Talk:Timothy F. Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I've inserted a hangon as I am just getting started on a basic page on Tim Ball so he can be included in the category list "climate change skeptics"

He is having a substantial influence as a speaker and policy activist in Canada.

Birdbrainscan 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the page title has lowercase 'b' in this person's name. Is there a way to correct the page title itself? Or do I need to remove it an create a new one?

Birdbrainscan 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MOVE. In this case, I've taken care of that for you. :) Luna Santin 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Luna.

I've added cites for a couple of selected publications. Our library has a copy of the Bradley book in which Ball's article is included. I might get it out and verify the details of the cite, as the article itself does not appear to be online anywhere on its own, that I can find.

I've searched Google Scholar for articles by TF Ball, (there are a lot of authors named T Ball in a lot of fields, including apparently another much younger climatologist in Arizona!)

Birdbrainscan 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks to the search services on our university library system, I've now tracked down five articles definitely by this TF Ball, four in Climatic Change and one in Syllogeus, ranging from 1981 to 1992. There is also a book from 2003 co-authored with two other people.

I still have not found any specifics on when Dr. Ball first began teaching at UWinnipeg. There are websites that mention his having taught for 28 or for 32 years, but given that he left UofW in 1996, that would take the start of his teaching career back into the 1960's, more than a decade before his Ph.D. was conferred in 1983.

Birdbrainscan 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm associated with this website, but believe it an appropriate and unique source regarding Tim Ball's position on climate change. Wikipedia guidelines prevent me from posting it as an external link, so I propose it here for a neutral party to consider: http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-movie-only-on-desmogblog-com.

Dbarefoot 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Ball is now only with the NRSP, having resigned from FOS. I have removed the previous reference to the Web site DeSmogBlog since, as the poster admitted, he is associated with the site and "Wikipedia guidelines prevent me from posting it as an external link"

Tom Harris

I've returned my request for consideration of an external link. To quote Wikipedia's guidelines on this topic:

If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

That's exactly what I've done here--disclosed my association with the website, and mentioned it on the associated talk page. Dbarefoot 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, dbarefoot. The blog entry is brief but still worth linking, IMO. I've added it under external links, after the link directly to the video of his talk at the Frontier Centre site.

Contents

[edit] Scanned image

I'm still a relative noob in world of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure about the evidentiary value of a scanned letter. On the one hand, it's verifiable, on the other hand, it doesn't scream of reliability. Opinions? Dbarefoot 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine, dbarefoot. Thanks.


The letter is dated 2006, and consists of a requested wording. The official topic of the PhD is listed by the University of London as Geography:

http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27

Climatology is not mentioned, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the thesis excepted in the word "Climatic" in the title, which is assigned by the doctoral student.

[edit] Climatology vs. Geography

Dr. Ball taught in the department of Geography at UWinnipeg, but this does not demonstrate he was "not a climatologist." Many universities do not have a department as specialized as climatology, so professors need a home department. For example, Prof. L.D. Danny Harvey of Univ. of Toronto is a professor in the department of Geography, but he is also a climatologist and a member of the IPCC.

Anyway, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the terse sentence suggesting he is inflating what field he studied, as opposed to how long he did so (the 28 years just doesn't add up, that's clear.)

He worked on ice cover proxy reconstruction from historical data of shipping records. This small piece of the jigsaw puzzle does not justify much of anything he has been saying lately.

Birdbrainscan 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


The letter is dated 2006, and consists of a requested wording. The official topic of the PhD is listed by the University of London as Geography:

http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/?searchtype=a&searcharg=Ball%2C+Timothy&searchscope=16&SORT=A&Submit.x=48&Submit.y=27

Climatology is not mentioned, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the thesis excepted in the word "Climatic" in the title, which is assigned by the doctoral student.

[edit] Purpose of page

It seems the purpose of this page is to defame Ball, so that his views will carry less weight. I think it would serve our reader better simply to quote the opposing views. --Uncle Ed 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but you've deleted opposing views entirely. And what is the justification for removing any reference to the lawsuit. If Ball is a notable figure then this lawsuit is notable too. Shawn in Montreal 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
and while we're at it, please share your rationale for only including the Fraser Institute bio backing his claim to be Canada's first PhD in Climatology, while leaving off articles from other academics disputing that? Its seems to be clearly non-neutral so I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.Shawn in Montreal 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


The purpose is to prervent defaming of actual practicing climatologists.

Anything defamatory should be removed. However, noting public criticism of Ball by peers or the lawsuit he initiated is in not in itself defamatoryShawn in Montreal 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Doctor of Science" incorrectly added

The "Doctor of Science" has been repeatedly added. He has a PhD and NOT a Doctor of Science, a separate and more prestigious degree which is awarded to those with vastly more significant academic records well after the PhD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.222.9 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

According to DeSmogBlog (see http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-ashamed-of-its-experts), he falsely represents himself as a Professor Emeritus. If this can be confirmed it ought to be mentioned. Did he ever gain the rank of Professor? (unsigned)

According the the chronology at | Eli Rabbett's page on Tim Ball, he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996. This sounds like he received tenure. It also says he was 57 when he retired (so he'd be 68 now). I've never seen any comment on why he left in 1996. Birdbrainscan 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needs correction

Cut from intro:

Timothy Ball, Ph.D., is an environmental consultant and global warming skeptic who heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. He formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science. Both organizations have been criticised as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists.[1]

I read the page, then searched it for "project" and "science". Perhaps the previous contributor was referring to a different page at the same website? --Uncle Ed 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to help out, here's a blog quote on this point:
  • In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS. [1]
This in turn, refers to a piece by Charles Montgomery, who wrote:
  • As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding donors' identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball's travel expenses, according to Mr. Jacobs. And who are the donors? No one will say. [2]

[edit] Balance needed

There is a dispute over Ball's credentials:

  • Is he (or was he ever) a "climatologist"?
    • If so, was he Canada's first climatoligist?
  • Did he teach at U of W?
    • If so, was he a "professor of climatology"?
  • What department was he in then?
  • Is he still affiliated with the university?
    • If so, in what department?

Citations needed for the following

  1. that a documentary said he was in the Department of Climatology
  2. that NRSP or Friends of Science are "controlled by energy industry lobbyists"

Note that I did not "delete" but followed the Wikipedia:Text move guideline for the incorrectly sourced "controlled by" thing. If I thought it was untrue, I simply would have deleted it. Actually, I do think it's true, i.e., I do think someone has made that criticism. However, the link in the provided ref tag is not a source for this. Please fix this and put it back. --Uncle Ed 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter from Tim Ball

John Daly published a letter from Tim Ball, signed as follows:

Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant
Victoria, British Columbia
28 Years at the University of Winnipeg [3] (I misquoted this, and Stephan caught my error; see below. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

So our question is whether Ball:

  • ever taught at the university
  • if so:
    1. was it "climatology" that he taught?
    2. was his title "Professor of Climatology"?

Perhaps an email to him or to someone at U of W would clear this up, if we're interested in getting to the bottom of this. --Uncle Ed 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he signs it "28 Years Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg" (emphasis by me). See Johnson's answer to Balls lawsuit (especially page 5 and up) for a description of Ball's academic career. Obviously, this is not an impartial source, but there are serious consequences for misrepresenting facts to a court of law, so it's unlikely things as easily checkable as these would be falsified. Also, it looks very plausible to me. I suspect a judge will determine the truth (or a good approximation of it) soon. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. A bit of sloppy copy and paste. Thanks for your attention to detail. Here is a fresh "copy" of the letter:

Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant
Victoria, British Columbia
28 Years Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg

I'm wondering what our policy is on citing blogs. Do we avoid it altogether, or simply say "Blogger (so-and-so) wrote ..."? --Uncle Ed 15:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the Blog. Not all are equal. I'm ready to cite more reliable blogs under the "2. Professional self-published sources" exception from WP:RS#Reliable_sources. I certainly would not reference an anonymous user contribution at Slashdot. Some editors don't want bloggers at all. --Stephan Schulz 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More blog quotes

  • The FOS site still insists that (even if he HAD a Ph.D. in climatology, this would not be true) and that "for 32 years (he) was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." But the NRSP site says only that "for 28 years (Ball) was Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."
  • Of course, that's not true either. According to a Statement of Claim in a libel suit that HE filed, Dr. Ball was only a professor at U of W for eight years. And according to the university's own calendar, he was, during that time, a professor of geography, not climatology.

This is getting closer to a usable citation. Using this, we can say:

  • According to blogger Richard Littlemore:
    1. Friends of Science "insists that Dr. Ball was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology"
    2. Friends of Science disagrees with NSRP on the number of years Ball was a climatology professor; and both sources disagree with Ball himself

I'll do a bit more digging now. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out this is misleading as well. It implies that Ball himself admitted being a professor for only 8 years, but actually Ball is suing the newspaper because *IT* made that claim. That is, the assertion that Ball was "not a professor for 28 years" was not (Ball says) made by Ball or put on Ball's (nonexistent) website.
Ironic that the same blog which criticizes a documentary for referring to a nonexistent department at the university makes a reference to a nonexistent website! --Uncle Ed 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What "reference" to what "nonexistent website"? Please let me know about this so I can help you out. Iceberg007 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from main lead

"Ball disputes the assertion that carbon dioxide levels affect temperature, saying the the causation is the other way around. He says that carbon dioxide levels are driven by temperature changes. [4]"

First, while that article is really really really bad, Ball does not actually claim the reverse causation in it. Also, if you find a better cite (I'd not be suprised), shouldn't that go into "Views on environmental change"? Finally, all the other references use template: cite web. It would be nice to keep this consitent. --Stephan Schulz 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the 2nd-to-last paragraph, where Ball says:
  • "Now, research shows that temperature changes happen before CO2 levels rise ..."
And, yes, I'll have to learn how to use the cite web format. Thanks for your patience. --Uncle Ed 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I read the same sentence. But in it, he talks about the sequence in time ("before"), not causation. It's unclear (possibly intentional) if "the relationship is exactly opposite..." refers to time or to causation, but I think a stronger case can be made for time. He only refers to causation with respect to orbital variations. --Stephan Schulz 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he's saying that solar variation drives both, not that random variations in temp drive CO2 changes. Perhaps we can say that he denies the theory that CO2 changes drive temp changes, on the grounds that temp changes precede CO2 changes. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's really hard to find out what he tries to say. He makes elementary errors like confusing clouds (water droplet, i.e. liquid water) with water vapor (a greenhouse gas), he uses unclear and irrelevant measures for greenhouse gas proportions (the table has "ppb adjusted for heat-retention characteristics" - is that by mass, by volume, or by greenhouse potential?), he ignores the difference between long-term climate drivers and feedbacks, and he suggests, but never makes the claim you mention. Of course CO2 can start rising after the temperature, but still drive most of the rise. If I push a car onto a steeply declining road, it's still gravity that makes it move faster, even though the initial move was due to my push.--Stephan Schulz 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that he is wrong. If so, perhaps a link to a scientific article at Wikipedia which contradicts his ideas would be appropriate. Or at least a summary of another person's ideas which contrast with his.

I wonder if he's the only one with the "CO2 can't be a driver" idea. Have you heard of anyone else making that claim? I mean besides conservative pundits with no science degrees, of course. --Uncle Ed 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at least in this article he is beyond wrong - he is so confused that it is hard to even figure out what he wants to say. The bidirectional warming/CO2 causality is rather established, even Lindzen, as fas as I know, does not dispute it (he just thinks other effects compensate for it). Veizer and Shaviv claim that CO2 correlates badly with temperature, but they are really talking about geological time periods, where orbital changes and continental drift play a significant role.--Stephan Schulz 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimothy_F._Ball_fa78.html"