"Rich" wrote
Why would anyone argue the subject when they can attack the person.
And attacking the person is pretty much all AGW believers can do.

It was claimed that Ball was a "distinguished climatologist", but in fact
like every other "fact" presented by Warming Denialists, the "fact" turns
out to be a lie.

Ball has no credentials in Climatology, and is not a Climatologist.
Neither has he distinguished himself in any field of study.

Ball is a fraud. And so are those who attempt to use him as a reference.

"Tunderbar" wrote
lie: to disagree with any aspect of your religious beliefs

That appears to be the KKKonservative definition, yes

Karl Johanson wrote:
"In scientific circles, C02 is referred to as a `trace gas' that, for
hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five
ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. Even among the so-called
`greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
vapour being by far the most significant GHG. C02 is clearly a
miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and
cause climate change."
Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship
Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of Climatology, University of
Winnipeg

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-bal...-just-wont-die

"But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to
be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his
degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was
nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the
field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy,
not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in
these articles.He claims as well to have been a professor (again of
climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he
confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (link )
that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight
years...."

So then you're saying that CO2 is not a trace gas?

Why would anyone respect someone who disrepects themself and their own
accomplishments so much that they feel the need to lie about their
positions and qualifications?

Why would anyone argue the subject when they can attack the person.
And attacking the person is pretty much all AGW believers can do.

Why would anyone respect scientific illiterates who can do no better
than argue the person?

The most important thing to remember about liars, is that they lie.

Do you know what that word means Karl? If I say that CO2 is a trace gas,
would you call me a liar?

Do you think that if someone says something you disagree with that
they are a liar? That seems to be what AGW believers misunderstand
the word "lie" to mean.

If not feel free to prove even one lie by anyone. To date no AGW
believer has proven even one of the millions of lies they think
they have exposed.

aus groups trimmed.

Cheers,

Rich

On Mar 13, 9:36*am, Rich wrote:
Karl Johanson wrote:
"In scientific circles, C02 is referred to as a `trace gas' that, for
hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five
ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. *Even among the so-called
`greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
vapour being by far the most significant GHG. *C02 is clearly a
miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and
cause climate change."
Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship
Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of Climatology, University of
Winnipeg

*http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-bal...-just-wont-die

"But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to
be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his
degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was
nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the
field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy,
not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in
these articles.He claims as well to have been a professor (again of
climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he
confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (link )
that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight
years...."

So then you're saying that CO2 is not a trace gas?

Why would anyone respect someone who disrepects themself and their own
accomplishments so much that they feel the need to lie about their
positions and qualifications?

Why would anyone argue the subject when they can attack the person.
And attacking the person is pretty much all AGW believers can do.

Why would anyone respect scientific illiterates who can do no better
than argue the person?

The most important thing to remember about liars, is that they lie.

Do you know what that word means Karl? If I say that CO2 is a trace gas,
would you call me a liar?

Do you think that if someone says something you disagree with that
they are a liar? That seems to be what AGW believers misunderstand
the word "lie" to mean.

If not feel free to prove even one lie by anyone. To date no AGW
believer has proven even one of the millions of lies they think
they have exposed.

aus groups trimmed.

Cheers,

Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

lie: to disagree with any aspect of your religious beliefs

Ball has no credentials in Climatology,


"Rich" wrote
Neither does Al Gore. So what?

Gore doesn't claim to be a Climatologist.

Ball does. And that makes him a fraud.


Neither has Ball distinguished himself in any field of study.


"Rich" wrote
Neither have you. Neither has Roger Coppock. Neither has Al Gore.

None of whome have claimed to be "Distinguished Climatologists."

Ball's supporters however have claimed he is such.

And that makes them Frauds.


"Rich" wrote
Clearly none of them should be listened to, eh?

I don't make a habit of listening to liars and frauds.

And that is why everyone is laughing at AmeriKKKa and it's Fraud
President.


Ball is a fraud.


"Rich" wrote
That is not proven,

And that makes you a lying Fraud as well.

MMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"Rich" wrote
Why would anyone argue the subject when they can attack the person.
And attacking the person is pretty much all AGW believers can do.

It was claimed that Ball was a "distinguished climatologist", but in fact
like every other "fact" presented by Warming Denialists, the "fact" turns
out to be a lie.

Since you only argue the person, that point is not proven.

Ball has no credentials in Climatology,

Neither does Al Gore. So what?

and is not a Climatologist.

Then you should be able to respond to his arguments easily, right? And
yet you make no attempt to do so.

Neither has he distinguished himself in any field of study.

Neither have you. Neither has Roger Coppock. Neither has Al Gore.
Clearly none of them should be listened to, eh?

Ball is a fraud.

That is not proven, what is proven is that you are too pig ignorant
to argue the subject and to petty to even try.

And so are those who attempt to use him as a reference.

This reflects on you and your fellow believers V.

Cheers,

Rich