Big Steve, Working Stiff

Stephen Harper, plump and soft as a double roll of Cottonelle. A man who has spent his entire adult life, after leaving school with a degree in economics, either as a spoiled politician or as a spoiled ideologue in the loving embrace of a right wing think tank. Stephen Harper. A man who is unlikely to ever develop a callus on his hands unless it comes from clutching pennies. This twee, over-fed poofter has the little salted nuts to look into the lens of the camera and portray himself as one of the "ordinary, working people". And that would be opposed to the "ivory tower" justice experts. Well lets just tell the truth Steve, you haven't much in common with the justice experts because you're trying to make your career by skirting the law. But you sure do know the ivory tower, it's your every aspiration. You fancy yourself the philosopher king, the grand leader of men.

After all the bitching about the dirty old Liberals and their crooked ways, the simple fact is that the Liberals set up the Gomery commission and at least made a show of accepting responsibility for their bad acts. You sir, you petulant shit, have made every effort to snow the people of this nation, stonewall committees, stall and evade inquiries into your own party's malfeasance. You have presided over a house of lies since you accepted the responsibility as leader of Her Majesty's government. You whined and kvetched and allowed your caucus to hurl base insults at Belinda Stronach when she crossed the floor. Yet you opened wide your arms and kissed Mr Emerson on his ample posterior when he did the same, rewarding him with a seat in your cabinet. That cabinet also populated by a man that you had to spring into the senate with a sleazy little maneuver that ran counter to your campaign of holier than thou, anti-patronage rhetoric. You fancy yourself tough on crime. Yet your party has engaged in electoral finance fraud and twisted and turned, contorted and lied making every effort to cover up your deeds and evade the law. You sued the leader of the opposition to silence him and now that he appears to have been correct in assessing your character, you've begged the court to quell your own suit. Quite the example.

And what is your solution to crime? The prison industrial complex north. Life for 14 year olds, longer terms, stiffer penalties. After all, look how well crime has been reduced down south using the very model you hope to import. But then preventing crime isn't really the issue, is it? It really comes down to plain old meanness. You don't give a tinkers damn about preventing crime, or resolving the social issues that cause crime. Nope. You just want to play the big tough guy and punish folks you look down upon. That's why we hear this bullshit line about the Liberals coddling prisoners from you and your twittering cohorts. Well I've gone through the gates of a federal pen to write a magazine article and there wasn't much of anything I'd characterize as coddling, most frightening place I've ever been. Where do you intend to put all of the thousands of your newly minted prisoners Steve? Who's going to staff and and train and service the new prisons your tough guy stance will require? Who gets to pay for all of that caged housing? Yeah, us ordinary folk. But the truth of it is that you get off on punishment Steve. It makes you feel strong and important and you like that feeling because there isn't much else going on in that sweater vest of yours. That's why you need to control every message and you lash out at scientists, artists, civil servants and anyone that you perceive to be weaker and worst of all, defiant. You like to lord it over those whom you can control, those people you like to berate and abuse, those actual, ordinary people. You're busily living out the little bit of power in your corruption.

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people, you know, at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough..."

Hey Steve, ever wonder who makes all the stuff on the TV? Still, that fucking top 1% of the arts community that have achieved a modicum of success by mastering their craft and bringing joy, laughter and entertainment to the country, how dare they celebrate their achievements. Have they no honour? Who do they think they are, trying to preserve funding for the larger arts community across the country? Fucking artists.

Canadian heritage minister Bev Oda has been forced to cancel a fundraising dinner next week after it was revealed a key industry lobbyist was helping organize the event.

Chisolm Pothier, a spokesman for Oda, on Thursday confirmed that Charlotte Bell, the vp of regulatory affairs, TV and radio for domestic broadcaster CanWest MediaWorks, had been among five organizers of the Nov. 15 dinner.

Why, the very nerve of those snooty elitists. Hey, here's some more of those gala gobbling, elitist bastards.

Americans living in Calgary are being asked to help fund Republican efforts to elect John McCain through the visit of an influential Republican senator who doubles as one of Mr. McCain's campaign co-chairs.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is being invited to the city in August by a well-known Tory supporter and lawyer, Gerry Chipeur, who also has significant links to the U.S. Republican Party...

Possibly the best part is that the proceeds from the proposed $1000 a plate Brownback dinner will go to Friends of Science, Tim Ball's oil industry-funded anti-Kyoto "charity", whose funding was laundered through the University of Calgary by Harper's buddy, Prof. Barry Cooper, before the U of C put a stop to it.

Again, Mr Harper, you say one thing for one set of ears but you do an entirely different thing for your own glory. My friend Ron is a talented, dedicated guy who lives and breathes his craft. He's producing my new album. We've worked together for years and I know for a solid fact that he keeps working long after the bell goes and the hours paid are done because he wants things to sound good when they leave his hands. His clients get far more than their moneys worth. And like the vast majority of working artists he leads a modest existence. By every right he should qualify as one of your elites, except by the measure of compensation. Last year one of the records he produced and performed on was nominated for a Juno Award. That's one of those gala occasions you seem so troubled by. Ask Bev Oda what they're all about, she spent about $5,500 on limos at the Juno gala in 2006. Anyway, my friend Ron, he couldn't afford to go and join the festivities because it would have meant time off from the studio, travel and accommodation. That's the reality for the cultural elite you have chosen to flick your snot at, you over compensated lump.

Fuck you Mr Harper, fuck you and your think tank elite, fuck you and your ideological elite, fuck you and your party elite. On behalf of more than 616 thousand ordinary, working Canadians, fuck you.

The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. The sector's total impact including "indirect and induced effects" on other sectors leaves an economic footprint of $84.6-billion, or 7.4 per cent of GDP, the report states. Those revelations paint a picture of industry stability: Statistics Canada reported culture accounting for an identical 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2006.

The report put 2003 employment in the cultural sector at 616,000 jobs.

It's like she's not even trying anymore.

Amusingly, it appears that Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ Kate McMillan has given up even the feeble pretense of not being a blatant, right-wing hack and shill:

On the same vein, I received a note a few days ago about another site (which while not a blog) which may be of interest to readers here - the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - "NRSP takes on bias and misrepresentation in the climate debate." An initiative of Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, check out the news release here with more.

Um ... yeah. Tim Ball. And Tom Harris and the NRSP.

At this point, I think Kate is just mailing it in.

Apparently, even imbeciles can have groupies.

In which the Blogging Tories' "A Step to the Right" bases his argument on the scientific credibility of Tim Ball, and we here at CC HQ beg to differ.

One wonders if "ASttR" could possibly be any more of a fawning sycophant unless he started his next blog post with "According to Kate McMillan ...".

And he started off so well -- a call to arms.

To his credit, Brian starts off sounding almost reasonable:

Yesterday I postulated that Broadcast Standards should suggest that any guest on any information program that has received money from the government and is commenting on government policy should be required to reveal this conflict.

I like the idea, Brian. You have my support. Brian goes on to point out that blogs have a much looser standard of objectivity, and that's what the blogosphere is all about, so no quarrel there. Sadly, though, that's the point where Brian descends rapidly into gibbering madness:

It is the Mainstream Media that fails to reveal the perspectives and biases that exist in their reporting and in the reporting of their guests. But not always... Fox News reveals its bias, but CNN does not.

Ummmmm ... yeah ... "Fox News reveals its bias." Ignore Brians's amusing admission that Fox is, yes indeed, biased (despite howling protestations from the rest of the wankersphere). This is, according to Brian, the network that openly reveals its ideological leanings ... how? Oh, right ... by advertising itself with the slogan of being "fair and balanced." Quite the admission of bias there, Brian. How ever could I have missed that all this time? Silly me.

But it's Brian's jab at CNN that's even funnier, as he's clearly implying that that network leans to the left, despite about a bazillion documented incidents over at Media Matters for America that demonstrate exactly the opposite. Nice going, Brian -- if you could have picked two more inappropriate examples for your thesis, I can't imagine what they would have been.

But, in the end, I like Brian's idea, even if he thoroughly pooched its presentation. I think a blog tracking blatant bias in the Canadian media would be a great idea, along the line of Media Matters. And as a starting point, I think the first example should be any mainstream news piece that refers to industry hack and corporate whore Tim Ball as a "PhD climatologist" -- you know, like this.

I'm sure the rest of the submissions will practically write themselves.

Awwwwwwwkward.

Whoops:

In trying to win support for his escalation in Iraq, President Bush was reduced to quoting two bloggers in Baghdad -- who turned out to be brothers he had met here-- and their postings were more than three weeks old...

President Bush today was reduced to quoting two anonymous bloggers from Baghdad.

He cited them as evidence that his surge/escalation is working. One problem: their posts were written weeks ago, and re-published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7...

To back up his point that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, President Bush had said today, "They have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here," in a speech to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Then he quoted two of them: "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed."

Only hours later did the White House reveal that the bloggers were brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, and these supposedly little-known average Joes had met Bush in the Oval Office in 2004. They are dentists and write an English-language blog from Baghdad called IraqTheModel.com, also available via Pajamas Media.

Well, OK, that's kind of embarrassing but it's not like you're going to hang your entire defense of Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck on the rantings of two Iraqi brothers that ... that ... um ... uh-oh.

In other Blogging Tory news, climate change isn't happening because Tim Ball said so.

Your one-stop shop for right-wing dumbassitude.

It's not like I'm trying to pick on the poor, deluded wanks over at Blogging Tory "Celestial Junk" but ...

I've been reading the blog LIBERTAS for some time now. It is utterly refreshing to get a conservative take on the film industry.

If by "refreshing" you're referring to coverage of the entertainment industry written by (with apologies to Doug Feith) "possibly ... the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

Reading Jason Apuzzo to learn about entertainment is kind of like reading Tim Ball to learn about global warming -- you're not certain how it's going to end, but you're pretty sure it's going to involve overwhelming ignorance.

AND FOR DESSERT ... hey, it's Sunday and you have nothing better to do. Don't stop now.

The eJankulator strikes again.

[Welcome slashdotters. For more on the disreputable hackery that is Tim Ball, go here and search on "Tim Ball". Enjoy. Tell 'em I sent you.]

And over here, the Blogging Tories' Steve Janke (the Canadian wankersphere's answer to Fred Beamer) gets a little stiffy of outrage over:

Canadian "denier" threatened with death -- and it is not reported in Canadian news

A Canadian scientist questions the science of climate change, and he begins receiving death threats.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

And to think the National Post had nothing to say about that. Gosh darn that liberal media, eh, Steve?

AND THE LITTLE MISREPRESENTATIONS CONTINUE. Just for the record, Ball is not now, nor has he ever been, a "climatology professor." As DeSmogBlog makes clear, he was a professor of geography, as Ball himself admits here:

Sincerely,
Dr. Tim Ball
Retired Professor of Geography (1971 -1996)
University of Winnipeg

Not only that, but his claim of how long he was a "professor of geography" is pure fiction, as you can read here (see p. 5), which points out that Ball was a professor for only eight years (1988-1996), before which he was an associate professor, an assistant professor, a lecturer and a sessional lecturer, all of which still doesn't take us back all the way to 1971.

(It's curious how Ball can claim any type of professorship going back to 1971 since his own doctorate in geography wasn't even granted until 1983.)

It's as if Ball can't say or write anything without lying about it. It's almost pathological with these people, isn't it?

DOUBLE BONUS SNARK: I'm not downplaying the (alleged) death threats against Tim Ball, but one really has to take allegations of death threats against the wankersphere with a grain of salt, especially if they're being reported by Steve Janke.

One might remember Steve making that kind of claim back here against Deb Frisch:

Deb Frisch gained some notoriety a while back when she issued death threats against the two-year-old son of a conservative blogger -- presumably for the crime of being a conservative.

Really? Frisch uttered actual death threats? Let's go to the videotape for the actual language, shall we?

Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.

Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler? ...

I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn.

Uh ... yeah. I'm sure that most sentient human beings will recognize that, while those sentiments are appalling and disgusting, they are most emphatically not actual "death threats," per se, as it were.

So while death threats are never something to be taken lightly, when they come from the lower forms of life in the right-wing wankersphere, it's always a good idea to reserve judgment until you see the actual text. 'Cuz, hard to believe as it may be, those folks have a bad habit of exaggerating every so often.

You know, about doctorates and professorships and stuff like that.

Tim Ball and splitting hairs.

Some readers might be curious why I'm making such a big deal of climate change denier and corporate whore Tim Ball's lack of a Ph.D. in "Climatology." It's simple -- it's because he makes such a big deal of claiming to have one.

It's one thing to simply stretch reality just a wee bit and puff up your credentials on the spur of the moment, and hope no one looks too closely. It's quite another when you make that bit of fiction the main hook on which you hang all of your credibility.

A great parallel is when comedian Al Franken took right-wing blowhard and serial liar Bill O'Reilly to task for continually claiming to have won journalism's coveted Peabody award for O'Reilly's former show "Inside Edition," In fact, the show won the Polk award (not quite as prestigious), and that happened after O'Reilly left the show.

Now, that by itself wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that O'Reilly kept rubbing the (fictitious) Peabody awards in everyone's face. As the Washington Post reported (emphasis added):

Investigative humorist Al Franken thought something was amiss when Fox News star Bill O'Reilly -- whose Feb. 10 speech at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach was featured last weekend on C-SPAN's "Book TV" -- claimed that his previous show, the syndicated tabloid "Inside Edition," had won the coveted George Foster Peabody award.

"It seemed strange to me, but he was so adamant," Franken told us ...

Exactly. It's not the false claim that's so grating, it's the fact that O'Reilly used that false claim as a club over and over and tediously over. And when your entire case rests on a claim like that, well, you'd better have all your i's crossed and your t's dotted because, as O'Reilly found out the hard way, when the truth comes out, having your fibbery exposed for the world to see can be a real bitch.

It's the same for Ball -- claiming a Ph.D. in "climatology" when he technically doesn't have one wouldn't be such a big deal, except he never shuts the fuck up about it. It's constantly the first thing out of his mouth, which makes it eminently fair game to demonstrate what kind of lying sack of weasel feces he really is.

And if you need another supporting example, well, it's kind of like Stephen Harper's conservatives, campaigning long and loud against Liberal corruption, then turning out to be just as corrupt and sleazy after they're elected.

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

AFTERSNARK: It should set off warning bells when the claimant starts to subtly change the claim, probably hoping you don't notice. In O'Reilly's case (and from that same WaPo article), we have O'Reilly's story undergoing just a bit of transmogrification, depending on when he tells it:

"A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?"

"All I've got to say is that 'Inside Edition' has won, I -- I believe, two Peabody Awards, the highest journalism award in the country"

So, is it one Peabody? Or is it two? Or is O'Reilly just not sure? Why can't he keep his story straight? You'd think that winning journalism's highest honour is not something you'd lose track of that quickly -- especially when you haven't actually won it at all.

It's the same with Ball -- sometimes he's Canada's first Ph.D. in Climatology, and other times he's merely one of Canada's first Ph.D.'s in climatology. So which is it? And why would he switch from one claim to the other? Unless, of course, they're both bullshit.

In any case, I think my work here is done.

And the Tim Ball dishonesty train just keeps rolling on...

Back here, an anonymous commenter refers us to that same article by Ball published last year, where the claim is made yet again that he is the "first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology," despite the fact that he seems to be quietly backing down on that bit of total bullshit. But that's not the best part. No, the best part (on page 3) is this:

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda.

Here, let me translate that: "I'm not being paid by the oil companies. But the fact that I am isn't relevant."

"Your Honour, my client is innocent, he wasn't even there. And if he was, he didn't do it. But if he did it was an accident. And, anyway, that son-of-a-bitch had it coming to him."

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

Kathy Shaidle: Deranged or hypocritical? You make the call.

On the one hand, it's downright irresponsible to whine on and on about Ann Coulter without somehow balancing that with a smackdown in the other direction since that would be only fair.

On the other hand, it's apparently acceptable to slap David Suzuki around while grotesque hack, fraud and corporate whore Tim Ball gets a free pass.

See how that works, kids? It's called "relativism."

More Tim Ball weirdness.

There's just too much delightful wankitude involving Tim Ball to not have at least one more post, and here's where it gets a bit weird.

Over here, that sorry excuse for birdcage liner, "Canada Free Press," has an article by Ball, in which he opens with:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Notice anything strange? Well, for starters, Ball describes his Ph.D. as a "Doctor of Science," which it most emphatically is not. "Ph.D.", as most sentient life forms know, stands for "Doctor of Philosophy," not "Doctor of Science," which is much rarer and is generally an honorary degree these days. But it doesn't end there.

Note how Ball describes himself as "one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology." Ignoring the possible misinterpretation of describing it as a "Canadian" Ph.D. (it's from England), note how Ball doesn't describe himself as the first Canadian climatology Ph.D, only one of the first. And why is that significant?

Because if you look here, you find a link to that very same article, but notice the (emphasized) difference in wording:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Um ... huh? Why does the original CFP article claim only being one of the first, while the link to that article claims the first? It's hard to believe that anyone linking to the CFP article wouldn't just copy and paste, so the only explanation is that the CFP article originally made the stronger claim, but since February 5 has quietly backtracked. Isn't that interesting?

One can only wonder if someone called them on that obviously bogus claim and forced them to backpedal just a little. I'm guessing we'll never know.

Holy Jesus, Wayne, but you are an imbecile.

In the comments section back here, Wayne demonstrates that he is one of the most dishonest or one of the stupidest human beings alive, and I'm not sure which possibility scares me more. Let's deal with his breathtaking idiocy one tasty excerpt at a time.

First, Wayne points us at this image:

and writes:

This is a Pic of Tim Balls PHD.

No, it's not. Look at the date on that document, you fucking moron: "28 June 2006". I realize this may be too deep for you to grasp, Wayne, but any document dated "28 June 2006" cannot possibly be Tim Ball's Ph.D. How hard is that for you to wrap your intellect around, Wayne? Jesus Christ, what a maroon.

[UPDATE: Just in case someone wants to be pedantic, the above document cannot possibly be anyone's Ph.D. since, by definition, a Ph.D. is not a piece of paper. A Ph.D. is the degree that has been conferred on you; the piece of paper that goes with that would be properly called a "diploma."

In addition, what you see above is not even a diploma. Given that it's dated 2006, it is clearly a copy of an official transcript, simply proving that a Ph.D. was at one time awarded. Are we clear on all of this?

Bandy words with me, will you? I think not.]

In addition, even Ball admits that his Ph.D. is in "Geography":

"I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College," Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview.

Are we clear now, Wayne? Despite your overwhelming ignorance, Ball's Ph.D. is not in climatology, as you have claimed. Rather, it's in geography, as I have claimed. The fact that he chose to focus on the specific area of climatology does not change the area in which the Ph.D. was awarded, but I never expected a dimwit like you to be able to appreciate the distinction.

God Almighty, Wayne, how can someone so stupid even dress themselves in the morning without help? And, no, we're not done with Wayne yet. There's just too much dumbfuckitude there to deal with all at once without starting to drink heavily. More later.

HIT HIM AGAIN, HE'S STILL MOVING. Onward, then, to deal with the rest of Wayne's overwhelming stupidity in that previous comment.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, Wayne ... Wikipedia -- that's where I go when I need an authoritative reference. Moron.

Timothy F. Ball

Academic background
Ball taught geography at the University of Winnipeg until 1996.

Who the fuck cares, and what does that have to do with anything?

He has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D.[2] from the University of London, England.

See previous comment.

He has been cited [3] as the first Canadian to hold a Ph.D. in climatology.

We have already determined that he does not hold a Ph.D. in "climatology". End of discussion.

This claim has been disputed in a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald, and is currently the subject of a lawsuit undertaken by Ball against the writer, the Herald and its publishers.

There is no point in "disputing" this claim as it is obviously and demonstrably false. Now do us all a favour, Wayne, and (I say this with the utmost respect) fuck off. Seriously, you are quite possibly the stupidest person ever to comment on this blog and, trust me, you have some fairly high-powered competition in that category.

The mind reels. It purely does.

BONUS TRACK. Since Wayne brought up Tim Ball's lawsuit, anyone who's truly interested can go here to see the actual court documents, and to see just how full of it both Tim Ball and Wayne really are. As if that needed any further demonstration.

Apparently, global warming is a myth.

That's because "Hannity & Colmes" said so. And how did they know? Because Tim Ball said so.

Yeah. That Tim Ball.

I'm not sure what's more depressing -- that you take Tim Ball seriously, or that you take "Hannity & Colmes" seriously. Either way, there's not much reason to go on living, is there?

SOMETIMES, IT'S WAY TOO EASY. Commenter Wayne takes careful aim, and blows off his foot in the first 10 words:

Tim Ball has a PhD. in climatology.

No, he doesn't. But, by all means, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. It's never stopped you before, has it, Wayne?

No, we DON'T care what you think. Deal with it.

Over at Progressive Bloggers, Scott Tribe is proposing yet another way to invent a top-10 list of Canadian bloggers or something like that, to which Blogging Tory and fetus fetishist SUZANNE immediately chimes in, "Is this only for progressive bloggers? I’m just asking."

And so, in the spirit of the new year and bi-partisan co-operation, I'm going to give Scott some free advice. While it might be reasonable to allow Blogging Tories to be on the final list, it would be a bad idea to allow them to have any input on such a list because those people are, quite simply, idiots and have little to say worth listening to.

Overly harsh? Too fucking bad. Make your bed, lie in it, as the saying goes.

As Exhibit A, I give you a recent piece of scientifically illiterate stupidity that I blogged on just yesterday, courtesy of Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™. If you take the time to peruse the comments there, you will eventually come to this submission, in which commenter "A" writes, very thoughtfully and carefully:

And the real skinny on the Friends of Science Society is this: FoS receives funding from, among other sources, oil and petroleum companies, funnelled through the Science Education Fund. At least one of its founding members, Albert Jacobs, is a former oil explorations manager. At least one of their registered lobbyists, Morten Paulsen, is also a registered lobbyist for ConocoPhillips and Kinder Morgan Canada. This alone doesn't prove that the FoS is merely a puppet mouthpiece for the oil industry, but it does raise some serious questions about their impartiality and credibility.

Incidentally, their most well-known spokesperson is Dr. Tim Ball, whom Kate notes is giving a lecture sponsored by the FCPP in Winnipeg next month, and who bills himself as "Canada's first PhD in climatology." In fact, according to Queen Mary College at the University of London, his doctorate was in geography. He has claimed to be a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg." In fact, his professorship was with the Department of Geography.

In any case, his academic research agenda was indeed focused on "historical climatology." His FoS biography describes Dr. Ball as having "an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition." In fact, literature searches on Scopus and Scholars Portal find a total of only four peer-reviewed articles attributable to Dr. Ball in his entire academic career (spanning anywhere from 8 to 14 to 28 to 32 years, depending on who you ask), all focused on climate change in the Hudson Bay area during the 18th and 19th centuries, all published prior to 1994 (and three of the four published in the 1980s). Again, this alone does not necessary indicate that Dr. Ball is a poor scientist, though it does suggest that he may not be as qualified a technical expert on the science of long-term global climate change as his backers would like you to believe.

It seems to be a point of pride among SDA readers that they are especially critical with respect to self-styled punditry, adept at examining the backgrounds of (usually "left-wing") "experts" in order to expose cracks in their legitimacy. I encourage you to apply those same high standards to FoS and its membership.

Note well that "A" is not howling with outrage or foaming at the mouth. Rather, he(?) is making a number of specific and well-documented points, all of which are a matter of public record and easily verifiable. And the reaction to this comment? As if you had to ask.

Okay Mr. "A", you talk a lot but you do not give us your credentials, personally I don't think you have any or you would give us your true identity. Are you afraid of litigation?

The majority of reactions to "A" are equally worthless and evasive, but you were expecting something different? Keep in mind that a depressing number of people who seem incapable of spending five minutes verifying information that's in the public record are the same ones who will, on a moment's notice, howl frantically about Jews and badges.

Which brings us to the bottom line, Scott. If you have an idea for some sort of year-end Canadian bloggers top-10 list, by all means, give it shot, with the one qualifier that you shouldn't be taking the opinion of any Blogging Tory into account, in any way, shape or form. These people have been so hopelessly, gloriously, spectacularly wrong for so long that they, collectively, have nothing to say worth listening to.

If they want to have their own awards contest, more power to them. One can safely predict that Kate McMillan will be the runaway winner, after which there will be much back-slapping and high-fiving. Cake will be served.

But if you want to make this list meaningful, Scott, please, try to keep the list of judges to those people who are not clinically deranged or dishonest. Then the results might actually mean something.

Kate, you ignorant slut.

And what better way to ring in the new year than by serving up a heaping helping of appalling scientific illiteracy and dishonesty, courtesy of Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™:

Also related - The FCPP is hosting a lecture with historical climatologist, Tim Ball on January 27th in Winnipeg.

Ah, yes. "Historical climatologist" Tim Ball. In the same way that Steve Janke is an "investigative journalist," if you catch my drift.

In blogging, as in comedy, timing is everything.

And how chronologically convenient is this?

Socially retarded reporters

A local conservative breakfast club invited Dr. Tim Ball to speak here in Victoria, and I got an e-mail from a certain lefty reporter who detailed his suspicions with Ball (OMGBigOil!!!111) and told me he wanted to talk to me about this and environmental conservatism.

I responded as soon as I got the e-mail, telling him that while I wasn't going to the breakfast, I would be happy to speak to him regarding this, gave him my contact information and asked if we could find a mutually convenient time to talk in person.

And I've received no response.

What a douchebag. I've got half a mind to publish his name/contact info under a social retard database and have people give him rude calls at odd hours.

Tim Ball ... Tim Ball ... oh, right -- this Tim Ball. I'd almost forgotten.

In any event, after Jarrett describes the reporter as "socially retarded," a "douchebag" and threatens to encourage others to harass him, I have to conclude that the only reason said reporter wouldn't call Jarrett in the future is that that reporter is just a closed-minded, moonbat member of that gosh-darned "liberal media."

I can't think of any other reason. Can you think of any other reason?

The global warming denialists have no clothes.

Not sure how I missed this but Canadian climate change skeptic (read: irresponsible, dishonest hack) Tim Ball is suing a bunch of folks for pointing out what kind of dishonest hack he is.

Don't you need a reputation to have it defamed in the first place?

BONUS SNARK AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Just for the entertainment value, you should follow up on a more recent piece by Tim Lambert regarding Tim Ball and, in particular, follow the early link to read Ball's actual statement and the hysterically self-destructive defense Ball presents, including the following gem in which Ball takes exception with Dr. Dan Johnson's claim that Ball could not possibly have been a professor at the U of Winnipeg for 28 years, to which Ball responds:

Ball has never had a website, but in any event, he was a professor at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to the date of his retirement.

Um ... so there! How dare you accuse me of not being a professor for 28 years! I was there since 1988!

You just can't invent people as unspeakably stupid as Tim Ball. I'm sure his membership in the Blogging Tories is imminent.

KICKING SOMEONE WHILE THEY'RE DOWN. Just for the amusement value, it's worth pointing out that, by Ball's own admission, he didn't become a professor at the U of Winnipeg until 1988 and, since he retired in 1996, that makes him a professor for somewhat less than 28 years. Determining the actual value is left as an exercise for the reader.

If the reader is a Blogging Tory, the answer is eight.

Suddenly, they're big fans of science?

It's moderately amusing how, having categorically rejected any and all science that supports the notion of climate change, some Blogging Tories are now enthusiastically supporting any alleged "science", no matter how shoddy, that contradicts it.

What a great gig. Can I choose my preferred snippets of reality, too?

BOB CARTER, MORON. Since all of the above scientifically-illiterate dipsticks reference exactly the same article from Canada Free Press, and since that article makes such a big deal of one Professor Bob Carter, it naturally behooves us to take a closer look at the dumbfuckery of Prof. Carter.

This has been a public service announcement aimed at those who truly want to understand what is happening with respect to climate change. This does not, of course, include any Blogging Tories, who are simply beyond help these days.

BAD CRITIC. NO BISCUIT. Commenter "ruairidh" weighs in on the controversy, with unfortunate results.

All research in this area should be welcome but there is an unfortunate trend amongst some people to declare that the issue has been settled and any sceptic/denier /heretic who deviates from the dogma should be abused and ridiculed. This post on your blog is a particularly fine example of this hysteria.

Really? In what way? I can't wait to hear this.

By getting into a personal attack against one contributor to an article ...

I'm sorry ... "personal" attack? Where? There's absolutely nothing "personal" about accusing someone of being a partisan hack and ignorant dumbfuck if you go on to back it up with unimpeachable evidence. Nice try, though. Onward.

... (which if you were being fair quotes many more scientists than the one you single out) you do your arguments a disservice.

Ah, so one of my sins was that I didn't discredit each and every contributor to that article. Of course, if I had tried such a thing, every contributor I eviscerated would have been just as quickly replaced with another dishonest hack, and I would never have been able to keep up.

I should point out that, while the Blogging Tories I linked to above simply gleefully swallowed every bit of nonsense that was presented in that article, I was the only one who took the time to dig a little deeper. And for that, I am chastised for, apparently, not digging deeply enough. You just can't please some people, can you?

Just for the record in case you want to call me scientifically illiterate ...

Not scientifically illiterate. Just logically incoherent. And, just for the record, don't take it personally.

ADDITIONAL SMACKDOWN AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Since just one disemboweling is apparently not enough for some folks, I'll toss in a second one for free. From that hideously dishonest CFP article:

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

And since Ball makes several appearances in that article, it seems only fair that one be allowed to heap discredit on the article by doing the same to Ball, no?

There. That's two. Is two enough?