Monday, March 16, 2015

Climate debate: Tim Ball vs Elizabeth May

This afternoon, Victoria's CFAX 1070 radio station hosted a live debate between Tim Ball and Green Party climate alarmist Elizabeth May.  
Listen to the podcast (starting at about the 6 minute mark).

[h/t: Anthony Watts]


Anonymous said...

that debate was very informative
WUWT has an excellent post

Anonymous said...

More debates of this kind should have taken place years ago to dispel some of the myths around supposed GW.

I'm surprised that Elizabeth May came across for most of the interview as a moderate person, without the strident self she often displays. However, she showed her true self at the end in disputing Dr. Ball's characterization of the East Anglia CRU emails.

I never had physics or meteorology courses so I'm probably off base on this ... but I've often wondered if all those wind farms, with hundreds & hundreds of those giant fans, aren't actually changing the course of global wind patterns like the jet streams. I mean, if a regular household fan can move papers & the air around ...

I also wonder if all those people eagerly embarking on the green roof trend won't eventually find themselves with no roof at all over their head.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

I am reading State of Fear by the late Michael Crichton
it is fiction but the research is very up to date.
footnotes are real.
worth your time

JR said...

fhl, Those science lessons for John Kerry would be good lessons for Elizabeth May too, judging by some of what she said in that debate. I liked her 'explanation' of why "global warming" became "climate change"; whether it gets warmer, colder or stays the same it must be due to human activity, which is pretty much the UN definition of climate change.

Re. Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" - I really liked the book, but more for the footnotes and references than the story. I wrote as couple of reviews here and here.

Gabby, I agree that May did come across as moderate and would be convincing to those not reasonably well versed in the evidence and counter-arguments.

cgh said...

There were a very large number of serious errors contained in Elizabeth May's statements during this broadcast. I will discuss briefly only the most blatant.

In her opening statement, May claimed that the planet is warming because of the rising levels of CO2, and she referenced Arhennius' work as evidence. Arhennius was wrong and shown to be wrong a century ago by Max Planck. The Earth's atmosphere is not an enclosed sealed system (which a greenhouse is).

CO2 and the claimed greenhouse effect do not warm the planet. The only significant heat source for the Earth is the Sun. And present or absent, CO2 cannot change that amount of incoming energy. Rather it functions as a buffering effect, moderating the diurnal and seasonal variations in temperature.

May also misrepresented Norway's electricity system. It has virtually all of its electricity from hydro power. Norway does not pump water into its hydro system. It drains or closes its penstocks based on supply or demand of electricity from Denmark and the rest of the German-Scandinavian electricity system. Pumped water storage, which is what May was referring to, loses about 50% of the available energy as friction losses. She also ignored the fact that about 80 per cent of Denmark's electricity comes from coal-fired stations despite their construction of wind turbines. Not one coal-fired station has been closed in Denmark over the past 20 years despite this growth in wind generation. And total electricity generation from its coal-fired stations has remained generally the same over those two decades.

May made some significant errors with respect to the IPCC and its literature work. IPCC does not review all literature on climatology. It reviews the literature which supports its mandate, and its mandate as established in 1988 is to explore the negative consequences of human emission of CO2. It also is not a scientific body; as May herself admitted, it is a government body.