial, Tom Harris) have truly hit rock bottom. Not even the Natty Post is printing their crap anymore, and they're stuck publishing in on-line, way past fringy publications like The Canadian Free Press.

And no wonder! They've joined the "climate audit" bandwagon. Inspired by Uber auditor, Steve McIntyre (the man who boasts that he "broke" the hockey stick), their goal is to demand reams of information on the "life cycle analysis" behind any attempt at environmental legislation, and on various other topics they only half understand, and then sit around making silly remarks about this information on a blog somewhere.

But Jesus you think they'd pick a better target than the Ontario Government's decision to ban burning used motor oil in space heaters!

So used oil heating is being sacrificed to the god of climate change. Does it really matter?

It certainly does to hundreds of small businesses in Ontario - car dealerships, bus fleets, farm equipment dealers, etc. -- who for many years now have successfully burned used oil from various sources to reduce space heating costs. Strict emission regulations apply to these heaters and we know of no evidence that these regulations are not being adhered to. Yet Broten decided to ban the heaters in favour of the complex process of collecting and re-refining the used oil so that a portion of it may be re-used.

Holy Fucking Shit! What a disastrous abridgment of Natural Human Freedoms! Literally dozens Ontarians might be mildly inconvenienced by this legisation, might have to buy a extra pair of cheap socks so as to keep their toes warm in winter while they sit around the used car lot eating stale donuts and waiting on the next sucker! To the battlements, my brothers! Commie-nism is once again on the march!

OHMYGAWD! Deniers Make Sense!

When the NRSP (The Natural Resources Stewardship Project), a front group for the oil-patch designed to spread confusion over the issue of Global warming, launched its "Science AuditCentre" in April, I have to admit I rolled my eyes until they hurt. And reading Uber denier Tim Ball claim that

Tax dollars must not be squandered on feel-good 'green' plans that have little basis in real science. This approach only hurts the economy by diverting tax dollars away from important environmental issues where attention is needed.

...was almost enough to induce vomiting.

However, like a stopped clock that is nevertheless right twice a day, I find that their recent letter to John Baird, questioning his decision to ban incandescent bulbs (link to it from here), makes a certain amount of sense:

Earlier today, I sent you an e-mail, a copy of which is attached to this cover letter. I am forwarding that communication to you today via courier to ensure that it is not lost in the large volume of e-mail submissions you undoubtedly receive.

As part of our newly launched "Science Audit Centre" campaign, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project certainly look forward to hearing back from you concerning the process that was employed to come to the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs. As explained in my e-mail, NRSP believes that a major government intervention into the lives of Canadians such as that represented by the incandescent light bulb ban should have a clear and demonstrable environmental benefit; otherwise it is not worth the financial cost and inconvenience. That is why we would like to learn about the full life cycle assessment process that was employed in this case.

In principle I favour such a ban, and in practice have replaced about half my home lighting with compact fluorescents. However, the swiftness with which so many governments have embraced the move away from incandescent bulbs reminds me too much of the move to replace gasoline with Ethanol, which for example the Bush administration has embraced as part of its own green thinking, even though the net savings in emissions is minimal to non-existant once life-cycle costs have been taken into consideration. So I too would like to see an analysis of the GHG emissions involved in producing CFs. And I would be surprised, no shocked, if anything like this was done when Mr. Baird was formulating his plan.

Furthermore, since compacts do contain a (tiny) amount of mercury, there are disposal issues to look at which are nowhere considered in the government's plan. And while some of the outlets selling compacts apparently have functioning take-back plans, my local hardware store is telling people to pitch the dead ones into the trash.