It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:06 PM

originally posted by: beezzer
OP, all kidding aside, you present a good case and would be a force to be reckoned with in this debate.

Beezer thank you but I will disagree on that. They already wore me down going over the same info and I am starting to get edgy so its best if I take a break. You brought up some good points worthy of honest debate.

This could have been a study for a social experiment of people actually reading OPs before posting. I am disappointed in people ATM so I am bowing out to search for some faith in humanity again.

I kid/ I still think most people are good and honest this is just a subject where it gets difficult. Time for a break.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:35 PM
No global cooling propaganda and fear mongering back in the 60's and 70's ??

Don't make me laugh...

Let's listen to Leonard Nimoy spew the fear mongering of that decade, as we all sat in front of our televisions watching this stuff actually believing it because we were snowed under 5 feet of snow and -35 celsius temperatures day after day:

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:40 PM
a reply to: beezzer
Sorry, can’t view it for some reason.
Actually can’t get any video on this computer at all

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:50 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically that means. Your sources are not based on science.

ok, how about you start by explaining "exactly" what you mean "not based", or "based on science"...

You actually think that throwing around such a phrase you prove anything at all?...

How about this, which "real science" are you talking about?

What scientific evidence do you claim supports your "belief" of AGW?... GCMs?... (General Circulation Models)

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005

PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

There is a lot more evidence that GCMs are flawed, and their models should not be seen as any "prediction" simply because they are flawed, don't take in consideration many natural factors, and as any computer program will do, if you "assume" a certain value for CO2, and tell the computer program that with more CO2 temperatures will increase more, that is exactly what the model will do, and more so, if you do not input all natural factors that affect the climate on Earth.

Here is another example of why GCMs are unreliable.

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.



Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

No wonder why GCMs predictions differ greatly with the actual observations when they don't account for many natural factors which affect the global climate.

So you tell me what "science" irrefutably proves the AGW claim.

Again, what about the fact that the Hadley Center for Climate Change has tampered with temperature data from places like Russia? Using only 25% of the stations and leaving out stations that cover 40% of the Russian territory.

The same thing has happened with the temperature data from China. Then there is the "raw temperature data" that the CRU deleted and which we can't use to verify their claims?

So you tell us, what "science" are you talking about? Climatologists use the data that these "academic groups" which have been "tampering" with temperature data gives them. There have been many who have realized that there has been tampering with this data, and they have come forward with evidence that proves this is true.

edit on 26-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add link

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:10 AM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grimpachi

Video talks about why it's not the natural cycle... 1st post: "It's natural cycles"

So, you think that some random person who has a video claiming "natural cycles are not the reason" disproves that it has been a natural cycle? Really?... lol

The graph in blue shows the increase in activity of the Sun's magnetic storms which affect the Earth including it's climate as well as Earth's magnetic field which has been weakening since around 1840-1860, and the weakening is now 10 times worse.

Then there is this...

Vol.5, No.10, 1112-1120 (2013) Natural Science
Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle
C. de Jager1, H. Nieuwenhuijzen2
1Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Formerly Astronomical Institute and SRON Laboratory for Space Research, Sorbon- nelaan 2, Utrecht, The Netherlands;
2SRON Laboratory for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan 2, Utrecht, The Netherlands;
Received 20 August 2013; revised 20 September 2013; accepted 27 September 2013
Copyright © 2013 C. de Jager, H. Nieuwenhuijzen. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribu-tion License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

We study the influence of solar activity on cli- mate by investigating the relation between the long-term components of the total magnetic flu- xes of both the equatorial and polar fields of the sun and the average terrestrial ground tempera- ture. This is done for the period 1610 (beginning of systematic sunspot observations) till present with an extrapolation to 2015. It is found that from 1610 till about the first half of the 20th cen- tury the variation of the long-term average terre- strial ground temperatures is chiefly due to the variation of solar activity, with seemingly ran- dom, non-solar residuals. Around 2007, after the Grand Maximum of the 20th century, solar activ- ity, after having gone through a remarkable tran- sition period (~2005 to ~2010), entered into an- other Grand Episode. That Episode started with the present solar cycle, in shape comparable to the equally weak Schwabe cycle #14. The tran- sition period, in combination with the present low Schwabe cycle causes that the solar con-tribution to the total terrestrial temperature vari- ation is small during the on-going decade. It re- sults in a slowing down of the rise of tempera- ture after ~2005.

Then there is the fact that as the Earth was warming, water vapor content increases in the atmosphere which causes more warming. In the Troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 only accounts for 2%-5%, and again these are estimates.

The AGW proponents will proclaim that CO2 accounts for 9%-26% and they will even give it a higher percentage. But they are talking about the total content of CO2 in all the atmosphere, including layers of the atmosphere which are much colder than the troposphere and do not affect ground temperatures. The atmospheric layer of Earth that affects ground temperatures and where all weather and climate events affects the surface of the planet is the troposphere.

But yeah, I guess some random dude making false claims in youtube must be right, instead of what the evidence actually says, right?...

edit on 26-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:27 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: marg6043

As you have clearly demonstrated repeatedly through the thread with you own short term memory.

I don't think they need to control it because you have the information in front of you and you still dont get it. Judging by the last house science committee and their ignorance on the subject though it may be feigned they are probably perfectly happy with those like yourself and the internet.

How about you stop insulting Marg and instead concentrate on debating the topic of the thread? Or is that too much to ask?...

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:46 AM
a reply to: marg6043

Hey, the AGW crowd never seem to understand that oil companies are also some of the same people making billions of dollars with the "taxes on CO2' and "cap and trade scheme".

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

I forgot to add the fact that Al Gore also has interests in 'the oil business...

Al Gore, the Oilman Who Hates Oil By Matthew Vadum | August 7, 2008 | 5:43 PM EDT

...But I digress. The above sampling of mainstream media opinion on Gore and his speech is by no means exhaustive. That said, the actual evidence suggests Gore isn't quite as noble as selfless as star-struck journalists believe. Gore is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, a venture capital firm. Kleiner Perkins pours investment dollars into green energy companies and not-so-green ones. An investment firm Gore chairs, Generation Investment Management (GIM), entered into a partnership with Kleiner Perkins to "provide funding and global business-building expertise to a range of businesses, both public and private, and to entrepreneurs." Gore makes money by promoting investments that bear the imprimatur of Kleiner Perkins and GIM - including those in the supposedly dirty oil business. So Al Gore is not only in the global warming business: he's in the oil business. This isn't Gore's first oil venture either: for years he's profited from oil investments. Like any smart businessman, he hedges his bets. If the global warming business eventually peters out, he can always make millions from black gold.

- See more at:

Or what about... According to the "carbon credits" proponents these deals will benefit humanity and we will be "able to combat the evil bad CO2 and climate change...

Carbon Trade Exchange is a global electronic exchange platform serving both the regulatory and voluntary carbon markets

With over 145 members in 22 countries, Carbon Trade Exchange offers its members a trusted and transparent electronic marketplace for buying and selling carbon credits. CTX supports the trading of carbon credits that are originated under both the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CERs) and independent voluntary standards (VERs).

But in fact what is happening is...

Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm

April 8, 2011

Ben Cubby

A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.

Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.

When pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one

But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.

The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed by shift2neutral's founder, Brett Goldsworthy.

Last February I speculated: Carbon Credit Trading, the next financial bubble to burst? That has now come to pass for U.S. markets with the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Carbon credits allow industries to emit carbon dioxide above any cap & trade regulations imposed. The carbon market exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets. It was a bubble waiting to burst. Unlike traditional commodities, which at sometime during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

Since 2005, when carbon trading was one of the fastest growing commodities, there was speculation that if the Obama administration passed cap & trade legislation, the market would grow to $3 trillion.

edit on 26-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:01 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

I'm sorry you left, I was hoping you'd be able to comment on an article which deals exclusively with the video in you OP. In fact. it seems to tear big holes in it. Here's the page:

And here are some things from it:

In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 there was no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset.

“Storms, droughts, floods, ocean acidification, sea-level rise”: The usual litany. As for storminess, the trend in severe hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones has been downward in recent decades; there has been no trend in landfalling Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years; and the U.S. has enjoyed its longest period without a major hurricane landfall since records began. There is no trend in extra-tropical storminess either, according to the IPCC’s special report on extreme weather.

As for floods, the same report, confirmed by the Fifth Assessment Report, says there is no evidence of any global increase in the frequency, intensity, or duration of floods.

As for droughts, Hao et al. (2014) show that the land area under drought has fallen slightly over the past 30 years.

As for ocean “acidification”, the ocean remains pronouncedly alkaline, with a pH around 8 (where 7 is neutral and values below 7, such as the 5.4 for rainwater, are acid). Why is rainwater acid? Because it is the “missing sink” that scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. When the rainfall reaches the ocean, it locally alters the pH at the surface by a minuscule amount. However, where rivers debouch into the ocean (as the Brisbane River does just opposite the Great Barrier Reef), pH can vary locally by large amounts: yet calcifying organisms thrive nevertheless.

As for sea-level rise, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites showed sea-level falling from 2003-2009 (Cazenave et al., 2009).

The Envisat satellite showed sea-level rising by a dizzying one-eighth of an inch during its eight-year lifetime from 2004-2012.

“13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest since records began”:
And, like it or not, there has been no trend in global temperatures for about 13.5 years on the mean of the terrestrial records and on the mean of the satellite records. Yet CO2 concentration has continued to rise at record rates. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation. The rising CO2 concentration cannot be causing the lack of warming evident over the past couple of decades.

“Not only Arctic but also Antarctic sea ice volume is declining”: Not a good moment to run this argument, given that satellites do not do a very good job of estimating ice thickness, but are at present showing a record high sea-ice extent in the Antarctic, a substantial recovery of Arctic ice even in the summer, and no appreciable change in global sea-ice extent throughout the 35-year satellite record.

And, of course, there are charts all over the place, and even more text.

While the video in the OP is very visually attractive, it is of doubtful accuracy.

With respect,

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:29 AM
What I would like to know is what has happened to the 0.4°C temperature drop between the early 1940's to around the mid 1970's - that's a 30+ year cooling trend.

But if you look at any temp graph today, they only show a slight 0.1°C drop during that 30 year cooling time period.

It has somehow magically disappeared.

That skeptical science graph linked above is showing that warming started around 1918 or so, and NASA is telling us it didn't become our fault until 1951. So basically what we are being told is that during the ongoing cooling trend happening at the time (1940's to 1970's) that it was our fault for the warming happening from 1951 ?!

25 years before the warming kicked back in ?!

However, if you have a look at what was being reported by Newsweek back in the day, you would see that they were reporting a half degree farenheit (0.4°C) of cooling had happened according to the National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

The NOAA spoke publicly about the cooling trend going on, as did the National Academy of Sciences... according to this Newsweek report.

So according to that Newsweek article, us old farts aren't losing our minds... they were actually telling us that the temps plummeted, hence the ice age fear mongering that went on during that time in our lives.

But now they're telling us we must be imagining such things because it was only a 0.1°C drop in temps and it was only a few dummies in a few newspapers who made any mention of a silly ice age threat.

We're now being told that these things are all a figment of our imagination.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 07:44 AM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Ridiculous. If someone were to ask me what the weather is like in Boston and I only gave todays temperature weather, it wouldn't be an accurate picture at all. Today's weather was low 60's and cloudy with a sprinkle here and there. Saturday is going to be in the mid 80's. That poor person would show up to Boston in July wearing a warm rain coat and arrive in 90 degree sunshine. Boston's CLIMATE on the other-hand is hot summers, cold and snowy winters, cool to hot springs and hot to cool autumns.

Then you are saying that the same people who support your arguments (NOAA) are ridiculous, I didn't write it so go take it up with them. Might want to argue with NASA too since they have the same thing to say and haven't changed it since 2005:

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time.
When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.

Your analogy is twisted and I think you are refusing to acknowledge the truth.

Of course someone only looking at today's weather would not have forecasting ability into the future without some trend, since that is what trends are used for... to predict. What is the trend built from? WEATHER. Each day's weather is mapped into a trend, which is later called climate.

I don't need to know the climate to know that the weather changes over time, that's what we have the seasons for. Your example assumes that the "someone" you refer to crawled out from under a rock or cave and never experienced seasons before, or can't look at a calendar and use common sense... it's a highly contrived example.

But let's use your example, instead with the stock market. It uses a daily measurement that fluctuates up and down. Those daily measurements are then used to show trends over time. Those trends are later called "annual returns", yet they represent the same dollars that are used to originally represent the daily fluctuations in the market based on volume.

If I told you to invest your money in the market after it tanked almost 300 points in one day (yesterday for example), you would probably say "Ridiculous". You would not have a concept of the trend of the market prior to that day, so one day on the market is not enough CONTEXT for you to make a well-understood decision. You arrived in Boston while the weather was nice and looked at the -264 point drop, and said "no way". Why?

But if I asked you to invest the same money, in the same market, and you were able to look at the trend over time, and see that even though TODAY, the market dropped -264 points... over a 1-5-10 year period, the trend is up overall. You would not look at the 264 point drop the same way once you had additional information. Why?

It's the same money either way.

It's the same temperatures either way.

It's the same CO2 either way.

The only difference between them is time.

Time doesn't change a dollar into something else just because you waited longer to look at it. It's still a dollar.

Time doesn't change a temperature measurement into something else just because you waited longer to look at it. It's still temperature.

Weather doesn't change into something else just because you waited longer to look at it. It's still weather. Climate is just a convenient term when adding the construct of time to the equation. But it's still based on weather.

This isn't a hard concept to understand. Just because you take data from a point in time and then average it or aggregate it over time, doesn't change the data... it's still weather data, which is what is required as part of the definition of climate. Changing the term to "climate" just means that we're talking about a different time frame, not about different data.

Climate is the weather, over some period of time. Please... stop trying to make it sound like climate is something different than weather or some special exception to the laws of nature and mathematics.

Tell NOAA they are wrong and share their response with the rest of us.

edit on 26-9-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: defcon5

I am sure that you are more intelligent than that, my friend, what that tax accomplish is just another tax in the confers of the state government, it doesn't clean the oceans and neither stop the pollution of them.

Please, global warming and carbon tax is a scam.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: defcon5

And neither home made videos to push agendas.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:12 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think the main point that needs further discussion is number 11. To make a quick judgement on how it all happened in the past, then switch to an in depth view of how we are doing it now, is disingenuous. There are many factors involved in this that aren't brought up often. (the affect the ocean has on global temps, why science is trying to explain away a pause in GW that most claim isn't there-not sure what number that was)

Cycles exist. They are the only constant that we have. Some folks who were anti AGW are listening to both sides, but with skepticism. And I promise, the smug, self riotous attitude of calling folks flat earhters and having their heads in the sand will only keep the divide nice and wide.

Some of us are more concerned with what steps our governments may take to "fight" this problem, when it sure seems like we need quite a bit more data to ensure we have it right. I am not sure of you have payed attention to things in the past, but anytime our government must take "swift and decisive action", we the people usually end up with a sore ass and a confused look on our faces.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:19 AM
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

What's ridiculous is your interpretation and what you choose to attack me over. None of them are saying climate and weather are the same thing. I'm not sure where you get "the DIFFERENCE between weather and climate" equals weather and climate are the same thing. Are hills and mountains the same thing because they're both mounds of earth?

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm pretty sure you've spread your nonsense in threads of mine on the topic of natural vs man made, backed with resources so it's not exactly like this video offered me a new perspective... just another dirty trick of yours. My post was about irony. Calm yourself.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:28 AM
a reply to: charles1952

Grimpachi suffers what the majority of the AGW crowd suffer. He seems to think that what that guy in the video says it's new, when it is exactly the same old, and false claims which the AGW crowd have been saying for years. Every aspect of that video has been covered in the past many times. Those points that guy in the video made are the same ones that the website "skeptical science" has, and "every one of them" has been debunked. But since the AGW relies on "blind belief" the AGW proponents will continue to "believe".

If you would notice every time you try to have a conversation with a AGW proponent, all their responses are the same, "but thousands of scientists agree with us and they must be right", etc. None of them EVER take the time to actually study Climate Change and what all the evidence actually says. Instead they will claim that 'you must be a shill for the oil cartel" "all the scientists agree with me blah, blah, blah blah".

You can't reason with them, and can't ever have an intelligent conversation about this topic because they allow their emotions to control them.

The AGW claim relies on "blind belief", so instead of discussing what the evidence shows us, if you differ in opinion you are branded and labeled as "a science denier". Even thou they cannot for the life of them explain what "magical science irrefutably proves their AGW religion", you will be branded as a "science denier". You will be branded as a "climate change denier".

To them it doesn't matter if you understand that "climate change" does happen naturally. To them it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them which proves that the changes that have been happening to Earth are "natural". To them it doesn't matter that the Sun's activity has been increasing since the early 1900s alongside temperatures on Earth. To them it doesn't matter that we know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field is now weaker than it has been in over 800,000 years +

It doesn't matter what evidence you show them, they will keep 'believing" because AGW is a religion, and it's not based on any science or facts.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of "real problems" that we need to fix, but going after CO2 will not solve any of the "real problems." You go after CO2 and essentially you are going against life on a planet where all life is carbon based, and where all life needs CO2, just like we need oxygen, and nitrogen, and water. CO2 is life on this planet, and whenever there has been more CO2 than at present, life always thrived because with more CO2 than what Earth contains right now on it's atmosphere there are more harvests, more food, and more water for humans and animals.

To the AGW proponents, it doesn't matter how many scientists, including from the IPCC, try to warn them about the truth of AGW.

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

edit on 26-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:43 AM
a reply to: Kali74

How about you TRY to explain what "nonsense" am I spreading?... How about you make ONE intelligent argument on this topic. What am I wrong about?... Explain yourself instead of believing that by just saying/writing "that's nonsense" you prove "anything".

BTW, your posts are "always the same". You never provide anything of substance to back your claims on this topic.

edit on 26-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:21 AM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

What's ridiculous is your interpretation and what you choose to attack me over. None of them are saying climate and weather are the same thing. I'm not sure where you get "the DIFFERENCE between weather and climate" equals weather and climate are the same thing. Are hills and mountains the same thing because they're both mounds of earth?

I should take your definition over theirs?

I wouldn't call it an "attack" on you over anything, I merely corrected something you said based on something 2 government agencies say differently, in writing, on their websites for climate.

Yes, hills and mountains are both mounds of earth, and they are the same for that reason alone. What makes them different is their height, something we add to differentiate them so that we don't call them both "mounds of earth that vary in height". They are still made of the same thing. They are in fact the same thing. Piles of earth. The difference is height.

Just like... climate is made of weather. The difference is that climate is composed of weather over time. How hard is that to understand?

If you add money, multiply it, divide it... it's still MONEY. Just because you call it an average... that means by definition that the average is OF MONEY. The sum OF MONEY. You are still talking about money, no matter how you want to mash it together.

If you add temperature, multiple it, divide it.... it's still TEMPERATURE. Just because you call it an average... that means by definition that the average is OF TEMPERATURE. The sum OF TEMPERATURE.

If you add ANY weather condition, or set of conditions, multiply it, average it.... it's still WEATHER. Just because you call it climate... it means by definition - the average course or condition of the weather.

I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I agree with most of your positions on cleaning up the planet and stopping pollution on many levels.

But if you go by the English language... the way that you are interpreting the definitions of weather and climate is wrong. I'm not sure how many sources I need to provide that explain that they are the same and how time is the only differentiator.


posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:30 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think everything is going to be okay. I've been reading a lot lately about how far tech is coming and just how close to (10-15 years) effective renewables, especially solar, we are. I mean we are going to have to deal with some nastiness for sure, but I think it will get under control rather than spiral out. These droning voices matter less and less.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:38 PM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think everything is going to be okay. I've been reading a lot lately about how far tech is coming and just how close to (10-15 years) effective renewables, especially solar, we are. I mean we are going to have to deal with some nastiness for sure, but I think it will get under control rather than spiral out. These droning voices matter less and less.

Amen. And Solar is getting cheaper all the time for individual houses. I just got full solar on my house yesterday. It will give me 95% off all the energy I need. Realistically, I could cut out that other 5% with better conservation techniques. I have a motorcycle that I ride a few times a week. My personal carbon footprint becomes less and less.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in