Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die

Mon, 2007-02-05 16:42Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die











Ok here's another ad hominem: the guy is a complete lunatic! He wouldn't be at all out of place on a show next to 'moon hoaxer' Ralph Rene and 'face on mars' Richard Hoagland. His falsehoods are so broad he must believe them. It's called calling a spade a spade.
If he is such a lunatic, why not attack the science rather than the man? I'm listening to both sides of the deluded debate on global warming and I don't think either side has a better lock on the facts than the other. Is this about finding the truth or electing the "right" people?
You mean like this? Ball's attacks on real scientists with real training and real research are vile.


blah blah blah spit fuss slobber

I don't need to read past this part of the Curriculum Vitae



Ad hominem??? - You're joking, right? Take a look at this, for instance: Ball says of the IPCC Report that it's "the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it’s also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down..." Is there a whit of SCIENCE, in this critique?? If so, guess I missed it...Reads like whackadoo conspiracy-mongering, to me - a grand anti-capitalist cabal, a consensus of luddite commies...This man Ball is a crank, an industry whore with the same half-baked CV that all such whores possess--little wonder he padded it so...File him in the same garbage bin with the neo-creationists foaming at the mouth over the commie consensus on evolution--after all, those very same people are themselves declared enemies of global warming theory!
Still not dead? How about any news on his lawsuit? I can't help but think the outcome of that should add a hefty nail in the coffin. Or maybe a stake through the heart. If he's as loony as he seems the court case could turn out to be quite embarrassing for him -- I just hope that it's well-appreciated by the media.
Like it or not, there are many people who simply don't care that Ball has embellished his credentials. And while his fans like to invoke the "global warming as religion" metaphor, they happily accept anything Timmy has to say - even when he contradicts himself - with no yearning to examine the facts. Let us pray, eh?


My second favorite:

This is what we're up against.



How is that an ad hominem attack? The guy says he's a professor in climatology. He's not. He's a professor of geography. The guy says he's been a professor for 28 years. He hasn't been. He's been a professor of geography for 8 years and is already retired. The guy misleads and says he got a PhD in London. He neglects to say it's a PhD in philosophy and instead calls it a PhD in Science. The guy has never published a paper in scholarly peer reviewed journals on what is essentially global warming. The guy's whole argument centers upon him being an expert in the field. He's not. He was never really in the field. That's not an ad hominem attack. It's the substance of his argument. He says look at me, I'm a world leading expert on climatology. Therefore listen to me when I say global warming is political and not scientific. He's the one not giving substance. Therefore the argument goes to whether or not he's suited to make such claims. He is not. Pointing out someone is lying is not an ad hominem attack.
I hold no brief for Dr. Tim Ball, but one of the allegations about him that I've seen repeatedly on this site about him is I think mistaken. The degree of Philosophiae Doctor (Doctor of Philosophy), usually abbreviated Ph.D., is NOT a degree that is awarded exclusively for studies in Philosophy. Rather, many universities confer the Ph.D. as their highest degree in a wide variety of fields. You can verify this easily by looking at any Canadian or US university's list of its faculty: academics in everything from Accounting to Zoology hold Ph.D.'s in those fields; and I assume the same may be true of climatologists. (Whether Dr. Ball is himself a climatologist is of course a different question.)

A related point: I have seen it asserted that the degree of "Doctor of Science" is a more prestigious one than a Ph.D. That may be the case, since in many universities the Doctor of Science degree is an honorary one -- it's awarded for non-academic contributions to the university and/or the community. So it's really irrelevant that Dr. Ball doesn't hold a Doctorate of Science -- neither do most academics.

What may have got people mixed up is that Dr. Ball's Ph.D. was awarded, as I understand it, by a Department of Geography, not a Department of Climatology. That may or may not be significant.

It is fairly clear that Tim is not an expert in the specific field, yet is willing to present himself as such, but his PhD is a science degree. He did get his doctorate in geography. All science doctorates, indeed almost all real doctorates, are called Doctor of Philosophy from the old concepts of what philosophy was. His PhD dissertation was entitled: _Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850_. That's science. Still, it's quite clear that he has abandoned science for his corporate masters and will say whatever they want him to say.



What part of 90 percent certainty do you not undestand? More likely Ball and his energy industry buddies will be remembered in the same way tobacco lobbyists were for telling us that tobacco smoke didn't cause cancer. Get a grip and read up, read the science for a while instead of the national post!


Here is a sample:




Where is Ball's science? The only publications in the last 10 years from Ball are opinion pieces in newspapers.

If ball is such a martyr for the deniers why doesn't orpose a hypthesis, test it and publish in a peer reviewed journal?

That's science, anything else is just got air from a has been retired crank that's getting more attention than he ever did in his career.

As for "attacking the messenger', in a sense that's the whole point of this website. Some messengers are paid liars, and they deserve to be exposed as such.

Sorry: which data?
than a Big Turkey who ignores the best information available to him. Rather Chicken Little than a Big Turkey who's too proud to admit he's lost....



Greetings Enviroes!



Happy Trails



A point or correction is not "ad hominem" if it addresses the "argument by authority", or "appeal to authority". This claim was made in numerous talks and articles, as has been noted.


It is a perverse form of argument, which invites correction, even when it is used by a bonafide authority. The user of such an argument is often aware that he can deflect the truth by crying "ad hominem, ad hominem, they're picking on me personally". It is a cowardly defense for an unjustified method of persuasion, and no real scientist or anyone else trained in methods of discovery would ever use it. (It may be correct to apply in some cases of technology or skill, for example shoemaker, artist, judokan, mechanic, etc.) Similarly, no real scientist would be motivated to say, or would have to say, "I have an extensive background", so believe me, or "Few listen to me despite the fact that I was the first etc." What kind of reader or even camp follower could be convinced by such a claim, even if it were true?

lap "Some messengers are paid liars, and they deserve to be exposed as such." You mean like Hoggan's PR flacks?



If you're going to dabble in ad hominem at least be factual.


See how that works?
Littlemore than just another Chicken Little LOL
... good one, City Troll
Figures never lie, liars always figure. This certainly applies to Richard Littlemore's (apt name) attack on Tim Ball. First of all, Tim Ball's PhD in geography was entirely appropriate and his dissertation on the climate changes in Canada did indeed make him the first climatology PhD in Canada. He was also a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg in the Department of Geography. Again, an appropriate placing of a climatologist. Now a lesson on PhD vs. SiD: "The doctorate is actually a Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) versus a Ph.D. but it's essentially the same thing in terms of meaning and respect” (George Washington University InfoSec); and - the doctoral degree granted by the Graduate School of Engineering and Applied Science at Washington University in St. Louis has generated many complaints because it is a DSc degree instead of the more prestigious PhD degree. Check out universities – most professors in the sciences have PhD’s.
For other readers out there, the statement above is entirely false (perhaps knowingly), as even a tiny bit of thought or googling will show. There were at least 50 ahead of him, many of whom who actually took a climatology class. Anyone in science knows that the first of anything didn't happen as recently as the 1980s. His PhD (no, not a Doctor of Science) thesis papers refer to some of those previous PhD's in climatology in Canada.

"First of all, Tim Ball's PhD in geography was entirely appropriate and his dissertation on the climate changes in Canada did indeed make him the first climatology PhD in Canada." (false)
Also try googling "Jens Rathenau". No such.
Why is it that when I read Richard Littemore, I can visualize little balls of spittle spraying all over his keyboard? Perhaps in an act of journalistic balance you might consider investigating the background of James Hanson the "esteemed" climatologist of NASA and backer of global warming. He possesses absolutely no credentials in the field of climatology whatsoever. He has degrees in Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy. His main claim to fame regarding climate is his work on computer models supposedly for predicting future climate. Never mine the fact that his models can't even accurately predict the past. Pretty bad! But I'm sorry. The debate is over. It's all settled. A consensus has emerged. The skeptics must be silenced or, if they persist, destroyed. Especially if they are funded by the wrong people (Big Oil, Big Car or Big Cow).




James Hansen is one of the "good guys" he doesn't need a degree in climatology, proctology would have been good enough. Just because he has been paid by John Kerry's wife through the Heinze Foundation shouldn't make you question his motives, he's a truth speaker.

Oh ya, Jimmy says the new flood height will be 80 feet, not 20, Al's still working on the powerpoint slides.



Sorry - what were your qualifications in science again?

















Gazprom is majority-owned by the Russian government.

Time (8-2-10) observes:

