Ball makes edit

Tim Ball has written another silly article, declaring:

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.

He provides no evidence at all in support of his claim, so apparently we are supposed to rely on his authority as “the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology” and because “for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology”. Ball is, however, lying about his qualifications.

After his article was posted Ball edited to remove his false claim to have a been a professor for 32 years. However by then it had been reposted at other sites, and it seems that Tom Harris is sending out emails trying to get it changed at the other places as well:

Originally Posted by Tom Harris
Dr. Ball works with me and he has made an edit to his piece and asked me to contact you asking if you could repost his piece as it currently is – see http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/… . Hope you can do this!

Comments

#1 Meyrick Kirby
February 6, 2007

I see Tim Ball is joining the ranks of the Adam Smith Institute and Peiser. What an honest bunch they are.
#2 Jefff Harvey
February 6, 2007

Ball writes, “This [the correlation between atmospheric CO 2 levels and climate change] in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”.

He’s wrong. The first is that Ball himself has any credibility in this debate. The guy’s assertions are becoming more embarrassing all the time.
#3 Abe G
February 6, 2007

Ball should sue himself for defamation.

You’d think the morons out there would be able to figure this out:

IPCC: thousands of studies and decades of collected evidence=very likely man is repsonsible.

Skeptic tank: No evidence or science=CO2 warming is a big hoax.
#4 llewelly
February 6, 2007

Abe G. It’s a Belief Tank. They credulously accept any argument against AGW, however preposterous.
#5 ben
February 6, 2007

We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

Is that true, at least in the sense that most of that money spent didn’t go to meeting pollution targets, but instead went to fancy pamphlets and tv commercials? That’s the sort of thing I worry about with “Global Warming,” that it will give wasteful governments a blank check to waste more money padding the pockets of their buddies in the name of “doing something”.
#6 Marlowe Johnson
February 6, 2007

Ben,
I defy you to find any federal department in the government that would even think of spending that kind of money on advertising. Not sure when you left the great white north, but if you’re even asking the question, it was probably sometime after the adscam affair…

Having said that, it would be interesting to know how EC is spending the money.
#7 ben
February 6, 2007

Heh, adscam, yeah. The Canadian government spends a lot of money on all sorts of silly things. I especially like the “A Part of our Heritage” series of TV commercials.
#8 Agricola
February 6, 2007

I wonder if you all have seen the latest humourous take on this issue from Nigel Lawson?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6334497.stm

I guess seeing climate change as something which can give great benefits is a new development….

Ben: from this site:

Our Mission 
Environment Canada's mission is to make sustainable development a 
reality in Canada by helping Canadians live and prosper in an environment 
that needs to be respected, protected and conserved. 

What We Do: Key Facts and Activities

A dedicated organization: 

      Approximately 4700 employees, 
      More than a half billion dollar budget, 
      Located in 100 communities, 
      Working with thousands of partners in every province
       and territory and around the globe.

So if their annual budget is 1/2 billion dollars, do you think it is reasonable that they would have spent over 7 years worth of budget (in five years no less) on climate change propaganda. Why, if they did, there would be no money to send the Minister on expensive junkets!!

However, I am curious as to why you would think that Dr. Ball would report something accurately given his current track record.

#10 ben
February 6, 2007

I don’t think he would report something accurately, but it’s always possible. I trust him only slightly more than I trust any government agency.
#11 Eli Rabett
February 6, 2007

the triumph of hope over experience.
#12 Coin
February 6, 2007

The link about this Tim Ball guy suing over people talking about his qualifications is kind of fascinating. How’d that lawsuit eventually turn out anyway?
#13 Thom
February 6, 2007

Can I say one thing? Just one quick, simple little thing? Ball is pathetic. We all know that. No big revelation, Lambert. I realize you see yourself as brilliant.

But Roger Pielke Jr. just got rejected by the Republicans to come and testify before Congress. It’s a sad thing. Yes, it is.

Can I say one thing? One thing here for our lady readers? Don’t ever hop into the sack with some guy without first knowing that he will remain true. Lest he use you once and then turn you out like a common street walker.

I love you, Roger Pielke Jr. Even in your moment of shame.
#14 nanny_govt_sucks
February 6, 2007

I worry about with “Global Warming,” that it will give wasteful governments a blank check to waste more money padding the pockets of their buddies in the name of “doing something”.

Unfortunately Ben, I fear that is the whole point of the Global Warming debacle.
#15 Heretic
February 7, 2007

Ball’s article isn’t even new, is it? It’s the same one published back in May ’06:

http://www.orato.com/node/398/
#16 Tim Lambert
February 7, 2007

Well spotted, Heretic.
#17 Lurker
February 7, 2007

Ball is doing what I thought was impossible – overtaking Michael Fumento in the insipid contest.
#18 Dano
February 7, 2007

Unfortunately Ben, I fear that [it will give wasteful governments a blank check to waste more money padding the pockets of their buddies in the name of "doing something".] is the whole point of the Global Warming debacle.

I find this sort of argumentation of the dimwittest kind.

We find out this week that BushCo sent pallets of money over to Eye-rack to dole out, even though their chimps screeched over things like land deals and oil-for-food.

Why is this sort of italicized argumentation of the dimwittest kind?

It is human nature to do such a thing. Stating that we shouldn’t do something because, well, golly something might happen that is in human nature means we should all give up now, as it’s hopeless because we are all dimwits who can’t apply oversight. Na-g-s is effectively saying we are too stupid to govern ourselves.

It’s like saying we can’t change course because people don’t like change (human nature). But adaptation will require changing our behavior patterns, so gosh we can’t adapt either. Might as well give up.

What a pathetic little defeatist ideology.

Best,

D
#19 stewart
February 7, 2007

Well, Tim Ball has found his natural home at last. The links I saw on that page were primarily of the ‘Democrats are bringing in the UN to take over the US’ nature.
I enjoy the underlying subtext of the denialists.
‘People became climatologists in the ’70s and ’80s because of their will to power and desire for Stalinist control. The brave opposition, primarily economists and mining engineers, chose their professions because of a fearless love of science and truth.’
Yep – makes sense to me.
#20 richard
February 7, 2007

“Heh, adscam, yeah. The Canadian government spends a lot of money on all sorts of silly things. I especially like the “A Part of our Heritage” series of TV commercials. ”

Well, that spending hasn’t killed anyone. Unlike, say, the money spent to invade Iraq. Or fund the Contras in Nicaragua.
#21 ben
February 7, 2007

Well, that spending hasn’t killed anyone. Unlike, say, the money spent to invade Iraq. Or fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

Right, instead it has killed people who were waiting for surgery because there isn’t enough money in the system. That, and the system is bizarrely corrupt in its conception. Imagine, outlawing private health care altogether. The number one reason I left. Guns were number two.
#22 Tim Lambert
February 7, 2007

ben, you are citing a [Creationist](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/225740.shtml).
#23 richard
February 7, 2007

“..outlawing private health care altogether..”

Not only is ben citing a kook, he is also wrong. MDs in Canada are self-employed entrepeneurs; most diagnostic services are private.
#24 John Cross
February 7, 2007

Ben, your link draws research from the Fraiser Institute. That is a little like me trying to argue against privitization by quoting from opinions of the NDP.
#25 Ian Gould
February 7, 2007

“Unfortunately Ben, I fear that is the whole point of the Global Warming debacle.”

Well then there are two possible courses of action avaialble to you:

1. seek to influence the public debate (e.g. by writing ot your representatives) in favor of effiicent, market-based solutions;

2. Deny that global warming is happening and buy into conspiracy theories because you don’t WANT it to happen.
#26 ben
February 7, 2007

Whatever, it was just the first link I found.

YES, CANADA DOES OUTLAW PRIVATE MEDICINE FOR ALL “ESSENTIAL” SERVICES.

Yes, people do die waiting for treatment in Canada.

seek to influence the public debate (e.g. by writing to your representatives) in favor of efficient, market-based solutions;

Tried that before. Doesn’t work.
#27 ben
February 7, 2007

I take that back. They only outlaw it if you are a human being. Private health care for dogs and cats is OK in Canada, and apparently very good.
#28 Millimeter Wave
February 8, 2007

ben,
that’s all very interesting, I’m sure, but what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
#29 dhogaza
February 8, 2007

Yes, people do die waiting for treatment in Canada

And of course they do here, too …
Crap, I walked into my HMO with a broken leg and was told “oh, it’s not an emergency” and made to wait a 1/2 day for a bone doc.

What planet do you live on? Planet Redneck Meth or what, exactly?
#30 dhogaza
February 8, 2007

Whatever, it was just the first link I found.

In other words, anything quote-unquote published on the INTERNETS is truth, as long as it is congruent with your political beliefs.

How old are you? 15? Perhaps I’m being unjust, perhaps you’re 16 …

If you’re old enough to drink liquor in this country, be ashamed for your gullibility.

“first link I found in Google, indeed!”

And you also say, “Whatever”.

In other words, it might be total bullshit, but you don’t care, it fits with your political beliefs, there for it’s worthy of being cited, right or wrong!
#31 Sortition
February 8, 2007

Somehow those Canadians, while dying in the doctor’s waiting room, manage to live on average more than 2 years longer than their south-of-the-border neighbors who enjoy the wonders of a for-profit healthcare system.
#32 ben
February 8, 2007

Got a cite for that, Sortition? Could it be something other than health care, like maybe lifestyle and cultural differences?

I lived in Canada for many years and found their health care system to be OK. Their professionals are very good. I find that I wait a heck of a lot less here in the USA, and have more treatment options etc. Canada can have their universal access to waiting lists, I don’t want it.

Note: I’m not arguing that the US system is great, but I’m arguing that making it more like the Canadian system would be a step in the wrong direction.

Millimeter Wave, it was brought up in an indirect way, and not out of the blue. Maybe read the posts above.
#33 Ian Gould
February 8, 2007

From the Wikipedia article “Canadian Health care” – standard caveats apply.

In Canada the private sector has always been the frontline in healthcare. Canadian doctors operate for profit businesses and are the primary gatekeepers to the whole healthcare system. The doctors also have no controls placed on them by the primary payer for services, the government, and they are therefore in a position to easily recommend more visits and are guaranteed payment by the government.

About 30% of Canadians’ health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses. There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.

Contrary to popular belief, selling private health insurance that could cover hip replacements and MRI scans is legal in several provinces, but because they are available without charge in the public system, so far there has been no market for private insurance for what the Canada Health Act defines as “medically necessary services.”

In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec’s prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws was unconstitutional, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system. Justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority. “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.

The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005. This means that, for the interim, there would be no change to the status quo. As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, it is alleged patients have suffered and even died in some cases, although no rigorously collected data are available to substantiate or refute this claim. [6]

The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises, private corporations. Most all doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service.

A CBC report [6](August 21, 2006) on the health care system reports the following:[7]

“Dr. Albert Schumacher, former president of the Canadian Medical Association estimates that 75 per cent of health-care services are delivered privately, but funded publicly. “Frontline practitioners whether they’re GPs or specialists by and large are not salaried. They’re small hardware stores. Same thing with labs and radiology clinics …The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization.”
#34 nanny_govt_sucks
February 8, 2007

I find this sort of argumentation of the dimwittest kind.

We find out this week that BushCo sent pallets of money over to Eye-rack to dole out, even though their chimps screeched over things like land deals and oil-for-food.

Who is that meant for, Dano? Are you confusing me for a Big-Government party hack again? Are you unaware that both major parties benefit from the growth of Big Government?

Why is this sort of italicized argumentation of the dimwittest kind?

It is human nature to do such a thing. Stating that we shouldn’t do something because, well, golly something might happen that is in human nature means we should all give up now, as it’s hopeless because we are all dimwits who can’t apply oversight.

I simply don’t advocate using force (via government) to do the “something”.

“Do” all you want, just don’t force others to go along with you or have the government act as your agent to force others to go along with you. You ARE non-violent, aren’t you?

Na-g-s is effectively saying we are too stupid to govern ourselves.

Far, far, far from it. Individuals are well-able to govern themselves, and when they do have shown an incredible abilty to build wealth, and better lives for themselves and everyone around them

But that’s not what you meant, I know. When you say “govern ourselves” you mean having sleazy politicians, big-industry lobbyists and 2-hour-lunch-bureaucrats deciding how we should live our lives. Somehow, you think that’s the “non-stupid” approach.

It’s like saying we can’t change course because people don’t like change (human nature). But adaptation will require changing our behavior patterns, so gosh we can’t adapt either. Might as well give up.

Woops! You left out that little part about having a reason to change in the first place.

You see, you are running off with a pinch of bad science telling people that they must get by with less. Better get the science straight first, then maybe you’ll get some ears to open.

And even if it turns out we SHOULD change, should it be politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats that lead the way? Please tell me you have the good sense to decide for yourself how to act given a set of circumstances and that you don’t need “advice from above”.

What a pathetic little defeatist ideology.

Best,

D

Sorry, Dano. It was not at all your best. I hope you put some thought into your next post.
#35 Laser Potato
February 8, 2007

Hey hey hey, nags the punchbag is back!
#36 guthrie
February 8, 2007

Ahh, the usual variant upon the old there are only individuals joke. Whilst superficially correct, anyone with half a brain can see that what actually happens is that as human society becomes more complex, so do the interactions between people, at greater and greater distances. Moreover the potential effects upon others also increase. This leads to growth of rules and regulations to regularise the game being played.

Which is where global warming is so important. Response to it requires a large degree of international cooperation, thus an elaboration of laws and rules, which people like ngs are opposed to.

Now, to some extent they have a point, but their needless fetishisation of their viewpoint gets very tiring after a while.
#37 John Cross
February 8, 2007

Nanny: you said

Better get the science straight first

The irony is too rich for words!
#38 Robert
February 8, 2007

ben asked:

Got a cite for that, Sortition?

I’m not Sortition, but you can check the [Appendix 1 of the latest World Health Report from the WHO](http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex1_en.pdf) for basic country indicators. It will show you that the both sex life expectancy at birth is 80 in Canada and 78 in the US.

Also, if you look elsewhere in those appendices, [you can find data like these](http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png).
#39 ben
February 8, 2007

In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors.

That’s what I’m talking about (from your wiki source), Ian. I’m not talking about private providers. Sure, they can provide anything they like, they can provide 24k gold bars if they want to. The thing they can’t do is charge anything more than what the government is willing to pay. Nice.
#40 ben
February 8, 2007

Robert, that is moot. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with our healthcare system. It’s like claiming that Canada’s healthcare system is responsible for canada having a 32% breast cancer rate compared to 30% in the USA.

We Americans tend to be fat and out of shape, probably more so than Canadians. That’s probably why we die at a younger age, on average.
#41 Kristjan Wager
February 8, 2007

Given the fact that Canada uses 60% of what the US uses on health care per capita (according to a recent Washington Monthly comment), and yet has equal or better results, I can’t understand why anyone would try to criticize Canadian health care relative to US health care. As the Washington Monthly comment said, problems with the Canadian health care system can be fixed by raising the amount to say 65%, while the US system is fundamentally flawed.
#42 Robert
February 8, 2007

ben wrote:

Robert, that is moot.

Hmmm. Gee, and here I thought you’d write, “thanks for providing the citation.” As for the other, the important thing isn’t where Canada is in comparison to the US. The important thing is where the US is in comparison to every single other developed country in the world over a whole host of health outcomes: not just life expectancy but also long-term survival from cancer, complications from renal failure or diabetes, even the rate of iatrogenic infections. The bottom line is that the US is around the average for developed countries in almost every condition you can think of. We stick out in only one area: cost.
#43 nanny_govt_sucks
February 8, 2007

Regarding this healthcare debate, remember when the USA had the best healthcare system in the world, and doctors would make house calls when you had a cold and such? That was BEFORE the politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats (read: government) got involved and tried to “fix” it.

A free-society system puts the incentives in the right place to improve products and services and make people’s lives better. That’s what we had back in the 1950′s and early 60′s. Government rules and regulations, though well-intentioned (most of the time anyway), skew those incentives and the quality of products and services suffer.
#44 richard
February 8, 2007

“That’s what we had back in the 1950′s and early 60′s.”

I think you are confusing history with an imagined past.
#45 Robert
February 8, 2007

nanny asked:

remember when the USA had the best healthcare system in the world

Um, no, I don’t. Which is not to say that we have a bad healthcare system — just that, we’ve never had the best healthcare system in the world if by “best” you mean the best outcomes. During the 20th C., our healthcare outcomes have been about smack dab in the middle among the developed countries (on a few things slightly better, on a few things slightly worse). The reason is that medical knowledge and practices are actually quite portable across country boundaries.

and doctors would make house calls when you had a cold and such? That was BEFORE the politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats (read: government) got involved and tried to “fix” it.

Hey! Right now I happen to be writing this from a country where physicians do make house calls and the government is extremely involved in the delivery and payment for care.
#46 guthrie
February 8, 2007

Here in the UK, Dr’s used to make house calls and were more approachable in many ways. Of course, before the NHS, they wouldnt make a house call unless you could afford to pay them. After the inception of the NHS, they made house calls to everyone. Except that the current gvt, for a variety of reasons, including fundamentalist market worship (like ngs does) seem to have made it very unlikely that anyone ever gets house calls.
#47 ben
February 8, 2007

Health outcomes don’t necessarily coincide with the qualities of the healthcare system. Come on people. Lifestyle probably plays a much more important role.If a country full of smokers has a higher lung cancer death rate than another country, in spite of spending more on health care, would you be surprised?

Second, for those of you who think the Canadian system is so great, you’ve obviously not experienced both systems (US and Canadian). I have. In Canada, you get a one or two month wait for your MRI. In the USA, it’s three days and they apologize for taking so long.
#48 Davis
February 8, 2007

Lifestyle probably plays a much more important role.

Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like an evidence-free assertion that sounds plausible, yet is conveniently difficult to refute due to said lack of evidence. Out of curiosity, would you consider, say, Canadian lifestyles to be significantly different from American ones?

Second, for those of you who think the Canadian system is so great, you’ve obviously not experienced both systems (US and Canadian). I have.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
#49 Davis
February 8, 2007

If a country full of smokers has a higher lung cancer death rate than another country, in spite of spending more on health care, would you be surprised?

Taking this comment thread even more off-topic, I was curious about lung cancer death rates; a quick Google search turned up this link which uses WHO data to compare lung cancer death rates and smoking death rates among developed nations. The author of the site also computes theoretical lung cancer death rates among smokers; it’s interesting to note where the USA sits on this list.
#50 Dano
February 8, 2007

Hey, Davis, congrats on the new digs. At least, I’m pretty sure they’re new.

Best,

D
#51 Robert
February 8, 2007

ben wrote:

Health outcomes don’t necessarily coincide with the qualities of the healthcare system. [...]If a country full of smokers has a higher lung cancer death rate than another country, in spite of spending more on health care, would you be surprised?

Nope, but then I presumed you were talking about risk-adjusted health outcomes, e.g., you compare long-term survival of cancer or diabetes or IHD patients of the same severity of illness. It’s these risk-adjusted studies that show that US outcomes of care are, overall, about smack dab in the middle of the rest of the developed countries. The US is better in some things, worse in others, so you can always cherry pick one condition or another where it looks like the US does better or worse, but overall we’re about in the middle. Of course, the middle of the developed countries isn’t a bad place to be — it’s a myth, however, that our overall quality of care is the best in the world. What isn’t a myth is that we pay more than anyone else for what we get. The question you should be asking isn’t about the quality of our care, it should be about the bang for our buck. So, what is special about the US system compared to every other developed country in the world that we get such poor value for our money? Hint: in that graph I linked to up above, Switzerland comes in 2nd in terms of healthcare expenditures per capita. What characteristic of the Swiss healthcare system is least like France, Germany, and Italy (the countries that surround it) and is most like the US?
#52 Davis
February 8, 2007

Hey, Davis, congrats on the new digs. At least, I’m pretty sure they’re new.

Thanks! The digs are indeed relatively new (and temporary, sadly — it looks likely I’ll have to bail on Seattle next year).
#53 Eli Rabett
February 8, 2007

Davis, take a look at the graph and follow the links if the graph doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of you
#54 ben
February 8, 2007

That is interesting, Davis, except all they mention is the percentage of folks who smoke, and not how much they smoke, nor any other lifestyle criterion.

Furthermore, let the smokers pay for their fracking health care. Why should folks who choose not to smoke be liable for the health care under “single payer” for all the idiots who do smoke?

They’re still allowed to do that with life insurance. Smokers are a bad risk. Which brings me to one of our major problems with health care costs in the USA: ambulance chasers.
#55 Ian Gould
February 8, 2007

“Regarding this healthcare debate, remember when the USA had the best healthcare system in the world, and doctors would make house calls when you had a cold and such?”

Nanny were you even ALIVE in the sixties?
#56 Ian Gould
February 8, 2007

Ben, take a look at the table at the bottom of the wikipedia article I lined to earlier – the US government spends as much as most other developed country governments on heath care.

American smokers cost the US government just as much as Canadian or Australian smokers cost their respective governments.

Then, due to the gross inefficiency of the American system, American individuals and insurance companies have to shell out far more than do their counterparts in other countries.
#57 Dano
February 8, 2007

You will, Davis, certainly enjoy the increased sunshine in your new landing spot. Trust me.

Best of luck sir,

D
#58 ben
February 8, 2007

Ian, I never implied that we don’t have problems, only that the Canadian way isn’t the route to fix it.
#59 Jay Anderson
February 20, 2007

Environment Canada’s budget is largely spent (about half) on building and maintaining the extensive network of observing stations (both meteorological and hydrological)and radars across the country. They run the forecast offices – mostly salaries (though they made a mistake in their budget planning this year and “forgot” $30M in salary expenditures – go figure). They are responsible for the Ice Branch – the people who make the ice forecasts for shipping and other users.

Climate change is a pretty small part of what they have left. Except for the CCCma (look it up) I would venture to suggest that EC probably has the poorest and least-funded climate change program in the western world.

Jay Anderson
retired EC meteorologist
#60 JC
February 23, 2007

You wanna hear a good one about Ball? According to one of the guys who lives in the same condo building as Ball, there was a decision made that each resident was to pay $5000 to fix a minor leakage problem in the building.

Ball went around talking to all the residents telling them that the damage wasn’t as bad as people thought and listen to him because he knew all about building envelopes.

When it came to the vote, Ball convinced enough people that the decision failed and Ball won. Nothing was done and the damage that could have been stopped in the short term, was put off.

Fast forward two years to the punchline:

Since the initial damage was never fixed because Ball denied the reality of the leaking building, even though experts in the field were saying they should be concerned (sound familiar), the problem went from a little one to a MASSIVE one and now everyone in the building is facing $100,000 each to repair the damage. I’m not making this up, heard it straight from one his neighbors, who obviously hate Balls’ guts.

If you don’t believe me, ask Ball himself: timothyball@shaw.ca