Marlo –
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
H/T reader “Ross” who explains;
Marlo Lewis is a lawyer who works at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. He published a well-reasoned article critiquing a cap-and-trade proposal before Congress, based on recent testimony he gave before a Senate committee.
Ron 6:31pm: “Surely we have some ability to steer this due to our self awareness as beings… we ain’t just beavers building dams as we have some insight into the effects of our works.”
Couple things here. “steer” implies a cohesively directed path, as in both front wheels, (or all four, if you succumb to technology) turning the same way, by the same amount, at the same time. Steer is not a word I would use. “Meander”, “carom” (as in billiards) come closer, to my mind. The Borg, we aren’t. In the car analogy, it would be like the wheels not physically being connected to one another, but because of toe-in & camber, tend to follow the same path, generally, but it won’t be straight, and one or the other will drag some, from time to time. If one hits a rock, the other may not follow…
And secondly, you don’t think beaver don’t have insight into the dams they build? Of course they do. Their dams aren’t a series of happy accidents. Beaver may not spend much time on the internet discussing the laws of beaver, like man does, but mostly that’s something we do while we await the outcome of the laws of nature.
Don’t confuse what you refer to as “vigilantism” as a lack of civil society. Conservatives tend to believe in self-actualization, meaning, the courses they take in life will be determined by themselves and their own actions, not determined for them by committee.
Nor does it imply lawlessness, just a lack of willingness to let someone else make life-determining decisions for them. Unlike many from the left, conservatives tend not to depend on others for their support, nor wait for it to appear.
More succinctly, threats are something you neutralize, not debate.
Vit @ 6:05pm: “Now explain to me again why we are arguing about whether or not “climate change” is “real”?”
Because the cretin in the email said: “You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it.”
Which is to say, this is the same discussion we always have… 🙂
I have to agree with ET. What are John’s credentials? What higher order does he belong to that others must bow and debate him on demand?
I can see Ball and others wanting to debate GorZuki et al because GorZuki pretends to be scientific in a very public manner. What exactly is it that John Cross brings to the table that warrants an audience with real scientists?
So far, nothing.
In the discussion of CASs, there be dragons. The entire universe from bottom to top is a complex adaptive system, or, if you prefer, a chaotic continuum.
ron says
“””””I hope it doesn’t represent the average poster/reader (or owner) at SDA.””””
are you trying to insult some of ,us by calling us average???
Can I just say that, in my opinion, Skip’s comment that “Beaver may not spend much time on the internet discussing the laws of beaver, like man does, but mostly that’s something we do while we await the outcome of the laws of nature” is very wise.
We have the freedom, never mind, we have the time to debate these topics, because we are (1) educated, and (2) economically rich (at least by historic standards). If people don’t keep learning, and working for profit, then all bets are off. That’s when the bullies like Eckhart win. Talking about the theory of chaotic dynamics (one of my favourite topics) doesn’t enter into it.
skip – absolutely, the entire universe is a complex adaptive system. I don’t like the term ‘chaos’ because it implies randomness and the universe requires both ‘chance’ or ‘freedom’, which some call randomness, and synthesizing normative laws – laws that evolve within the system.
john cross – the entire biological system is a CAS, not just the immune system! The CAS functions as a network of interactive ‘nodes’ that process and transform data/information, not in a linear but ‘multi-agential’ process. The system is, biologically, physically, chemically, self-organizing and evolving in its knowledge base.
The climate is a CAS – and this means that it is basically unpredictable, because you can’t control the input of an agent at an unknown time and place and certainly can’t be reduced to singular causes.
The Wiki page on complex adaptive systems is reasonably good – simple and provides names of some basic researchers.
Ron: In regards to my credentials, I have absolutely nothing except the knowledge that I know nothing. In regards to Dr. Ball’s credentials, I see that they were impeccable enough that he had to drop his libel suit. But that is another discussion for another time.
Richard Evans: Please quote me where I demand that Dr. Ball must “debate him(me) on demand” and please show how that fits in with my comment “Dr. Ball is well within his rights to not debate me”.
John
John Cross, you have been very patient and poised in your discussions here at SDA, despite some taunting…thank you. I’m sorry if it seemed I was trying to belittle you…I wasn’t…I was just trying to give some scale to the argument, as it were. I would love to debate Aristotle, but it would be dreadfully embarrassing for me.
The reason we are “attacking” your statement is that you were responding to a Ron in Kelowna retort to Ron that Ball et al wouldn’t debate due to weakness of their position…your response was reinforcing Ron’s contention of Ball’s apparent fear or reluctance to debate…which then suggested you concurred with Ron. I recognize that you claimed afterward that your point was that the lack of debate was not a sign of weakness, but it didn’t jive with the introduction to this issue.
I was pointing out that Ball’s not wanting to debate with you could very well be because you are not “big enough” to waste his time on (so I presume). Please let’s end that here.
You keep offering to debate everyone, but don’t actually debate (much, at least)…although polite, I take it as a form of condescension.
ET: I will read the Wiki page. I was using Holland’s example in regards to the immune system. I am not sure I follow your argument. You seem to be saying that the immune system is not a CAS but that the entire biological system is. To me that would imply that a human is a CSA, would you accept that?
No, I’m sorry, Eeyore, but if you had said “allocate his time to” instead of “waste his time on”, then I would have agreed with you.
There is at least a degree to which in my opinion if I were you I wouldn’t get too worked up about comments like the ones you mentioned, John, it is I think somewhat a natural property of the signal to noise function of the channel.
I think you present your position well, John. You certainly don’t threaten anyone, you don’t even call people stupid, or idiots. I don’t fully agree with you, yet I’m not going to keep arguing about it because I understand our differences, I think they are reasonable, and, indeed, neither of us really know.
It’s sighing in the wind, I know, but I wish there was a place where we could simply celebrate the wonders of our successes, without always screaming at the crows. I guess there’s just no place for bliss in blogs.
PS: Everything is a CAS, get over it 😉
“I wish there was a place where we could simply celebrate the wonders of our successes, without always screaming at the crows. I guess there’s just no place for bliss in blogs.”
Sure there are places where people can carry on reasonable conversations, to celebrate as it were. John Cross and I don’t agree on lots of things, but we have managed to carry on a healthy dialogue on matters that interest the two of us without screaming at the crows. If we put ourselvs in the contemplative mood rather than attack mode and seek to understand the position that another person takes, we can enjoy our diffrences. I don’t think anyone knows for certain what climate change really means, but we can discuss our opinions without vitriol.
That’s what I was trying to say, John Nicklin; thanks for saying it better than I did. I will note though, that after all is said and done, the topics chosen by Kate, the breadth of experience of SDA’s commenters, and the number of levels at which converstations are carried out here, does indeed suggest that SDA is one of the places where we can, as you said, carry on reasonable conversations, to celebrate as it were.
Can I just say that I think that ET’s comment that “people are emotionally entrapped within a utopian and apocalyptic scenario” is very wise. For one thing, neither of those scenarios is going to happen. Wanna’ bet? And yet it remains that case that, as Stephen Den Beste said, “pious aphorisms and intensive introspection are not a plan”. Too bad Mr. Eckhart doesn’t understand that, or he would propose a plan, instead of a threat.
Eeyore: Hey, what can I say – you are correct. There is a context I was missing. In light of that I can see how my initial statement was misleading. I am pleased to let it sit there (except for the people who ascribed imaginary comments to me).
But I don’t agree with your comment on my lack of debate. As an example consider Kate’s July 12th Sound of Settled Science. In it the idea that the other planets were warming was presented and while thinking about it I had the idea that warming could be related to a yearly cycle but of course the year in the outer solar system is much longer than an earth year. A point that I though was worthy of discussion, but alas nothing.
John
John, I agree and the reason I keep posting at your site is because you are always polite. I realize that sometime my attempts to be polite may sound pompous and condescending but I have found that even a forced polite conservation is less likely to derail beyond recovery than a no-holds-bared one. Plus, of course, I am a pompous ass ;} .
Best,
John
Vitruvius: As always good comments. In reality I suspect that we probably agree more then you might think. If we ever meet up, the first beer is on me – but only if we agree to not discuss climate until at lease the third beer.
Best,
John
PS Still working on the book list.
There is a degree, I think, John, that the matter of the planets’ solar orbit duration is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s just another data point, ergo its incrimental weight is epsilon. I’ll tell you what, I don’t think that conclusitivity will come to any of our models in the short to medium term. In twenty years, we’ll know what the climate is like in twenty years. Fortune-telling is like that. In a hundred years? We’ll talk, pompous ass to pompous ass. You bring the beer, and I’ll bring the cheese – tinyurl.com/248l9e 😉
Vitruvius ask what the weather will be like a year from now they’ll shrug their shoulders because they can’t get it right 5 hours from now some days.
But in 100 yrs they KNOW it will be warmer.
I like the manner of discourse It proves Michael T. Eckhart knows nothing about science.
Einstein said after coming up with theories on relativity he would have to try to disprove them.
In 100 years one will be known as a scientist the other forgotten as a greedy bully.
As for the bit about being bought by corporate America.
Look who funds ACORE
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wordp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/acore-membership.JPG
From page 4 here http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/conference/9gpmc04/eckhart.pdf
Sure the MSM’s can polish him up but he’s a weasel.
** Calling All John Crosses; **
I emailed Tim Ball if he knew you.
[ No I don’t think I know a John Cross. I looked at the blog site but couldn’t find the debate issue. You can tell them from me I have challenged Suzuki for 20 years now almost every time I am on the radio. He will not debate with anyone. Of course, he is in poor company because Gore won’t either. One thing they have in common is they control the interivews they will take and Suzuki walked out on a Toronto radio program recently when asked questions it was obvious he couldn’t answer. They are shams and liars and should be exposed completely.
Tim B ]
YOO HOO — will John Cross please stand up ??
kingstonlad: Sadly, it is very true. He still talks with a funny lisp(Kingston is a very small town)
I’ll bet you showed him “the wrath of a real man,” eh? Rawrrrr! Grrrrrr! Hahahaha!
ron in kelowna: Gore has been challenged for more than a year and a half — still hiding.
ET: Equally untrue is your claim that those who reject AGW won’t debate it.
RobC: I belive Roy Green (on CHQR) has a standing offer for the Gore, fruitfly guy, and there ilk to debate with people like Prof. Tim Ball on his radio show but they refuse. There is a noted Brithish climatoligist (name escapes me ) that has tryed to contact Gore and the like to set up a debate and they refuse.
Tim Ball: You can tell them from me I have challenged Suzuki for 20 years now almost every time I am on the radio. He will not debate with anyone. Of course, he is in poor company because Gore won’t either.
As is obvious to anyone — or so one would think — Suzuki and Gore are activists and not scientists.
Question: Why does Tim Ball (and his supporters here and elsewhere) insist only on debating activists like Gore and Suzuki, but not other “expert scientists” who endorse the AGW thesis and produce the science that supports it? This might not be John Cross per se (all due respect, Mr. Cross), but rather those within the global scientific community, the ones with the fancy PhDs and job titles, etc? Why not, as the saying goes, pick on someone their own size?
here’s a tip tough guy, turn off the computer and go for a walk. assault isn’t all that cool.
Leftards often confuse defense with assault. It’s why they’re against the war on terror.
actually, yes I did….and if someone came along and threatened my family today, I would do the exact same thing….most of you leftards may run to the state for protection if threatened, whereas I prefer to handle these matters myself….much more efficient, and I know the issue is dealt with on the spot….and, yes, I am very proud to be a “tough guy”
Vitruvius at 8:43 p.m., you are quite correct in your rejection of my phrasing…I should truly have said “allocate time to”.
And John Cross, sorry again. In hindsight, you DO debate here (I certainly don’t) in, probably, the correct amount. Were you to carry your debates further, it would likely incur some form of “wrath” from some posters…therefore, your offer to debate “off-line” is appropriate and in-line with Kate’s rules of posting.
Ron: Hey, I said I have tried to debate with him, not that I have drinks with him every Saturday. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could re-email him and include this link. My initial comment is in post #20, his reply is in post #23 and my offer to take the discussion to another website (at the request of Steve) is in #40. Please note my offer is still open. I look forward to his reply.
Eeyore: and thanks again for pointing out the context that I had missed.
Regards,
John
A’dam @4:36am: “As is obvious to anyone — or so one would think — Suzuki and Gore are activists and not scientists.”
A’dam, please go back to playing with the children. Tell them you can have the blocks this time. Suzuki has a PhD in Genetics based on a thesis on Drosophila melanogaster, a popular genetics lab rat of the 60s and 70s, and the reason why they call him “the Fruit Fly Guy” (well, not the reason, but certainly convenient). Then he became a talking head for a variety of TV shows, because for anybody who was around in the 70s, biologists couldn’t get jobs in Canada. If after 30 years, he can’t walk the talk, its time for him to go away. Do you even know what a “scientist” is? Gore is just a pompous ass.
Vit @9:30pm “Can I just say that I think that ET’s comment that “people are emotionally entrapped within a utopian and apocalyptic scenario” is very wise. For one thing, neither of those scenarios is going to happen. Wanna’ bet?”
This is simply (ok, not “simply”) a man-made re-statement of the classic fight/flight syndrome we are endowed with out of our evolutionary history. This adaptive trait is both our best friend and our worse nightmare. Our friend because when personal danger truly threatens, it autonomically evaluates and causes the body to respond, usually appropriately (Kingstonlad). Our nightmare because our cognitive development tries to override it, sequester it, and worse, manipulate it. Trading on the fear of global warming is trading on our innate flight/fight mechanism to try to evaluate a nebulous threat. We can’t, but our cognitive development tries to rationalize it. The F/F response however is an individual based adaptive trait however, not population based, and is rudimentary beyond the care/nurturing reflex with our young. In truth, we biologically don’t give a rat’s patootie about the health and wealth of the collective, except as it relates to our individual security, and why you can talk AGW all you want, but in the crunch, all players will try to do what they need to ensure their own survival, just as Al Gore is doing today.
A’dam (4:00A.M.)
No, not that one. It’s too dark and heavy for a sunny Sunday in July.
Try the pink frilly dress with the flowery pattern, and, oh, it would probably look best with that pink lip gloss you favour so much.
OK, john cross, I’ll take my question here to this thread from the other thread. I’m not going to repost the whole thing but briefly, why do you even mention or suggest your desire to debate with Ball and mention that he hasn’t taken you up on it.
Why should he? I am concluding from your various remarks that you are not a scientist and not a specialist in the fields related to climate change, so, how would a debate with you advance the knowledge in this field?
Scientists debate at conferences, in private communications and above all, in publications, where they can post their data bases. What publications do you have in the field that you can release to Ball, so that he could read them and discuss with you?
How did a thread about a threatening masage to Marlo Lewis turn into whether of not Tim Ball and John Cross should have a debate?
et: First, it is you and Ron who keep bringing it up. I have an good discussion with Eeyore and we decided to drop it.
However, if I can summarize the thread where I had the discussion with Dr. Ball, I corrected a statement he made. He acknowledged that I was correct and then went on to make other statements about the CO2 record in ice cores. I wished to discuss this further and offered another site (since Steve didn’t want ice core discussions there).
I will also note that Dr. Ball’s publication record on ice cores (the topic in question) is identical to mine.
Regards,
John
John Nicklin: I have no idea. I thought we had ended it yesterday. I will only note that I have tried to limit the damage to this one thread.
Best,
John
nicklin, the basic idea is the viability of debate. The original post rejected debate; you either agree with AGW or else.
The argument over Ball and Cross is the ego-centred debate, ie, a debate between a scientist and a non-scientist for the presumed ego-esteem of the latter. Is such a debate valid?
john – you haven’t answered the question. Are you a scientist? If so, what is your field? As I’ve said, you don’t sound like one, but, I could be very wrong. You’ve previously informed us that you are, like Socrates, only aware that you ‘don’t know’. That’s evasive. Are you a scientist and what is your field?
Saying that your publication record is the same as Ball’s on one particular topic is evasive – it could be zero.
So – why not answer the questions? The field, by the way, is climate change.
The whole point of Kate’s post here is the threatening and degrading methods used by the Kyoto Kult. They will not debate, they only run ‘interference’.
John Cross, will Patrick Moore not debate you either ?? Does he even know who you are ??
How many letters/emails, similiar to Eckhart’s, have Suzuki and Gore sent out ??
“First of all stop listening to the godamn economists !!”(DS)
ET: As I have said here before, I am an engineer. My areas are varied but as I have said (only about 20 times) nothing in regards to climate change. I only read what is in the journals.
But you can’t change the goalposts. The topic of discussion with Dr. Ball was ice cores – which he introduced in a specific reply to me. If he did not wish to discuss it, why did he introduce it in a specific reply to me?
Umm, what’s wrong with John Cross and Tim Ball discussing their viewpoints re: AGW. As long as we, the scientifically uninitiated, can understand their arguments, then I would be quite interested. If both parties are willing, then go for it. If they aren’t then, then that’s OK too and doesn’t indicate strength of either’s credentials or arguments.
Whether or not one agrees with John Cross, he has tried to debate the issue, rather than the smear tactics of Gore, Suzuki and Eckhart.
Umm, what’s wrong with John Cross and Tim Ball discussing their viewpoints re: AGW. As long as we, the scientifically uninitiated, can understand their arguments, then I would be quite interested. If both parties are willing, then go for it. If they aren’t then, then that’s OK too and doesn’t indicate strength of either’s credentials or arguments.
Whether or not one agrees with John Cross, he has tried to debate the issue, rather than the smear tactics of Gore, Suzuki and Eckhart.
Ron, I doubt that Moore knows me. The fact that he will not debate me says nothing about the strength of his or my position.
However to save you the trouble I doubt that Baliunas, Christy, Durkin, Idso (and Idso and Idso), Lindzen, Patterson, Soon and Spencer have heard of me either. I also am willing to state that the fact that they have never heard of me and are not willing to debate with me does not weaken their arguments.
If it helps I can add more names to the list.
[ If both parties are willing, then go for it. If they aren’t then, then that’s OK too and doesn’t indicate strength of either’s credentials or arguments.] Shamrock
WRONG !!
If one side demands we spend $$Trillions on a fraud they had better be ready for a few questions, wouldn’t ya think ??
But I will give John Cross credit for being the ‘most polite, muddy-the-water troll’ I have ever met. Thanks for being sweet.
John Cross:
To be honest I’m refreshed that you are willing to debate the issue with Professor Ball as quite honestly this is a breath of fresh air from your side of the argument. I think what most people are fed up with is this “We are right, you skeptics are stupid, so just listen to my big brain” procedure that has been used by the likes of Suzuki and Gore and all his little rock stars last weekend. I don’t give a wig about what a Kennedy or another pseudo polticial/celebrity hack thinks on most issues. I want to see real scientific debate and analysis whereby scientists aren’t astrosized (sp?) because they have a differing opinion. If you want to convice people you should have a vigourous multi viewed debate before you can call it a ‘World consensus’ as some on the AGW side like to profess. It isn’t by a country mile but if significant changes need to be made then I think it’s time we put the PC aside, grew up and actually had an honest review of this subject. Not one mandated by polticcos in the UN or any other government. One based on science. Will there ever be a consenus, probably not, but at least there could be a more rational approach than this corrupt Kyoto protocol that even most AGW supporters know is serously flawed and does nothing for the debate. Time for Gore and Suzuki to take a lecturing nap and leave this up to the scientist to hash out. I won’t buy into anything until I see real proof and I’m not easy to convince because I too do my homework.
Cheers
Ron in Kelowna, don’t you see the folly of using insults, IOW, acting like Gore et al:
“But I will give John Cross credit for being the ‘most polite, muddy-the-water troll’ I have ever met. Thanks for being sweet.”
I think John Cross has gone above and beyond to remain polite and yes, argue his viewpoint, which I and many others disagree with.
Ron, I respect your viewpoint; I think you missed the point big-time here. This isn’t some scorecard, the only way you really change minds or focus (off Kyotocrap, onto developing clean energy solutions), is to politely engage people.
Name calling gives the other person a right to tell you to shut up. You give the envirocrats all the ammunition they need to smear other points of view.
john cross – you have a tendency to divert and obscure the issue. I agree with ron in kelowna – quite a ‘muddy-the-water troll’.
Dr. Ball was not discussing ice cores with you in particular nor did he introduce the topic; you had merely pointed out to him that a paper had not been presented. You don’t inform us of these details and make it appear that he both initiated the topic of the thread (he didn’t) and was discussing the content with you. He wasn’t.
You also put a great deal of focus on whether or not a scientist is willing to debate the issues with you. Why should they? As I’ve said, how would that advance the knowledge of climate change? Since you are a non-expert, then, why should you expect an expert to debate with you?
You said that your publication record on ice cores was the same as Ball’s. I am presuming that you have no such publications. Why are you being evasive? Why did you obscure the truth? why didn’t you just say that you have no such publications? Why compare it with that of Ball, whose publication record in climate change is, unlike yours, extensive.
I don’t see that John Cross’s willingness to debate with experts in the field is a ‘refreshing change’. He’s not an expert.
What matters is the political activists, such as Gore, ICPP gang, Suzuki etc, won’t debate with scientists who disagree. Cross is neither a scientist nor a prominent activist. Just someone who obscures and diverts the issue. Passive-aggressive tactics.
I think there’s enough doubt on the AGW hypothesis to warrant skepticism. For example, if it’s a man-made phenemenon, why are the Martian ice caps shrinking? I think localized heat island effects are minimized by the AGW crowd because it doesn’t fit their agenda. However, skeptical as I may be, I do not dismiss the idea that AGW may, in fact, be true.
What I do dismiss with absolute certainty is the notion that the Kyoto scam is going to do anything to change things. So long as China is committed to bringing 500 new coal-fired plants on stream in the next 10 years, so long as the number of cars in China and India continue to grow rapidly, so long as Malaysia and Indonesia continue to cut down and burn down forests, Ontario’s closing of seven coal fired plants won’t accomplish a damn thing.
Does that mean I’m not doing anything? No; I gave up my car, and I’m using my bicycle and transit to get around. I try to buy local produce (Ontario strawberries vs. the monstrous California ones, fresh corn at the local market instead of packaged corn from the US, etc.). Every light in my apartment is turned off right now. I do my laundry at night (instead of throwing a load in before I leave for work in the morning). I’m personally trying to use less energy, and I’m trying to teach my kids to do the same. But, as I’ve said before, I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay higher taxes, higher energy rates, and face tougher employment conditions so that we can send billions of dollars to corrupt dictatorships.
It’s not AGW that I object to so much, although I think its case is very much “not proven”, but Kyoto puts my blood to the boil.
Kevin
Tim Ball thoroughly studied The Hudson Bay Company’s weather records. Hundreds of years of data from Churchill and other places.
In the weather data is hard evidence of climate change — BEFORE the industrial revolution.
Some decades had deep snow, others almost snowless. Some bitter cold, others unusually warm. Same as grain farming during the last half of the 20th century. (I know)
Tim Ball and others walked the talk. And then along comes non-climatologists Gore and Suzuki.
We, especially the media, were polite to them and now the Kyoto Kult is out of control. The reasonable Environmentalists, such as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, are furious with ‘it’. So much for always being nice.
Sorry if words such as polite, muddy and sweet are ‘too rough’ sounding. I didn’t think they were as bad godamn and denier and planet killer.
I have a 49cc scooter —- shopped till I found a 4 stroke one at that 🙂 Advertized @ 200mpg —- BS — too much frontal area — especially when I am on it !! lol
kevinb – do you use your bicycle to take your kids to their games and meetings, to do the family shopping and so on? Who lugs home all the groceries by hand?
Why are fresh strawberries better for the env’t than packaged ones? Is it the shipping? Can you get local corn in winter or do you just go without all vegetables and fruit in the winter? What about oranges, which we can’t grow here in our climate?
I think that there is little that the average household can do about emissions, though there is much that they can do about pollution. How much garbage is flung out of cars along our highways, by people walking on sidewalks etc?
But the real change must come, not from reverting to the 18th century, but from moving into the 22nd century, and changing our technology. That requires research, not sanctions, – and that’s where the focus should be.
ET: What matters is the political activists, such as Gore, ICPP gang, Suzuki etc, won’t debate with scientists who disagree.
And at the same time, Dr. Ball has demonstrated an equal unwillingness to debate with scientists who disagree with him, whether “at conferences, in private communications and above all, in publications, where they can post their data bases.” I don’t suppose THAT matters though.
ron in kelowna: Tim Ball thoroughly studied The Hudson Bay Company’s weather records…Tim Ball and others walked the talk.
Four peer-reviewed papers, give or take one or two. That, apparently, is the extent of Dr. Ball’s climate change-related publication record. The last was published over a decade ago.
Now, I suppose it’s possible that those four papers are a critical contribution to the understanding and debunking of the climate change thesis. And I suppose it’s possible that he hasn’t engaged in either original research or peer debate on climate change issues in the last decade for a very legitimate reason.
Or, Dr. Ball is actually as much an activist as Suzuki and Gore, and you are both loathe to admit it.