It seems Dr. Tim Ball's motivations are not wholly altruistic:

"In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

Here are the original documents, so we can all judge for ourselves Dr. Ball's credibility:

Dr. Ball\'s original statement of claim .
The statement of defence .
The statement of defence (2) .

Dr. Ball dropped the suit in 2007.

Look, even if Dr. Ball truly believes what he is saying, that only makes his opinion one amongst the vast majority of scientifically credible sources opposing him. Keep in mind, however, that he makes his living as an anti-global warming speaker. He has significant financial incentive to keep his name in the news and to create controversy. Furthermore, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, of which he is co-founder, has strong links to Canadian industry lobbyists. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in your links that credibly links the IPCC document to any sort of politicized agenda. Your sources clearly have their own politicized agendas, however.

Who is "Derrida??"


Chess Fan

From Dr. Ball: That is false.

From the IPCC document: A page or two back I posted a link that gives percentages to terms such as 'likely' and 'very likely'.

If you'd actually read my post you would have seen I hadn't gone yet.

This article

talks about the confusion about scientific issues among the general public resulting from media practices.

Much of the problem, as I see it, is the disconnect between the science and the public's perception as directed by the media. Media frequently present "balanced" reports by including an equal number of "experts" on both sides of a scientific question. The problem with this is that there is no distinction between a majority and minority opinion--it appears to the reader that both sides have the same strength of support.

(Interestingly when it comes to the supernatural the media almost always fails to find an expert to present the case for natural explanations, or only provides them with about 5%-10% of the time.)

Anyway, look around and you'll find plenty of evidence from legitimate sources that climate change is a scientific consensus position:

An article in Science magazine discusses the scientific consensus.

wikipedia lists scientific organizations that support the conclusion that human activity is at least in part responsible for climate change.

This page has many links to groups, both scientific an other, that agree that human caused global climate change is a reality.

There are a few sites denying the consensus, but when you start digging you find that they are political groups.

Just read what was claimed to be a "peer-reviewed" paper by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on effects of increased atmospheric C02 (it appears in a link meant to discredit climate change). Ignoring the question as to why the authors are dabbling in a field outside their expertise (and that definitely shows as they repeat the usual errors), this AAPS journal has also published such "peer-reviewed" papers as...

that HIV does not cause AIDS

that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,

that there was a link between abortion and breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute and other major medical organizations (American Cancer Society, World Health Organization) have found no evidence of this link and have rejected it.

They believe that socialized medicine is evil and immoral, apparently believe there is no right to medical care and oppose the implementation of a universal health plan, and believe that use of evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines as an usurpation of physician autonomy.

The journal itself is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed nor the Web of Science.

Quackwatch , a recommended medical based site, lists their journal as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.

Brian Deer, investigative journalist, wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."

Hm, keep finding more stuff on this group, very little of it good . Although an opinion blog this one has numerous links that backup statements with evidence. All this is off-topic of course, but the bottom line is that all sources agree that this is not a properly peer-reviewed journal, is not a credible scientific publication and is not to be trusted. And that's a pity because I agree with some of their stands, too bad they twist the evidence to try and give it more support than it has.

Edit: excellent article on journalistic whiplash, Spock. Everyone should read it. I posted the same link last week too so if you missed it the first time, read it now so you have an understanding of how media can misrepresent what is going on in science.

Just to quibble (it is what I excel at), I would say the media almost never covers the supernatural, but does cover the paranormal. These are almost always puff pieces on things like mediums, psychics, faith healers, UFOs, Edgar Cayce, and people that James Randi calls "the woo-woo crowd".

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

That is the question. Who is he? Man or myth?

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Corpse.

--------------
This (therefore) will not have been a post.

Is that open to interpretation?

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com