It's debate time!

Climate skeptic steps up

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 1:50 PM on 14 Dec 2007

Read more about: climate | climate science | climate change skepticism

We've finally found someone willing to debate me: Tim Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg. The debate will be online Monday, Dec. 17, at 2 p.m. CST.

You will be able to listen online through BlogTalkRadio's service. In fact, you can even call in during the show (see the BlogTalkRadio web site for details). You can also post questions on SciGuy Eric Berger's website.

I realize that these types of events don't do much to move the climate debate forward. I'm mainly doing this to test my own ability to answer the skeptic's questions and see how I fare in this type of activity.

For those who miss it live, it will be archived in mp3 format.

For story: It's debate time!
11 Comments | Post a Comment

Background

More information about Dr. Ball:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/tim+ball

And some recent legal activities:

Winnipeg bred global warming denier Tim Ball avoids embarrassment at Peoples Court
AllPoliticsNow, 03 October 2007
Tim Ball, of University of Winnipeg fame, dropped his libel lawsuit against Professor Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald this summer. ... Ball was claiming damages over a letter to the editor Professor Johnson had printed in the Calgary Herald. The letter pointed out that Tim Ball's credentials attached to a Calgary Herald op-ed piece were false and that his past work showed no "evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere". Ball was not a professor of Climatology at all.
... Tim Ball's concern, as stated in his claim, was that his earning potential on the speakers tour would be impacted. He's given over 600 public presentations in the last 10 years. It seems like all Ball does is write articles (still printed by our media, for some reason) and travel around telling people C02 isn't causing global warming.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 2:32 PM on 14 Dec 2007

Wow, found a real doozy there Dr. D!

Thanks I haven't had a good laugh in a L-O-N-G time but I'm sure it will be a lively & spirited debate.

One thing that might tip his argument is the subject of water vapor, both a cause and effect of climate change. Water - as solid, liquid, and gas - isn't handled in the models very well. For example, Arctic sea ice isn't predicted with much skill. However, being a stratospheric scientist I'm sure you can handle upper layer cooling just fine, Dr. D.

-sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 3:33 PM on 14 Dec 2007

I already said I was willing

"We've finally found someone willing to debate me: Tim Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg."

I've already written I'd be happy to debate you. You simply don't want to debate me, because you know you'd lose.

Mark Bahner

by markbahner at 7:14 PM on 14 Dec 2007

Should be interesting

Be sure to do a follow up post on it when it's over.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:03 PM on 14 Dec 2007

Lol

I've already written I'd be happy to debate you. You simply don't want to debate me, because you know you'd lose.

Perhaps he's looking for someone with higher credentials than "internet troll".

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 1:47 AM on 15 Dec 2007

Correction

Mark-

You're right. When I wrote: "We've finally found someone willing to debate me", I was mistaken. I should have written: "We've finally found someone competent willing to debate me".

Thanks for the opportunity to correct this!

by Andrew Dessler at 1:41 PM on 15 Dec 2007

I agree. You are equivalent to Tim Ball

"When I wrote: 'We've finally found someone willing to debate me', I was mistaken. I should have written: 'We've finally found someone competent willing to debate me'."

So you choose Tim Ball as a person equal to your level of competence. Well, for once you and I agree. Your level of competence in climate debate is equivalent to Tim Ball.

P.S. Given your area of research interest, you really ought to help Eli Rabett out on the relationship between enthalpy and temperature in the atmosphere. He and Tim Lambert are under the impression that they can be easily and accurately be related by the equation delta H = m x Cp x delta T. Or do you agree with them? Do you agree that these assertions are false?

"Surface air temperature alone is inadequate to monitor trends of surface heating and cooling. The SI units for temperature are degrees Kelvin (or Celsius), and the SI units for heat are Joules. The surface air temperature can go up while the enthalpy goes down or remains the same. The surface air temperature can go down while the enthalpy goes up or remains the same. The surface air temperature can remain the same while the enthalpy goes down or up."

Mark Bahner

by markbahner at 2:40 PM on 15 Dec 2007

Ball

Whatever Ball is, he is not a climate scientist, which means that what he says will be derivative and fairly predictable (I'll take bets on the 1500 year thing, the no warming since 1998, malaria is more important, etc). On the other hand much of it will be polished into short seemingly relevant zingers. You have to be ready to stomp on this stuff, which means serious preparation and a willingness to mix it up.

Ball has been less than forthright, and you should have examples of this to hand, e.g. you mean like when you. . . .

You also have to start by establishing how serious the issue is because for sure, Ball will try and trivialize it.

by EliRabett at 6:09 PM on 15 Dec 2007

Do some debunking preparation

You might look here (pdf) for a powerpoint of his schtick.

I can't seem to play the accompanying audio but from a previous speech I have downloaded that he claims a 4000 year old white spruce was found 700km north of the tree line which thus demonstrates a much warmer past. However according to his own graphic of the tree line it could easily be 700km north but only a short distance east of the treeline e.g. in a favourable spot not far removed from current forest. We don't know because the exact location is not given.

Keep demanding peer-reviewed evidence to support his claims.

by katakanadian at 10:20 PM on 15 Dec 2007

debating you

well, having debated you long ago, I am assured you will emerge in the lead!

by jsflescher at 4:23 AM on 17 Dec 2007

So what happened? (to Tim Ball)

Lubos Motl claims that technical difficulties prevented Ball from participating (!?)

Of course, he also labeled Andrew and alarmist and Tim a realist...

-John Mashey

by JohnMashey at 1:17 PM on 18 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.