The AGW theory is not Al Gore's it is the accepted theory of the science of climatology - Gore was merely reporting it.
Ball then goes on to say that people attack the deniers because they have no valid scientific arguments but then launches into an attack on Gore.
Ball is the guy who appeared in Ventura's climate series in shilouette claiming that he cannot be seen in public because his life is in danger - odd that he is made himself quite visible here. Anything for a $, I suppose.
@mattyelle1 "AGW is not accepted widely by climatologists" is so wrong. In recent polls of climate researchers (those that have published research papers on climate or related subjects - 97% agreed with AGW and thought we need to take urgent action. Most of the other 3% were dont knows.
I read the scientific literature on the subject, I go to some AMS and AGU meetings and there is perhaps 1 or 2 critical papers (usually by John Christy) but 1000s of papers supporting it.
@drkstrong What's your scientific literature news source? An where did you see that 97% agree and 3% are uncertain? To state that humans have 0 effect on global temperature is kinda ignorant. We are a factor without a doubt. I just believe we are a negligible factor and really have to start focusing on the real issues that threaten our planet 1) Economy (to support society and alleviate the massive depression that is coming which will lead to famine) 2) Toxic Pollution, & 3) Deforestation
@mattyelle1 I suscribe to Nature, EOS, BAMS, Science, New Scientist and have on-line access to all the major solar and climate journals via my work computer.
All those issues you mention are important but if we dont survive as a psecies they pale into insignificance. Now nobody (who isnt half luny) is saying that AGW will definitely destroy the human race but there is something like a 10% chance that it could. Would you get on a plane with a 10% chance of crashing? No, nor would I.
@drkstrong Even if the 10% figure is real, on the other hand we accept the Carbon Tax. This will establish a world governing party (one world government) with the power to shut down businesses they chose are "carbon polluters". But who will be controlling this Carbon Credit? It will be traded between banks with the central carbon bank being Rothschild. It will give the thug bankers unprecedented power against all their competition and in all their investments...
@mattyelle1 So you are against capitalism. Ok, comrade come up with a system to curb C output without anyone making any money off it. Good luck with that one.
@drkstrong There is a possibility for a better system. It needs to be usury free without the capability to print money. credit needs to be strictly managed by the gov representing the ppl.
Watch Zeitgeist: Moving Forward coming out in a month. they will shed more light on the issue.
@mattyelle1 I always thought that capitalism mixed with democracy is a very dangerous mix - one side regulating for their personal advantage while the other subverting the system to get favors, money, competative advatage without technical merit..
@drkstrong This conflict of interest will further drive the world into corruption and will transfer what is left of the wealth distribution into the hands of a few individuals. They are already becoming more powerful than entire governments. A new dark age is being born, and Carbon Tax is the final step of the process. These bankers have enough money, it's power they want. We are the most dependent society in history. Poverty could lead billions to die of famine. Nuclear wars could be launched.
@drkstrong Small businesses will be forced to hiring Carbon Accountants. Many will go out of business as a product of this. More businesses will go bankrupt because they can't afford a transition into carbon free business. The infrastructure to support low emissions is not there. There are no trains in the US & Canada like there are in Europe & Asia.The total Carbon Tax is calculated from a countries total CO2 emissions and divided for the population. This includes heating a house with fire.
@drkstrong How will the poor people that went out of business or are unemployed (unemployment going up again in 2011) survive when they are taxed to keep their body temperature up? We are the most dependent society in history. People don't know how to be self-sustainable. They need to drive around to get the essential things they need. This Carbon Tax will be the death of freedom. Can't you see how the power hungry bankers would have interest in investing in AGW studies?
@mattyelle1 If oyu believe the nonsense you just posted, yes I could see how some might be interested in promoting AGW. However as far as I am aware no such money has reached any of the researchers. Many of them are barred friom accepting $s from private interests by law. Sorta blows a hole in your theory dont it?
The christy comment shows he is nolonger objective. I sat next to him through a lecture at the last AMS meeting where a NOAA researcher compared global temperatures derived from the "bad" and "good" stations as defined by Watt. The temperatures were the same. He raised no objection, took no notes, and then went away and wrote this pure propaganda. Sad
A freshman physics student can see the holes in Alkalaj's theory. Plants emit CO2 with a high 13C component. Burning of fossil fuels emit CO2 with a low 13C content. The 13C concentration in th eatmosphere has fallen by exactly the amount predicted by the burning of fossil fuels.
Akalaj cliams to be a prominent climatologist but he is a mathemetician who I have never heard of and cant find any papers published by him in any major climate journal.
Moncton is a politician not a scientist, worst yet is was a political advisor. So Moncton used to tell politicans what to lie about and taught them how to do it. . The factor of 10 he cites is because most trend graphs are expressed in quntity per decade. This graph was done in / year so would have been confusing. It was not done without the scient's permission. It is a lie, Why was this not brought up by one of the hundreds of reviewers, including most of the sceptics?
Landsea a sceptic: ""we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
He was objecting to a paper by another researcher that contradicted his results - spats like this happen all the ime in science. Lots of big egos.
@mattyelle1 Dont cherry pick from the same article ....
""However, these horror scenarios probably have some validity if increased temperatures lead to more frequent or more severe drought as some of the current predictions for similar scenarios suggest.""
@drkstrong cherry pick? I don't understand why you have to attack these people personally anyways...why can't e just stick to the science and facts. The IPCC has made at least 2 totally false claims. This has been reported.
In my eyes, this clearly puts in question the entire report. But there has been so much money pumped into the IPCC and associated organizations that many of their lies tend to justify themselves with "sources". Al Gore is now a multi-billionaire. Conflict of interest?
Being reported is different from being true. I am reporting my left foot is on fire and its been that way for 30 years. It isnt true but it has been reported.
@drkstrong Denying these are not true because they have been "reported" is simply idiotic. It's been "reported" all over the world by countless sources and admitted by the IPCC board and UN senior members. Maybe read the articles...
@mattyelle1 Oh please get your facts straight. The himalayan glacier snafu was not in the science report (WG1) - it was in the impacts report (WG2). Differen tpeople - different subject. As were the other errors.
In fact much to their embarrassment the denial camp had a bunch of "citizen reviewers" go over all 3 IPCC reports. They were heavily critical of the WG2 & WG3 reports (rightly so) but gave the science report an A grade. Another fine myth ....
@drkstrong as for that quote: the prediction they are referring to are the IPCC climate change model which has been subject to much criticism due to it's lack of various factors.
The AGW theory is not Al Gore's it is the accepted theory of the science of climatology - Gore was merely reporting it.
Ball then goes on to say that people attack the deniers because they have no valid scientific arguments but then launches into an attack on Gore.
Ball is the guy who appeared in Ventura's climate series in shilouette claiming that he cannot be seen in public because his life is in danger - odd that he is made himself quite visible here. Anything for a $, I suppose.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong He made himself visible here before showing up on Jesse Ventura's show.
AGW is not accepted widely by climatologists. That's what the mainstream media leads us to believe (indirectly). They are brain ninjas!
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 "AGW is not accepted widely by climatologists" is so wrong. In recent polls of climate researchers (those that have published research papers on climate or related subjects - 97% agreed with AGW and thought we need to take urgent action. Most of the other 3% were dont knows.
I read the scientific literature on the subject, I go to some AMS and AGU meetings and there is perhaps 1 or 2 critical papers (usually by John Christy) but 1000s of papers supporting it.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong What's your scientific literature news source? An where did you see that 97% agree and 3% are uncertain? To state that humans have 0 effect on global temperature is kinda ignorant. We are a factor without a doubt. I just believe we are a negligible factor and really have to start focusing on the real issues that threaten our planet 1) Economy (to support society and alleviate the massive depression that is coming which will lead to famine) 2) Toxic Pollution, & 3) Deforestation
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 I suscribe to Nature, EOS, BAMS, Science, New Scientist and have on-line access to all the major solar and climate journals via my work computer.
All those issues you mention are important but if we dont survive as a psecies they pale into insignificance. Now nobody (who isnt half luny) is saying that AGW will definitely destroy the human race but there is something like a 10% chance that it could. Would you get on a plane with a 10% chance of crashing? No, nor would I.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Even if the 10% figure is real, on the other hand we accept the Carbon Tax. This will establish a world governing party (one world government) with the power to shut down businesses they chose are "carbon polluters". But who will be controlling this Carbon Credit? It will be traded between banks with the central carbon bank being Rothschild. It will give the thug bankers unprecedented power against all their competition and in all their investments...
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 So you are against capitalism. Ok, comrade come up with a system to curb C output without anyone making any money off it. Good luck with that one.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong There is a possibility for a better system. It needs to be usury free without the capability to print money. credit needs to be strictly managed by the gov representing the ppl.
Watch Zeitgeist: Moving Forward coming out in a month. they will shed more light on the issue.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Interesting I'll keep an eye out for it.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong you will be against capitalism too very soon. unless your a billionaire.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 I always thought that capitalism mixed with democracy is a very dangerous mix - one side regulating for their personal advantage while the other subverting the system to get favors, money, competative advatage without technical merit..
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong It's how republic's of the past have fallen into dark ages and depression.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@drkstrong This conflict of interest will further drive the world into corruption and will transfer what is left of the wealth distribution into the hands of a few individuals. They are already becoming more powerful than entire governments. A new dark age is being born, and Carbon Tax is the final step of the process. These bankers have enough money, it's power they want. We are the most dependent society in history. Poverty could lead billions to die of famine. Nuclear wars could be launched.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@drkstrong Small businesses will be forced to hiring Carbon Accountants. Many will go out of business as a product of this. More businesses will go bankrupt because they can't afford a transition into carbon free business. The infrastructure to support low emissions is not there. There are no trains in the US & Canada like there are in Europe & Asia.The total Carbon Tax is calculated from a countries total CO2 emissions and divided for the population. This includes heating a house with fire.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 I think you are getiing carried away with this - who is being the alarmist now?
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong How will the poor people that went out of business or are unemployed (unemployment going up again in 2011) survive when they are taxed to keep their body temperature up? We are the most dependent society in history. People don't know how to be self-sustainable. They need to drive around to get the essential things they need. This Carbon Tax will be the death of freedom. Can't you see how the power hungry bankers would have interest in investing in AGW studies?
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 If oyu believe the nonsense you just posted, yes I could see how some might be interested in promoting AGW. However as far as I am aware no such money has reached any of the researchers. Many of them are barred friom accepting $s from private interests by law. Sorta blows a hole in your theory dont it?
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong The IPCC has been caught making lies in their report...
Lie #1: timesonline(dot)co(dot)uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Lie #2: canadafreepress(dot)com/index.php/article/30577
IPCC scientists speaking out about IPCC lies and political influences...
scientist #1: mclean(dot)ch/climate/Monckton_Jakarta_Post.pdf
scientist #2: worldclimatereport(dot)com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-less-1-2/
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Newspaper articles are not proof.
The christy comment shows he is nolonger objective. I sat next to him through a lecture at the last AMS meeting where a NOAA researcher compared global temperatures derived from the "bad" and "good" stations as defined by Watt. The temperatures were the same. He raised no objection, took no notes, and then went away and wrote this pure propaganda. Sad
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
A freshman physics student can see the holes in Alkalaj's theory. Plants emit CO2 with a high 13C component. Burning of fossil fuels emit CO2 with a low 13C content. The 13C concentration in th eatmosphere has fallen by exactly the amount predicted by the burning of fossil fuels.
Akalaj cliams to be a prominent climatologist but he is a mathemetician who I have never heard of and cant find any papers published by him in any major climate journal.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
Moncton is a politician not a scientist, worst yet is was a political advisor. So Moncton used to tell politicans what to lie about and taught them how to do it. . The factor of 10 he cites is because most trend graphs are expressed in quntity per decade. This graph was done in / year so would have been confusing. It was not done without the scient's permission. It is a lie, Why was this not brought up by one of the hundreds of reviewers, including most of the sceptics?
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
Landsea a sceptic: ""we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
He was objecting to a paper by another researcher that contradicted his results - spats like this happen all the ime in science. Lots of big egos.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong and latest research falsifying the IPCC's claim regarding global warming's impact on rain forest life:
Lie #3: stri(dot)si(dot)edu/english/about_stri/headline_news/news/article(dot)php?id=1234
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Dont cherry pick from the same article ....
""However, these horror scenarios probably have some validity if increased temperatures lead to more frequent or more severe drought as some of the current predictions for similar scenarios suggest.""
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong cherry pick? I don't understand why you have to attack these people personally anyways...why can't e just stick to the science and facts. The IPCC has made at least 2 totally false claims. This has been reported.
In my eyes, this clearly puts in question the entire report. But there has been so much money pumped into the IPCC and associated organizations that many of their lies tend to justify themselves with "sources". Al Gore is now a multi-billionaire. Conflict of interest?
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Two totally false claims - those are?
Being reported is different from being true. I am reporting my left foot is on fire and its been that way for 30 years. It isnt true but it has been reported.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Denying these are not true because they have been "reported" is simply idiotic. It's been "reported" all over the world by countless sources and admitted by the IPCC board and UN senior members. Maybe read the articles...
guardian(dot)co(dot)uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
Or view these vids if u prefer...
watch?v=OBrf2kTMrmw
watch?v=oWMVXzYBQ7A&feature=related
watch?v=V64KzVTqFJg
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Oh please get your facts straight. The himalayan glacier snafu was not in the science report (WG1) - it was in the impacts report (WG2). Differen tpeople - different subject. As were the other errors.
In fact much to their embarrassment the denial camp had a bunch of "citizen reviewers" go over all 3 IPCC reports. They were heavily critical of the WG2 & WG3 reports (rightly so) but gave the science report an A grade. Another fine myth ....
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong as for that quote: the prediction they are referring to are the IPCC climate change model which has been subject to much criticism due to it's lack of various factors.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 The IPCC does not have models it reports the models published in the scientific literature.
drkstrong 1 year ago