OMG! Did the fraud Tim Ball really say that?

Possibly the biggest tandem of frauds in the entire anti-science domain of climate change deniers consists of the paid shills of Tim Ball and Tom Harris. It is well documented that they repeatedly make false claims, use false logic, use fake evidence while making their deceptive claims. A court in British Columbia dismissed a libel suit against Ball because it found his credibility was so low no rational person would believe anything he said.

And yet, these two continue.

One of Ball's fraudulent claims is the he is a climatologist, taught in the climatology department at the University of Winnipeg, and was the first climatologist in Canada (and one of the first in the world). In fact, he's a geographer, there was no such department at Winnipeg when he was there and he has no background related to climate science.

In other words, he just made it up to make himself look credible. It is truly ironic that these kinds of actions actually lower his credibility. Now, he's made this amazing statement on Watt's Up With That? (itself a zero-credibility website):

The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists. 

Unbelievably ... oh, wait! We're talking about Tim Ball, so it is believable ... he is criticizing Attenborough for claiming to be a naturalist when he has only a grammar school education and "doesn't appear to have any science training." Yes, the guy who makes false claims about his own background is criticizing someone else on this basis.

But, wait! It gets better. This from Wikipedia, which states that Attenborough:

won a scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge in 1945, where he studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in natural sciences.

And, from Attenborough's biography:

after graduating from high school he was awarded a scholarship to study the natural sciences at the University of Cambridge.

In fact, unlike Ball, Attenborough really does have the degree he claims.

We can at least credit Ball with being entertaining. Stupid, but entertaining.

Tim Ball Exemplifies Stupidity

Tim Ball, the fraud who claims to have been a climatology professor (he never was), wrote an article recently with a laughably appropriate title: Extreme Wildfires Caused By Extreme Stupidity, not Global Warming. Tim Ball is the shining example of stupidity in the anti-science, flat-earther society. This is a guy who the courts decided can't be sued for libel.  The court's reasoning was that Ball is so lacking in credibility no reasonable person would believe him. Really! You can't make this stuff up.  And yet, Ball insists on putting his stupidity on public display.

Ball, amazingly, states,

Rising temperatures and increasing CO₂ both act to increase soil moisture and so reduce the potential of fires. When temperatures rise, evaporation increases, causing more precipitation which increases soil moisture and so lessens fire risk.  

I have to wonder if he ever reads the nonsense he writes. This guy just said increased evaporation increases soil moisture. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up. He's right about the stupidity part - and it sits squarely on his shoulders.

Let's put the record straight. When evaporation occurs liquid moisture escapes as a vapor and rises into the atmosphere. Once there, it is subject to the currents and other dynamics of the atmosphere. Moisture rarely falls back to the same area it evaporated from - it gets blown downwind. Even if it does fall back, the best it can do is to break even. That's right. In the extremely improbable scenario proposed by Ball where moisture evaporates and then falls back as rain, there is no net gain in moisture!

In other words, Ball's claims are physically impossible!

According to Ball, the next time you hang the laundry on a clothesline to dry, it will actually get wetter!

Once again, the deniers show just how much the hate - and fail to understand - simple science.

Oh, by the way, Tom Harris, the paid shill of the fossil fuel industry who has also lost all credibility, was a coauthor on this piece. Turns out, Harris can't find anyone with more credibility than Ball to work with. What a low point.


In the first

Heartland's deceptions are on display

Our favorite paid shill for the fossil fuel industry recently placed one of his typically deceptive anti-science pieces in the LancasterOnline, resulting in a response letter from one reader, Pete Kuntz. Interestingly, the Heartland Institute decided to step in and act as Harris' attack dog. This is the role normally reserved for Russell Cook, but he turned out to be more of a yap-dog than an attack one, so I guess Harris is upping the ante. The results are pretty predictable. Not only are Harris' deceptions exposed, so are Heartland's. You can read Harris' original letter here and Mr. Kuntz's response letter here. Heartland's letter to LancasterOnline is included in the comments section and includes a demand by Heartland that the response letter be removed. I'm reproducing the comment from Jim Lakely, Heartland's communication director below verbatim. For the sake of documentation, I'm including snapshots of both Mr. Kuntz's letter and Mr. Lakely's response at the bottom of this post.

Jim Lakely ·

Communications Director at Heartland Institute

I sent this letter to the Suzanne Cassidy, opinion editor of the LancasterOnline, yesterday morning. No response yet.

START LETTER

Ms. Cassidy,

I write today to let you know that the letter titled “Fossil fuel industry behind climate denial” by Pete Kuntz of Manheim Township contains several lies about The Heartland Institute. The errors are so egregious I believe it requires removing his letter from your site and explaining to your readers why it was removed.

You published this falsehood by Kuntz: “Harris is a ‘co-sponsor’ of the Heartland Institute, which receives hundreds of millions from the largest fossil fuel corporations in the U.S. to promote climate denial.”

The idea that “Heartland receives hundreds of millions” from fossil fuel companies is absurd and patently false. It appears Kuntz got this lie from DeSmogBlog, a smear site that has zero credibility. Perhaps Kuntz likely extrapolated a lie about someone else and put it on Heartland. You should be embarrassed that a letter-writer used DeSmog as a source your readers should trust.

The Heartland Institute’s annual budget the last few years has been around $5 million, and was less than that (and often half) for most of Heartland’s 34 years and counting as a free-market think tank. And we deal with a lot of public policy issues with climate and energy work taking up only about a quarter of our budget. Corporate financial support for Heartland is a small minority of our annual funding and no one corporation has ever contributed more than 5 percent of our total receipts. Click the URL below for more on our funding, including a link to our latest 990 form.

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/funding/index.html

Also, Tom Harris is a policy advisor to Heartland, not a “co-sponsor,” whatever that is.

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/tom-harris

You published this falsehood by Kuntz: "The fossil fuel industry has spent well over $100 million in the past two decades to create the impression that there’s a scientific “debate” about man-made climate change, just as the tobacco industry, for decades, falsely claimed there was scientific debate about whether smoking caused lung cancer — also using the Heartland Institute as a front for the money they gave “doctors” (Union of Concerned Scientists’ website, “The Climate Deception Dossiers”)."

The Heartland Institute has never supported a “scientific debate about whether smoking caused lung cancer.” This is our position on tobacco, which is on our website.

https://www.heartland.org/abo.../reply-to-critics/index.html

"Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks."

Are you going to remove this letter that contains multiple egregious lies about The Heartland Institute that are intended to hurt our reputation and misinform your readers?

Sincerely,

Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
o: 312-377-4000
Twitter: @HeartlandInst

END LETTER

Mr. Lakely’s letter to LancasterOnline is laughable at best and an outright lie at worst. Certainly, Mr. Lakely practices Heartland’s longstanding policy of deception with his letter. Let’s examine his statements concerning smoking.

Mr. Lakely stated, “Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills.”

Let’s examine the facts. Here is Heartland’s statement concerning secondhand smoke, reproduced from their webpage:

The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress’s own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3.
An important report on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997.
“The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality,” the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. “The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
“It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,” according to Enstrom and Kabat. “If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible.”

Well, it didn’t take long to expose his deceptions. We see Heartland’s own documents undermine Mr. Lakely’s claims. But, there’s more.

Before proceeding, I would like to make an interesting observation about one of their links, specifically the link to a Congressional report. When you click on that link it only takes you to Heartland documents and never shows you an actual government report. In fact, the Congressional Research Service did an analysis of the secondhand smoke and this report was pretty much shelved – not because it didn’t give the desired results but because almost all of the data provided came from the tobacco industry and the reviewers were economists, not scientists. Those are little details Heartland never likes to publicize.

Speaking of things they don’t like to publicize, let’s take a look at the statements they’ve made in the press. Joe Bast, the former president of Heartland, wrote an opinion piece, “Five Lies about Tobacco,” where he stated, among other things, “smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects,” and stated it was safe to smoke up to seven cigarettes a day without increasing the risk of lung cancer. True to form, Mr. Bast later denied making any such statement.

What is really interesting is the emails uncovered between Mr. Bast and the tobacco industry, including the following snippets from a letter from Mr. Bast  to Roy Marden, the Manager of Industry Affairs for Philip Morris Management,  when he was soliciting $35,000 in contributions from Philip Morris: "Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line." Mr. Bast cited a number of reports, opinion pieces, and news articles placed by Heartland in defense of the tobacco industry and in opposition to those seeking to highlight the health risks associated with smoking. Continuing, Mr. Bast stated, "Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco," wrote Bast in the letter. He pointed to several examples, including "two of my essays, titled 'Five Lies About Tobacco' and 'Joe Camel is Innocent.'"

So, we now know Heartland, in reality, has claimed secondhand smoke (and smoking in general, in moderation) is harmless, and they still do. But, what about the experts? Contrary to the claims made by Heartland, an organization with no scientific research facilities, this is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say about second-hand smoke:

 

Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.^1,2,3,4

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.¹

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

• Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).^1,4
• Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.⁴
• Some of the health conditions caused by secondhand smoke in adults include coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer.^1,4

Pretty definitive and not in agreement with Heartland. But, that's only one source. What do others say? This is what the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) says:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5, 7).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

What are the other health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke is associated with disease and premature death in nonsmoking adults and children (4, 5). Exposure to secondhand smoke irritates the airways and has immediate harmful effects on a person’s heart and blood vessels. It may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent (4). In the United States, secondhand smoke is thought to cause about 46,000 heart disease deaths each year (8). There may also be a link between exposure to secondhand smoke and the risk of stroke and hardening of the arteries; however, additional research is needed to confirm this link.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless (4, 5).

What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even low levels of secondhand smoke can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke (4).

But, those are both American. What do other countries say? Here's what they're saying in Britain:

Breathing in other people's smoke, also called second-hand smoke, can cause cancer. Passive smoking can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat).

Second-hand smoke can cause other health problems too. Every year, second-hand smoke kills thousands of people in the UK from lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and the lung disease Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

European Union?:

According to conservative estimates, over 79 000 adults, including 19 000 non-smokers, died in the EU in 2002 due to exposure to tobacco smoke at home (72 000) and in their workplace (7300).

And, Russia?”

“There is no safe level of secondhand smoke.”

As you can see, Heartland’s history of deception goes way back. In fact, the Heartland Institute is, once again, in the position of telling all the world’s experts they are wrong and Heartland is right – the ONLY group that is right. It would be nice if Mr. Lakely would at least make an attempt to verify his facts. But, of course, the truth has never worked to serve the purposes of Heartland.

It is also notable that Mr. Lakely attempted to smear the reputation of DeSmogBlog. Once again, reality doesn’t agree with Mr. Lakely’s claims. The reality is that DeSmogBlog is a highly regarded source. A panel of journalists and public relations professionals selected them for an award for the "highest ethical and professional standards while performing outstanding work." 

Heartland’s concern with DeSmogBlog goes back to when a number of embarrassing Heartland documents were published on their website – documents Heartland has gone to increasingly embarrassing attempts to deny. In fact, DeSmogBlog is highly respected by everyone familiar with them. Except, of course, the people most engaged in deception – people like the Heartland Institute. It is no surprise to see that Mr. Lakely is continuing the tradition. 

*****************************

 Here are screen shots of the letters from Mr. Kuntz and Mr. Lakely, just in case they should be removed for any reason.

Tom Harris' Deceits Could Be Deadly

Tom Harris is well-known for being a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry. He is also well know for making incredibly stupid statements. He is even well known for supporting policies that kill thousands of people. But, never have I seen him openly trying to kill people. At least, not before his recent article.

The headline on Harris’ article is “Carbon Dioxide is mostly oxygen,” and he then goes on to make statements about how benign and beneficial it is to the environment. Carbon monoxide is 50% oxygen, but no one wants it around. Water is one-third oxygen by the number of atoms and over 88% oxygen by mass. Please don’t try breathing either one. It will kill you. Compounds act very differently than elements. CO₂ acts very differently than pure oxygen. (By the way, breathing pure oxygen will also kill you.) If you follow Harris' line of reasoning, you would conclude breathing carbon dioxide is harmless. While breathing it at low levels is not only harmless, but essential, breathing it at high concentrations is dangerous.

Carbon compounds cannot be compared to elemental carbon. They are not the same thing. Naturally occurring carbon dioxide is part of the environment. Carbon dioxide produced by power plants, industry, and automobiles is not part of the natural environment and is pollution. As such, it is causing the natural environment to change. Because of this, it needs to be regulated, just like any other man made pollutant.

Harris made an incorrect science statement right from the start when he stated carbon “forms thousands of compounds, much more than any other element.” Hydrogen forms the most number of compounds, many more than carbon. Carbon and oxygen are about the same. Harris statement is false and it was made to mislead the reader.

Amazingly, Harris goes on about the hazards of CO₂ levels, even discussing the levels in submarines. No one is saying CO₂ levels are becoming hazardous, so why is Harris discussing this? This has nothing to do with the science and is what is known as a ‘straw man’ argument. Harris, and other science-haters like him, cannot provide any science to support their claims concerning climate change, so they’re trying to change the subject. To be clear, to best of my knowledge, no climate scientist is claiming CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are dangerous to breath or will become so. So, why is Harris discussing this, if not to deceive?

But, Harris’ record shows deception is his forte. For starters, take a look at Harris’ background. He has a long association with the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. He continuously denies this to the point of claiming there is a second Tom Harris. If so, he’s also a twin-brother because the resumes come withpictures.

He is closely associated with the Heartland Institute, a far-right anti-science organization heavily funded by tobacco and fossil fuel industries. Heartland is famous for claiming second-hand smoke is harmless and recently nominated to the EPA a man who was arrested for raping his own children. Heartland also paid for the development of the NIPCC (Not-Science International Panel on Climate Change). This is a pseudoscienceorganization whose claims have been completely, and repeatedly, debunked. NIPCC will make a simple statement (such as, there were ice ages in the past), then find scientific papers that support that simple statement and cite them as a reference in order to inflate their number of citations. The reality is, NIPCC presents no science to support their claims. In fact, the only people who cite their report are climate change deniers like Harris.

He frequently co-authors editorials with Tim Ball, a geographer falsely claiming to be a climate scientist. Ball filed a libel lawsuit, which he later dropped. The court documents from that lawsuit stated "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." A court in British Columbiarecently found in his favor when he was sued for libel by a (real) climate scientist. The court reasoned that Ball had such poor credibility that his statements couldn’t be construed as libel because no “reasonably thoughtful or informed person” would believe his statements. And, this is Harris’ go-to source for information on climate science.

He has stated that science is merely an opinion. According to Harris, gravity is only an opinion, it’s only an opinion that a plane can fly, and it’s only an opinion that your car will slow down when you step on the brakes. Harris has stated that we are at risk of famine unless we INCREASE the levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

He has cited Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte as a role model. This is the same person who compares himself to Hitler, regrets he didn’t participate in the rape and murder of a lay minister, claims to have thrown a man out of a helicopter, and has orchestrated a mass murder in his country. Likewise, Harris’ viewpoints have been endorsed by the governments of North Korea and Uzbekistan, two of most repressive regimes on the planet.

Harris claims CO₂ is good for us because it’s a naturally occurring plant food (even for weeds). So is raw sewage, which has been used in some cultures for millennia to fertilize crops. Even Harris isn’t advocating dumping of raw sewage in the environment. At least, not yet. Why not? After all, by his line of logic, it’s nothing more than naturally occurring plant food. 

The reality is that fertilizer runoff is a serious problem. And, like the fertilizer we put on our farms and yards, CO₂ coming from factories, power plants, and automobiles is not natural. It is manmade, it’s pollution, and it needs to be regulated.

Court: Tim Ball Has No Credibility. How Embarrassing!

In 2011, Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver filed a libel lawsuit against the anti-science climate change denier Tim Ball. The court in British Columbia recently dismissed the lawsuit, not because it didn't think Ball hadn't committed libel, but because it said his lack of credibility was so severe that no one would believe him and he couldn't inflict any damage, stating (among other things),

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”

Wow! How embarrassing is that? The court tells you to your face that you have no credibility and everyone knows it! To no surprise, Ball's supporters are calling this a victory. How bad is it when your supporters view a total slam by the court as a victory? This could only happen in the denier-sphere. Keep in mind that one of Ball's frequent co-authors is one of the few people with as little credibility as him - the fossil fuel shill Tom Harris. As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. In this case, you can tell a lot about both of these men.

Of course, Ball should be use to getting spanked by the courts. After all, court records have already stated that Ball,

"never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," 

and 

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media."

and,

"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

You would think Ball would learn to stay away from any place he is required to tell the truth. 

Alarmist Tom Harris Demonstrates Desperation of Science Haters

Tom Harris, the paid fossil fuel shill, has a long history of hating science. Remember? This is the guy who says science is only an opinion. According to him, gravity is only an opinion. I guess we should immediately ground all aircraft. According to Harris the Bernoulli principle is merely an opinion. And, don't bother with brakes on your car. According to Harris, friction is nothing more than someone's opinion.

If the paid science-hating shills hadn't sufficiently demonstrated their desperation with this bizarre line of reasoning, they have now doubled-down with the bizarreness. According to them, reducing CO2 pollution will lead to massive famines in just a few decades. Really. In his December 3, 2017 letter to the editor of the Regina Leader-Post, science-hater Harris stated,

Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will result in “reduced agricultural yields, higher food prices and growing food insecurity that will disproportionately burden the poor,” said Idso. This would cause “undernourishment and potential starvation of hundreds of millions of persons just a few short decades from now,” Idso warned.

Harris was quoting Craig Idso who spoke at the highly ignored America First Energy Conference in Houston, Texas on November 9. The only people who attended were anti-science people and it was not even covered in the press. Do you wonder why after reading the above statement? Notice the "America First" in the name, clearly aligning with Trump's "America First" policies.

If you aren't familiar with him, Craig Idso is a former employee of Peabody Energy with strong ties to the Western Fuels Association. He has also received large amounts of funding from the Heartland Institute. Heartland is the group that compared climate scientists to Charles Manson (may he rest in Hell) and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, and has nominated for appointment to the EPA a man who was arrested for raping his children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. This is a lovely group of people and now they want to tell you that pollution is good for you. And they want you to believe it!

Note to the science-haters: crops and plants grew just fine before we started polluting the atmosphere. And, even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, it would take at least many centuries to remove the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere.

This demonstrates that the science-haters are growing increasingly desperate. They are resorting to more and more extreme claims. What is particularly interesting is the way they have denigrated climate scientists by referring to them as 'alarmists' for discussing the effects of global warming and climate change. Now, we find them predicting massive famines if we don't continue to pollute the atmosphere.

Really?

Who's the alarmist now, Tom?

History of Ball and Harris is not an ad hominem attack

I recently submitted an editorial to the Moultrie News in response to a deceptive piece written by Tom Harris and Tim Ball. In my response, I attacked the credibility of the two individuals and showed they have a history of deception. Harris then went on his Facebook page and asked supporters to go and comment on my submission. You can read my submission, with comments, here. You can read the piece by Ball and Harris here.

As you can see, the defenders of Ball and Harris had no science to support their objections, never countered any of my claims, and consistently claimed I was only making an ad hominem attack to make my case. This, of course, is a false statement and completely in line with the science haters who deny the reality of manmade climate change. What is particularly amusing is the way several of them made ad hominem attacks by claiming I have no published refereed papers. My publication list is not extensive (I concentrate on teaching more than research), but it is certainly there and the reality of the science is not changed by how many papers I have, or have not, published. So, according to these individuals, my statements concerning Harris and Ball are invalid because they can’t operate something as simple as Google Scholar (search “CF Keating physics”).

But, the question is still there: Did I make a personal attack on Ball and Harris? Let’s take a look, beginning with the definition of ad hominem:

ad ho·mi·nem

adverb and adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A strict interpretation of this definition would mean any claim concerning any mention of anything about a person is an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, a logical fallacy. But, that is not correct. There are times when attacks on the individual are warranted. For example, it is perfectly acceptable in a court of law to examine the character and credibility of a witness. As a rule, it is admissible to attack the character of a witness when that character has been introduced as evidence. In other words, once someone makes a claim concerning the nature of their character, it is fair game to examine that character but not before. If a drug dealer takes the stand and testifies, you can’t attack him for being a drug dealer unless he claims to be an upright citizen (although there may be other ways the fact can be introduced).

What about credibility, though? Let me quote a law source:

The rules of impeachment allow an attorney to attack the credibility of any witness even a witness called in support of that attorney’s position. An attorney may use any evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness but that rule is not automatic. In most cases courts will only allow an attorney to attack a witness’s credibility using evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or untruthfulness. While a court may allow an attorney to question a witness about other incidents in their past, a judge will not allow this line of questioning if he/she determines that it is not probative (tending to prove) in establishing whether a witness is telling the truth or not.

That is all well and good, but the important point is that we are not in a court of law, we are in a public discourse and attacking someone’s character is not logically valid. But, I did not attack the character of either Ball or Harris. Attacking their character would be to make a claim about their private lives. What they do in their private lives has no bearing on the reality of climate change, one way or the other. And, I’m not aware that either Ball or Harris has made claims that they are wonderful people, so it wouldn’t fall under the category of examining their statements. They have both committed fraud concerning their credentials (Harris allows himself to be introduced as ‘Dr. Harris,’ ‘Professor Harris,’ and even as a ‘scientist.’ He is none of these. Ball claims to be a climatology expert and a professor of climatology. He is not.), but that falls under attacking their credibility and not their character.

What is important to understand at this time is that a character attack is usually a logical fallacy but credibility attacks are ALWAYS valid. Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject:

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Wow! Pointing out that the person has previously lied is NOT a fallacious argument! Unfortunately for Ball and Harris, that is an important point.

To make an example, let’s say Joe Smith (a fictional person) likes to kick dogs. This is a reprehensible act and reflects poorly on the character of Joe Smith. Then, Joe Smith takes the position that everyone should eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away. The correctness, or incorrectness, of his position on this matter is not affected by his actions in private. Incidentally, this would also be true if we were talking about Joe Smith spending his spare money and time to help the disadvantaged. It works both ways. Being a saint does not change the reality of the issue any more than being a villain.

But, let’s say Joe Smith has been taking money from the Apple Farmers Association to promote apple sales. Bringing this fact to light is an attack on his credibility – he has a financial interests in telling everyone to eat an apple a day. It is not a character attack, even though the argument can be made his financial matters are private. I think most people would agree with that this is, in fact, relevant information.

But, take it one step further. Let’s say Joe Smith, while in the course of his professional duties, states that he is a medical researcher and that he has conducted medical tests on the benefits of eating apples. It is then perfectly valid to investigate this claim. If it turns out that Joe Smith never did any of that, bringing this point to light is not a character attack, it is attacking his credibility.

And, let’s take it to the next step. Suppose Joe Smith is also found to associate with people and organizations that engage in activities that are valid credibility failures (for instance, someone who has been shown to falsify medical records concerning the benefits of apples). It is a valid credibility attack to show that Joe Smith not only has associations with these individuals, but has failed to distance himself from them in any way. In other words, if Joe Smith is keeping company with and supporting individuals with questionable credibility, then it is a valid credibility attack on Joe Smith to bring this association to light.

So, let’s see what I said about Harris and Ball:

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."
https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

As you can see, I never said anything about the private lives of Harris or Ball. I spoke to their professional actions and attacked their credibility. In fact, both of these individuals have had their credibility examined and they are both found to have none. Click on the links I provided above to get started, if you need some help.

To summarize:

• Ball and Harris both have extensive associations with the fossil fuel industry and are paid to promote the interests of that industry;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about this association on numerous occasions;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about their credentials or permitted others to lie about them without correcting them;
• Ball and Harris are both listed as associates of the Heartland Institute and neither has criticized that organization for it’s actions or done anything to distance themselves from it;
• Ball and Harris have both, on numerous occasions provided false, misleading, or deceptive clams concerning climate change.

These are all actions taken in the PROFESSIONAL capacity. Addressing these issues is an attack on their credibility and is logically correct. To put it bluntly, they are both liars when it comes to making statements concerning the science of climate change. Pure and simple. And, that is NOT an ad hominem.

So, when you read anything written by either of these two, all I can say is, “Buyer beware!”

Avalanche of Disinformation from Harris and Ball

Two of biggest frauds in the anti-science industry are Tom Harris and Tim Ball. They recently ran an editorial that had numerous faults, fallacies, and false arguments that I had to respond. Essentially, they claim global warming isn't real because they want to question one data base. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention how there are numerous data bases and they all show the same thing. Also, they especially fail to mention Berkeley Earth. That's because it's the grand embarrassment for the anti-science crowd. This is an organization which was initially funded by the Heartland Institute for the purpose of showing AGW isn't real. It developed a data base completely separate from the ones used by the four governmental organizations. What did they find? Almost exactly the same thing. Hmmm. No wonder Ball and Harris fail to mention it.

You can read the original piece by Ball and Harris here. You can read my response here. I'm also reproducing it below.

**********************

Climate Change Deniers Attempt to Bury Public with an Avalanche of Propaganda

By Dr. Christopher Keating

In their editorial, (http://www.moultrienews.com/opinion/avalanche-of-global-warming-propaganda-about-to-hit/article_0e199fba-bf17-11e7-bdfb-d712a113cdc3.html)

Tim Ball and Tom Harris inform the reader with their title that they are not serious when they use the term “propaganda” to describe climate science.

prop·a·gan·da

noun

derogatory

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming."  Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Now that we know the nature of these two individuals, we shouldn’t be surprised to find their article is full of deceptions and they do not disappoint. It’s important to note they produce not even a single scientific reference to support any of their claims. They simply want you to accept their word for it.
In the opening paragraph, Ball and Harris state, “We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.” Strangely enough, we were told exactly that, but not by the UN Conference. The Trump administration this week released the Fourth National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/nca4). Among other things, the report states, “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” And, “In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities.  Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.” There is more. Read the NOAA summary at: http://www.noaa.gov/news/federal-climate-science-report-for-us-released. And, let’s be clear that this assessment comes from an administration that has repeatedly stated that manmade climate change is not real and has done everything in its power to undermine climate science.

Ball and Harris make several dubious comments that have no basis in reality. For instance, they claim that without a good understanding of past weather, forecasts of future climate change are “impossible.” This is a false statement in multiple ways. First, contrary to their claim, we have a good understanding of past weather conditions. And, not only is it possible to make meaningful forecasts, but we are already doing a good job of it. Again, contrary to what the science-haters will tell you, climate models are good and getting better. Read more about models here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/09/climate-change-is-not-about-models.html; and here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html. There are many other places, but these, and the links therein, will get you started.

The science-hating tandem then attacks the data, which is a losing proposition. What Ball and Harris attempt to do is attack one data set with deceptive claims, with the hope that it will taint all data. They do this all the while failing to mention that the data are all confirmed with multiple data sources. People like Ball and Harris like to cherry-pick one datum point to support their claims (citing how a given town is experiencing the coldest temperature in some long period of time, for instance), but scientists don’t. Data is collected from multiple sources, such as tree rings or cores from sea floor and ice shelves, plus others. What we find is that the multiple sources are all consistent, each confirming the findings of the others.

They state, “Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.” So? What is the significance of this statement? They give none, which is good because there is none. But they continue, stating, “Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.” Of course, this is a false statement. What is true is that the resolution and fidelity is not ideal, but the data is most definitely meaningful, especially when confirmed by those many other data sets. And, the data is only improving with time and this improving resolution is showing the same trend as before.

They continue, claiming satellite data does not show global warming. This claim is based on papers by Roy Spencer and John Christy, two well-known climate change deniers. Review of their papers found them to be so flawed they were withdrawn. And yet, Ball and Harris want you to believe the false claims. Read about these papers here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm.

They then make the preposterous claim, “So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.” As you might expect by now, the reality is vastly different. Read a detailed report on this here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html.

Their conclusion from this deception? They claim the data is meaningless. Take a moment to think about this statement. They themselves claim the data has become more accurate over time, therefore, according to them, this makes it ‘meaningless.’

And, they want you to believe this.

The reality is, our understanding of the historical climate is quite good and our understanding of the present day climate is excellent and getting better. What they don’t want you to know is that the science is overwhelming conclusive and nearly all climate scientists around the world agree – manmade emissions are causing the world’s climate to change.

As it turns out, there really was an avalanche of propaganda, but it came from Ball and Harris, not the climate scientists.

Dr. Christopher Keating is a physicist and conducts research in planetary geophysics, including climate change.

Russell Cook Demonstrates Lack of Credibility

A tip of the hat to Dave James for alerting me to the following comment by Russell Cook.

Debunking the Heartland Institute's hatchet man, Russell Cook, is both fun and easy. But, it does take time and I have a very full plate. That means spending time on his inane drivel is time away from something more productive. I need a reason to do that and, sometimes, I find it useful. Cook is a little man who wouldn’t amount to anything important if not for the Internet. But, that’s the world we live in and little people who are given a large forum find it possible to have an impact. The fact is climate change is already the most serious issue of our day and is only becoming more so. Russell Cook is not a serious person, but he, and others like him, have an effect that we need to pay attention to.

[UPDATE: In the comments Cook made in his posting about my 25 so-called errors, Cook states (referring to Heartland:

They do know of my history of challenging letter writers and article commenters to show readers where the proof exists indicting skeptics of corporate corruption, and they sometimes suggest places where I can pose those challenges, but I receive no instructions on what to write.

Here Cook is admitting to doing the dirty work for Heartland.]

So, let’s look at his comment below and review it for credibility and accuracy. Below is a comment Cook made in a recent article by the anti-science team of Tim Ball and Tom Harris. As soon as people showed up to point out the factual errors in it, Cook showed up.

Russell Cook ·

Institut européen d’administration des affaires

Here's a bit of an aside on this Tom Harris-commenter Dave James situation: Over at a blog which James is seen frequenting in its comment sections, the blogger accused me ( http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/.../russell... ) of among other things, fitting a pattern where I supposedly was at Harris' beck-and-call to defend him. I count 25 errors in that blog post here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=5509 , but that is another story. What I would suggest to readers is a simple test of that particular accusation, in relative comparison to what the actual situation is: Place the name Tom Harris and mine within quote marks in a single Google search window, and see how many times I supposedly 'come to Tom's defense.' Then do a similar search, but substitute the name Dave James for my name. Again, put his within quote marks which narrows the search to only his name and Tom's. The results are most fascinating.

The larger lesson is more critical - how often do we see pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming resort to various forms of character assassination ('he's not a climate scientist / 'he's a paid industry shill' / 'his religious/political leanings/education level taints his viewpoints' etc) as a means of marginalizing opposition, instead of conclusively demonstrating how skeptics' science assessments are refuted? How often do we also see false premise attempts to deem the issue a 'settled science' via worthless references to a so-called consensus (scientific conclusions have NEVER been validated by a 'show of hands') or via worthless appeals to authority (science societies' proclamations are pointless if influential members having control over public relations statements have been misled or have political agendas to promote, and if the proclamations do not reflect many of their own members' viewpoints).

What Tom Harris attempts to do is make up for the lack of reporting by the mainstream media about the skeptic side of the issue. While the skeptic side doesn't call for the censorship of comments such as those coming from folks like Dave James, his side does not benefit from having the appearance of having dedicated stalkers who follow Tom Harris around the internet with comments ranging from unsupportable assertions about Harris' positions to outright accusations about taking industry money to lie. But don't ask James about the latter problem; ask Al Gore to provide us ALL with the evidence he has against ANY skeptic climate scientist over that specific accusation. Deer-in-the-headlights ambush opportunity for intrepid reporters, anyone?

In his first line, Cook states, “fitting a pattern where I supposedly was at Harris' beck-and-call to defend him.” Please notice this comment was made on an article by Tom Harris and Tim Ball that was receiving comments by people showing where Harris is factually incorrect. In other words, Cook is denying he runs to defend Harris by running and defending him. Really!

[UPDATE: I am currently working on reviewing the so-called 25 errors I made in my posting concerning Cook. One of his comments was:

Tom Harris writes op-eds and letters-to-the-editor that I am totally unaware of, but he has alerted me via email to a few where he knows I would have some fun challenging his critics to prove he or others are paid by 'Big Coal & Oil' to lie.

While stating he is not at Harris' beck and call, he simultaneously states he is at Harris' beck and call. Great logic.]

The bigger issue is that Cook is well known for showing up when the comments get too difficult for Harris to deal with. Cook comes in and uses his favorite approach – “it’s not real until I say it is” in an attempt to counter the science. I can’t recall even one instance where Cook actually produced any science or data to support his arguments. I would be interested in anyone pointing out to me any instance where he did.

He next states I made 25 errors in a blog post about him. I’ll review that one in detail in a post.

Then, he makes one seriously flawed statement that really demonstrates his lack of credibility:

The larger lesson is more critical - how often do we see pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming resort to various forms of character assassination ('he's not a climate scientist / 'he's a paid industry shill' / 'his religious/political leanings/education level taints his viewpoints' etc) as a means of marginalizing opposition, instead of conclusively demonstrating how skeptics' science assessments are refuted?

WAIT A MINUTE! What he’s doing is describing the actions of the denier community and doing it at the same time! He actually starts by stating “pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming” before accusing people of character assassination. For those of you not familiar with this, the common form of this statement is to call people who accept the science ‘alarmists.’ This is an effort on the part of the denier community to marginalize the science and anyone who accepts it. He then follows up by claiming that pointing out someone, who professes to be an expert on climate science, is not, in fact, a climate scientist is somehow character assassination. Wow! And, I bet Cook actually believes that line of reasoning.

And, pointing out someone is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry is not character assassination. If someone is going to make statements to the public and claim they are an unbiased source of information, then the public has a right to know that the person in question is, in fact, not unbiased at all. When a person is paid to promote an agenda, that person is a paid shill. Tom Harris, Tim Ball, Russell Cook are just three examples of a plethora of people who fit this description and fail to advise readers of their affiliations to the very industry they are promoting.  

And, I find it very interesting to see him make comments about political and religious viewpoints. This is very much the tactic taken by the deniers, not the science community. I cannot even begin to estimate how many times I’ve been accused of being a liberal Democrat or a Hillary-lover. And, you should see the spectrum of claims about my religious beliefs. All from people who have no knowledge whatsoever of either. And, I’m not the only one. I routinely see this tactic taken by deniers when they attack pro-science people with claims anyone who supports the science of being “extreme leftists” or “Hollywood elites.” This doesn't even include the amount of vulgarities hurled by the deniers at pro-science people. No, character assassination is something the deniers do. Cook can’t put this one on the pro-science people.

As for demonstrating how “skeptics’” science is being refuted, the fact is that deniers very seldom even attempt to produce any science. They typically merely attack the IPCC or Al Gore or Michael Mann or make political/religious attacks, such as the ones mention above. But, when they do, it is routinely and easily shown to be false. The very fact of the matter is that there is no science to support the claims of the denier crowd. None! Yes, the science really is settled and anyone who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. I even went so far as to offer to pay anyone $10,000 of my own money to anyone who could produce any such science and no one could, out of hundreds of submissions (many duplicates) could do so. And, unlike similar denier challenges (which inspired me to make my challenge), I posted all original submissions and showed why each was invalid. Many denies claim that it was rigged because I was the judge. Well, I’ve offered to pay if anyone can show how any of my decisions were invalid. They are right there for everyone to see. If it was rigged, it would be easy to show it, so why hasn't anyone done so? The offer still stands. You can see all submissions and my responses here.

Once again, we see Russell Cook has zero credibility.

Let’s continue. He next attacks the consensus. This is an area that is great concern to the denier community and that level of concern can be traced back to the Luntz memo from the George W. Bush administration entitled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America.” See the a copy of the entire memo here. http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf. Luntz stated (page 137, 7^th page down) (emphasis original),

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

You can see, Cook is sticking to the blueprint by claiming there is no consensus. But, it is real and you can read about it here, here and here, for starters. Notice how Cook uses his favorite tactic here – “It isn’t true until I say it’s true and I didn’t say it’s true, therefore it isn’t true.” You can tell by his language it infuriates him that there really is a consensus. This consensus has not only been confirmed with multiple studies, but has even been confirmed by deniers themselves. Read about it here. 

 

And, Cook continue with his zero credibility in the last paragraph, stating,

“What Tom Harris attempts to do is make up for the lack of reporting by the mainstream media about the skeptic side of the issue. While the skeptic side doesn't call for the censorship of comments such as those coming from folks like Dave James.”

Oh, beautiful. One of the things I keep documenting is how often comments providing refuting documentation get flagged and deleted by the deniers. They censor so much you could describe it as a plague. If fact, you can’t voice any dissenting opinion at all on many of denier sites without it being deleted. So, Cook is being less than honest on that issue. 

[UPDATE: In Cook's posting about my 25 so-called errors, Cook stated in a comment:

Since I periodically look at Keating's blog as a matter of curiosity, I found his then-proposed 6/28/17 letter-to-the-editor (archived in original form here http://archive.is/Iid5o ), and I alerted a DNT editor to it as yet another potential opportunity to challenge people like Keating to prove their assertions. The editor replied to say Keating's publication of it at his blog violated the newspaper's requirement about having first-publication exclusivity to such pieces, and he asked Keating to delete his blog post, which Keating did.

In other words, Cook is admitting to trying to censor my letter. Fortunately, it didn't work. The Duluth News Tribune published my letter.]

Concerning Tom Harris, if Harris actually produced any valid science there wouldn’t be any comments showing his errors. I have documented Harris’ efforts to deceive and mislead the public with false logic, deception and outright lies. You can read all about Tom Harris here and see for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, let Harris speak for himself.

What we have seen in this comment is that Russell Cook has less than zero credibility. In fact, like his buddy Harris, he is a paid shill, taking money from the Heartland Institute to promote their anti-science agenda. One of the things Cook is obsessed about is Ross Gelbspan. Gelbspan was an accomplished reporter and won the Pulitzer prize while with the Boston Globe, but he has since retired. Today, he writes an occasional blog post. So, Cook is either obsessed with a retired guy or a blogger. Take your pick.

I’ve spent a lot of time on this guy, but it’s for a purpose. Russell Cook is representative of so many of the anti-science trolls that it’s useful to examine his nonsense so we can combat it wherever we see it.

In a future post, I’ll review Cook’s claim about my 25 errors. It’ll be fun.