Tim Ball

[agstar77]

Speaking at Mb. Special Crops symposium Feb 10.

[mustardman]

Wanna bet they didn't have to pay for his services.
Whats better for an agshow than to have speakers who will work for free. To spread the climate change denying campaign that has been working well.

[Choice2U]

It's -30 here today.....pretty normal as I see it but I guess I have my head in the frozen ground suffering from anaerobia because of the saturated soils and haven't seen the light of the impending doom and gloom. I am still waiting for the doom and gloom predictions from acid rain & holes in the ozone layer which I'm convinced sheep like Mustard followed. PS. Could someone show me the research that shows that the vary rare solar minimum we are going through has had no contribution to the extremes we see in our climate and that it must only be our C02 contributions.

[furrowtickler]

They are not denying climate change, just the b/s global warming. Climate change happens every day in every part of the world, it is a fact of life. The whole issue should just be summed up in polution control. Climate changes happen due to solar activity(sun spots) always has, ans always will.

[mustardman]

Choice2u and furrowtickler glad to have such respected scientists as yourselves on this thread. LOL

Hows that peer review coming from the boys at the coffee shop ? I would imagine they are all on side with you?

Oh by the way the acid rain catastrophe was ended due to People acting and getting muzzles on the coal stacks in the U.S and the cfc ban helped the ozone hole problem.

[furrowtickler]

So what is it, global warming, pollution control or climate change that you are concerned about?

[gregpet]

You mean like IPCC peer reviewed science?

[URL="http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly"]I don't trust them[/URL]

Quote

"Recall the mocking tones of the warmists as they claimed again and again that "deniers" had little "peer reviewed" research to back their claims or doubts. You would be excused if you thought that peer review was some kind of gold standard that every single warmist clung to ... you'd be forgiven, but still misled:

In the words of those quoted above, the use of grey literature is essential, necessary, and unavoidable in the preparation of IPCC reports. According to these people, the IPCC has relied on grey literature extensively for some time.

So confident of their peerless review are some, that they've issued an edict ... vote GOP and die."

[gregpet]

How about this one mustard?

[URL="http://http//wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/"]I call it manipulation[/URL]

An interesting read.

The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2.

Sounds like the earth just has a cycle that happens, I think related to the sun's activity, and CO2 has very little if anything to do with it.

[gregpet]

I'll try the link again.

[URL="http//wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/"][/URL]

[gregpet]

Last chance

<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
" target="_blank"> Last try</a>

Here is the link just in case

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/

[a2farms]

Mustard, he did not speak for free. I was there and it was worth every penny. There was even some fireworks!