Talk:Timothy F. Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

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.

[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.

Much biological research does not mention the word biology in either title or body. Its still research on biology. 99.246.92.21 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] WP:Biographies of Living Persons

All editors involved in this page need to carefully read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

There are differing standards for BLP pages than other "issue" pages.

A very small sampling (there are many very specific rules):

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply."

"Reliable sources: Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims."

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

Adherence to the policies contained in this Wiki policy document would resolve many of the above issues, and prevent the continued existence of biography pages like this, which has been hijacked by critics and reduced to an ad hominem attack. Compare the Wiki version to any of the other linked biographies. KipHansen 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other earlier Canadian PhDs in climatology

I found the following unsigned/undated comment in talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change (evidently from February 2007 based on its position in the talk page). I assume the article must have contained some mention at that time of Dr. Ball (misspelled as 'Bell' in the comment), but that must since have been removed as I don't see any mention as of today.Birdbrainscan 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[quote] [heading]"Dr. Timothy Bell Ball, who is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology" is a statement which is false

I have had some difficulty in editing this statement to reflect the fact that Dr. Timothy Bell Ball is not the first Canadian to earn a PHD in Climatology. In fact, Dr. Ball's PhD is in Historical Geography (1983), and the following (very incomplete) list of scientists have all earned PhD's in Climatology prior to Dr. Bell Ball's.

Leonard A. Barrie: 1970 B.Sc. Queens University, Kingston, ON Engineering Physics 1972 M.Sc. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Physics, Meteorology, Cloud Physics 1975 Ph.D. Johann Wolfgang v. Goethe University, Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, Frankfurt Atmospheric Science

George J. Boer: B.Sc. University of British Columbia, 1963. Honours Mathematics and Physics M.A., University of Toronto, 1965. Department of Physics (Subject: Meteorology) Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1970. Department of Meteorology

Garry Clarke: B.Sc. (1963), University of Alberta M.A. (1964), University of Toronto Ph.D. (1967), University of Toronto

The statement that Dr. Timothy Bell Ball is the first Canadian to earn a PhD in Climatology is outright false, and quite insulting to the many respected Canadian scientists who have been working in this field for decades. [end quote]

I will take a look and see if there are WP pages for any of these other scholars.Birdbrainscan 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the three listed above have WP pages yet. It turns out there are many more: this page on Dan Johnson's site lists 21 Canadian climatology PhD's dating prior to 1980: [website].

There are already WP pages for Kenneth Hare, Gordon McBean, Stephen E. Calvert and J._Ross_Mackay. There is no page for Lawrence Mysak but he appears as the 2006 winner of the Prix Marie-Victorin in Quebec.Birdbrainscan 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since finding Dan Johnson's list, I've also identified several more whom I have been researching. I've got about ten more so far where I have a URL that states the year of their PhD, and for some there's enough info for a short bio. There's a nice talk prepared by Roger Barry giving an overview of the early history of the field: [5] Birdbrainscan 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Birdbrainscan - can you point me to the links on Dan Johnson's site that actually give the information about the exact subject of each early climatologists PhD thesis, where the PhD thesis is filed in the universities library system, and the issuing Department?
I was sure I'd find this information there, as Mr. Johnson is so adamant about these details for Tim Ball's PhD, even though Ball's university gladly supplies documentation that his PhD was in "the field of Climatology". This all seems a bit silly to me.
KipHansen 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Today I rewrote a new first sentence recently added by an unregistered contributor (IP address only) to the controversy section, avoiding the seemingly POV language "view [link] before you read the following" to instead describe what is linked at that site in what I hope is more NPOV wording.

I revised the order of a few points toward the end, to get them in chronological order.

I also removed one point in this section as it seems out of place as uncontroversial:

  • The Canada Free Press called him a "former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg." [6]Birdbrainscan 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any real information at all on what courses Ball actually taught at Uni. Winnepeg?
Climatology is taught in the Geography Dept there, according to the Department of Geography current course offerings [7].
During his teaching years, few universities had separate Climatology departments, and it was placed in a variety of departments depending on the university. He may very well could be a considered a Professor of Climatology, certainly if he taught the climatology courses, regardless of what department it might be found. As it stands, I see no verifiable information on this point.
KipHansen 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's an important enough issue to bother with. The "Professor of..." designation is not necessarily meaningful. At many (most?) universities one's position is "Professor" and there's no formal appointment as "Professor of..." anything in particular. (Both of my academic affiliations have been like that.) Sometimes it's straightforward but in interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary departments the issue becomes vague. Raymond Arritt 23:49, 28 April 2007
Raymond, I appreciate your viewpoint on this, and perhaps we ought to strike "of Geography" and more accurately portray his status there as "Sessional Lecturer and retiring as a Professor in the Department of Geography."
However, the cite must be deleted and replaced with a 'cite needed' thingy - for heaven's sake, it points to the response document filed by a defendant (respondant? - one of the persons he is suing for libel) in a libel case! Way too far out there to be considered a RS. If no one can find out what he taught or for how long in a true WP:RS, then the whole bit must go, I would think.
Documenting what Ball taught in the university would add value to the bio, as there is so much attention placed on this page attacking, or talking about the attacks, on his and others portrayal of his academic credentials. If he did teach Climatology there, then let's just say so. If he taught courses in Climatology and Atmospheric Science and whatever else, we can say that. It's pertinent. I mean, he would be a different kind of fish if he taught Buddhism or Comparative Sociology.
KipHansen 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I trimmed that way back. There don't seem to be any sources that aren't partisan on one side or the other. It would be nice to have formal records from the Univ of Winnipeg. On another note, I don't follow your argument that "there is so much attention placed on this page attacking" Ball. The issue regarding his credentials has been widely reported and thus needs to be reported here, but I don't see where the article is partisan one way or the other. It just gives a very dry recitation of bullet points stating that Ball's credentials were questioned and he has sued in response. Raymond Arritt 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. My point on "attacking credentials" is exactly as you state - I might better have said the "controversy" about his credentials. In any case, wouldn't it be loverly just to be able to cite some official statement from UW giving his employment history and what he taught. Such things ought not to be hard to find out - but would require some work. I wasn't able to find it on the web - and probably rightly so (I wouldn't want my past employers putting my employment details on the web either). I think your edits are proper.
By the way, do you have any trouble with "Blogger Kevin Grandia points out that the university has no such department.[10]" This links to a dedicated anti-climate-change-skeptic blog, which I could not credit as a WP:RS under most circumstances. Unfortunately, the line just above it also links only to the same blog - again not WP:RS. Maybe it would be enough to delete the "Blogger Kevin..." line, change the previous line to "the film incorrectly stated Ball was attached to the University of Winnipeg's Department of Climatology." and add a 'cite needed'. It is true there is no Dept of Climatology at UW, Climatology is taught in the Dept of Geography. The film itself has its own very exhaustive Wiki article.
KipHansen 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed it pretty much along the lines you suggest. More to the point, I don't think it belongs in the "credentials" bit since there's no way to establish that Ball himself was misstating his credentials in TGGWS. The producer of TGGWS had less regard for factual accuracy than might be considered ideal (to put it tactfully), so he may well have done it on his own initiative and not with input from Ball. Raymond Arritt 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive quotes

This article has an exceccive number of quotations. Any notable quotes beyond a handful (five, say) should be moved to Wikiquote. It appears that the quotations are being used to impeach the subject's veracity. It isn't our place to make a case for the subject's truthfulness or mendacity. If he's made conflicting statements it would be better to cite someone criticizing him for it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed them back to a representative quote on each topic (one on Kyoto, one on ozone, etc). Is this better? Raymond Arritt 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Better, thanks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate ref for dropping Johnson lawsuit

It would be better to have a mainstream media report of Ball abandoning his suit against Johnson since desmogblog can be viewed as partisan. I haven't been able to find anything, though. Raymond Arritt 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Remaining references to DeSmogBlog link only to legal documents hosted on the site, not the site's own content. These constitute primary sources as per Wikipedia's source guidelines and should remain. Dbarefoot 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links (and Sources)

The current number and type of external links contravene multiple items on Wikipedia's external links policy -- most notably, "links should be kept to a minimum" and the rules around "reliable source". I have removed them as a result. If you disagree, please provide an argument that justifies their inclusion according to Wikipedia's guidelines.Dbarefoot 08:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored them. I don't see why you want them deleted. For example, you removed the link to the CFP but left in a Ph.D. in Geography "with a specific focus on historical climatology" which became unsourced. What was the point of doing that? Or do you think it should have "Ball said that..."? Similarly, CFP is a good enough source for Balls statement that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide". The statement is wrong, of course, but Ball said it William M. Connolley 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I made two separate sets of changes. This thread actually referred only to the 'External Links' section. You haven't indicated how they don't contravene Wikipedia guidelines, so I'll roll those back to my change. If you disagree, please explain. Dbarefoot 11:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As for the sources, they don't constitute responsible sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I guess I missed an instance of the CFP--they should all be removed. The organization at http://www.fcpp.org is a think tank, and does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". That latter description also applies to the CFP. Lastly, http://www.deerwood.mb.ca/ is allegedly Tim Ball's resume, but there's no cited evidence to support that claim. Dbarefoot 11:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
3 perception errors in your comment:
  1. CFR may not be a reliable source (i agree btw). But Tim Ball is most certainly a WP:RS on his own opinions. (and once more you didn't delete everything).
  2. FCCP may not be a reliable source (again i agree) - but they are rather unique here by having Tim Ball as on their board of scientific advisors. (the NRSP (another deletion) even has Ball as one of the 2 executive leaders!).
  3. WP:EL doesn't demand strict adherence to WP:RS (see "what to link"/"links to be considered"/4).
So why are we removing these? (by the way what is "responsible" sources?)--Kim D. Petersen 13:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So we're talking about two sets of edits here. Let's first resolve the external links. I think the list could certainly be shorter. Why do we need two professional biographies? More importantly, the External Links guidelines specify "sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Do the CFR or FCCP qualify, according to that?Dbarefoot 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Tim Ball is a WP:RS about himself - of course he has some WP:NPOV issues when considering himself - but we'll leave those in the realm of psycology and philosophy, Ok? ;) WP:EL also includes this: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." --Kim D. Petersen 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the EL could be trimmed, we don't need a list of all the newspaper articles he has written. But if you're removing a biog, rm the first one, since thats a dead link :-) William M. Connolley 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the redundant and dead links in the 'External Links' section. I am troubled by links to both CFP and AllPoliticsNow, neither of which (in my opinion) meet the condition of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Thoughts? Dbarefoot 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
For that matter NRSP isn't "neutral and accurate" either. Raymond Arritt 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. I don't see why EL have to be neutral and accurate. I'm pretty sure GWC has many that are neither :-) William M. Connolley 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, what seems fair enough? Removing links to CFP and AllPoliticsNow? Or just my previous changes. As for the 'neutral and accurate material' rule, I'm just applying the external links guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarefoot (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed tag.

Yesterday, I added a neutrality disputed tag, which was removed and dubbed a "drive by tagging." I'm going to reinstate the neutrality disputed tag following this discussion tag. The heading of the article states "Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, both of which are funded by energy industries.[1]" This is innaccurate, because no credible evidence has been given to show that the Natural Resources Stewardship Project is funded by energy industries. It is misleading, because while the Friends of Science apparantly recieved some funding from a Canadian energy utility company, the wording implies that that group was merely an energy company front, which is untrue. It is not neutral because, according to wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, significant views about the subject should be represented fairly, proportionatly, and without bias. The tone of the rhetoric of this opening statement violates this policy in every respect: it is an unusually combative tone, it gives no accurate references, it denigrates the subject (which is the person, Dr. Ball, not the organizations with which he is affiliated) without proposing any alternative viewpoints, and shows a clear bias against the subject (again, Dr. Ball, not the organizations with which he is affiliated.)

In short, this needs to be clarified and researched, or the section needs to be changed to reflect merely Dr. Ball's name, relevant biographical information, and his qualifications. Any controversy should be moved to the controversy section of the article.

Supercam (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to be a few bricks short of a load not to recognise that NRSP is industry-funded (it was set up by an industry lobbyist and refuses to reveal its funding), but I agree it's not absolutely proven, and have edited the intro to reflect this. The unquestioned fact that FoS is industry funded is obviously relevant to anyone wanting to get information on Ball's role in the climate science debate. There's nothing controversial about this fact, and if you regard it as discreditable, you should draw the obvious inferences. JQ (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback; sorry

I meant to revert [8] politely but rolled it back instead. Anyway, I can't see those edits as improvements William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Ball disagrees with some sort of "consensus" is slanted and vague. Just state the fact. Ball disagrees with man-made global warming theory. This is not the place for proponents of that theory to strut around and demand that Wikipedia readers consider their personal opinions to be the only legitimate ones on the subject. The Noosphere (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, the link clearly shows what is the consensus view. Ball is correctly indentified as someone who disputes the consensus position.JQ (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no "consensus" on global warming theory. See [9] Proponents of the theory who edit Wikipedia are just trying to push their view as if it is the only legitimate opinion on the subject. The Noosphere (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I reverted your edit, as the article linked to (i.e. scientific opinion on global warming) is fairly clear that there is in fact a consensus. Thanks, Hal peridol (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. So if you really want to pursue this, take your argument to the sci cons page, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Under the terms of your sanctions by the arbitration committee for POV-editing (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley), you must not cover up the fact that there are other opionions on the subject besides your own. The thesis of the Wall Street Journal article is that there is no such "consensus." [10] Please respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The Noosphere (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. Something tells me this is not going to end well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It will end well, if we work together in good faith to make this article NPOV, not an attack on Dr. Ball by man-made global warming theory activists. The Noosphere (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You're aware, of course, that arbcom later lifted its sanctions against William and stated that it had erred by imposing them in the first place? Your attempt to stifle William by referring to nonexistent sanctions isn't especially helpful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, The Noosphere you're obviously a sock, and not, as presented, a brand new contributor. Care to save us all some trouble, and unmask yourself?JQ (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirit of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious that I would have known about an arbitration against a user dating back before my first edits. Many stories about Wikipedia arbitration have been picked up in the mainstream media. This [11] is one of many from the past week. Please stop reverting my work and please start treating me with the civility expected of all of us as Wikipedia contributors. My sole goal is to make Wikipedia conform to its laudable policy of "neutral point of view" and become a legitimate encyclopedia. I hope that is your goal as well. The Noosphere (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)