Special Report for Climate Doomsayers... - Page 4

MelchyBeau · #31 03-01-2007, 01:23 AM

from your article

[ QUOTE ]

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]

MelchyBeau · #32 03-01-2007, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I think you are very smart and I normally like you as a poster. I was just having a bit of fun with you because you once said something about how your classes we harder than business classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly I think I said that because someone was acting very condescending towards me because I didn't take business classes in school.

Utah · #33 03-01-2007, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
from your article

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. A more thorough analysis may one day show rapid global warming in Antarctica and the northern tip is warming (which is also subject to variability). My point is that there are still signals showing that global warming is not some absolute given and that there are some conflicting readings. I have never said that global warming is not happening. I am saying the jury still may be out. I find it odd though that normally very sharp scientific minds are taking as given what they hear about global warming without really looking at the evidence and are treating anyone who is not 100% convinced with vitriol (eg, "your hit in the face comment"). I am simply trying to find a decent global temperature database to start with and I cannot find one (not that it doesnt exist). Trying to find a database doesnt mean I am a follower of Exxon shills [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Utah · #34 03-01-2007, 08:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I think you are very smart and I normally like you as a poster. I was just having a bit of fun with you because you once said something about how your classes we harder than business classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly I think I said that because someone was acting very condescending towards me because I didn't take business classes in school.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. That is correct. Hence my "bit of fun" comment.

Aytumious · #35 03-02-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
Timothy Ball
Ph.D. Climatology, Climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg
Ph.D from the University of London, England

[/ QUOTE ]

My god man do some research on your source.

Here is some good info on the oil industry funded Ball.

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Felix_Nietzsche · #36 03-02-2007, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is some good info on the oil industry funded Ball.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where is the beef? The link was less than impressive.
The main accusation is the oil/gas industry funds about 33% of the budget of a group called the FOS (Friends of Science) and Tim Ball did some work for FOS as a consultant...and you claim this means he is in the pocket of big oil? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your logic. I use to be a managment consultant and I once did work for a bank. I guess by your logic I'm in the pocket of Big Banks...

Besides this is a red herring. Both sides of the global warming debate get paid. No one works for free. Entire academic careers are being bought and paid for by climatologists you give politicians the answers they want to hear. To claim one side is altruistic despite reaping financial benefits and the other side only works for money is a silly argument.... Nice try.

Another laughable attack on Tim Ball was he said he was "one of the first climatologists to get a PhD". His detractors cite others who got their PhDs before him. He never claim to be the first. He said "one of the first".
LOL. If this is the best his detractors can come up with?
They must feel VERY threatened by what Tim Ball is saying. I wonder why they are so scared of this man? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

tehox · #37 03-02-2007, 05:21 PM

A different take on Timothy ball
As far as what global warming scientists "afraid" of, I think this source states it best:

[ QUOTE ]
It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

natedogg · #38 03-03-2007, 03:23 AM

The Crichton lecture is fantastic, and regardless of what you think of global warming, everyone with any ability to think critically should find themselves agreeing with his points.

Read it very carefully. He never once states unequivocally that global warming isn't happening. In fact, he never addresses the fact of global warming, or the science behind it.

Why? Because he's not criticizing the *science* behind it. He's criticizing the behaviour of politicians, media, and scientists.

His lecture actually has very little to do with the specific question of global warming.

If you value the scientific endeavor, reason, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth, then you will certainly agree with what he's saying regardless of whatever you think about global warming.

If you're too wrapped up in "my side" vs. "your side" you probably don't get that his lecture applies to ALL sides.

natedogg