Monday, September 3, 2012

Dr. Tim Ball's Thoughts on Global Warming

By Rich Kozlovich
Those who have been reading Paradigms and Demographics know that I have been following the lawsuit instigated by Mike Mann against Tim Ball.  I recently came upon a new site (new to me) called Principia Scientific International, that you may find worth your time.

They really seem to believe scientific principles have been abandoned and are concerned about that abandonment.  Is it to be principles over politics or visa versa?  Perhaps the question I should be asking is;  is it truth and integrity over grant money and false fame?
Grant money is now the holy grail of science, not truth.  From this site I have linked some articles by Tim Ball that are worth taking the time to read.  I think it is worthwhile to find out what Ball has to say since so much of what he has said, and will say,  may have a major impact on the global warming hucksters.   Here is some foundation for those who are new to this issue or my site. 

I Will Huff and Puff and Blow Your House Down
A complete list of things caused by global warming

In some of these articles there are more links that are worth exploring, and I am impressed with Tim Ball's analyses.  I can't wait for the decision from the Canadian courts in this lawsuit since Ball's defense is "the truth" defense under Canadian law!

Why do ‘official’ climate scientists need spin doctors? Because they practice politics not science. Climategate like Watergate was completely undone by the cover up of disgraceful behavior disclosed in emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009. The first 1000 emails included some selected to expose behavior unacceptable even without knowledge of climatology. Others show how the anthropogneic global warming (AGW) science was conjured. Exposure of CRU members was important because they dominated and controlled the major portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. The leaks achieved their objective of derailing the political program of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen. The COP was in a bind because they’re starting point is IPCC science.

George Hadley (1685 - 1768), an Age of Enlightenment citizen, lawyer and amateur meteorologist made a major contribution to climatology through an interest in the Trade Winds. He worked inductively using ships weather logs to produce a theory about atmospheric circulation. Named after him, the Hadley cell is the only portion of the atmospheric circulation we understood in concept for 250 years. Its role is a major factor in global weather and climate yet is completely inadequately covered in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models. The error in coverage exceeds any possible human impact and is one more factor causing consistently failed predictions.  

Claims of human produced CO2 causing climate change are based on output of computer models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Programmed to produce predetermined results their output is used for global and national policies on energy even though projections have been consistently wrong. Failures caused a switch from predictions to scenarios, but it didn’t help. Most recent scenarios projected increases between 1.3 and 2.8°C, but temperatures declined as CO2 increased. Since 2000 the trend is wrong and for the last five years is below the lowest IPCC projection.


  1. You may find "SpotlightON- PSI" of interest (

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  2. Pete,

    I went to your recommended site and read the cover page and as far as I can tell your concern is that these people have the audacity to have an organized effort to debunk the whole global warming issue.

    I went deeper into the site and followed the e-mail exchange between you and John O'Sullivan. None of that is of any value regarding the Mann v. Ball case in Canada...or any other potential cases that may be instituted by Mann. Other than O'Sullivan is representing Ball in some fashion. So what? I just don't understand what you were trying to prove.

    If you are trying to prove that AGW is science I think you are mistaken.

    If you are trying to prove that O'Sullivan isn't qualified to represent anyone as an attorney; well that isn't your concern.

    If you are trying to prove that this whole effort by PSI is publishing bogus science to undermining AGW then I didn't see it.

    Forgive me, but your site appears to be more of a personal vendetta against O'Sullivan. Just my impression.

    Best wishes,
    Rich K

  3. Hi Rich,

    Sorry to have taken so long to respond to your comment but I have just stumbled across it while checking for a link between the Chairman of the Australian Carbon Sense Coalition and PSI's Chairman Tim Ball.

    I have no illusions about the AGW scam but neither do I have any about what motivated the setting up of PSI. I was closely involved in the discussions that took place during Dec. 2010 and Jan 2011 involving the founding members. If you are interested in what transpired have a read of "PSI & DUE Diligence" 2010/2011 - Selected E-mails ( and "SpotlightON- PSI" of interest (

    Best regards, Pete Ridley