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.


Next Level BS #13: Good Guy Tony Abbott, Paul Ryan on Climate Change, and Fangate!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:51 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Do you have any idea of the irony in your post when you say something like this.

cientists affiliated with the IPCC, which is an organization with a clear agenda. The IPCC has been proven to draw conclusions first, then manipulate data to conform to their agenda.

Then you subsequently post an article from WUWT a site funded by The Heartland Institute and is guilty of everything you just complained about.

Never mind the irony is probably lost on you even now.

Do you have any concept of irony. The title of the charts says OPINIONS of scientists.... You do know that opinions are like a part of your anatomy that everyone has and which has about a much to do with the science of climate change as - well, your anatomy which you sit on daily and occasionally apparently you speak through.

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

You know I respect you as a poster and a person. Speaking from my heart, it seems as though you're starting to go wrong, and I'm sad to see it.

Oh, not your opinions. I don't care whether we agree or not, the discussion, the learning is the thing. And it's perfectly fine and natural that you feel strongly about your beliefs. But sometimes passion can pull us away from what we really intended.

In your post to InTheFlesh1980 about "irony," your passion may be steering you wrong. You ignore the factual statement and start to go after the poster. You say his source has an agenda, he says the same of yours. Isn't that pretty standard in these types of discussions? Springer doesn't believe any of them, at least the question is still up in the air.

But InTheFlesh1980 says:

The IPCC has been proven to draw conclusions first, then manipulate data to conform to their agenda.

That's a factual statement. If that's true, then the backbone has been ripped out of Global (whatever). Do you want to see his facts? Do you have evidence that he's wrong? That seems like a more fruitful discussion.

Aren't we beyond the "Yeah? But he did it too," and "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you," level of discussion? Both of you have brains, I'd like to see you working together on a factual level, rather than attacking.

I hope this doesn't hurt my chance of coming down for a visit if i ever get the money.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:04 PM
a reply to: charles1952

Thanks for replying Charles and I understand what you are saying about my comment about WUWT but as you know in the past even with you in the last thread I authored about the 13 misconceptions about climate change where you posted a copy paste rebuttal from WUWT I did go line by line looking up the facts showing how Watts misrepresented or cherry picked everything. It took quite a while to chase all those rabbits down their holes it was even hard to find the sources of Watts claims and data because he only gave minimal information on where they came from. I assume you were satisfied with all those things I chased down because you nor anyone else had anything further to say about Watts.

That wasn't the first time I had chased down such claims from watts to find the things he referenced didn't come close to matching his site interpreted them to say. I think it is more than human nature for people to dismiss sources when they garner a reputation such as watts.

I still don't understand why watts is even considered an authority on the matter. I have asked this in a couple threads but never got an answer that made sense actually it has never been answered. How do those opposed to AGW pick their "experts" (the term used loosely) over their equal (or more qualified) colleagues? Are choosing experts based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour?

Of course I am sure you know what watts qualifications are and you should be aware of the direct connections to Heartland and polluting industries so in retrospect to me replying to InTheFlesh1980 where he said:

stats, are primarily based on scientists affiliated with the IPCC, which is an organization with a clear agenda. The IPCC has been proven to draw conclusions first, then manipulate data to conform to their agenda.

Then in turn posted articles from WUWT of all places I think me pointing out the irony in that should be perfectly acceptable.

Apologies I just remembered one person did indirectly answer me once on how they pick their "experts". Seems there was a list of scientists that disagreed with AGW championed in an article from Breitbart which that person seemed to have a lot of faith in.

If you are wondering how I choose my "experts" I am sorry but I don't have a list of any names. I generally just try to read the most recent articles that I come across. I have about 4 science magazines that regularly feature something on it and recently even my sailing magazines have been reporting on it as far as the effects on wind patterns, currents, seasons, gulf stream, etcetera. I do like IFLScience because there are articles from all types of sources and io9. I don't have any particular names of scientists that I champion but I do look at what each scientists qualifications and fields of study are. I think those things are important.

As always with respect

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 09:02 PM
a reply to: Springer

It's all NLBS, we, "the people", will never know what's really happening until we can commission our own, FULLY independent, (exclusionary of ALL funds - Corporate, Mafioso, or Political), brilliant team to do a study.

I understand your sentiment Springer, but quite frankly it’s not anywhere near as complicated as that – and you can learn much more just by doing a little personal investigation and critical thinking.

As you guys yourselves pointed out in one of the last NLBS, CO2-driven warming was first predicted by Svante Arrhenius back in the 1890s. Arrhenius actually believed it would be a good thing (preventing the world from slipping into another ice age), so where’s the “agenda” behind his 120 year old research?

And although many of the finer details have been argued back and forth since Arrhenius, the fundamental science behind all this has never wavered - that being the very well-established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, absolutely 100% known to trap heat.

No one needs to commission some expert study on this - they really just need a couple of jars, thermometers, lamps and a few carbon atoms bonded to two oxygens atoms:

There's no need to trust any scientists – just your own eyes, really.

But meanwhile all this constant hyperbole about the science being manipulated this, politicized that, etc – is itself almost entirely manipulated and politicized propaganda coming from special interest groups who have a lot vested in keeping everyone burning hydrocarbons like whoa.

In all my time on ATS – I have found this to be far and away the most explicit and easy to prove conspiracy ever. Everywhere I’ve looked I’ve found proof after proof, and it’s not like it’s rocket science to begin with: we all know how much shady ethics surround the oil trade, and we’ve already seen this exact scenario play out before with the fake “debate” around tobacco.

In many instances the so-called skeptic scientists who’ve been leading the charge that global warming is a big sham – people like Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer for example – are literally the exact same scientists who were getting paid in the 80’s to say smoking is totally cool too.

The information is all out there for anyone to investigate themselves. There are court-obtained documents that reveal exactly what these shills have been aiming for from the start:

They have been manipulating skeptics for decades, by massaging their egos into believing they’re all cooler than a cucumber when compared to all these crazy global warming “alarmists”:

And there is so much irony and ridiculous hypocrisy infused between. I mean it was the friggin deniers who ACTUALLY switched it from “global warming” to “climate change”:

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says

Source: Guardian article from 11 years ago

Yet it never stops amazing me how many “conspiracy theorists” avoid this extremely obvious conspiracy like it just flew in from West Africa with a fever or something. But personally I think it’s because many conspiracy theorists are much more intent on believing what they want to believe, rather than denying ignorance by facing difficult facts sometimes.

Anyway, please don’t mistake this little rant as an attack – I just think you should give the topic some more leeway. Because you definitely don’t need a crack team of brilliant nerds to go out and earn PhDs so they can decipher all the secret information here, just regular ATSers who are simply lucid enough and honest enough to see things for what they are instead of what they want them to be.

So in light of this thread - I absolutely LOVE the fact you guys are standing up and calling the BS out for what it is, rather than just caving to popular conspiracy groupthink. You may not earn a lot of tinfoil hat wearing friends this way – but you are sticking to your principles of denying ignorance, and that’s what makes this site so great. Many props for that. Now just give yourselves a little more credit on this and you’ll be fine from here on out

edit on 17-10-2014 by mc_squared because: sometimes when I rant I forget to write words like "no" in places that make much more sense.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:28 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi, you are a prince among men, and I really do appreciate the time you spent looking at the information I found. As you'll remember, I started my post with:

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:

I was being serious and honest with that statement. Atmospherics are not my specialty (I'm not sure I have a specialty) and when I discovered an article which dealt solely with the video, and seemed reasonable from my non-specialist point of view, I actually did merely present it for comment. It seemed to tear big holes in the video, and I wanted your thoughts.

After I had read through your comments and checked on my own, I came back to the thread to discover that ElectricUniverse had entered into a rather technical discussion which was beyond me. I also noted that the tone, in general, had gotten pretty hostile.

I looked at you two giants fighting, and decided that I had no business in that fight, so I walked away from the thread. My departure had nothing to do with being satisfied, agreeing or disagreeing.

You did mention that you didn't care for WUWT. (although the reason, that they are funded by Heartland, seemed fairly thin.) I ran across a study that wasn't connected with WUWT that seemed interesting. Here is one sentence from the abstract:

Simulations including an increased solar activity over the last century give a CO2 initiated warming of 0.2 ° C and a solar influence of 0.54 ° C over this period, corresponding to a CO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6 ° C (doubling of CO2) and a solar sensitivity of 0.5 ° C (0.1 % increase of the solar constant).

You'll forgive me if I only provided the conclusion of a small abstract, but I thought it was interesting. It seems to say that the sun added more than 2 1/2 times the heat increase as did CO2 over the last century. Also that 0.6 seems to be a much lower CO2 climate sensitivity than used by IPCC or some (Many? Most?) of the models.

This is already to long to read (as is my habit). I'll offer my position in my next post.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:05 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

(Continued from previous post)

First, this is not a scientific debate. Certainly both sides use "Science" as a weapon, but the debate itself is political. The question is not to determine a scientific fact, we don't have sufficient data for that.

As far as the models being used to estimate the future, they leave out things like cloud activity. I'm sure you know of other factors left out of models for various reasons. The models themselves have not been terribly accurate. A simple test is to give the models the known information from, say, the start of the century, then have them predict forward to today. My understanding is that the results are not good at all.

Given that those are true, and I believe they are, why is there any arguing. The simple, scientific, thing to say is "We don't know enough. We'll keep working on it." But that is not happening, why?

I believe the answer is ideological. The people who claim that world will be doomed, or some disastrous event will occur, if we don't take immediate action and that is the only solution, seem to fall into three groups.

1.) People, scientists or not, who believe that mankind is a blot on the planet, and that everything man does on earth harms it. we have to protect the earth from man and his activities.

2.) People, scientists or not, who believe that a national, or better, global government is required to lead mankind to peace and safety. Many believe that scientists would be in that group of leaders, but the politicians are willing to let them think that. Concentrate power and money in the hands of an elite, and all will be well.

3.) As panic over global whatever is pushed, the government can put more grant money into the hands of scientists who are willing to provide the necessary results to continue their positions and still maintain their belief that human activity is bad. Extra publicity and advertising (Think An Inconvenient Truth) can be provided to keep the alarm and panic alive. (Fake stranded polar bear pictures from Science magazine, false melting Himalaya glaciers by 2035 IPCC claim.)

(Yes, I overgeneralized a little, but I still accept them as correct for the large majority of supporters of disastrous global warming.)

There is no agreement on the amount of damage, on whether preparing for the damage makes more sense than shutting down vast sections of the economy (or putting them under government control). Again, remember, the world is spending a billion dollars a day, and to hear the supporters tell it, we have to spend billions and billions more with no guarantee that the damage (whatever it is) will be prevented.

As I say, I don't believe it's science, it's now politics.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:52 AM

he's reversing efforts to promote green/renewable energy in favor of coal

Hmm let's see.

Push a technology that depends on the climate to work versus a resource that we have been using for at least a couple of hundred years. That DOES NOT depend on the climate to work.

'Seem' terrible ?

Lot's of people are going to be screaming why the eff did we ban fossil fuels when Yellowstone blows, and blankets the earth with ash that no sunlight can get through.

Better yet when them terrorists finally get a nuke, and then every one let's them 'firecrackers' off that also blanket the earth that no sunlight can get through.

But then again coal is so 'terrible' as some people would have us believe. That other countries.

Oh say like China that makes most of our 'alternative' energy crap overseas STILL using fossil fuels (COAL).

I would say alternative energy is TERRIBLE.

Because some folks don't see the cognitive dissonance of pushing technology that DEPENDS on the climate to 'work' then turn around in another breath say the climate is changing.

When politicians speak run like the 'wind'.

Because all they are blowing is HOT AIR.

If it could be bottled that would solve the world's energy crisis.

That is until some people that shall remain nameless want to TAX it, then Regulate it, and then come up with scams like 'credits'.

All around terrible.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 02:41 AM
a reply to: charles1952

Haha...thank you for the kind words Charles I wrote out a reply with links and my thoughts on the paper. Spoiler alert I am not ashamed to say after page nine my head was spinning. Then my computer screen froze. I think I had too many graphs pulled up. I am bit tired now but I will rewrite it tomorrow probably better and more to the point. You made some good points but there are things we disagree on. I am also not entirely sure what you mean by it being politics not science now. Politics isn't my strong point. For one I have been ignoring politics on this issue and almost every other one. What I mean by that is I don't listen to the politicians when it comes to science but I may make fun of them.

Anyway, I will give a proper response when after some rest.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:05 AM
a reply to: theNLBS
Star and flag. I am on the fence on climate change. Pretty much any politician is NLBS. I do however like renewable energy, wind and solar. I am hoping that it becomes more affordable. I also wonder why solar is not more affordable being how it has been around so long. Thanks for another good show.............keep them coming.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:31 AM
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

What exactly is the agenda of the IPCC? None of their contributing scientists are paid. Since the original assessment in 1990, the scientific consensus has only grown in favor of a changing global climate mostly induced by human behavior.

Just very curious what the IPCC's agenda is or would have been. I can certainly understand accentuating the fatness in their probability distribution tails - IPCC's certainty that climate disruption is human-induced - suggesting an anthropocentric cause, but why suggest some nefarious (scientifically dishonest??) agenda? And it is an absolute certainty, based on 120 years of instrument recorded data [and another 100 years or so of observed data], that the sea surface temp and over land air temps have shown more extremes in the last 30 years globally than any previously recorded periods. Same for precip. There is a clear disruption to the global climate feedback loop of a magnitude that hasn't been seen in some time on this earth...certainly not since the dawn of agriculture...or commerce.

How much of the climate disruption is human-induced may never be known for a certainty, but the greenhouse-effect is not a theory and we should, as a species, recognize the need for mitigating, and then, adapting to a changing climate. Why in the world would the lion's share of one's productive time go to challenging a known fact (greenhouse-effect) and making specious arguments about the body politic of the scientific agency operating under the auspices of a global science project is beyond me, but we've got to learn to productively disagree (man versus numerous other legitimate climate disrupters) and effectuate change. I hope future discussions regarding climate change move from the arena of blame to the arena of cooperation, mitigation, and most importantly, adaptation.


posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: theNLBS

Dodgy ? Yes !

Political ? Check !

Based on economy of scale and revenue ... ?

Umm ... which Master is being catered to ?

Punch or Judy ?

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

STOP!! NO!! Not a nine page response with graphs, please. If you have any mercy, at all. (One of the things I like about you is that we can talk together, be friendly, and even humorous, while disagreeing. Why can't anyone else on this battlefield of a thread?)

As I mentioned, the science is not beyond me, but I don't have the interest in it that people on either side seem to. As a matter of fact, out of 13 midterm election issues, climate change ranked as the least important in the minds of registered voters and 12th out of 13 on the list for which issues the Republicans do well on.

So basically, this entire thread is about an issue that voters really don't care about, but which is a solidly Democrat issue. In fact, nearly without exception, the more voters care about an issue, the more likely to favor the Republican take on it.

That's part of the reason I say this is about politics. Or, if you prefer, attitude changing. If national publicity, and NLBS, can persuade people that this is an important issue, then people will tend to drift Left. It's little bit like saying the 2nd Amendment and ID for voters is important. If people are convinced that those are vital issues, then they will go Right.
That, by the way, is why you see so many people here and elsewhere trying to minimize or mock Voter fraud and the 2nd Amendment. If they don't, people will be more likely to vote Republican.

Same thing, by the way, with those downplaying ISIS. The country is far more supportive of Republicans than Democrats on this issue. So minimizing the importance of ISIS is a Democrat goal.

I don't mind that we disagree about things here. I will gladly accept your expertise over mine. I don't have a scientific opinion of my own, I'm not knowledgeable enough. What I do have is an opinion on the recommended solutions put forth by both sides, and by the record of predictions being true.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after predictions that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997.

Science should be able to come up with something more definite about global whatever. It began to be a hot topic about 40 years ago, but still there is argument, and people have been saying for over a decade (at least) that if we don't do something now, it will be the end of the world.

When I step back and look at it a little broadly, in time and scope, the whole thing seems fishy. Still conflict, after forty years? And to claim that the only disagreement comes from the unqualified or those bought by some industry, seems like a particularly foolish conspiracy theory.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:12 PM
a reply to: charles1952

Fair enough. I have been putting off re writing that anyway I really wasn't looking forward to it. Far too many graphs with explanations. Let me say though I am glad that you followed the other thread afterwards I had to take several breaks away from it because there are some personalities I dislike dealing with. If it hadn't been my own thread I would have left it for good.

As far as the increase in ice coverage I am not sure that is entirely unexpected as I understand it the increase in fresh water on the surface will freeze sooner but will it accumulate to last through the summers is the question I have.

Hopefully soon we will have a 2014 video like this to compare.

If global mean temps start dropping and going back to the 80s I will be very happy.

As far as the politics goes I find that chart sad. Nowhere on there is anything about dealing with NDA, patriot act its like those issues are not even issues anymore. Charles I don't even own a TV so many of the issues on there are not even on my radar. To many, many of those things are what they (being media/politicians/corporations) want us to be worked up over. I try not to play their game as much as possible.

I got a mailer from the Heartland institute the other day claiming to want to know my stance on immigration with a yes or no question and several slots for donation amounts. One slot was left open to write in an amount. So instead of yes or no I wrote a short response on a sticky put it over their prefabbed answer then wrote in the amount of my donation and taped my Two pennies to it then sent it off in their no postage necessary envelope.

I am curious If I ever hear from them again.

I also got my sample ballot form already. Many of those running I had never heard of, so I already went through and looked up each and know how I plan to vote. I may get a absentee ballot because here those are counted first. No matter how this election goes I can confidently say now that it could have gone worse but we need much better.
edit on 19-10-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:46 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

I will join my hopes to yours. And as far as the TV goes, I've found that every time I look at the TV or read the papers, I'm saddened. It's really hard to find a place where people with a fair degree of knowledge on a subject can discuss it reasonably in a way to increase everyone's knowledge.

That's why I treasure you. There aren't very many posters that can do that.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:14 AM
a reply to: charles1952

It is always a pleasure to converse with you Charles even though we may not always agree on the issues we both are wanting the best outcome.

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 10:37 AM

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Here's one of the points of data we used in the show, and showed on-screen.

It certainly looks like there's not many one the "side" doubting the burning of fossil fuels are the cause.

Well, if everyone is doing it, it must be right.

Just sayin.

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:35 PM
Joe you used to mention ATS along with your own site but now that has stopped ?

I love the program, i would love it more with ATS mentioned lol

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 12:47 PM
a reply to: network dude

I would suggest that comparing scientists to lemmings blindly falling off a cliff is the pinnacle of disingenuous.

Lemmings do not willy-nilly jump off cliffs, as shown in the staged scene in Disney's White Wilderness movie. During periods of over-population, some lemmings migrate to greener pastures, and in the process, some fall of cliffs. Wildlife biologists call it mass dispersal, and the deaths are part of preserving the larger population.

So really, your comparison is accidentally somewhat apt. When there are massive die-offs during a migration, it's nature's way of saving/preserving the larger population.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Just a joke. But it kind of illustrates the rest of the undecided folks who still hold out hope that what we have is another cyclic event of which we have no control over.

Just because lots of folks buy into the "it's all our fault" side, doesn't mean that it is. Might be, but I hope not.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:07 AM
Just to put some perspective on the orders of magnitude we are discussing regarding the available global climate data set:

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. 4,500,000,000 years.

If we have 100 years of accurate climate data on all known contributing factors (CO2, solar and volcanic activity, etc, etc), we have a data set that is 0.000000000222 percent complete, less than 25 billionths of the complete data set.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have 1000 years of accurate climate data. We have a data set that is 0.00000000222 percent complete, less than 250 billionths of the complete data set. Big difference, hey?

Now let's get absurd... let's say that we have 10,000 years of accurate climate data (we have nowhere even close to that). We have a data set that is 0.0000000222 percent complete, less than 2.5 millionths of the complete data set.

So, consider a mathematical function describing climate over time with countless variables, then attempt to determine scientific causation with 2.5 millionths of the total data set.

What scientific conclusion would you trust with such minutely small information?

If you are 40 years old, can I draw reasonable scientific conclusions about your behavior based on 28 seconds of your life?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in