To answer relentless ad hominem attacks from a variety of outside sources, Tim Ball puts the record on the table in Yahoo ClimateScience of April 27th '08
==============================================
Re: Tim Ball's Credentials
Posted by: "Tim Ball" timothyball@shaw.ca   corsham2002
Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:27 am (PDT)
Here is a response written to a previous attack on my credentials 
(Ofcom). The first question to ask is why all the attacks if I am not 
credible - something about methink they do protest too much. The 
second point is look at the source - Wikipedia and its credibility. http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1
I have added a couple of comments of more recent information in 
italics. I intend to modify this slightly and post on our web site at 
nrsp.com

I am sure Desmogblog will monitor this and respond in their usual 
manner. Why don't these people do something constructive like discuss 
the issues rather than belittle themselves by making a career out of 
ad hominem attacks.
Tim Ball

Almost all the information provided about my career, qualifications 
and group activities and funding are from the web site Desmogblog 
(They now ridiculously claim to be a climate web site.) This 
organization has Kevin Grandia identified in the report as “Operations 
Manager.” (In his previous job he was employed by a Liberal Member 
Minister in Parliament who lost his job in the last election) It is 
run under the auspices of James Hoggan, owner of a public relations 
company. He is also Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, a powerful 
environmental group, and has served on the board for several years. He 
also has the Foundation as a client. In an article by Terence Corcoran 
here:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=2c07121b-85c2-4799-9aaf-0c2688bf5ca1&p=2

They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel 
Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and 
Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from 
regulatory policy based on climate change science.

In addition the Suzuki Foundation receives money from at least two oil 
companies. Somehow in a bizarre twist of logic this money and for that 
matter all government money does not engender agendas or cause people 
to slant their research. Only those who have well founded dissenting 
views are being bought.

I reject totally the insult of presupposing I would sell my 
intellectual and research integrity. In fact, if I did receive money 
form any energy companies I would not be driving a 1992 car, living in 
a leaky apartment block, living on pension supplemented with money 
from speaking engagements.

Many of these claims were given national airing in a two-page article 
by Charles Montgomery in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I spent several 
hours with Montgomery explaining the science of my position on 
climate. He chose to make the article a personal attack. There was a 
complete rebuttal of Montgomery’s article two weeks later in a two- 
page spread in the National Post by Terence Corcoran.
Here is Corcoran's response and for fairness I have included 
Corcoran's correction. Notice the correction doesn't alter the 
comments Montgomery made about me.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3d2d2672-3b1a-47c7-8324-3e35efee1763

When I got my degree in climatology in 1982 there were only two 
climate research centres in the world to my knowledge – The Climatic 
Research Unit at east Anglia and Reid Bryson’s Climate Centre in 
Wisconsin. Logically the only department in which to place a 
climatologist was geography since climatology was then a half of what 
was called physical geography. There was a climate lab and office 
complex separate from the geography department (two floors higher). 
Professor Bill Bell who became State Climatologist in Georgia occupied 
it and when he left I moved into the complex and ran the climate 
program. So there was a separate entity and facility related to climate.

The claim I have published only four peer-reviewed articles is 
completely false. The claim I have to published in peer-reviewed 
literature since 1994 is patently false. (Attached is a partial 
publication record). This information originated from the web site 
Desmogblog. My full publication record is attached. There are 22 peer- 
reviewed papers in the significant climate journals of the time. In 
the early days there were few climate journals and science journals 
like Nature and Science were simply not interested in the topic. Since 
retirement The claim I am not currently active is also false. I 
continue to publish with a joint peer reviewed article with Dr Willie 
Soon of Harvard in Ecological Complexity and a peer-reviewed book on 
science and climate recorded by naturalists on Hudson Bay in the 18th 
century with Dr Stuart Houston.

More important these challenges ignore the totality of my experience. 
I was the primary author on the climate half of two editions of a 
textbook that is still in print. “Fundamentals of Physical Geography” 
published by Copp Clark Pitman. I taught the subject at all 
university levels for some 20 years. I have carried out research 
contracts for government and private industry. Acted as technical 
advisor to many groups and for 15 years written a monthly column on 
weather for farmers. Of course, they will claim this is not ‘academic’ 
but it is useful and requires an accurate understanding for people who 
depend on understanding the weather. In short they denigrate and 
ignore experience

The two charges that I claimed to be a Professor for 28 years and the 
first PhD in climatology Canada are also false. The information 
developed without my knowledge from advertising of a presentation I 
made at a conference. The information that I was 25 years a professor 
was changed to 28 years and the claim that I was among the first PhD’s 
in climate became, was the first. Once on the web this became the 
source of information for anyone googling my name. I have no control 
over what goes out on the web. In this section they also refer to a 
lawsuit implying that these claims are being challenged as part of 
lawsuit. In fact, I brought the lawsuit against a professor who 
accused me of these errors in a letter to the Calgary Herald. The 
Calgary Herald published a letter tacitly acknowledging they should 
not have published the charges.

The claim that I am “…not objectively qualified to be regarded as an 
expert on climate…” flies in the face of my entire record. I was 
considered qualified enough by the University of Manitoba to be 
appointed an adjunct professor and I served on many postgraduate 
theses committees among other activities. It is also ludicrous when 
people like Al Gore and many others including scientists from other 
disciplines present themselves as climate experts. In fact, it is 
reasonable to say, based on the scientists and people associated with 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that there are 
very few qualified climatologists. It also underscores that the 
authors of these charges do not understand the nature of climate as an 
academic discipline. This is further emphasized by many of the charges 
and statements made throughout the document.

Climatology is a generalist study in a world of specialization. To 
have even a simple grasp of climate, climate mechanisms and climate 
change requires understanding and incorporating information from 
almost all scientific disciplines. Stand outside and you experience 
the weather, which is the combined result of everything from cosmic 
radiation in deep space to volcanic heat from the bottom of the ocean. 
Climatology is the study of how the pattern of weather in a region or 
how that changes over time. Desmogblog originally claimed I didn’t 
have a PhD in climatology, but despite provision of the diploma (see 
attached) they never publicly retracted the information so it is still 
raised in various media interviews.

The claims of corporate funding are equally bizarre and unfounded. 
They misuse, distort and completely misinterpret information in 
extremely tenuous arguments. They use the phrase “direct and indirect 
funding” because they accuse me of receiving indirect funding, but 
cannot accuse me of receiving direct funding. They can’t do that 
because I have never received any direct funding from any energy 
company. They then try to claim I have received indirect funding. Here 
are the facts on which that claim is based. The comment that he “has 
been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public relations company that 
works for energy firms… and his travel expenses are covered by a group 
supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch” is a ridiculous 
attempt at guilt by association? I was in Ottawa on another engagement 
and was asked if I would speak to a group of parliamentarians from all 
parties, I agreed and my expenses were covered. I was not told what to 
say by anyone. For a long time I understood my expenses were paid by 
Friends of Science and publicly said so. It turns out I was wrong. In 
the meantime Desmogblog claimed that because a small portion of the 
expenses I thought came from Friends of Science were from an oil 
company, oil companies had therefore paid me. The reality was even 
more tenuous my expenses came from an international public relations 
company who had done work for energy companies among many others and 
so they claimed that money was equally tainted.

The section “Links to Corporate-funded Lobby Groups” is fascinating.
1. I am not a co-founder of the Friends of Science. I met with and 
advised a group when the organization was being planned. I acted as a 
scientific advisor and though not formally listed am proud to help 
them get all the scientific information on the table. I warned them 
in the very first meeting they would be attacked mercilessly, nastily 
and personally. I also advised them to put their funding in a blind 
trust, which they did in conjunction with the University of Calgary.

2. Yes, I am Chair of the Natural Resource Stewardship Project and 
proud to hold that position.

3. I wasn’t even aware I was a “Science Roundtable Member of the 
Tech Central Science Foundation.” I have written articles for Tech 
Central and proud of that as well.

All these claims of corporate “direct and indirect funding” are about 
events that happened long after my views and position were well 
established and expressed extensively in a variety of academic and 
public forums including a academic journals. To suggest they 
influenced my thinking is simply ridiculous. No corporation funded any 
of my primary or secondary research directly or indirectly. This last 
point is important. A corporation would be foolish not to be aware of 
what is actually known and being said in climate science. They are as 
entitled to their view and a right to participate in society as any 
other group. The bullying of large segments of society of which these 
challenges to Channel 4 are part is very unhealthy in a supposedly 
free and democratic society. It is even worse when it is done to 
promote one agenda by denigrating another.

Yes, Friends of Science is partly an anti-Kyoto lobby. There is 
absolutely nothing wrong with that. The terminology reveals the 
mentality of these accusations; “exposed” “funneled.” It was not 
exposed; it was in the public record. It was not funneled, it was 
consciously put in a blind trust to avoid it looking like it was 
“funneled.” Desmogblog originator of these accusations then links 
this claim with a charge that this position is taken because of 
corporate funding. Friends of Science was deliberately set up to keep 
money at arms length from their work, which has assiduously focused on 
the science. I know this because there were disagreements within the 
group with a few wanting more politics but the majority winning out 
for total science. Most governments have abandoned Kyoto because of 
the economic and social costs. Many including Friends of Science 
simply point out that there is no scientific justification for the 
objective of the Kyoto Accord to reduce atmospheric CO2.

The Natural Resources Stewardship Project is not required to disclose 
its funding sources. This was done at the request of major individual 
donors who expressed concern about public smears and attacks precisely 
as represented in many of the accusations in this document. NRSP is 
prepared to give the names of two m ajor donors wo requested 
anonymity. Personally, I only know the name of one donor who happens 
to be a personal friend.

Dr Fred Singer has defended himself against these charges many times, 
although they have been resurrected as Desmogblog has shifted its 
focus more into the American market. Recent attacks on Dr Singer and 
Dennis Avery are examples.

“Backgrounds of the Authors of this Complaint.”

After questioning the credentials of people like Tim Ball and others 
we are told that none of the lead authors none of the lead authors 
have any qualifications in climate or climate science. Indeed, two, 
acknowledge this serious limitation. Nathan Rive is said to have a PhD 
but we are not told the subject area. We are told he runs a blog 
titled “In the Green” which suggests his major employment examining 
energy policy is less than objective. Dr Brian Jackson says “His 
interest in climate science is purely as an amateur. Dave Rado we are 
told is “A concerned layman …” but has no qualifications of any sort. 
Despite this we are told, “Mr Rado project managed the compiling of 
this document and acted as editor.”

The list of “Other Contributing Authors”

None of these authors has any climate training. Two of them, Marsh and 
Woodward, are members of the IPCC, the organization identified in the 
Channel 4 program for its serious political nature masquerading as 
science. This challenge follows that same pattern. Four of the five 
are involved in climate impact research. This is generally the largest 
area of government funding in many countries. Because it assumes that 
warming due to CO2 is proven then its continued funding depends on 
maintaining that scientifically untenable potion. In short, they have 
a vested interest in perpetuating the inaccurate science.

I will not critique those listed in the section “Backgrounds of the 
Peer Review Complaint” except to note three of them are or were part 
of IPCC. Most of them are not qualified in climatology and only two 
reviewed the entire document. This practice underscores the generalist 
nature of climatology. It also parallels the IPCC procedure. Here each 
specialist reviews individual sections but may be unaware of the 
accuracy of the entire thesis other than how it affects their 
individual piece. Only two people reviewed the entire document, John 
Shepherd and William Connolley. The former is Deputy Director of the 
Tyndall Centre whose major purpose is carbon mitigation. That is, its 
existence essentially depends on proving CO2 is a problem. Connolley 
is identified as a frequent contributor to realclimate, a web page 
that attempts to justify science shown to be incorrect such as Michael 
Mann’s hockey stick. Connolley is also known for his work in rewriting 
Wikipedia entries to present only one side of the scientific debate. 
Here are comments on the Climateaudit blog about Connolley’s activities.
Wikipedia:

Source: Willis Eschenbach (climateaudit)

You make three points, which I will answer in order:

1) Please check your own post. You did not recommend Wikipedia for 
“aspects of deep-time paleoclimate that pertain to Ian’s project”, you 
recommended it as a “good place to start getting a sense of climate 
history”. It is not.

2) Yes, Wikipedia has outbound links that allow me to save as much as 
one minute, perhaps even two, compared to googling for the links in 
CO2 Science … gosh, easy links to Connolley-recommended sites on the 
one hand, google to actual science on the other hand … tough choice …

3) WMC has a PhD in Numerical Modeling, and is thus a computer 
scientist, not a climate scientist.

To my surprise, absolutely nothing in your post has anything to do 
with my point, which was that Connolly has been very heavy-handed in 
his editing of climate science articles on Wikipedia. Please re-read 
my post #233. There’s one sentence in my post about Wikipedia, 
shouldn’t take too long. I’ve provided a link above, so you don’t have 
to google for it.

He has been involved in a number of controversies over his practices. 
Concerning one of these, Steve M. wrote:

Ironically, in addition to the many problems that we identified, Mann 
also made an error in respect to cos latitude (identified by von 
Storch). There is an amusing debate at Wikipedia (Connolley’s involved 
naturally) in which Connolley tries to justify why Ross’ cos latitude 
error should appear in Wikipedia, but Mann’s should not. Connolley has 
disturbingly tried to make it appear as though I was involved in the 
cos latitude.

He was also found to have deleted posts on one of the Wikipedia “Talk” 
pages, a definite no-no, and was forced to put them back in. Seems he 
subscribes to the RealClimate theory of climate censorship, not 
surprising as he is a principal of that site.

Because of this, Wikipedia is a very poor place to “start getting a 
sense of” anything to do with climate science.

I hope nobody else has to suffer the attacks I have because the evil 
of the internet is that information can be disseminated, often 
anonymously and there is no way of retracting it especially when 
people are skilled at assuring their entires pop up first.

Tim Ball