Phil Clarke, are you paid to promote climate science?

EM, how did you gain this knowledge of Franklin? How did the rescue ship HMS Investigator get so far into the ice, and get stuck, so that it was not rediscovered in exactly the same place, but on the seabed, in 2010, because of the unprecedented melting of the ice? Do you think this melting had happened before, or do you believe that aliens transported HMS Investigator in the atmosphere before using rockets to melt a hole in the ice?

Phil Clarke, are you paid to promote climate science?

One is used to absurdities from you, GC, but that takes the cake.

PC. You're quoting Desmogblog here and expect people to believe. I asked if you had special knowledge of why TimBall failed to continue with his suit. You provide none, just spread more filth.

EM Read the original paper.

Phil Clarke, given your past performance, lying, talking bollocks, and having the hypocrisy to accuse others of behaving worse than you, I will take your non-answer as a yes.

Enjoy your cake. Who paid for it?

ACK, nothing original in climate science. It is 97% wrong and just gets recycled.

ACK

Encyclopaedia of the Arctic by Mark Nuttall, Page 1581

The Desmog article is factual. What happened is that in 2006 Ball published a letter in the Calgary Herald, where he was critical of Tim Flannery's scientific credentials and at the same time lied about his own.

Professor of Environmental Science Dan Johnson wrote to the Herald pointing out that Ball's actual achievements and qualifications were somewhat less compelling than the ones he laid claim to. Ball then sued Johnson and the Herald for damage to his reputation in the amount, if memory serves, of 325,000 Canadian Dollars.

If he expected his opponents to roll over and retract he was to be sadly disappointed, after taking legal advice the Herald and Johnson put up a robust defence including the counterclaims pointing out Ball's credential inflation, lack of publications in climatology and 'image problem'.

Ball folded and Johnson was awarded costs.

So no, Ball is not a Doctor of Climatology and has a record of dishonesty and in my personal view, zero credibility.

All checkable … court papers here.

http://scholar.ulethbridge.ca/danjohnson
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/tim-ball-folds-or-as-desmogblog-put-it.html

Phil Clarke, so you reckon that Australians achieved good value for money out of Flannery's advice?

Seems Ball was correct to question his competence.

Flannery got paid, lots of Aussie dollars, and lots of compliments by Skeptical Science too.

And you are still lying, as we have come to expect.

I'd ask you to put up or shut up GC, but you'll do neither will you?

PC. I retract the claim that Tim Ball had a PhD in climatology. I took his claim at face value but his degree is in Geography. However, he has published a number of peer-reviewed papers in the field of historical climatology, most of which pertain to reconstructing temperatures in Canada during the past several centuries. Despite a search I have been unable to establish if he had an emeritus position at Winnipeg after his retirement. If he had it would go a long way to explaining the discrepancy in the number of years he claimed to have been a professor - Johnson only counted his years as a full professor (8).

I should point out that that paragon of climate expertize, Phil Jones, has a PhD in hydrology, not climatology nor even geography.

He was emeritus, however that gets you to 18 years max, he variously claimed numbers between 28 and 32 years as a practising academic.

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/playing-tim-ball-click-here-to-play.html.

Jones has researched and published extensively on climate, and he understands that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Neither of these things is true of Tim Ball.

ACK

I don't have Callender's original paper. That is why I asked you for a link.

Tim Ball became assistant professor in 1982 and retired in 1996 - 14 years. If he were still emeritus in 2006 thats an additional 10 years ie 24 years a professor (not 28 as he claimed). However he joined Winnipeg 10 years earlier as a lecturer so can claim 34 years as an academic.

I don't know where you get 18 years from.

Neatly done PC. Switch topic from the cherry picking data to obtain a 280ppm pre industrial CO2 value to the (now I acknowledge) questionable history of Tim Ball.

I'm reminded of the Churchill anecdote. Allegedly the great man asked a woman sitting next to him at a dinner party if she would spend the night with him for a million pounds. After some deliberation she said she would. 'How about for 10 pounds?' he asked. 'Why certainly not', she exclaimed. 'What kind of woman do you think I am?'. 'Madam', replied the PM, 'we have established that, we are simply haggling over the price'.

Ball is a liar and greenhouse effect denier. Use a long spoon.

Phil

The thread seems to be meandering, but as a retired solicitor I appreciated the link to the court pleadings. I think you won that one. Now will you apply the same demands to Mann's claims about himself? I wonder when his long-delayed libel case is ever going to reach a court room?

Given how this thread started, here's a link (which I obtained from Paul Homewood's site) to a response by Delingpole:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/26/millennials-dont-clue-climate-change/

Before EM says anything, I am not associating myself with it, I merely offer it up as relevant to the thread. I am not endorsing it. Clear enough?

EM. Don't have link to Callener paper (critical diagram not in that suggested byMartin A) but you might try www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf ·

Phil Clarke you remain a liar, quite content to sling mud and insults at anyone. Why did you introduce Tim Ball into the thread?

Are you going to give evidence in support of Mann?

I think any impartial observer can conclude that the timeline proposed at the top of this thread does not stand up to scrutiny.

Rarely has a prediction of mine come good so quickly.

Why did you introduce Tim Ball into the thread?

It wasn't a wise move, huh? But 'twas not me but ACK (Sep 27, 2016 at 1:22 PM)

I'd like to claim credit, but that particular wound to the foot was self-inflicted. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/27/inconvenient-record-arctic-sea-ice-growth-in-september/

Since hitting its earliest minimum extent since 1997, Arctic sea ice has been expanding at a phenomenal rate. Already it is greater than at the same date in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015. Put another way, it is the fourth highest extent in the last ten years. Even more remarkably, ice growth since the start of the month is actually the greatest on record, since daily figures started to be kept in 1987. –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 25 September 2016

This COULD BE yet another sign that history is repeating itself, as it has done throughout history. That is the HISTORY contained in proper books, uncontaminated by the sticky fingers of climate scientists trying to ensure their next Green Blob Pay Cheque arrives.

Phil Clarke

You are still a liar. Are you one of Climate Science's best?

Would that be Arctic Sea Ice, Staggering Growth!

or

Ice Age Confirmed!?

You are Dr Inferno and I claim my £10 carbon credit.

PC. It is true I introduced a link related to the problems of determining reliable pre Industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations written by Tim Ball. The information in that link was compiled by Ball, it was not a product of his research. I wished to provide a link for EM to demonstrate that this area was still debatable, so I turned to Google and Ball's piece was the first I found that showed Callender's diagram, so I used it.

So it is Callender's cherry picking that is important, not the fact that I used something written by Ball. So not a self inflicted foot wound, perhaps a graze.

None of the diagrams in Ball's farrago originate from Callendar, they're just bollocks from Beck and Jarowowski.