Scroll To Top

Sunday, March 20, 2016

The dark side of humanity at WUWT: Tim Ball's hopes have been realised, his lies have not

Sou | 2:46 PM Go to the first of 20 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts has posted another article from his resident conspiracy theorist Tim Ball (archived here, latest here). I won't bore you with all the details. You know that Tim's articles are usually ugly paranoid conspiracy theories written to feed the salacious appetites of Anthony's deluded fans. There are just a couple of points I'll make.

The hope

The first one is that Tim's hopes are realised. He says: "I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem". Here you go, Tim:

Data source: GISS NASA

The Lie

The other thing I'll draw your attention to is that Tim isn't just a wacky conspiracy theorist, he's a big liar, too. See for yourself, from the very first chapter of the Summary for Policymakers in the latest IPCC WG1 AR5 report provides uncertainty limits:
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 3, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available 4. (Figure SPM.1a) {2.4} 
Do you know what the numbers in brackets mean? They are the upper and lower probability limits. As stated in footnote (3), they are the 90% probability limits.

Yet what does Tim do? He tells a bald lie, and writes that uncertainties are omitted:
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

Tim doesn't say what he means by "positive counter evidence". The IPCC reports discuss all the latest science, including where the science is uncertain or there are mixed findings.

Deception is all that Anthony Watts has to offer

You cannot believe anything you read at WUWT, without checking. It isn't worth the effort of checking what you read, although it's easier to count the small number of accuracies than it is to count the lies. The accuracies are few and far between. The lies are everywhere.

Liar deniers and paranoid conspiracy theorists are all that Anthony Watts has left. He had an article from Albert Parker/Boretti telling more of his lies about sea level today, too - archived here. That time some of the sharper-eyed WUWT-ers picked him up on some of the flaws. Anthony himself is now rejecting the role of the greenhouse effect in the warming trend.

From the WUWT cesspit

Deniers abound in the thoughts under Tim's article. Tim Ball brings out the worst of the worst at WUWT. The comments below are not typical.

Bartemis rejects all the science of the past two centuries in one silly thought:
March 19, 2016 at 10:12 am
The whole brouhaha fails on every count.
1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content
2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does
3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold

Evan Jones thinks that floods, fires, drought, famine and storm surges plus rising seas ravaging other parts of the world are a small price to pay for his personal comfort:
March 19, 2016 at 5:42 pm
I vote for Option 3.
I think it is obvious that we are the source of nearly all the additional CO2. I think it highly likely that the additional CO2 is the primary source of the warming (though there is also BC and aerosols, etc., to consider).
But I also think it is equally obvious that both the the amount and rate of anthropogenic warming have been seriously overestimated. It also appears obvious that net benefits of both the mild warming and additional CO2 has so far had a strong net-beneficial effect for both man and beast.

Bloke down the pub is a hard-core conspiracy theorist, the core target market of WUWT
March 19, 2016 at 11:17 am
The day will come to pass where the experts will be telling us that the temperature outside is the highest ever, despite there being two foot of snow on the ground. If Joe Public hasn’t realised by that stage that he’s been conned, then there is truly no hope for mankind.

When Luke pointed out that it's probably warmer now than any previous time in the Holocene, he got heaps of comments falsely alleging fraud and academic misconduct, and calling for the paper the deniers didn't like to be withdrawn - on no grounds at all. Marcott13 drives deniers even madder than they already are.

March 19, 2016 at 11:47 am
Here is the global temperature trend over the past 10,000 years based on analysis of 73 data sets.

Here is the paper. If you challenge their analysis, please provide a peer-reviewed paper that supports your assertion.

Not a single person took Luke up on his challenge. There were heaps of flames, but the closest anyone came was Chris Hanley, who weirdly proffered up a flawed chart of temperature change on the ice sheet in the middle of Greenland. Utter nutters.

I cannot be bothered with any more of the comments. They show a dark and deadly side of humanity that most people would have never in their life experienced, would never want to, and should never have to. It's what every caring parent wants to protect their child against. If anyone wants to dive into the cesspit of WUWT, you can do so here.


  1. I notice how WUWT poster Chris Hanley is giving Luke a lecture about 'alarmist tactics' while he himself is using a fraudulently labeled graph of the Richard Alley's GISP2 data (which ends in 1855, not 2000) to make his point. You can't make this stuff up. :D

    I wonder how many times versions of that faked GISP2 graph have been posted on WUWT?

  2. "Tim doesn't say what he means by positive counter evidence"

    Any old nonsense made up by elderly former tobacco scientists and their like.

  3. From the comments to the article on sea level rise, there seem to be a lot of "satellite deniers" around.

  4. 181 comments into the thread not one commenter at Anthony's pointed out that the SPM does in fact include uncertainties.

    It is this simple unfamiliarity with the actual facts that makes 99% of pseudoskeptic arguments fall apart without even getting into complex, science-related refutations.

    If Nick Stokes, or ATTP, Tamino or WC made a simple, easily checked error - they'd be jumped on by their regulars and the mistake quickly pointed out.

    In other words, those that like to call themselves skeptics are rarely skeptical, hence pseuodskeptics.

    1. Yet what does Tim do? He tells a bald lie, and writes that uncertainties are omitted

      181 comments into the thread not one commenter at Anthony's pointed out that the SPM does in fact include uncertainties.

      Well, my thoughts would be that a) No one would think of checking an original source, and b)even if they checked the source, none of them would realise what those numbers are supposed to be. For that matter Ball may not. How much stats would a historical geographer know?

    2. One would assume that Anthony has read Sou's response but he seems to be emotionally fragile at the moment so perhaps he has not.

      One or all of the Tim, Eric and Bob clown car crew would have read HW's response. They have had over 12 hours to help Anthony correct the misrepresentation of AR5.

      Anthony you are a pathetic human being.

    3. I did make the correction in the comments:

      "oneillsinwisconsin March 20, 2016 at 5:17 am
      Dr Ball writes: “What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties ….”

      181 comments later not one person has pointed that Dr Ball is incorrect. The SPM does indeed include uncertainties – both mathematical and theoretical. This shows a complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter. One really doesn’t need to know much more to make the simple assessment that he’s pretty clueless."


      Hilarity ensues from that point on with ClimateOtter :)

    4. Ahah brilliant,

      When the headlight of reality shines on them, they look like pathetic rabbits

    5. Oh I love it. ClimateOtter will not be swayed by any evidence, even when its jammed into his face.

    6. I've added a link to the latest archived version.

      BTW while I couldn't find any mention of Freedom Water or Chemtrails in the IPCC report, it does mention cosmic rays in the Summary for Policymakers (section D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change) and the main report (various - "cosmic ray" appears 87 times).

      Good point about the fakeness of fake sceptics. Even when the evidence is fed to them on a dainty spoon they ignore it in favour of conspiracy theories. There was a classic example of how Judith Curry claimed that "However, the main point is that this group [fake sceptics] is rapidly self-correcting" - when the evidence showed that neither she nor any of the other fake sceptics did any correcting despite their errors being handed to them on a platter!

    7. "For that matter Ball may not. How much stats would a historical geographer know?"

      Well, in Tim's defense, you know it's hard to keep up and equally hard to fact check everything when you're constantly on the run from the black helicopters in remote Canadian isles!

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Funniest post on WUWT for a long time. Smokey admits to being thick and we're also left to ponder what is on the WUWT naughty word list.

    1. Apparently, "Nick Stokes" is on that naughty word list:

    2. Nick mentioned that here the other day. So now it's permanent - or so it seems. I see it as another sign that Anthony Watts has altogether given up pretending his site is about science.

      Apart from the article by Richard Betts and one by him and Tamsin Edwards a few months ago, it's years since he got any real scientists to write a freebie for him. IIRC Walt Meier once wrote something. I doubt anyone would bother these days.

      All he's got left to write regular freebies are quacks, deniers and conspiracy theorists, like Tim Ball and Eric Worrall, and occasionally Bob Tisdale, and even less frequently Willis Eschenbach. He's even having trouble getting hold of Christopher Monckton now that the satellite temps have stopped "pausing".

    3. Yes, I'll be fascinated to see what Lord Monckton conjures up with next.

  7. Apparently, this post from Luke has several 'trigger' words!

    " You truly think this is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists around the world? The problem with your argument is there is no incentive for scientists to be a part of the conspiracy. If there truly was fraud going on in the climate science circles, it would take one doctoral student, post doc, or PhD scientist to produce the data/analysis and take it all down, and they would become the most famous scientist in the field instantaneously! The reason it doesn’t happen is there is no conspiracy! Scientists are a competitive bunch and there are animosities just like any profession. If one of them saw a chance to make a name for themselves by exposing a fraudulent analysis of another scientist, they would do it. I hope the rest of you here don’t believe John’s conspiracy theory, it would only further reduce the your credibility."

    1. Richard Alley did wonderfully short succinct summary of those same thoughts. Check it out: "What drives scientists?"

  8. It is mind boggling that so many people cling to conspiracy theories.

    There is no way that a large number of researchers dispersed around the world would be able to keep their stories consistent even if they were making a deliberate effort to do so.

    If someone is looking for personal gain, the last thing they would want to do is work in a line of research where there is a likelihood of finding oneself being a bearer of bad news from the perspective of political and business interests.

    1. Is it clinging to conspiracy theories, or frantically running from facts?


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.