1. In the second edition of Climate, History and the Modern World, Hubert Lamb specifically warned of the danger of attributing human causes to natural climate fluctuations. His advice was to continue researching climate and to keep watch on the impacts of change, but not to attribute too much to the idea of the importance of human activity.

    Lamb wrote, “In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased).

    And the monsoons became more regular in India and west Africa. Planning on the climatic statistics of the preceding decades was in fact allowing wider safety margins for many activities than was apparent up to some time about 1950.”

    End of quote.

    The following paper confirmed Lamb’s remark by assessing how climate zones changed during the 20th century based on the Koppen classification System modified by Trewartha (KTC)..The relevance of the KTC system is that the temperature and precipitation criteria are based on plant ecology. This subsumes animal ecology because animals depend on plants.

    The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)

    Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.

    The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.

    In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.

    So yes, the Earth has warmed a little and most people worldwide are better off than their parents and grandparents. The people benefiting the most are those on the margins of steppe to desert and those on the margins between ice and tundra.

    Belda, M., Holtanová, E., Halenka, T. and Kalvová, J., 2014. Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha. Climate research, 59(1), pp.1-13.


  2. I scrolled through the video fast and didn't see the lie where they claim the Antarctica ice core data of temp and CO2 is proof. In reality, the temperature changes hundreds of years before the CO2 changes, not the other way around

    1. Tim Ball: You never had any credibility (what, just four obscure climate publications in your entire career?), and you lost even that when you started calling others Nazis on WUWT.

  3. David, There you go again. Do you really claim to be a scientist? I notice you can never write a scientific rebuttal to papers that show your foolish opinions are wrong. You always resort to an ad hominem attack. Read Aristotle on logic.

  4. Climate change occurred during the planets history many times. But never with this speed and impact as since the late 20th century. And never with such disastrous effects on societies.

    It's not astonishing:

    – with 1,2 billion vehicles with fuel engines moving around

    – with an average emission of 100 – 400 mg CO2 / vehicle / km

    – with 10 thousands of airplanes starting and landing daily

    – with industries sending their emissions every second into the atmosphere

    – with an industrialized agriculture sending hazardous emissions into the air …

    … every day, everywhere in the world … man-made air pollution adds brutally to climate change. And still economists call for economic growth !

    If we do not change our way of investment, production and transportation drastically, our children and grand-children will suffer and condemn us not having started the needed change now. And in a relatively short period of time social, economic and natural systems will fail to serve mankind at all.

    Do you strive for this? No ? Then please change your mindset first before you continue your business as usual.

    1. Dear Gert, You claim present climate change is faster than ever before. Temperature reconstructions for the last 20,000 to 600,000 years disproves your claim. So your initial statement is wrong.

      Please see the graph below of temperature for last 17,000 years by Don Easterbrook. The temperature change in the last 100 years pales in comparison to temperature changes between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. The red lines show past global warming that far exceed the "speed and impact" of our present global warming.

      <img src="http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/2013/03/Easterbrook03.jpg&quot; alt="Global temperature from 17,000 years ago until present. Present changes pale in comparison to changes 15,000 to 10,000 years ago." />

      You list human activities that emit CO2, and you conclude these emissions have caused significant global warming. But, as Soon and others have proved, CO2 is not correlated with temperature. When there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. Therefore, something besides our CO2 emissions causes temperature change.

      Then you make your admonition that we humans must change how we live or our CO2 emissions will cause a disaster.

      Your problem is you will not accept real science. Real science is based on hypotheses, predictions, and rejecting all hypotheses that produce false predictions. Watch this 1964 lecture by Richard Feynman.

      Your hypothesis that our CO2 causes dramatic global warming or any associated climate change has been proven wrong because its predictions are wrong. Further, data show that CO2 follows temperature rather than temperature following CO2. Cause must precede effect.

      You promote a belief that science has proven to be wrong. Therefore, you promote a false religion.

      You promote actions to "address" global warming that cause more harm to more people than doing nothing. You propose actions that cause far more economic and social damage than our CO2 emissions ever will.

    2. The link between anthropogenic C02 emissions and climate change is so weak, and scientific evidence that C02 has anything to do with the weather is non existant. It is the big multi hundred billion dollar scam. I have been searching for the evidence ever since Maurice Strong uttered the first climate lies in the UN. C02 is harmless plant food. The real greenhouse gas which has kept our planet's temperature regulated nicely for billions of years is water vapour. Tough to get grant money from governments based on trying to scare people with water, but I'm sure Trudeau, McKenna, Phillips, Soros, Clintons and Gore would hand it over by the billions in return for scientific papers which support their anti industry agendas if they could blame the worlds problems on man made water vapour.

    1. I give more facts here than anyone. Here are more:

      Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

      After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball's credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

      In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

      1. "…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

      2. "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

      3. "The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

      4. "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

      5. "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

      Ball dropped his lawsuit.

      Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

      More at:

      1. The heart of the earth sciences are astronomy, meteorology, geology, oceanology but there are also very much related fields such as atmospheric chemistry/physics, astrophysics, quantum physics, physical geography. There are also some assistant fields which figure into the picture or are influenced by the first tier & they can offer insight: ecology, soils science, even engineering. Mr. Appell what you get wrong is that Dr. Mann is not a meteorologist by trade. He has degrees in geophysics & math & these certainly can offer an insight.

      2. I notice that on August 21, 2016 at 6:48 am David Appell says many things and then he uses DeSmogBlog to attempt to validate his wild accusations and that demonstrates a large degree of ignorance to do that as this information about DeSmogBlog lets honest folks know.

        The Truth about DeSmogBlog
        DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources.

    2. Looks like Ed has started moderating.

      I.e. censorship.

      That's one way to try and win the argument. But never a way that works.

      Ed is afraid of views other than his own.

    3. Dear David, You are so quick to criticize people that you overlook truth. You just accused me of moderating or blocking your comment. You are blatantly wrong.

      You are very familiar with commenting on WordPress sites. Therefore, you should know standard WordPress settings hold comments with a large number of references for approval by the moderator.

      You left a comment with a large number of references at 1:47 pm Sunday. You accused me of blocking your comment at 1:50 pm. The reality is I don't sit at my computer all day waiting for a comment that WordPress holds for my personal approval. And on Sunday I am usually doing other things. When I reviewed this site at 6:02 pm Sunday, I found your comment waiting my approval, and approved it.

    1. This is true & was incorrectly portrayed by alarmists. The easy way for laypeople to observe is compare the warm bottle of champagne vs the one in the fridge & be careful on opening. The warmth of the former allows co2 to bubble out. The CO2 in the bottle did not create the warmth.

  5. David, You criticize everyone. That is the way you attempt to do science. It fails. You criticize Dr. Tim Ball above based upon a record your pulled from The Calgary Herald regarding a Statement of Defense. You are so stupid you do not know that anyone can claim anything in a lawsuit. Such claims are meaningless. The only meaningful information from a court trial is the court decision. In this case, the court made no decision or proclamation or judgment.

    I should really remove your claims against Tim Ball because your claims are without basis and inflamatory. But I will give you a chance to respond to this rebuttal to your comment.

    Meanwhile, I will bring to the attention of all readers that you, David Appell, have not responded to my request for a reference to your PhD thesis publication. Therefore, I suspect you never did a PhD thesis.

    David, please prove you are a real scientist and not an imposter.

  6. A great pity we can't put these global warming creatures in a large greenhouse with a very low CO2 level and make them live off the crops they could grow. When they got starved enough they may reconsider. Do the not know that a lot of large greenhouses add a large amount of C)2 so the crops will grow faster and larger. So much for the evil CO2. To paraphase and old saying "You can take a donkey to water but you can,t make him drink"

  7. Tim, thanks for the post and links. There are some pretty outrageous claims in there…claims that our diametrically opposed to virtually every American and international scientific organization and academy…organizations like Environment Canada, NOAA, NASA, Royal Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, etc, etc . Lots of your statements simply repeat the talking points of disinformation professionals and fossil fuel industry lobbyists. What climate science qualifications do you actually have? How much peer-reviewed science have you published in the past 10 years? 25 years?

    1. Dear Frank,

      Attempts to defeat a scientific argument by attacking the author of the argument have no place or credibility in science. The scientific method is the only way to prove a theory wrong. And no one can prove a theory right.

      Your list of organizations is irrelevant nonsense in science. You may as well include the Catholic Church and its Pope among your organizations, because people believe the Pope, who is now making claims about science.

      The scientific method is "if a prediction is wrong then the theory is wrong." By that gold standard, the climate alarmist theory is wrong.

      It does not matter if every organization in the world, and every scientist who meets your publication criteria, claim the theory is right. If the theory makes a wrong prediction, then it is wrong.

      Furthermore, you do not have to be a subject matter expert to prove a theory is wrong.

      Therefore, if you wear a science hat, you better follow the way science works.

      1. Nope, you are confused or intentionally misleading people. It is completely fair to call out Dr. Ball and ask him to confirm his scientific qualifications.

      2. "You may as well include the Catholic Church and its Pope among your organizations, because people believe the Pope, who is now making claims about science"

        Why is Dr. Ball more credible than the Pope? Ball hasn't published any climate science in over 25 years. You don't accept the Pope's position, presumably because he lacks climate science credentials. Dr. Ball is no different.

      3. Dear Frank,

        You claim I mislead people when I say the scientific method is the proper way to invalidate scientific theories.

        You think scientific positions of organizations proves your climate alarmists belief is true. You claim credibility is proportional to the number of publications or recent publications. The many junk climate papers, by so-called scientists on your side, prove your claim is nonsense.

        No, it is not scientifically relevant to attack Tim Ball in your futile attempt to prove what he said is wrong. Ad hominem attacks on a messenger prove nothing about the message. Aristotle understood that but you to not.

        Dr. Ball follows the scientific method, while you do not. It is you who lack credibility. I assume you have some personal grudge against Dr. Ball.

        Since you focus only on "credibility" rather than science, would you care to share with the readers facts about your so-called scientific credibility?

      4. Hi Frank, be assured that I am well qualified. And to ask Tim Ball to confirm his qualifications and background is not an ad hom "attack". One final observation: You lecturing me and other readers about scientific principles and the scientific method are disingenuous particularly given that your silly website is largely about ideology, not science.

      5. Dear Frank,

        Do you even know who you are? You are talking to yourself, again.

        You claim you are "well qualified." Yet, your comments prove your science education and ability is deficient.

        You attack Tim Ball personally, without even once showing where he has made a mistake in his presentation. Yet, you have refused my invitation to present your claim to credibility, which suggests you have none.

        Based on what your several comments, Tim Ball has forgotten more about climate than you have ever learned. You have not presented anything educational about climate.

        Yes, I lecture you about the scientific method because you do not follow it. Whatever qualifications you may have, you fail theoretical physics, where using scientific method is one-half of the argument.

        Scientifically, you are as useless as a one legged runner in the Olympics.

  8. "But, as Soon and others have proved, CO2 is not correlated with temperature. "

    >> How disappointing to hear you call yourself a scientist and then suggest that a single paper has somehow "..proved [that] CO2 is not correlated with temperature". Even Soon's 2015 paper doesn't make that claim.

    1. Dear Frank,

      The burden of proof is on you to show where Soon's paper made a mistake in its use of data.

      Clearly, the data Soon presents does show that CO2 is not correlated with temperature over the time-scale of the data.

      Have you looked at Soon's data?

    2. Ed, you are avoiding my point. You said in your post that "Soon and others have proved, CO2 is not correlated with temperature." and provided a link to a 2015 paper by Soon et al. Yes, I have read the paper and the researchers do not make the claim that their study proves that CO2 is not correlated with temperature. You should read the paper again and stop making dishonest statements.

    3. Dear Frank,

      The whole point of Soon's paper is about correlations. Soon's Fig. 31 shows the correlation coefficient R2 for (a) CO2 vs temperature is 0.3111, and for (c) TSI vs temperature is 0.4845. So, I ask you these questions:

      1. Do you claim an R2 of 0.3111 proves CO2 is well correlated with temperature?

      2. Do you claim these R2 prove CO2 correlates with temperature better than TSI correlates with temperature?

      I notice you have not shown or even claimed to have shown that Soon's paper is inaccurate. You simply resort to ad hominem attacks, which prove nothing.

      3. Do you claim to be a scientist?

    4. Frank, let's start over. You made the claim that Soon's paper "…PROVED, CO2 is not correlated with temperature" (my emphasis in caps). But the paper doesn't make that claim. And even if it did, your statement would be erroneous and misleading.

    5. Dear Frank,

      Do you even know who you are? You are talking to yourself, as if you are someone's puppet.

      You have made several comments on this post, and not once have you spoken about science. You made another claim "erroneous and misleading," but you cannot connect your claim to a scientific argument.

      Your arguments are scientific nonsense. Perhaps you should have retired before you lost your mind. You appear to be certifiable.

  9. Isn’t this entire discussion on human negative influence on the environment aka climate change kind of displaced. Most of the discussion revolves around CO2 is it warming or not. Aren’t pollution, (like plastic, oil, toxic chemicals, nuclear waste and leakage in the oceans and elsewhere ) deforestation , drop of biodiversity much greater threat to the environment ? I am not a scientist , just a concerned citizen and would really like to hear an expert opinion on this.

    1. Dear Antonio,
      You list things that do affect the environment. Meanwhile, people like David Appel imagine human CO2 damages the environment. To “prove” their claim, they list damages caused by climate change. Such lack of logic is irresponsible because an effect (damages) does not prove its cause (human or nature).

      This is why I personally focus on the physics of how human emissions change atmospheric CO2. Other scientists focus on how atmospheric CO2 changes temperature.

      These studies show human CO2 adds so little to atmospheric CO2 that human CO2 cannot cause climate change. Other studies show temperature change leads CO2 change, which means CO2 is an effect of temperature change rather than a cause of temperature change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.