The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
a book by Tim Ball
(our site's book review)
The Amazon blurb says that In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Dr. Tim Ball exposes the malicious misuse of climate science by dishonest brokers to advance the agenda of the progressive left. How was legitimate science twisted into a morass of convoluted gibberish? Dr. Ball explores how and why the science was distorted for political purposes.
Ball understands that climate science is not 'settled' as the IPCC and their spokespersons like to claim. Ball pulls back the curtain like Toto in The Wizard of Oz exposing the hiding and manipulating wizard
Ball understands that climate science is not "settled" as the IPCC and their spokespersons like to claim. Ball pulls back the curtain like Toto in The Wizard of Oz exposing the hiding and manipulating wizard. Ball's book is replete with graphs and charts that further reveal the progressive left's climate dishonesty. The false claims, the lies, the misrepresentations, the dirty money, and the endgame of all this can be understood by anyone who reads Dr. Ball's detailed and well-documented exposé. People who question the cause of climate change have been ridiculed and marginalized rather than having their point of view logically reviewed by independent researchers. Ball has also said that since he became a vocal opponent of the consensus position on global warming, he has received five death threats. The defenders of the liberal narrative do NOT tolerate being doubted!
Global carbon dioxide emissions from human activities 1800–2007
Ball calls the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change corrupt frauds. The Bush administration reacted to the 'Hockey Stick' graph scandal, and a Senate speech by US Republican senator James Inhofe alleged that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Including the Piltdown Man scandal.
Hockey stick graph—Arguments over the graph have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science
The hockey stick is broken (?) “In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.”—John McLaughlin
"As soon as the IPCC Report came out, the hockey stick version of climate history became canonical. Suddenly it was the "consensus" view, and for the next few years it seemed that anyone publicly questioning the result was in for a ferocious reception. Why was this graph so vital for the IPCC and its work? It provided an easily visualized iconic chart making it just a simple exercise to assert global warming correlates with the increase in manmade carbon-based greenhouse gases measured during the 20th Century, to postulate that correlation means causation, and to extrapolate that further increases in greenhouse gas emissions would spell dire consequences for the planet." (Source: Global Warming 'Science', John McLaughlin, American Thinker)
The hockey stick version of climate history was the 'consensus' view and questioning it was forbidden, but Dr Tim Ball exposed it to be as fraudulent a graph as using this actual hockey stick as a climate graph
"No scientist has abused the court system like Michael Mann. Penn State’s controversial alarmist climate professor has not only politicized the science but has resorted to repeated court action to silence his critics.
Mann’s most shocking legal gambit was stooping to sue for libel 79-year-old retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball. Ball, although a pensioner, remains a staunch and popular critic of climate alarm. For almost two decades Ball has been in the vanguard of independent scientists calling out Mann’s secret science; science bought and paid for with our tax dollars. When asked to show his disputed code Mann’s response was:
“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…” So much for saving the planet from catastrophe, Mikey! In the seven years this ridiculous, multi-million dollar SLAPP suit has run Mann has stooped to every trick to prevent open court examination of crucial equations that created his iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph." (Source: Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?, John O'Sullivan, principia-scientific)
The various deceivers kept circling the wagons and criticizing the exposers and screaming that 'the science is settled' like so many toddlers telling their playmates that they wanted things their way or they would take their toys and go home
If this isn't a slimey political sidestepping of truth and accountability, we don't know what is. One thing for sure, this desperate, fraudulent hockey stick shenanigan is not science! Andrew W. Montford's wonderful recounting of Steve McIntyre's unbelievably dogged spadework in uncovering the scientific malfeasance (at best) or fraud (at worst) underlying Michael "Piltdown" Mann's Hockey Stick. The book is titled "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and The Corruption of Climate Science," and it asserts that two years after the phony Hockey Stick fiasco had been discredited it was still being used as the basis of a program of environmental propaganda in schools.
The various deceivers kept circling the wagons and criticizing the exposers and screaming that "the science is settled" like so many toddlers telling their playmates that they wanted things their way or they would take their toys and go home. This was Piltdown Man all over again. Yet the perpetrators kept up the ruse, and the pretense started wearing thin even for some of the inner circle.
Group portrait of the fraudulent Piltdown skull being examined
The reason the exposed fakers would never say die and never admit their scam was that the liberal narratives, whether about political correctness, blacks are victims and whites are victimizers, or the climate alarmist narrative, were to be believed without question. If you doubted political correctness, blacks are victims and whites are victimizers, or the climate alarmist narrative, you were in danger of Antifa attacks, doxing, trolling, assaults, career ruining, reputation ruining, and harrassment of all kinds—which is why most scientists got on record that they supported the climate alarmist position. They wanted to keep their jobs and not be harrassed.
When and why did the liberal narrative turn into a cause for violence rather that a political stance with associated opinions? Why did it turn violent and dogmatic? "Believe what I tell you or I will get you and make you sorry!" Why were reasonable discussions, the hallmark of democracy, no longer in the liberal playbook? And how in the hell did climate science end up thrown into the self-righteous tenets of the liberal narrative? The climate alarmist narrative is the CW but the deniers are the marginalized outcasts—the reason the alarmists claim 97% of scientists concur with the alarmist position is that most scientists are afraid to risk doxing, trolling, assaults, career ruining, reputation ruining, and harrassment of all kinds if they stray from the liberal narrative.
Antifa, ass kicker for the liberal narrative defenders
Ku Klux Klan
Activists were now dogmatic vigilantes. And of course all of this ugly, dogmatic self-righteousness disgusted conservatives so much that rightwingers became rigidly adamant and dogmatic, the Ku Klux Klan came out of the woodwork where they'd been hibernating for decades and began to have rallies and sign up members. It goes without saying that what we are seeing is the Culture War degenerating from words to hate to activism to extremism to violence backed by extremist dogma. The mainstream media is backing the liberal narrative and the resistance to their narrative was backed by the conservatives and to some degree President Trump, Fox News, and various conservative websites online.
Publisher: World Climate Programme and World Meteorological Organization, IPCC first assessment report 1990, chap 7 Observed Climate Variation and Chanqe, pg 202—note the medieval warm period that is warmer than the current climate, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH!
As Dr. Ball explains: "to watching scientists, the remarkable thing about the Hockey Stick was not what was happening in the twentieth century portion — that temperatures were rising was clear from the instrumental record — but the long flat handle. The Medieval Warm Period [which stood out like a sore thumb in the IPCC first assessment report 1990] had completely vanished. Even the previously acknowledged 'regional effect' now left no trace in the record. The conclusions were stark: current temperatures were unprecedented." [This wasn't what the science said—it's what the liberal narrative required and the politics needed.]
"It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real. . . . Notice this monumental fraud. If a flat graph going back a few centuries means nothing caused climate change but human activity, the same would also have to be true for the past four billion years of geological and biological history. Otherwise, whatever caused change in the past could be what is causing it now. All long term graphs show up and down peaks which never end. They never show anything flat. So the hockey stick graphs are contradicting long-term trends in attempting to propagandize the public. The purpose of hockey stick graphs is to make the statement that nothing in nature changes these factors, only human influences do. That purpose is fraudulent. Earlier heat and CO2 had to get into the atmosphere through natural conditions." (Source: Fake Data—How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived, Gary Novak, Nov79)
Cow adding a little greenhouse gas to the atmosphere
"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank, states that Ball has disputed anthropogenic global warming since the mid-1990s, and has asserted that global warming is due to natural variations. Ball has spoken twice at The Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. However, critics point out that Ball was a professor of geography, not climatology, and that the University of Winnipeg has never had a climatology department. . . . he has continued to advocate against governmental intervention to ameliorate climate change.
" . . . Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson's statement of defence was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball '...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming,' and that he '...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.' In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007." (Source: Timothy Ball, Wikipedia)
In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” “Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”–Klaus-Eckart Puls, German physicist and meteorologist
“Dr. Tim Ball’s “Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” is written by a well-informed truth warrior who has dared to challenge the powerful and dishonest climate-as-religion orthodoxy that has captured compliant mainstream media messaging. Bravo Tim for this fine book and for the scientific competence and integrity that you bring to this important topic.”—Larry Bell, author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax and Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom
"The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science describes a collection of specific cases where, according to Dr. Ball, blatant corruption of science enabled the activities of 'a cabal, a secret political clique or faction.' His main goal in this book was to 'explain their motive and objectives, which were political, not scientific . . . How . . . they bypassed and perverted the scientific method . . . [and how] They effectively silenced scientists who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skeptics.'" (Source: Dr Tim Ball: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, tallbloke)
IPCC first assessment report 1990
"Maurice Strong established for the newly formed (1998) IPCC two objectives: Create the science needed to prove anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of climate change and then convince the public that if they didn’t
act, the outcome would be catastrophic . . . Next, Dr. Ball reveals another corruption of climate science: When
the IPCC finishes a report, it first produces a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) well ahead of publishing the Science Report. According to Dr. Ball, the SPM, which is the most important part of IPCC work, is always
dramatically different from the Science Report. And the media and the public most likely read and refer only to the SPM, with only a few people reading the Science Report. According to one IPPC expert reviewer (David Wojick), 'what is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counterevidence 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.' . . . More disturbing, by releasing the Summary for Policymakers before the Science Report, IPCC leaders guarantee the pre-eminence of political message over science. They also require that the Science Report agree with the Summary, when it should be the other way around. Using a phrase from the book, they 'reach a conclusion and then make the research fit.' . . . In a sub-chapter titled 'Wikipedia—a Falsified Resource for Students and Media,' the author unveils a disturbing way of manipulating climate science by controlling climate information through Wikipedia." (Source: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Constantin Cranganu, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 518–524, 2014)
Claims that tornadoes have gotten more frequent and intense are obliterated by actual evidence—there are less of them
"Claims that tornadoes have gotten more frequent and intense are obliterated by actual evidence. NOAA records show that from 1954 to 1985 an average of 56 F3 to F5 tornadoes struck the USA each year – but from 1985 to 2017 there were only 34 per year on average. And in 2018, for the first time in modern history, not a single “violent” twister touched down in the United States. Harvey was the first major (category 3-5) hurricane to make US landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the 1860s. (If rising CO2 levels are to blame for Harvey, Irma and other extreme weather events, shouldn’t they also be credited for this hurricane drought?)" (Source: Climate hysterics skyrocket by Paul Driessen, Paul Driessen, Camp Constitution (Christian sponsored)
Ball is apparently a creationist believing in intelligent design theory: "Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context. The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility." (Source: Timothy Ball: “Still just a theory”, Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris, Canada Free Press)
Obama claims 97% of scientists say humans are causing dangerous climate change—he lies . . . yet again. See The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama
"Scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change? No, they don’t. When [Obama] claims “97% of scientists say” such things, remember: This assertion is based on 75 of 77 'climate scientists' who were carefully selected from a 2010 survey that went to 10,257 scientists. To call that a consensus of scientists is deliberately false and misleading. . . . That means Obama Administration efforts to slash fossil fuel use and replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy will have no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels – and will reduce average global temperatures by a meaningless and undetectable 0.03 degrees F° by 2100 (if the U.S. completely eliminates fossil fuel use, and assuming IPCC and EPA claims about CO2 are correct).
"In sum, climate catastrophists have no evidence to support their disaster claims – or their assertions that 'the international community' is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change. To deal with these hugely inconvenient realities, purveyors of climate change Armageddon scare stories resort to a number of ingenious strategies that most people would likely view as questionable, dishonest or even fraudulent, if they knew what was actually going on." (Source: Climate Hype Exposed: UN and Obama Administration pushing pseudo-science to justify policies that hurt energy, jobs, liberty – and people, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow)
Computer models used by the IPCC cannot possibly forecast future global temperatures, climate conditions, or flood, drought, hurricane and other events. The models employ highly simplified configurations of Earth’s extremely complex climate systems
"Computer models used by the IPCC cannot possibly forecast future global temperatures, climate conditions, or flood, drought, hurricane and other events. The models employ highly simplified configurations of Earth’s extremely complex climate systems; greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2 levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human CO2; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and assume rising CO2 will have only “positive feedbacks” and will only increase global warming (as by increasing cloud cover that will only trap more heat, rather than also reflecting the sun’s rays and heat back into outer space).
"They also ignore most of the powerful natural forces that we know affect our planet’s climate, such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents, recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña), atmospheric and volcanic dust, urban and other land use changes, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, and Earth’s position in an elliptical orbit that constantly and significantly changes its relationship to the sun and other planets. In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out. [GIGO]" (Source: Climate Hype Exposed, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow)
—Garbage out (GIGO)
"No Real-World evidence supports a 'dangerous manmade climate change' thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us." (Source: DESMOG: Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science, Paul Driessen, Desmog)
Climate researchers and activists are increasingly suspect. Any group that shuts down discussion and labels others as skeptics or deniers should be suspected of a cover-up. Leaked emails and manipulation of data, collusion on peer reviews—these are all existent alarmists' things that the media covers up.
- The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming
- Only Love Remains: Dancing at the Edge of Extinction
- The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption
- Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?
- The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- Gently Fixing Global Warming: ... how we got here to where we must go
- Wicked & Wise: How to solve the world's toughest problems
- Climate Change Reality Check: Basic Facts that Quickly Prove the Climate Change Crusade is Wrong and Dangerous
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides)
- The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It
- Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What's Happening, What's Right, and What's Possible
- Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science