Global Tax Scam: The Carbon Myth

From the documentary Fall of the Republic with climatologist Dr. Tim Ball who has specialized in global warming throughout his life.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• global warming
• tim ball
• fall of the republic
• global tax
• carbon tax
• IPCC fraud
• IPCC
• Al Gore
• Climate Change
• infrared
• greenhouse gases
• co2
• carbon dioxide
• temperature
• earth
• sunspots
• sun
• corporate takeover
• cap and trade
• conflict of interest

[drkstrong]

@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]

@mattyelle1 The IPCC does not have models it reports the models published in the scientific literature.

[mattyelle1]

@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

[drkstrong]

@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.

[mattyelle1]

@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]

@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?

[drkstrong]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.