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
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 1
Timothy Ball on Climate Change DenialPage 1 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
I saw him interviewd on Michael Coren last night. When asked why there would be a huge climate change conspiracy, he said

"they want to create one world government. They are using climate change to scare everyone into forming one world government"

So it appears that the climate change deniers have an agenda of their own! To prevent the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT cospiracy. Glad they are looking out for us.

So this thread is about


What do climate change deniers stand to gain?
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 12:50:37 PM
Hey Tim

you asked:

What do climate change deniers stand to gain?



Answer:


FREEDOM


Paul K
 Cinderellon
Joined: 1/22/2010
Msg: 3
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 1:28:48 PM
Climate change proponents are no different than the deniers. They all want freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live comfortably. The difference is the methodology and focus. Proponents want everyone to work together to make Earth a better place to live for everyone; deniers want everyone else to work together to make Earth a better place for the deniers exclusively via material advantages gained through exploitation.

There are also two types of deniers. There are the deniers who know full well what they are doing and just don't care about anything as long as they draw a profit, and there are those who fall for the claptrap, work for the pigs like the dogs that they are, get their information from choice soundbites from opinionated journalism masquerading as news, and only hold their denying opinion contrary to environmental factors out of simple ignorance imposed by outsiders in deceit.

The proponents need no such subdivisions, because these folks are generally capable of looking at NASA satellite photos of the poles and comprehending even on a rudimentary level mainstream scientific publications.

As far as what deniers stand to gain, as long as they continue to dupe the masses into allowing the climate to continue to change at such a fast rate, they might be alive long enough to relish in not only the profits from continuing current business practices, but also the profits and political power generated via consolidating and marketing the remaining resources that were once abundant and free to the fewer number of people left on the planet.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 4
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 7:54:48 PM

What do climate change deniers stand to gain?


Attention.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 5
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 9:26:47 PM
I'll second Paul's vote!

<div class="quote">FREEDOM
There will be no phony carbon tax issued through the UN on the world's people!

@ Cinderella

There are the deniers who know full well what they are doing and just don't care about anything as long as they draw a profit, and there are those who fall for the claptrap, work for the pigs like the dogs that they are, get their information from choice soundbites from opinionated journalism masquerading as news, and only hold their denying opinion contrary to environmental factors out of simple ignorance imposed by outsiders in deceit.

Which category would you say I fall under? (be prepared for debate and proof that this wasn't an ad hominem false dichotomy!)
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 6
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 9:44:35 PM


What do climate change deniers stand to gain?


There's no such thing as a "climate change denier". If you think that such people exist then please provide a quote from a reputable source where some denies that the climate changes. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
 Cinderellon
Joined: 1/22/2010
Msg: 7
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/3/2010 11:16:35 PM
JustDukky:

Which category would you say I fall under? (be prepared for debate and proof that this wasn't an ad hominem false dichotomy!)

Well, considering that you apparently don't mind polluting the environment and decimating 3rd-world countries to avoid paying a tax instead of investing in alternative energies to avoid a tax and keep the earth cleaner, I'd say you're the selfish materialistic type, especially since the term "tax" seems to be a stickler for you. On the other hand, if you consider fossil-fuels to be a renewable resource, and have issues discerning statistical slang from poetic rhetoric in reference to growth patterns within trees while not fully comprehending the nature of Earth's eco-system, you may simply be an ignorant pig-dog. I'm sure further discourse will clarify.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 3:12:31 AM
"What do climate change deniers stand to gain?"
In Ball's case, as with most professional deniers, MONEY. The attention helps. But in Ball's case, he has not written any peer reviewed literature on the subject at hand for the past 14 years, and was pulled from obscurity in retirement by the Alberta Oil Patch gang and Exxon to market industry funded studies. Most of the prominent professional deniers are on oiled industries payrolls.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/ExxonSecretsAnalysis.pdf

And for those who claimed FREEDOM...agreed. Some love the freedom from personal responsibility, freedom from sharing anything with posterity, freedom from knowledge, and freedom from any restrictions on killing the planet's 70% of mammalian species under threat from extinction from the status quo and changing climes.
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 9
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 8:57:32 AM
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!
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 11:14:51 AM
Hell hath no fury like a Dukky scorned!

I think you should quack him on the side of the head, Dukky. That'll show him!

Personally, I think Cinders is an ugly sister in disguise - an' puppy's in her lap.

Scary how some people can unjustly degrade those who don't fall into agreement with their views. There's a ton of bullshit on both sides and it's a diet that some of us would prefer to avoid. Maybe an overdose on both sides of the argument results in the current nonsense. Too many people are full of it.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 11
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 11:55:01 AM
Count Ibli

I dont know why i am bothering to do this since you put no effort into your post. but for GODS sake read the work on Timothy Ball you lazy sod!

The point is that when questioned why he is so fervently denying climate change, Ball answered'

"to prevent us from being taken over by one world government".

Okay let me be literal man, since inuendo has obviously been lost. He is a conspiracy nutbar, right up there with the Articles of Zion fanatics.

One world government? What does that have to do with climate change? The guy is delusional and fancies that the whole world is conspiring to make us afraid of climate change so they can take over. Who is they? I wouldnt be surprised if he answered: "the Jews".
 Audio$lave
Joined: 9/18/2009
Msg: 12
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 1:27:51 PM
Anybody who denies that the climate changes should be shot. You should rephrase the question. Now WHAT is causing the climate to change. Here is your answer, the ****ing sun, every planet in this solar system is heating up not just the Earth. We are not causing the climate to change, lmao. Anybody who says we are is a liar, and anybody who believes the person who is telling them we are the cause is ignorant.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 13
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 1:29:55 PM

Here is your answer, the ****ing sun, every planet in this solar system is heating up not just the Earth.


This is the standard line used by a lot of climate change deniers and it's complete bullshyte, brought on by the fact that they usually don't have the foggiest clue about astronomy and planetary science.
 Audio$lave
Joined: 9/18/2009
Msg: 14
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 1:40:42 PM
Stop using the term "climate change deniers" NOBODY is denying the ****ing climate changes, the climate IS changing but WE are not the cause. Over the course of thousands of years we have had major fluctuations in the earths temperature and when this has happened there has been a major increase in sunspot activity, I'm not going to explain what a sunspot is in detail, use google. Guess what's been happening recently? Sunspot activity is at an ALL time high. When the Earth plummeted into an ice age 850 to 630 million years ago you think it was because people were driving around in cars? Or maybe people were just farting a lot more back then eh....
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 15
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 1:47:18 PM

Stop using the term "climate change deniers" NOBODY is denying the ****ing climate changes, the climate IS changing but WE are not the cause. Over the course of thousands of years we have had major fluctuations in the earths temperature and when this has happened there has been a major increase in sunspot activity, I'm not going to explain what a sunspot is in detail, use google. Guess what's been happening recently? Sunspot activity is at an ALL time high. When the Earth plummeted into an ice age 850 to 630 million years ago you think it was because people were driving around in cars? Or maybe people were just farting a lot more back then eh...


Okay, then AGW deniers.

And you don't need to explain a sunspot to me, junior, I've been studying astronomy 12 years longer than you've been alive.

And speaking of not knowing what you're talking about...sunspot activity has actually been at an all time low most recently and yet we've still managed to record some of the warmest temperatures on record. But please feel free to cite actual sources.
 Audio$lave
Joined: 9/18/2009
Msg: 16
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 2:07:56 PM
Okay, then AGW deniers.

And you don't need to explain a sunspot to me, junior, I've been studying astronomy 12 years longer than you've been alive.

And speaking of not knowing what you're talking about...sunspot activity has actually been at an all time low most recently and yet we've still managed to record some of the warmest temperatures on record. But please feel free to cite actual sources.

How long have we been fed this crap about co2 causing climate change now through mainstream media? Maybe 10 years or so? I remember I was really young. Back in the early 2000's we were getting really warm temperatures when sunspot activity was REALLY high, over the past couple years or so we've been getting really cold temperatures I don't know if you're from Britain, but this winter it has been phenomenally cold here. As you just said in your own post recently sunspot activity is at an all time low, see the connection? When I used the word "Recently" I don't mean the past 2 years or something, I'm talking maybe 25-50 years. So increase in sunspot activity = warmer temperatures, decrease in sunspot activity = colder temperatures.

Please tell me you don't believe co2 is causing the climate to change. If so I want to hear your flawed logic as to why you think it is. You want me to cite every single thing that has lead me to this conclusion? I'm sure you could cite me a load of info from mainstream science that has made you believe that we are the cause. Lol, you'd probably quote some Al-Gore shit at me too.

Oh PLEASE cite me some evidence that that we have had some of the warmest temperatures on record over the past 3 years. It has been the coldest I have EVER known it to be, in the early 2000's we did record some of the highest temperatures on record, and why? Because sunspot activity was really high back then.
 Audio$lave
Joined: 9/18/2009
Msg: 17
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 2:23:21 PM
The cyclic nature of sunspots explains it all. The number of sunspots reaches a maximum about every 11 years, but successive maxima have spots with reversed magnetic polarity. Thus the whole cycle is 22 years long. Observations over many years reveal a 22 year cycle of activity in the photosphere. The last sunspot cycle started back in 2001, and what have I stated? we were getting some of the warmest temperatures ever recorded back then as that's when sunspot activity is at it's max. After that sunspot activity slowly dissipates up until 2012, and what have we noticed over the past 3 years or so? It's been getting colder year by freaking year
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 18
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 3:11:48 PM
The cyclic nature of sunspots explains it all. The number of sunspots reaches a maximum about every 11 years, but successive maxima have spots with reversed magnetic polarity.


No it doesn't and the fact that you think so only shows how little of the data, other than from your favourite AGW denial websites, you've actually read. I remember reading about the possible connection between sunspots and climate back in the '80s. However, the connection is extremely tenuous and may only account for only a few tenths of a percent.

Oh, and point of clarification...every successive sunspot maxima has "reversed magnetic polarity" from the previous maxima. That's why sunspots occur in the first place. Way to do your research there, sonny.

Of course, AGW denial has glommed onto this tenuous connection, of course, because it supports their religion of denial. "Oh, the climate is just too big of a thing for us to affect." Except, of course, if you take into account that the "butterfly effect" is actually a recognized precept of science and, if a butterfly flapping its wings can have an effect on weather on the opposite side of the world, what's millions of tons of CO2 going to do.

In the meantime, please feel free to account for why, while you've been shivering away, the northern sea ice continues to thin at an alarming rate. Also, increased desertification, the loss of the equatorial ice belt, the recession of several glaciers, etc.

But hey, your memory goes all the way back to the '90s. I remember back in the '70s when the climate here in Ontario saw winters go right through to mid to late April (it's all but done by the end of March, beginning of April) and southern Ontario saw incredible thunderstorms. Now, temperature regimes have taken a notable northern migration with weather we used to associate with southern Ontario having migrated further north and southern Ontario has far fewer, far less vigorous storms.

Edit:

Here's an interesting graphic showing sunspot trends. Turns out the 2000 max was one of the lowest on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:800px-Sunspot_butterfly_with_graph.gif
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 3:12:26 PM
Well, Audio, theres plenty of historical data on sunspot activity and global temperature. Are they correlated? - Statistically, I mean. I assume you checked it out and can post justifications for your bilious posts?

By the way, North Americans tend not to color their speech in quite the same way as the English. You may consider toning it down a bit.

I've known stargazer for quite a while and he has never struck me as someone with an unreasonable position. And certainly not one to indulge in unwarranted attacks on other posters just because they don't agree with him.

And, just to prove I'm not picking on anyone in particular, I'll differ with stragazer's interpretation of the butterfly effect. This relates to the outcome of a chaotic system, such as the weather example. Chaotic systems have very specific limits within which they operate - the strange attractor. They move around within these limits (which can range from sunny to stormy weather), but don't venture outside of the limits. The way the system moves from one area to another is determinate, but very sensitive to prevailing conditions. A butterfly flapping a wing halfway across the world changes those conditions. What that does is change the point within the system limits to which the system moves. It does not move the system outside of its existing limits. Of course, the climate is much more complicated that a simple chaotic model. There may be potential catastrophic points, but there may also be a much stronger drive to equilibrium. Many people fear the former, I suspect the latter. In which case I suspect I differ with stargazer, but I can endeavor to do it agreeably.
 bwana217
Joined: 5/3/2008
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 3:15:20 PM
First, considering the hyperbole and idiocy of statements such as "they want to create one world government. They are using climate change to scare everyone into forming one world government" by climate change deniers, this pseudo-legal posturing seems a bit ridiculous.

Second, back in the day, I did some climate research myself, and I presented at the American Meteorological Society's annual conference. I even got the cover of the proceedings. My research wasn't more global than El NiƱo, but I did get to know about the culture, and I think it highly unlikely that they were involved in any overarching conspiracy.

So, GW deniers. I'll define what I mean by them. I do not consider people who posit other explanations, such as variations in insolation, to be deniers. They are in the minority, but I won't consider them deniers.

Now, as to AGW denial. A stands for anthropogenic, meaning that humans are causing it. Scientifically, that does not matter to me at all. Not in the slightest. Whether it is caused by humanity is unimportant from a scientific standpoint. What matters is how it happens (science) and what we can do about it (technology). Humans do not cause earthquakes in Chile, but Chileans invest heavily in making their buildings earthquake-proof. Some people (a minority) believe that HIV was engineered, but it matters not at all toward how it is treated or controlled, except inasmuch as if one could get the blueprints if it were engineered.

It does matter, however, to AGW deniers. Whether humans are responsible seems rather important to them. I think it's rather offensive to them that humans, doing things that they consider good, could be harming anything. They view global warming as primarily a moral issue. And so they can't imagine anybody considering it true as anything other than a moral statement. Since they are unwilling to see themselves as bad, their opponents must want something morally bad. Their template for bad is usually something they view as "liberal," such as a one-world government or communism or stealing the money of good God-fearing people or something like that.

It is quite insane, just so much pablum down the bib, to think that scientists are generally attracted to a one-world government. Scientists are rather intensely freedom-loving, to a degree that most people can't imagine, and we are probably a lot more fearful of the control of authority as well. Most scientists at worst are a bit naive about politics. But we know what has happened to our fellows under oppressive regimes, and we don't like it.

But we also have a knack of making statements without an implicit moral stance and viewing things as accurate or inaccurate regardless of whether the conclusions make us happy or not. The idea that the Earth is warming, and this might cause some unpleasant things to happen, is not happy-making. So it opposes people's moral precepts.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 21
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/4/2010 5:00:12 PM
Oh PLEASE cite me some evidence that that we have had some of the warmest temperatures on record over the past 3 years. It has been the coldest I have EVER known it to be, in the early 2000's we did record some of the highest temperatures on record, and why? Because sunspot activity was really high back then.


Okay, how about NOAA...


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2009&month=jun

Here's another one...

http://tinyurl.com/ycp5tan


2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.


Glad to help.

 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 22
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/5/2010 9:58:15 PM


I dont know why i am bothering to do this since you put no effort into your post. but for GODS sake read the work on Timothy Ball you lazy sod!


My request was a simple one, which you failed to act on. Please demonstrate that anyone denies climate change. For all your bluster about conspiracy nutbars, you failed to provide a single quote from a single person denying climate change.

Since global warming hystericists can't win on the science front they have to engage in poisoning the well, ad hominem, and strawman arguments.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/5/2010 10:45:44 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

try that.

you guys got any crap on this guy?

the point, in my [and others] opinion is, GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A SETTLED SCIENCE!

I suppose most of you think that there aren't, and never were ever any, or anything close to any conspiracies.

sorry, you will have to do your own homework.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/6/2010 1:17:17 AM
"My request was a simple one, which you failed to act on. Please demonstrate that anyone denies climate change. For all your bluster about conspiracy nutbars, you failed to provide a single quote from a single person denying climate change.
Since global warming hystericists can't win on the science front they have to engage in poisoning the well, ad hominem, and strawman arguments."

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html
Here are a few quotes and how much Exxon/Mobil paid them to say it.

The "worst case scenario" for us addressing the AGW issue head on is that we would end up with energy independence, sustainable technology and jobs, become a world leader in new technologies, save billions of acres of habitat and biological diversity, have cleaner air and water, and provide a livable future for posterity. I know...that would be a bummer if we were wrong on AGW.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 2/6/2010 5:14:35 AM
The "worst case scenario" for us addressing the AGW issue head on is that we would end up with energy independence, sustainable technology and jobs, become a world leader in new technologies, save billions of acres of habitat and biological diversity, have cleaner air and water, and provide a livable future for posterity. I know...that would be a bummer if we were wrong on AGW.
Your notion is that this wonderful result is the *worst* it can turn out if we address our contributions of greenhouse gases; no matter how we address the issue, it only turns out good, or very good - or even better.

Seems a bit problematic reasoning.

Let's get past the hype in the statement and ask who is going to be the leader with energy independence.

You're talking about the USA 's interests, I presume ? Billions of acres saved habitats, too. Are you talking about U.S. organisations buying or getting control of large portions of the mass of land in other countries, under climate change combat scenarios ? WFF preserves and so on gaining rights over vast portions of what used to be land belonging to smaller countries too ?

Pay them with beads again or what ?



The plan, made public by The New York Times in 1998 (see clip at right), and retold recently by the Union of Concerned Scientists, employed the same strategy and some of the same personnel as the tobacco industry. The memo laid out a plan to "identify, recruit and train" a small team of unknown scientists and declared that: "Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media." Until now, the plan was successful

Funny that they should claim that was the case in the tobacco fight,
RA Fisher was a revered statistician, not a lightweight "Nobody".
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial