Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change DenialPage 4 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
I meant INefficient wood fires, by the way.

even hydro is an environmental obstacle, isn't it?
flooding homes, beautiful wildlife areas etc.

and also what I am saying again is, if we need the energy for immediate survival, we'll burn what ever we can beg, borrow, steal, take out of the ground, or off the top of the ground, the environment be damned.

hey, this warming is beginning to sound better all the time!
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 77
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/12/2010 3:27:49 AM
Yes, JustDukky, what argument indeed? Because you've lost the previous rounds and you're going to lose this one.

For all the links you've thrown around, you've come up short on the SCIENCE end (previous to your last post). Bring back the dead horse for another beating. This is PRIMARILY a SCIENTIFIC issue. So when the first place you go are to NON-scientific sources, and the first people you use are not SCIENTISTS, let alone climatologists....you're dealing from a weak hand from the get-go. And you can't even get the debate straight:


If you have evidence of scientific fraud, would you go to a scientist or a prosecutor?


Who said anything about scientific FRAUD? Oh, YOU did. Well, that settles that. NOT.

(Besides if it were a matter of "scientific fraud", then it could only truly be settled by scientists on scientific terms, not legal ones. No Perry Mason needed, thank you)


False. There is no unanimous consensus on AGW, even among climatologists.


Okay, I can fess up to an error. That statement was incorrectly written to presume ALL climatologists were in agreement. But more on that in a bit.


I'm quite fond of a local guy from the UofW named Tim Ball...ever hear of him?


Now it gets good. Tim Ball? Shill for the oil industry? Who can't even get his credentials straight and hasn't published any new research in 11 years?

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

Alas I could not find at the moment the point-by-point take down of the man's work I saw earlier in the week, but rest assured it's out there.


"He says stuff that is just plain wrong. But when you are talking to crowds, when you are talking on TV, there is no challenge, there is no peer review," Prof. Weaver says.

Many of Prof. Ball's other arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Consider the hockey-stick graph: He was right that the U.S. Academies of Science had delivered a review of climate science to Congress. But their report concluded that temperatures in the last 25 years really have been the highest in 400 years. Moreover, the panelists assured reporters that there was no evidence at all that the Mann team cherry-picked its data - completely contradicting what Prof. Ball told his audience in Comox.

"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is about politics."

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
(reprint of a Globe And Mail article) also has more info on the covert funding of the Friends Of Science Society.


Oh yeah...he suffered death threats, presumably because he wasn't part of the "consensus." Did you make them because he was an AGW "denier"?


Oh sure, that was me. 5 "death threats" via email (not the most persuasive way to say you've been threatened...). Yeah, we're all up in it, aren't we? I have to pull another quote from the link above:


In a now-infamous 2003 memo, U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz advised Republican politicians to cultivate uncertainty when talking about climate change: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ," wrote Mr. Luntz (the italics are his own).

Nurturing doubt about climate-change science has become big business for public-relations companies and lobbyists south of the border. Between 2000 and 2003, ExxonMobil alone gave more than $8.6-million (U.S.) to think tanks, consumer groups and policy organizations engaged in anti-Kyoto messaging, according to the company's own records. Those groups promote the minority of scientists who still dispute the IPCC consensus on climate change, creating the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement.


From you-


It would seem the AGW fascists don't like people disagreeing with them,


Nice one- I guess I'm also a "facist" about the Earth being round too. Maybe it's because the science is PRIMARILY on one side, and you're PRETENDING it isn't.

So, no, weathermen, geologists, and physicists from non-scientific based sites (like my Globe and Mail article, yes) don't count. The last one was rather skimpy and the meteorlogist/physicist laughably thought the recent snowstorms in the Mid Atlantic were a slam dunk for his argument (you'd think he would know about increased moisture in the atmosphere!).

What is the area of expertise for climaltogists? THE CLIMATE. Seems that if you're talking about the climate, you would go to them first. It seems like they would be the authority before you hustled a roundtable of geologists and whatnot. And then I found this link, a poll of 10,000 scientists published a few weeks ago. To be clear, it does not show 100% agreeing with AGW along all scientists. The important thing is that it shows that the more someone has studied the issue, the more they actually KNOW, the more they support AGW. Wherein the highest figure is close to 98%.


It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
(and I could not find the original source of the link but the references are included)


Firstly that you said there were NO climatologists in disagreement .


I've clarified that.


Secondly, that the scientific consensus (if one is to exist) ought NOT be one of climatologists only; it should include a cross section of all relevant scientific disciplines.


No. That's too easy. It has to be determined by peer-reviewed science, and a clear distinction has to be made between actual science and that which is paid for by industry groups (who tend to hire a bunch of geologists and other disciplines that are affiliated with the oil industries, then come out and just use the term "scientist") You wanna know about rocks? Ask a geologist first. Wanna know about climate? Ask a climatologist.


It is someone you are supposed to listen to about the allegations of scientific fraud!


I'll listen to a scientist first. And if they say it's fraud, not you.


I think my prior posts prove quite conclusively that it is anything but settled.


Nope. And mine do a better job of showing the consensus.


Your prior claim that the email & fraud issue has been "debunked" is just so much hot air.


Nope. I provided the link(perhaps in another post) - with multiple links within- showing the whole trail of how that was debunked by both scientists and journalists. You have butkus.


You'll also have to prove that there was no persuasive evidence of collusion between the oil companies, bankers, the UN and the IPCC to promote a global warming agenda.


Actually you have it backwards- the collusion of the oil companies and bankers are to DENY global warming, which the IPCC fights:


As Mashey documents here, so well, this whole party has been a set-up, with scientists on one side, bound by the rules of evidence and by their own integrity, and think tanks, PR counsellors and their aides and allies on the other side, using any technique available (including, apparently, obtaining, using and disseminating stolen emails), to defend the right of fossil fuel companies to continue, unrestrained, in the sale and distribution of a substance that is threatening the human habitability of planet earth.

http://www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out-wegman-file

And on that page is a 250 page PDF that recounts all the denier funding and organizations. Unfortunately it is quite hard to read, but it's far more evidence than you've been able to produce.
 Mr_SmartFun
Joined: 1/16/2009
Msg: 78
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/12/2010 3:31:05 AM

and also what I am saying again is, if we need the energy for immediate survival, we'll burn what ever we can beg, borrow, steal, take out of the ground, or off the top of the ground, the environment be damned.


I agree with you- which is why we simply have to be more sensible than that, otherwise we have Easter Island writ large.

BTW who has thrown a monkey wrench into most efforts to gradually switch to non-fossil fuel sources of energy? The fossil fuel companies, that's who.
 totum_spirit
Joined: 7/2/2007
Msg: 79
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/12/2010 9:23:16 PM
That is a interesting question here is my question.

We have recorded only a few 100 years...200 max...of the weather. Now the instruments used now have only been around for less than 50 years. So we have maybe somewhere the temp and pressure written down and what was happening that day. So the world has been around for several billion years(or so give or take a couple of million years) and we have people claiming what is causing the climate to change.

Our last Ice age was like 15,000 years ago or so. Man was hunting back then. So what happened in those 14,800 years? We don't know. We dig things up and say this happened or that happened but it is not able to be put in days or weeks.

The Earth is a living thing but different than what we call living. The magnetic poles have been thought to switch poles, some evidence of that in some digs, but we don't know. This could be a cycle of the earth that happens over and over...we don't know. Maybe we are warming up to go into another ice age....we don't know.

What kills me is the people that use fear tactics to scare the population that their thoughts are right and to get themself a nice pay check from the population of scared little puppies. To me Al Gore is a idiot. He rants and carries on with some kind of stupid science that the ice caps are all gone in 5 to 7 years, that co2 is the culprit and our cars do it all. Hell some idiot sciencetist said one time cow farts was a part of climate change??

Sad to say Big Oil wants to give you your power forever. We give out of oil and they want to make the hydrogen for you...but not until they have used up the oil. But that oil is the sweet crude that is giving out lower grade oil is all around but not the sweet crude.

So who pays most sciencetist? The company that has the most money and they do as they are told.

Hydrogen is the way of the future. And it can be made by anyone even you. I am doing it but still in prototype for now but soon. Something to think about.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 80
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/12/2010 9:33:45 PM
We have recorded only a few 100 years...200 max...of the weather.


And several hundred thousand years of antarctic ice cores, coring samples from ancient trees, bogs, etc.

What we don't have is evidence of the usual "but all the planets are warming up" BS you hear from the deniers.


So who pays most sciencetist? The company that has the most money and they do as they are told.


Only those paid by the oil companies to deny AGW.


To me Al Gore is a idiot. He rants and carries on with some kind of stupid science that the ice caps are all gone in 5 to 7 years


Actually, he's been saying the same things about AGW for a couple of decades although it's actually the guys paid to monitor the north polar ice sheet and the U.S. Navy that have been saying the ice sheets have been getting thinner. The only difference is, now it's trendy to slag the guy because he made a movie.


Hydrogen is the way of the future.


And if you can figure out a way to make it cost- and energy-efficient, then you'll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. In the meantime...
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/13/2010 10:01:46 AM
"So who pays most sciencetist? The company that has the most money and they do as they are told."


'Only those paid by the oil companies to deny AGW.'


Let's not forget the unimaginable profits that are being made possible for people in the carbon trading business and in the IPPC lobby and business.

Indeed, Gore is a terrific liar.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 82
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/14/2010 7:44:38 AM
Oddly enough, John Coleman, previously mentioned in this topic as the founder of the Weather Network and lifelong Meteorologist, has pointed out an interesting fact- the number of reporting stations that the National Climate Data Center uses has been drastically reduced in recent decades. Prior to the 90's, there were over 6000 points that were reported in- by the end of the 90's, there was less than 1500, and now theres only approx 1000. In fact, these organsations claim to report the tempertures for countries they no longer even have reporting stations in- like Bolivia, whose data is derived from a reporting station upto 12,000 km away. Bolivia's data has not been accurately reported by this prominant organsation in over 20 years- and yet, these organsations still claim temperture changes from data recieved outside of this country.

Another interesting thing to note is the difference between the temperture reported on the ground versus the temperture found by Satalites- for example, in June, the National Climate Data Center claimed it was the second warmest June in 130 years, but the satalite showed that it was the 14th coldest June in the 31 years they've been keeping records- clearly someone is getting incorrect data.

Another example, in California, there are 4 stations that the National Center accepts data from- 1 in San Francisco, and 3 from LA. Now, this is a personal opinion, but I believe California may have a more complex ecosystem than these two cities.....in fact, it seems mountainious areas were the ones most likely to be ones dropped all over the world

There certainly is room to doubt the accuracy of the information we are receiving.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 83
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/15/2010 4:24:16 PM
Some terrific discussion here. Painstaking referencing, I feel guilty I didnt put as much work in as you guys did. And civilized...thank you for the great input.

I do want to respond to Jiperly's comment, and I want to say it respectfully because you contributed some really interesting findings on reporting stations.. but this comment

"There certainly is room to doubt the accuracy of the information we are receiving."

is true and I understand where you are coming from. But what I am saying is these small inconsistencies in no way support the grossly overstated message of Timothy Ball. Tim Ball takes innocent open mindedness like Jiperly has, which I respect, and creates a cult of doubt from it, which he then steers into his hypothesis/rant. What got the ball rolling for me was Ball's contention that the climate change hypothesis was a way of getting all of us under one world government. One world government. Now that kind of talk derails his whole detached persona, and puts him into the same realm as conspiracy theorists, in fact, Tim is a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists dont have alot of credibility. Its that one brick in the wall that made me go, woooa,,,,is this the finest that the deniers can muster? A one world government totalitarian fear mongering conspiracy proponent? It kind of impacts on the credibility of his whole shtick.

It is interesting also that Tim Ball is almost broke and no one will hire him. The only way Michael Coren got Tim on his show was to have his own friends cough up the air fare. Clearly, you won't get rich as a denier...
 fissionfusion
Joined: 8/30/2009
Msg: 84
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/16/2010 8:36:40 AM
My Chevy has 610lbs of rotational torque. I'm pretty sure I can solve global warming by putting in some ground spikes and pulling the Earth 3 feet away from the Sun.

 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 85
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/16/2010 4:14:05 PM

China plans on building 500 coal powered electrical generating station over the next 10 years. Where is the "savings" on the carbon footprint if North Americans bust their butts to reduce carbon?( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9947668)

Cycles of climate change are normal for this planet...no use getting your panties in a knot about it, it is going to happen. It is that simple.
What we need to do is pour money into getting ready for the changes. Rising sea levels maybe. Colder winters. More precipitation in some areas, less in others. Certain geographic areas are going to be hit hard...others will change to a more likable climate.

We hear all the scare stories about the places being hit now....but we aren't seeing much about how it affects some areas in a better way. Perhaps someplace is noted for its skiing spots. All of a sudden it isn't so great for skiing! Disaster! (economically). But not for those changing with the times. Some places get better agricultural seasons. More crops able to grow in that area.

Change happens....go with it!


How about saving more money by using readily available technology now to slow the change to a more natural pace. That way the change will be more gradual so that people will have the time to either change locations or fall pray to Darwin's law. As time goes on resources will become more rare, prices will rise, even more will be spent to rebuild. Not only that more resources would be lost by fire in drought stricken areas, taken by the sea in flooding regions, or much to difficult to relocate in freezing areas.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 86
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/16/2010 8:12:53 PM
Dr. Gazebo, I agree its sad that this issue has been muddled by conspiracy theorys of a one world government. Honestly, while I do believe it is on some level a political grab, I don't honestly believe anyone is conspiring to form a unified government over it....sounds silly to me...

And, as always, I cannot get over the shere blindness of enviromentalists to use resources, pollute, and create a demand for mass produced and short lived products such as cars, cell phones and computers, but turn around and say that its wrong to do and possess these things. Its a sad state of affairs when people won't do what they legitmately feel is the right thing unless they can use the Government to force everyone to obey their beliefs.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 87
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/16/2010 8:20:16 PM
Why is it that CO2 rise after a rise in temperature is never discussed?

Oh, it is discussed. You just aren't looking for the discussion. I posted in response to this "debunking" of yours in another thread before.

So, at the risk of "casting pearls...," I will give it another go and post this short explanation along with a link to the more comprehensive explanation:


When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 starrybug12
Joined: 9/23/2009
Msg: 88
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:19:17 AM
The fella up in England that was in charge of all the data that was intentionally twisted to make it appear that global warming was happening. Well, he admitted that there has been no warming since 1995. That pretty much raps it up for me. CO2 emissions have gone up since then, (at least man made emissions have gone up, the rest of the planet continues to put out much more CO2 than mankind) and yet warming has stalled out. Seems to me there is therefore zero correlation between manmade anything and global warming. Of course this was always obvious to me. Lol. Anyone vain enough to think mankind will destroy the earth tinks a bit to highly about mankind. The earth can chew mankind up and spit it out in 10 seconds. Grow up people! Use your brains!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 89
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:48:23 AM

The fella up in England that was in charge of all the data that was intentionally twisted to make it appear that global warming was happening. Well, he admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.


That would be false.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/

We've just completed the warmest decade on record. We've just started the warmest decade on record.

Dave
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 90
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 6:52:19 AM

Anyone vain enough to think mankind will destroy the earth tinks a bit to highly about mankind. The earth can chew mankind up and spit it out in 10 seconds. Grow up people! Use your brains!


Use yours! Interesting how we can own up to throwing entire ecosystems out of kilter, destroy habitats, toss entire species into the extinction bin and yet, somehow, climate is "beyond our capacity to alter."
 starrybug12
Joined: 9/23/2009
Msg: 91
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 8:10:29 AM
Like I wrote before. One Mr. "Phil Jones" (The head of the IPCC) has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and that there has actually been a 0.12C cooling since 2002.
He also admitted that the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-2009 are all basically the same temperature wise. This from the man that is the head of the organization that accepted a nobel peace prize for the work that has now been shown to be false and intentionally misleading.
One Mr. Phil Jones and one Mr. Al Gore owe a huge apology to the American public and to the world.
Lastly, though i agree that all people should continually strive to better technology in order to decrease pollution, we should in no way follow anyone who even suggest that there is such a thing as man-made global warming. It has gotten rather funny to watch the global warming activist. If their desire to control everyones lives wasn't such a serious matter, i would simply laugh them off. Grow up people! Find a real cause. Help feed some starving people. Find a unwed pregnant teen and help pay her way through college. Become involved with your community to help teens stay active and stay away from drugs and out of gangs. But, please, feel free to laugh out of the room anyone who suggest you are the cause of global warming.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 92
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 9:15:29 AM
Okay, let me try this slowly for you...he's stepping down because of the hacking of confidential emails. It's a face-saving move for the sake of the organization for which he belongs.

But do please cite a source for which you make the claims of what he supposedly says. Because, from what I read of his statement, he's still on board with the whole AGW thing.


One Mr. Phil Jones and one Mr. Al Gore owe a huge apology to the American public and to the world.


And all you climate change deniers need to pull your collective heads out of your a$$es. Climate isn't a sacred cow. We can change it like we've changed everything else.
 starrybug12
Joined: 9/23/2009
Msg: 93
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 10:00:02 AM
And all you climate change deniers need to pull your collective heads out of your a$$es. Climate isn't a sacred cow. We can change it like we've changed everything else.


I don't know of any climate change deniers. Lol. Of course the climate is changing. It has always changed and always will change. Ever heard of an ice age? However, man-made climate change is vanity. Trying to start or stop an ice age or a warming period is like trying to stop Neptune from spinning.
And lastly, please stop this "We" stuff. I have not caused global warming. If you want to believe that you have caused global warming, then feel free to send some money to Al Gore. He will plant a tree for you so that you can be carbon-neutral (hee hee) (that Al Gore is a funny fellow).
P.S.-- After Mr. Gore has his company plant that tree, then he will pocket the extra cash.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 94
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 10:43:30 AM

And lastly, please stop this "We" stuff. I have not caused global warming. If you want to believe that you have caused global warming, then feel free to send some money to Al Gore.


The royal "we" and yes, Earth climate does change. But I still don't understand why climate has to be such a sacred cow? We've diverted entire water systems, taken entire species to the brink of destruction. England was once mostly covered by forests. So why is AGW such a stretch? Really?

However, I will give you credit for making the valid point that we do need to make the effort to move away from polluting technologies if only for the sake of ending pollution. However, there are those who will argue against that. I would further the statement that we need to completely rethink our use of energy. However, again, there are those who say that oil is a renewable resource.

And everyone is so quick to jump on the "Al Gore's just in it for the money along with the rest of the carbon cap and trade crowd." Okay, so there's money to be made. But so what? What's the big deal? Every other enterprise is fine but, because this is tied with a particular assertion about AGW, well then it's to be treated with suspicion? Give me a break.

For people who love to spout off about wonders of capitalism, this should be a no-brainer.
 starrybug12
Joined: 9/23/2009
Msg: 95
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:41:51 PM
I acknowledge that it is rare to discuss a global warming idea with a global warming believer who acknowledges common ground. We both agree that technology can and should be improved. That is after all the American ideal. Make it better, and make it better again.
I probably should make more clear my thoughts on Albert Gore. The reason I find him making money off of global warming is his belief that he may live a lifestyle as he chooses, while trying to keep restrictions on others. He flies in a private jet and lives in a mansion that is still using 22 times as much energy as the average American home. Jimmy Swaggert used to preach that it was wrong to sleep with prostitutes while he slept with them himself. I hold Albert to no other standard than the one he preaches, and I can only come to the conclusion that he does not believe what he preaches.

The issue of whether oil is a renewable resource is not one I think is a necessary debate at this time. Just the oil that has been discovered is enough to run the world for a hundred years and probably much more. I am sure that by measuring humans ability to improve things (using the past 50 years as an example), I find the belief that just as the Ipod is to the recording and playing devices of 50 years ago, the transportation industry shall leap forward. To doubt this seems like ignoring facts and history.
Capitalism is not a problem to me. It is Albert Gores hypocrisy that I find repulsive.
So, to wrap it up. Let's let science and technology and freedom find the way.










Anything you post can not be deleted.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/8/2010 5:03:42 PM
Let's be clear exactly what we're talking about. As of February 2010, according to Scripps Institute, CO2 in the atmosphere was at 389.91 parts per million or, rounded UP, about four hundredths of one percent (.04%) of greenhouse gases. By all accepted estimates, mankind's contribution to CO2 production is about 3%. So, we (mankind) are responsible for about one hundredth of one percent (%.0012) of global warming by CO2. Not a hell of a lot, if you ask me, and certainly not anywhere near enough for anybody to have to change their CO2 production to "save the planet."

It's about control through fear and ignorance (both on vivid display in this thread), and has nothing to do with saving the planet. Pull your heads out, take a deep breath, and use your brains for something other than a counterweight for your feet.

As for one world government, you may remember George Bush the 1st speaking of a new world order - what do you think he was talking about? Ordering a BLT?

I am going to paraphrase Mark Twain, who was referring to newspapers with his original quote - If you don't listen to the media, you are uninformed - if you do listen to the media, you are misinformed.

RPL
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/8/2010 5:14:28 PM
stargazer


For people who love to spout off about wonders of capitalism, this should be a no-brainer.


Not being critical. I'm just wondering if you could justify this statement. I didn't catch your reasoning.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 98
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/8/2010 8:11:15 PM
I'm just wondering if you could justify this statement.


Justify, no. Clarify, yes.

People keep talking "cash grab" in the context of carbon trade. Odd how embracing capitalism in one hand and criticizing economic opportunity in the context of overall carbon reduction doesn't strike people as oddly hypocritical is beyond me.


There is a part in al gores propaganda hit piece that shows how warming occurs after CO2 levels go up............. He has it backwords, CO2 levels go up AFTER there is a warming period. Just look up the period that is referenced, and you will see. This is fact, not fear, and is ignorance on the part of those who don't do their homework.

AGW is a crock.


So's that statement.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 99
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/9/2010 8:36:24 AM

There is a part in al gores propaganda hit piece that shows how warming occurs after CO2 levels go up............. He has it backwords, CO2 levels go up AFTER there is a warming period. Just look up the period that is referenced, and you will see. This is fact, not fear, and is ignorance on the part of those who don't do their homework.

See my post #120 in this very thread, which was in response to the last time you made this fallacious claim. Guess what? It's only on the previous page to this one. You keep making this stubborn claim in all of these threads, and that does not make it any more fact-based. Why don't you attempt debate in the context of new information as it comes to you, rather than plug your ears and spout off like a broken record?
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 4/9/2010 9:37:24 AM
flyguy51:

The link you provided clearly shows that warming precedes rising CO2 levels. Whether or not CO2 then contributes to more warming (your "new information") is entirely beside the point.

So, the website you reference supports the gentleman you are attempting to correct - it shows that his post is not only "fact-based," but factually correct.

BTW, in order for a claim to be "fallacious" it must be based on a fallacy. Which fallacy do you claim is being committed?

Just wondering...

RPL
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial