Monday, December 17, 2007

The Great Climate Debate

Commenter Papertiger has given me a heads up about a Climate Debate on Blog Talk Radio.

By popular request, I present the Great Climate Debate.

The participants in the debate are Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, and Dr. Timothy Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg. They will conduct their debate online next Monday, Dec. 17, at 2 p.m. Central Time
[19:00 GMT ed.].

You will be able to listen online through BlogTalkRadio's service. You will also be able to participate by:

• Calling in during the show.

• Leaving a question for Dr. Dessler or Dr. Ball in the comments below.

• Leaving comments during the show.
Here is a chance to grill some scientists on the question.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


papertiger said...

Results from the preliminary bout
are promising.

Google fight: Tim Ball vs Andrew Dessler

papertiger said...

Oh man what a trainwreck.

Thanks for givin it a go Simon.

I'm going to go soak my head somewhere.

Chatterton said...

As always, lots of great insight was provided by the infamous Dr. Ball. Perhaps next time one of you technogurus could email him instructions on how to correctly dial a telephone number!

William said...

Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry.
Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996, over the course of his career, Ball has published just 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal, on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 12 years.

Ball inflates his credentials... he repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." His PhD is in GEOGRAPHY.

Ball would not have a job unless he were a science denier.

Chatterton said...

Anyone listen to the call ins? What a bunch of hicks. I kept envisioning tobacco stained Skoal hats, missing teeth, and toothpicks. Since they figured out how to use a telephone, I guess that puts them one rung above Ball Boy on the evolution ladder.

Better luck next time hicks!

linearthinker said...

Since they figured out how to use a telephone, I guess that puts them one rung above Ball Boy on the evolution ladder.

I didn't follow the debate, so can't comment on his fixation with Ball's phone difficulties other than to observe Chat has a disproportional obsession with an old fart's fumbling with apparently unfamiliar hardware in a public setting; something that instantly endears Ball to me. It appears this post on the so-called debate has again attracted more cheap shots from the chattering classes. Thank goodness Ball didn't suffer an attack of incontinence during the program. I can imagine the obsessive criticism that would have drawn from Chatterton.

Where's the beef?

Chatterton said...

Poor Linearthinker. Running low on your Siberian Ginseng? I think William's previous post is all that is required to properly frame fakes like Geographer Ball. It's sad to think that you find kinship with such a fraud, but not at all surprising.

papertiger said...

Don't worry about it Linearthinker.
Some people just can't help but gawk.
They're the same sort who pass by a car accident with people injured and bleeding and instead of lending a hand, roll down the window to yell out "looks like a DOA to me" then chuckle with their obnoxious friends.
I've personally beat the crap out of a few such people.
You should try it sometime. It feels good. Damn good.

M. Simon said...


I understand you are supposed to be college educated.

Evidently they never gave you a class in manners.

More is the pity.

M. Simon said...


Evidently you are ignorant in the field of science.

The most valuable element in science is the doubt. Or as you prefer "deniers".

The fact that you respond to his credentials instead of his objections is proof positive that your "belief" in AGW is religion and not science.

However, this is not bad. Most people need faith and you have yours.

Feynman called this cargo cult science.

Other people call it scientism.

Real scientist love doubters and deniers.

It is one of the reasons I do not censor on this blog (except for spam). Objections must be met with good evidence that directly addresses the objections.

Feynman On Cargo Cult Science

In any case it is my belief that the coming little ice age will cure some of the believers of their scientism. However, I do not have a lot of hope in that regard. There are still a lot of believers in "scientific" socialism.

linearthinker said...

I ordered beef. Chatterton served up a stale marshmallow souffle.

The subject of Chat's most recent hero worship, Andrew Dessler, re skeptics:

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)

Is this the same Dessler who so impressed Chat with his telephone dexterity that Chat had to attempt a bully-boy sneer at Doctor Ball?

Some would seem to disagree with Chatterton's hero:

U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Complete Report: (LINK)

Note to Chatterton--is your arithmetic any better than your hero's?

Among the 400 dissenters who belong to Dessler's "two dozen or so":

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

Source. RTWT


HInt to Chat: Your comments suggest you blog with a bottle of whiskey by your side.

linearthinker said...

Sticking to the narrative:

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.