“In this episode of Freedom Free For All Dr. Tim Ball shares his life-long experience surrounding the continuous misinformation trail of climate change and ‘global warming’. Dr Tim Ball’s presentation focuses on the factual science that is omitted by the politicians and academia who profit from the propaganda of man made global warming.
Dr Tim Ball is a climatologist who’s resume far exceeds both Al Gore’s and David Suzuki’s when it comes to climate science and logical approach to modern climate change. But little will you hear of Dr. Ball and his balanced information from the controlled mainstream media and educational institutions.
It is only when you have balanced information that you can then make educated and intellectual decisions – thus is the key of the New World Order propaganda machine!”
What’s actually happening and at stake here is that the invention of climate alarm and its invention of an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is supposed to be the new religion for scientific materialists and the masses of sheep who would follow them…which is most of everybody today.
The reference to the “New World Order” in the preamble quote for the video is actually the neo Old World Order: the Old World Order in new clothes. But the new boss is the same as the old boss, as I explain in the religion of climate change series:
https://climateofsophistry.com/category/religion-of-climate-change/
(Scroll to the bottom to go to the first article.)
It’s actually intended to be just like the Dark Ages once again, with the scientific materialist establishment taking the role of the Catholic Church and the “unbelievers of climate change” being condemned. We already see these “true believer” fanatics for their invented cause already calling for violence to be done to people who question the dogma. There’s nothing truly “scientific” about it, although it does betray the weakness of the current scientific materialist metaparadigm and its problems with specialization, and its general philosophical denial of the value of human life or the existence of the soul.
Just look at the language they use…see here. The language is about subliminally reinforcing the idea of being trapped on planet Earth for committing sin. Climate Alarm is the religion and its “greenhouse effect” is what judges and measures your sin, with your sin being the amount of carbon dioxide you release by simply being alive.
So you have ‘original sin’ because you can’t be alive without releasing carbon dioxide simply by breathing, and then you have continued sinning generating guilt and the need for repentance because you need to release more carbon dioxide in order to live well and enjoy life, i.e. use cheap hydrocarbon fuels for energy so that you can live at higher standards of life, which is enjoyable. Then through the climate greenhouse effect, your sin of using energy and your sin of living at a more enjoyable standard of life with more freedoms and possibilities for creative self-expression, is what keeps you trapped on planet Earth because carbon dioxide “traps light” down at the surface. So you trap yourself here by living, with the subliminal, unsaid message being that only if you seek non-existence and non-life can you escape. Or the blessings of the “Church”. So you have the same old Gnostic vs. Church dichotomy, both of which are about a form of control, and are false.
Do you get it? Does any connection to your true intuition and reason exist within you at all any longer? Are you still free? Or is there a part of you that wants to believe in some of this and to be enslaved with this type of limiting thought? Just how free is your mind?
None of the “science” behind this climate scam is true. None of it is, at all. It has all been reinterpreted to produce a narrative that is as useful as it always has been: a system to control your mind. In fact, it is a system to control your soul.
There’s only one solution to this mess, and it is to embrace Reason fully. Reason is Ontological Mathematics. I invite you to read the entire Ontological Mathematics series labelled the “God Series“, and join me in the Star Trek future. Sort that “God Series” author book list by date, and start reading from book one.
Well before the end of the series, I guarantee that you will understand precisely why science has gotten into this mess with climate alarm, and you will understand precisely where the root of the problem lies. You will understand precisely, in pure philosophical rational and mathematically proven terms, why existence exists, why you experience life within existence, where it all came from, where it’s all going, and why we’re here where we are now.
Don’t you want those answers? Don’t you think those answers are understandable rationally? Don’t you think that such answers should be rational and understandable, based in logic and ontological philosophy, mathematics and physics, rather than being about faith and mystical bullshit and bearded creators in the sky?
Or do you want to be one of the new slaves of the new religion?
No one else can decide for you.
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe, based on my experience with this guy, I am asking two simple questions about his presentation: a) did he say the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC was physically impossible and b) did he say the “global temperature” was pure BS, particularly concerning the distant past?
I am absolutely sure he did not. To me he is a sort of gate keeper, maybe just not an aggressive type.
Not sure why your comment is going into moderation still Greg. I’ll check the settings AGAIN.
Tim has to be careful because right now he does get mainstream coverage. If he came right out with us then the real gatekeepers like WUWT and other sites etc. would pounce on him and silence his voice for good. For lay people, I post these sort of things to get them thinking a bit more. Then my posts for the pure reason and final blows 😉 I’ll do the IPCC greenhouse effect one soon.
4 years ago he wrote an article “Why is Water Vapour, the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored?” (http://drtimball.com/2011/why-is-water-vapour-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas-ignored/).
Back then he supported the idea of CO2 being “greenhouse gas” on his blog.
I think Greg, to be published, since the 80’s you needed to include the GHE in any paper. Belief in it was not required but this does make things a bit confusing.
Tim Ball, when he writes “green house gases” is misusing the term.
In nurseries, the 3-atomic IR-active gas CO2, is used to promote the growing of plants.
see eg the paper of Carl Brehmer:
Click to access Greenhouse_Gases_Promote_Life.pdf
In that sense CO2 is a “green house gas”!
In nurseries in the Netherlands area Westland, CO2 is transported from the Pernis refineries in Rotterdam, in order to increase the production.
On a world scale we should increase the CO2 concentration to increase the growing of plants for the increasing demand due to an increased world population.
Conclusion: stop to talk about “green house gases” in the false sense: the term has been misused by IPCC. It is a innocent, three atomic gas, and for that reason IR active.
The gas is not a poison as advocated by the Obama politically indoctrinated EPA , it is used since hundred of years it to push beer from cooler cellars to the tap.
John, let me counter that with an example. To be member of the mafia you need to kill people (enjoying it is not required). Hence the mafia members are innocent. No, sorry, they are heroes and can even teach us.
I found this video very interresting. I normally follow Tims webside every day as i do with this site.
Its allways something to learn and today i actually got a science teacher to be speechless by telling him that his logic was faulty. Its totaly stupid teaching people that IR light from an object is the manifestation of the energi present in the object, and at the same time argue that co2 increases this same energi by reducing the outgoing IR by trapping it.
If the atmosphere was to be warmed by co2 the outgoing IR would increase as with any other body increasing its energy.
JWR wrote:
“In that sense CO2 is a “green house gas”!”
No. “Greenhouse” here is used as an analogy…. It means CO2 absorbs heat radiation, then re-emits it — some of which goes downward. That’s akin to the roof of a greenhouse, though the analogy is imperfect.
[JP: Then why use an imperfect analogy, since something imperfect can only lead to sophistry and obfuscation? Caught you…lol.
The roof of the greenhouse “emitting downward” isn’t what makes the greenhouse warmer in any case, plus, it doesn’t make the greenhouse warmer than it’s solar input, either. Thus these empirical facts refute the climate science radiative greenhouse effect, which require that exact result to be produced from the roof of the greenhouse. A real greenhouse only stays warm because it prevents convective cooling. The operation of a real greenhouse debunks the climate pseudoscience radiative greenhouse analogy.]
Quite late to this discussion… But have some things that I’d like to throw in the mix…: It’s a bit of a long one, but I think that it adds value to the debate…
The “greenhouse” analogy may well be imperfect when considering the mechanism in which a greenhouse works vs the effect. But in the sense of demonstration of effect IMO it is a perfectly legitimate analogy. Could someone who disagrees, please explain how it isn’t a reasonable explanation of effect?
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist (or any sort of scientist) to prove that for yourself. On a sunny day, get 2 soft drink (soda) bottles of the same size. Roughly quarter fill both of them with water. test the temperatures of both containers to ensure they are the same (should be). Put some sort of effervescent material (that releases CO2 – e.g. baking powder) in one and allow it to release CO2 and push the air out of the container. Put the lids on both containers. Leave both containers outside in the sun (make sure both are getting the same amount of sunlight). Wait an hour or two. Measure temperature of each container. You will find that both containers are hotter than surrounding air (due to lack of air movement); but the one with CO2 will be significantly warmer (due to ‘greenhouse effect’ – i.e. CO2 ‘trapping’ heat)! Don’t take my work for it. Try the experiment yourself! FWIW this works best if you can put the thermometer inside the bottle – in the gas (e.g. a hole in the lid with the bulb of thermometer in bottle – make sure it’s air tight though!).
So now with a clear and obvious demonstration of the fact that CO2 ‘traps’ atmospheric solar heat; consider what plants do with CO2.
As we all know, plants convert carbon (from CO2; with water and energy from the sun) into food (i.e. building materials) with which they grow (and releasing the unneeded oxygen). Eventually they die; some break down and release their carbon back into the atmosphere. Some do not and hundreds of millions of years later become coal or crude oil (fossil fuels). Obviously this process takes a very long time. So if you follow my assumptions so far then it is not unreasonable to suggest that in a relatively brief period of time (i.e. since Industrial revolution) we have released carbon (via CO2) into the atmosphere that was collected (from the atmosphere) by plants over many thousands of years (probably more like millions).
So we have solid proof that CO2 traps heat and strong evidence that human activity has released (at least) thousands of years worth of atmospheric CO2. Seems like a simple case of join the dots to me…!
Obviously there are some contradictory information and some debate within the scientific community. But it is important to keep in mind that the vast majority (last I heard it was close to 97%; perhaps more) of climate scientists support the conclusion that Climate change is happening and that human activity has had (and continues to have) a significant impact.
If however, you don’t believe in science then that’s ok with me. But please don’t try to suggest that your disagreement is based on science. Is science perfect? Of course not! Have scientific understandings and paradigms changed over time? Of course they have! But the collective scientific understanding at any point in time is made on the weight of current evidence. So it may turn out that the current understanding of ‘climate change’ is wrong. But at this point there is insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion! The over whelming weight of evidence suggests that climate change is real; it’s happening and we’ve played a big part it in!
Even if you’re not a believer then what about the precautionary principle? The idea that if you don’t know for sure; then the safest course of action (with the least worst projected outcome) is the one you should follow. Again it seems like a no-brainer to me that paying slightly higher costs for energy (in the short-term); focusing on using renewable (often free) energy and reducing our consumption (especially of fossil fuels) makes nothing but sense. Even if there is only a one-in-a-billion chance of catastrophic climate change is that a gamble you want to take on behalf of future generations…
Jeremy, the only way that the bottle with CO2 can become warmer is if it is absorbing more heat, i.e. more energy from a heat source, compared to another bottle. It is not because CO2 “traps” heat. Nothing “traps” heat in that way. Temperature can only be increased by absorption of more input heat, and there is no such thing as “trapping”. That’s reality.
Thus, this was a clear and obvious demonstration that climate science is pseudoscience.
CO2 is plant food and it is good for the environment to have its lifeblood returned to it because it has been trapped underground due to the ravages of geology. All life on the planet sings its praise to the fact that the atmosphere has its food supply coming back, due to humans. Circle of life.
There is no proof anywhere that CO2 traps heat, and the heat trapping concept is itself pseudoscience.
A herd (97%) mentality is not causative to truth. The fundamental contradiction which exposes climate alarm as pseudoscience is the heat trapping concept.
Climate change is real, and has always happened, and past climate change has been much larger in rate and magnitude in the past, and current rates and magnitudes are indistinguishable from that past geological noise. There is literally no evidence anywhere that humans are changing the global climate in a negative way, although that it is the desired narrative some people wish to interpret things as. One fact we do know is that CO2 is plant food, and plants want more of it. So, we’ll give plants more of it since we’re all environmentalists at heart.
If you believe in the precautionary principle then I assume you also believe in the Christian God? And thus you would also murder your children if a voice you perceived in your head that claimed to be that God asked you to kill them so that he would spare killing you and others? The precautionary principle is not rational, and has no place in science. Good for marketing though. There is a one-in-a-billion chance for anything. And the real science refutes AGW in any case.
For the sake of future generations, and the environment, we should figure out how to get fossil fuels out of the ground as cheaply and easily as possible, and then burn it all so that we can replenish the environment’s fundamental food source. And in the meantime we should use that cheap abundant energy to develop new things like fusion power, nuclear transmutation technologies, anti-matter collectors, mine and dig up the moon for its resources, develop a larger space program, etc.
“If you believe in the precautionary principle then I assume you also believe in the Christian God? And thus you would also murder your children if a voice you perceived in your head that claimed to be that God asked you to kill them so that he would spare killing you and others? The precautionary principle is not rational, and has no place in science. Good for marketing though. There is a one-in-a-billion chance for anything. And the real science refutes AGW in any case.”
You ask for reason, not sophistry. Good. And your attempts to promote decent science over the erroneous pseudo-science of AGW is excellent. However, you need to check your own reasoning, too. You frequently get side tracked from the science to make silly remarks like the one above.
Why would you assume someone must believe in the Christian God (however you define that, since there are many beliefs classed as Christianity) if they promote the precautionary principle? If it is because you think that the precautionary principle implies you should believe in God just in case there is a Heaven and Hell, that shows a lack of understanding of the precautionary principle, and also leads to the absurd conclusion that anyone believing in the precautionary principle should believe in all deities and religions, so as to cover all bases re: an after life, reincarnation or what-have-you. Also, one does not “believe” in the precautionary principle, you either support it as a well reasoned idea or not – and that support or lack thereof is a consequence of your understanding.
Your second sentence is a straw man (couched as a question) – and nonsense – that adds nothing to the discussion.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – that is the basis of the precautionary principle. It isn’t an irrational idea. It simply means that if you see potential harm from something (i.e. there are known mechanisms by which harm might occur), but you do not have evidence of harm, you should err on the side of caution until you have thoroughly investigated whether or not harm does actually occur. It simply doesn’t apply to AGW, because AGW is based on demonstrably faulty assumptions and erroneous theory.
Those who believe in AGW do often invoke the precautionary principle, but attacking the precautionary principle (however justified you think you are in that) is a red herring. Attack AGW. Stick to the science. Be careful voicing opinion on other side issues unless you are going to spend some time laying out your reasoning clearly and coherently. If you have laid out a detailed argument against the precautionary principle somewhere, then your response should have simply pointed readers to that.
Keep up the good work!
Disclaimer: I am not religious.
Hi Dan,
I do stick to the science…most of this blog is about the science. I did point out that the science of AGW is erroneous in any case. And the precautionary principle comes up because they will argue that even if the science is bad, we should all still go along with alarmism, which is obviously ridiculous and irrational.