The Plot Thickens: NASA Exposed Adjusting Temperature Data All Over The World Now

a reply to: Grimpachi

it is a bit far fetched to consider him an authority on climate. So I am wondering where that snippet came from. Without a link it is hard to tell.

By that statement I can only assume you mean, you need more information so as to discredit his credentials. Rather tacky, but standard MO of alarmist proponents.

His field of study is Geography and Historical Climatology and you can read his paper HERE

Wiki
Some of Ball's critics have claimed that he has received funding from the fossil fuel industry,[47][6][54] especially through the organization Friends of Science, which Ball co-founded[26] and whose scientific advisory board he sits upon.[3] For example, Peter Gorrie said in the Toronto Star that Friends of Science received a third of its funding from the oil industry. [55] Ball himself has publicly denied these claims,[20][56] as has his wife, Marty Ball,[3] and The Toronto Sun's Michael Coren, who has written that Ball, "unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody".[45]

a reply to: Grimpachi

Winner winner chicken dinner.
I didn't know he was that much of a piece of work and look he is a bit like Ken Ham to him evolution is a scam as well.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

You do realise that he fully denies any association with Exxon, and this is the typical kind of smear campaign that happens to anyone who falls foul of official policy. It is little wonder that so few scientists speak out.

So basically you're saying, he is a piece of work because he does not share your views. NICE!

ETA: It would appear after further investigation that Exxon approached Friends of Science with funding because they where skepticle of climate change science which is a whole different kettle of fish.

a reply to: kennyb72

Are you trying to build a strawman. Boy you are just full of logical fallacies aren't you.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You do realise that he fully denies any association with Exxon

You do realize I never mentioned nor posted anything to do with Exxon.

As far as him denying it he also claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD's in the world.”link

Far as I can tell he claims a lot of things.

Like I said I never even mentioned Exxon but I think it is interesting that he was at one time a senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

a reply to: Grimpachi

Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to Canada Free Press

"Rubbish". That's what Dr. Timothy Ball calls detractors' charges that he is not a climatologist.
"That's absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College," Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview.
Thousands of letters of support flooded CFP when Dr. Ball's article, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? was posted on Monday's Drudge Report. In the space of two days, CFP received 1 million page views courtesy of Drudge.
Timothy Ball seems to have arrived as a somewhat unwitting patron saint for global warming skeptics from all walks of life.

While most readers overwhelmingly supported the first Canadian PhD in Climatology for his courage in stating, "global warming as we think we know it, doesn't exist", several email writers challenged his university degree.
Dr. Ball responded to the charge by saying, "That's absolute rubbish. I used the remarkable records of the Hudson's Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714-1952 in large areas of Canada. The title of my doctoral thesis, placed in the public record at the library of Queen Mary College, university of London, England in 1983 is Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850."

Link

Like I said I never even mentioned Exxon but I think it is interesting that he was at one time a senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

High Park Advocacy Group are lobbyist's for all types of energy, Solar included and not surprising at all given that he has a PHD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology.

Are you trying to build a strawman. Boy you are just full of logical fallacies aren't you.

What on earth are you blathering on about - Get a grip

Armchair Scientist
Someone who has no professional training in science yet has the same augmented ego and clout (and on very,very rare occasion, the same amount of knowledge on the subject).

Oh, I see why you all like to post definitions all the time - It's fun isn't it?

originally posted by: 1Providence1

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Good question. Look I'm not saying I have the whole thing figured out, but enough of the puzzle adds up to know we're just being scammed is all.

Step 1: Invent global warming/blame man
Step 2: Collect underpants/carbon taxes
Step 3: ????????
Step 4: PROFIT

case closed
Get yer pitchforks!

Thank you for seeing it with me, my thread I think I finally got thru to Phage..
Feb 9 2015
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: kennyb72

What on earth are you blathering on about - Get a grip

Playing dumb?

I posted the explanation of a strawman which is clearly the argument you were making. By acting like I had made issue with an Exxon connection you then went about trying to tear down an argument I never made.

That was a strawman.

Now that it has been explained clearly on to what I did actually say.

He claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD's in the world.”

BTW he also claims to be "the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" www.friendsofscience.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">link Also not true considering the firsts date back to the 50s.

He received a PHD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. That does not make a climatologist. He was not a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983. There was another article he wrote where he claimed to be a Professor for 32 years.

1996 - present: Environmental Consultant, Public Speaker, Columnist
1988-1996 Professor, university of Winnipeg
1984-1988 Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg
1977-1978 Acting Dean of Students
1971-1982 Instructor/Lecturer, University of Winnipeglink

I only counted 12 years as professor or associate professor. Does lecturing make you a professor? Still that doesn't add up to 32 years.


If a man is not even truthful about his own credentials and it is on record how he wasn't truthful IMO that says a lot about him.

a reply to: amazing

You go to "Inconsistent truth" movie where the VERY PhD's who authored the raw data reports that "dr" Mann altered for things like the 'hockey stick"

THAT is where you will find those who the media counted as part of th 97% That is where you can hear them speak and the media largely ignores them when they make the detailed explanation that takes more than a 15 second sound bite to explain. I think 97% disagree with the 'consensus that man made climate change is truly significant (man made poisoning yes via heavy metals) but that is an opinion of one professional environmental scientist.

a reply to: mc_squared

Cause he is now thinking I AND YOU ARE RIGHT, he just hates admitting it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: mbkennel

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Venus must have populations of trillions!

And our oceans are rising because of all those billions of people pissing, right?

Yes, comparing 96% directly with 0.04% is very intelligent, Maybe it's your little part of the world that is sinking, dunno, it's not happening here.

Let face it, Venus is screwed, If only Al Gore had been around to save them.

Lets do the math 100- .04 = 99.96% not CO2 . Nice distraction from reality huh to say 96% now isn't it? We got em Kenny we got em on this one and they are SQUIRMING!! (might be actually .004 % I forget exactly other fish to fry so to speak help me out and check on this).

a reply to: Grimpachi

I posted the explanation of a strawman which is clearly the argument you were making. By acting like I had made issue with an Exxon connection you then went about trying to tear down an argument I never made.

That was a strawman.

Sorry, but that was me being pre-emptive because you are quite obviously trying to employ the 'slash and burn' tactic.

If a man is not even truthful about his own credentials and it is on record how he wasn't truthful IMO that says a lot about him.

Look, I am quite sure I could spend the next two hours disproving your allegations of someone who I see clearly as a highly educated man, one who has obviously gained his credentials before climatology became a hot subject.

You apparently enjoy spending your time, attempting to dismantle the reputation of a man who has worked hard for many years to achieve an honourable reputation, for the sake of winning your argument. IMO that says a lot about you.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: jrod

This is an example of an ad hominum style attack against a poster, that poster being me. Then you go on to deny it with another ad hominum style attack by suggesting I do not know what an ad hominum is. yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Oh, you mean like this

The folly of your argument shows you lack the understanding of basic chemistry.

and

This shows a lack of understanding of basic chemistry on your behalf.

Your example made me smile

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

WELL!!! WOULD YOU ????

Yes it is ok to call us tin foil hat wearers eh? NOT ME I am this lies worst nightmare at this point because MY LIVING WAGES depend on the field of environmental scientist and liars have taken the forefront in it. I MUST wage a logic debate to educate those who have been duped and show up those who are in on it. Why, because I will be seen as GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION when they come with pitchforks for the "scientist's" who made this crap up for AL to make literally Billions$!!!!

a reply to: Justoneman

Welome back to the fray Justoneman, I was feeling a little isolated for a while there.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: kennyb72

Your whole point of CO2 levels being insignificant has been shown to be wrong.

Did you actually write your previous posts where you tried to pass the blame on the CO2 increase on human population?(that claim is flawed for many reasons, one important note being that we have caused the extinction and great population reductions of many of our fellow CO2 exhaling organisms, in other words the bio-mass of CO2 exhaling creatures has not increased. If I really get bored I could maybe even run through some numbers to show this to be the case.)

So now what? You are accusing someone of comprehension difficulties.

The 40%+ increase of CO2 is directly related to our burning of natural gas, coal, and oil. Either accept it or remain ignorant.

By whom has it been proven, the liars at the IPCC with NASA's help?

look closely at this movie or be embarrassed by your willful ignorance, this is being spouted in Europe and the rest of civilization is catching on to the liars and you can witness it with your own eyes, ears and mind at these links I provide here.

The trailer
www.youtube.com...
The whole movie

www.youtube.com...

Put that in the alarmist pipe because THE GIG IS UP ON THE IPCC and the man(n) made Global warming scam, UP I promise you.

a reply to: kennyb72

You seem to hold that persons opinions very high and when it is shown that his credentials are subpar for his feild you claim someone is trying to dismantle his reputation.

Let me ask why is it you don't consider the opinions of those in the field which have far better credentials than him to be as or more valid?

When Ball tried to sue another for bringing to lite his subpar credentials calling it libelous the defense filed this.

"...that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming....

"The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

"The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

His response was dropping his lawsuit. That says a lot as well.


If you don't feel like addressing the subject matter that is fine, but there is no need to try to make me the subject matter. That is yet another logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. If you wish to debate topics clearly and rationally I recommend that you familiarize yourself with them so you can avoid using them in the future.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Grimpachi

Winner winner chicken dinner.
I didn't know he was that much of a piece of work and look he is a bit like Ken Ham to him evolution is a scam as well.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

You do realise that he fully denies any association with Exxon, and this is the typical kind of smear campaign that happens to anyone who falls foul of official policy. It is little wonder that so few scientists speak out.

So basically you're saying, he is a piece of work because he does not share your views. NICE!

ETA: It would appear after further investigation that Exxon approached Friends of Science with funding because they where skepticle of climate change science which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Can't really discredit the science unless they can make a whack at the messenger is how this hoax works. If the messenger is a bad man they can't use their data is the plot, but their man(n) has been shown to do many things bad in this. Shame on them. I will point to them when the people come after me with pitchforks for making my living as an environmentalist who collects and analyzes DATA for meal money.

What about Dr Bill Gray or this economist who summarized the financial side of the IPCC's lie?:

www.breitbart.com...


I AM SAYING they are abandoning the hoax because they NOW KNOW BETTER to trust the IPCC and those politicians lining their pockets with our gold from our bankaccounts (so to speak of course) !!!!!

search.tb.ask.com...

List of dissenters

search.tb.ask.com...

search.tb.ask.com...

(Special thanks to the moderator)

originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
This is the most important thread on ATS ever. This should be posted as a reading comprehension test for membership. Well done.

Yep took ME a couple of posts to figure it out. My 1st post i was looking up MC's comments on my thread and thought he turned , was going to say wow, But in the end I couldn't find em so they were on another thread I guess? When they weren't on my Feb 9th thread, i assumed (uh oh) he had to be about the truth all along. Guess he is not after all huh? tsk tsk. Igot some clues quickly and realized my error but a big one is where he quotes from now untrustworthy places that have had a chance to know what I know about the dissent from within the IPCC.

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

Grimpachi


You can't say all this about ALL these scientists that we are able to provide you AND then, attempt to keep the "dr" Mann 's as your men can you?
The hypocritical nature of people like that.

A primer on Hypocrisy:

hwww.merriam-webster.com...

a reply to: Grimpachi

You seem to hold that persons opinions very high and when it is shown that his credentials are subpar for his feild you claim someone is trying to dismantle his reputation.

Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.

Let me ask why is it you don't consider the opinions of those in the field which have far better credentials than him to be as or more valid?

Because I hold truth in much higher regard than credentials.

When Ball tried to sue another for bringing to lite his subpar credentials calling it libelous the defense filed this.

The very fact that he attempted to sue for libel tells me he had a legitimate grievance. God only knows what pressure was put to bear to silence him but I am sure you will not find that on the internet.

If you don't feel like addressing the subject matter that is fine, but there is no need to try to make me the subject matter. That is yet another logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. If you wish to debate topics clearly and rationally I recommend that you familiarize yourself with them so you can avoid using them in the future.

Here is another definition for you
arrogant
ˈarəɡ(ə)nt/
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with them so you can avoid using them in the future.

No, I'm fine thank you.