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

Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:54 PM

originally posted by: stirling
The manipulation goes on......We are mere prawns ......

I will for the record submit that Boston just had a record snowfall
for the last 7-day period; and it probably has everything in the world
to do with climate shift, caused by solar activity in the largest part.
But how the sun shines or does not is allegedly our fault now, since we
are aware of it. Watch the ice caps on Mars, Al... just sayin'.

It amuses me how much magic is being used in an attempt to
hornswaggle us into more taxation-- this by scientists. SHAME.
edit on 2-2-2015 by derfreebie because: This is no time to bring up District 9... Gragpdfthik. but I loved it

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:16 PM
a reply to: derfreebie


Because of the big snowstorm in the Northeast CONUS you draw this conclusion:

It amuses me how much magic is being used in an attempt to
hornswaggle us into more taxation-- this by scientists. SHAME.

That is the typical kind of statement for those who refuse to believe that humans need to be concerned about the environment that we are changing and in some ways destroying.

It is a SHAME that I have to share a planet with so who can just play this off as a trick to raise our taxes.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:24 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

No it wasn't.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:33 PM

originally posted by: amazing
Serious question.

What do you call it when you focus on one small detail that may or may not be in error, instead of focusing on the bigger picture? I see that a lot in these debates, as well as other conspiracy theories etc.

What are the benefits and pitfalls of this tactic? If we focus too much on Mann for one example. Does that help with the debate or get us to truth or does that derail us and waste our time?

From wiki:

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.


Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuality.

I hope that helps.

It does appear this thread has been derailed.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:51 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

True enough, but 50 million years ago would NOT have seen the difference in solar radiance you and others are trying to push. You are just repeating the mantra because...that's what you do.

Show me some research, data collected, or ANYTHING that would suggest that 50 million years ago solar radiance was below what it is today by...say, more than 1-2% maximum. 50 million years compared to the life cycle of the sun is nothing. Try again.

Ummm…how about you try again?

No, solar output was not much lower 50 million years ago, but 50 million years ago was also the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, when temperatures were much warmer than today. In fact the PETM is considered one of the best analogs we have for global warming associated with rapid release of greenhouse gases:

New Finding Shows Climate Change Can Happen in a Geological Instant - What happened 55 million years ago is happening today, geologists say

Again, didn’t you say you’re a Geologist?

Furthermore – I already gave you a very comprehensive link on stellar evolution. So why don’t you try and do some reading yourself instead of dismissing everything with the wave of a hand, and then hypocritically declaring it’s others that are repeating the mantras?

That pdf contains a formula on pg 7 here:

This formula gives luminosity as a function of time. I plugged in the late Ordovician because that’s the era skeptics always reference when claiming CO2 levels don’t match up with paleoclimate. The Sun was about 4 billion years old at the time. Plugging that number in gives ~97% of what it is today.

This is slightly more than what actual papers I’ve seen report it as, which usually have a range between 3.5-5%.

But I’m not a solar physicist so I don’t know the finer details. The stellar evolution pdf also gives a numerical model estimate that would put luminosity during the Ordovician at around 90%, so maybe the real answer is a balance between the two.

The point is though that there’s plenty of information for you to digest yourself instead demanding I do your homework for you. Maybe if you just quit with all the hand-waving and parroting of denier blog spam, and go check out what actual Geologists say would be a good start no? Just a suggestion.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:10 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

I have an idea about you and apparently there is much insecurity involved.

Lol I'd argue it's more masochism, repeatedly putting up with the same deranged memes and trying to reason with the unreasonable...

But you can theorize all you want about my motivations chief! At the end of the day it's about denying ignorance, and if you want to come in here spamming all sorts of misinformation, without backing any of it up (you've so far only presented one "paper", which I already demonstrated is not peer-reviewed and contains huge mistakes), but then continuously talk down to others about how naive they apparently are - don't start crying when you receive the same lack of respect back.

So let's stick to the science then - I'm still waiting for you to address the points in the other thread. I explained how man's contribution is nearly 100% of rising greenhouse emissions and how you're being entirely dishonest by trying to marginalize it against the natural carbon cycle. I already provided plenty of data there to back this up (and have waaay more where that came from if need be).

So far you haven't provided anything of any merit, just a lot of hand-waving conjecture and dismissal.

So please go ahead - walk the walk then.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: grey580

The truth will set global warming scamming side free,

But people doesn't listen.

Global warming the biggest hoax of the century, is real is happening and is not new, but this time is so much money to be made that it needs to be pushed to the limit.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:37 PM
a reply to: Kali74

Are you saying that we should NOT question the science behind AGW?


We call that religion.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:58 PM
a reply to: grey580

Back on topic, here is another fine exemple of a "well" maintained temperature station.


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:09 PM
a reply to: grey580

Another few ones, I'm quite sure they will be "adjusted"...

Lodi Fire

Petula West



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: mbkennel

Excellent questions...all illustrate the basic issue that there is no single component that controls glaciation to the exclusion of all others. (and hence, by definition climate change)

In my researching, I have run across more cycles than one can shake a stick at...and documenting, correlating them all would be an exceedingly daunting which I am not willing to devote the time to no matter what the result would be.

My hypothesis is a rather simple one: That man is not fully responsible for the rise in co2 and temperatures as typically portrayed. I do not doubt that he has had an impact, but to what degree? I try to keep an open enough mind to allow me to read studies that run counter to my hypothesis and possibly include those results in my opinions. If one cannot look at the evidence, if one cannot look at the data and not be open to all the possibilities then one will find oneself doing nothing but mindlessly parroting ideas that are not one's own.

I accept nothing hypothetical as factual, contrary to the many parrots on both sides of the question at hand.....I am also unique, in some ways, in that I believe that it is man's responsibility to be a good steward of his home. In the same breath, I also believe that man should not be blindly accepting of every fad, doom porn and propaganda issued by TPTB.

The climate question is one that has questionable presences on both sides of the fence. You have big oil interests on one side, while on the other you have those who are heavily invested in a green revolution that when you dig into it you find much less green than is displayed on the surface. You find misleading propaganda coming from both sides.

In this case, I find myself considering that perhaps the "truth" is somewhere in between. Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is most often the correct one. We have 2 warring sides, both issuing propaganda and both misrepresenting the facts at times. Therefore it seems logical to me that both extremes are....extremes and the "truth" is centered.

Time will tell, I suppose, but in the meantime I will continue to read, to post, to learn.

Nothing is sacred in science, save truth.
edit on 2-2-2015 by bbracken677 because: clarification

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: grey580

Ah and this link, probably by an evil republican that does not understand anything to "the science" have some good "splaining":

Evil anti-mother Earth propaganda

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

Just speculation somewhat based on my formation in control theory, but what if the Earth water cycle is a semi-critical system, or maybe an unstable oscillating one? And the oscillation period is based on latency and hysteresis of ice advance and land exposure due to varying level of ocean? The ice advance and retract on a cyclical period if I'm not mistaken?

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:32 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

You did not demonstrate, you merely failed to find it's publication. If you demonstrate something, it should be more demonstrative than simply stating just because it is on arXiv does not mean it is peer reviewed.

Your "huge mistake" is merely your reading comprehension. Antarctica ice cores can, by definition, only truly reflect the climate in Antarctica. This is understood (at least by everyone else). The part you quoted makes zero mention of global climate, and yet you chose to make it so....that is your problem, sir, not theirs.

Any conclusions regarding global climate using Antarctic ice cores are hypothetical and the changes in the data over time are more important on a global scale/view than the actual data points points which are FROM Antarctica. It is quite disengenuous that you would present your "debunking" in such a facile and dubious method. Once again, you are extrapolating meaning where there is none. Try not to beat a horse because it is not an elephant.

So...let's stick to the science then. Indeed. Let's do that and leave the nastiness and aggression for others.

You keep saying that I am "spamming misinformation" and yet every time you "prove it misinformation" it is as misrepresentation yourself.

Demonstrate, once again, how this paper is not published and not peer-reviewed?

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:40 PM
a reply to: grey580

Here is a nice FLIR imaging of the surrounding of a station:




edit on 2015-2-2 by PeterMcFly because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:48 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

The period you mention know what happened at the end, right?

50 million years ago was when the current ice age began.

Yes, I am a geologist. Do you actually know what geologists do?

Personally....I stay away from one sided blogs. I have never seen the material I have presented in "denier blogs" for the simple reason, as previously stated, that most of the extremist crap is just that. Virtually all of my material has a geology bent to it, since that is what I am familiar with. Although my career had nothing to do with glaciation, paleotemps, co2 levels etc. Precioius few geologists are involved in such research.

Regarding the paper...I fail to see the "denier" aspect of it. Did you even bother to read it? Based on your remarks, I sincerely doubt it. It is actually an explanation as to why the glacial periods ended and suggests that, since co2 followed temperature changes, and milankovitch cycles have a few well documented problems with regards to explaining fully the cycles of glaciation, that perhaps cosmic rays (affecting cloud production) explains/fills in the gaps that milankovitch cycles do not explain. There is nothing, lol, repeat nothing that is denier about the article. At least, not in the way I would define denier.

But...I wave my hands and expound nonsense. lol

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:51 PM
a reply to: mc_squared

By the way...apparently you made zero effort to discover publication and review. It took me google and about 5 seconds to locate the information.

Publication: Journal of Climatology
Volume 2014....

Want the rest of the publication information? Article ID 345482


So...exactly how did you demonstrate that the paper was neither published nor peer reviewed?????

edit on 2-2-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:54 PM
a reply to: grey580

Way to misinterpret.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:38 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677

My hypothesis is a rather simple one: That man is not fully responsible for the rise in co2 and temperatures as typically portrayed. I do not doubt that he has had an impact, but to what degree?

We will never be able to prove the temperature rise in our short lifetimes by a reasonable doubt by a statisticians standards.

However the link between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and man's activity is obvious to most. We are also changing many other aspects to this planet in search of gold, oil, coal, and other valuable goods. I think we have reached a point in our civilization that we can stop destroying the planet.

The economic backlash only effects those with interests in mining the mentioned valuable goods. Maybe about 1% or so of the population will suffer great economic losses, that part of the population also being the wealthiest.

edit on 2-2-2015 by jrod because: be

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

Well then - thank you for digging up a proper reference. I searched by title and author and found absolutely nothing through the googles.

However I still stand by what I wrote earlier and am quite skeptical this would pass a proper peer review. This Journal of Climatology itself seems to be a completely obscure open access journal and their parent publisher Hindawi has a less than stellar reputation in it. See for example some of these google results that came up when I looked for more info:

Predatory Publishing
Hindawi: Another Dodgy OA Publisher

But that’s just garnish, because my main case still lies in the content of the paper itself. So before you attack my reading comprehension skills again, please just go and re-check the part I quoted before. I underlined part of it for you this time:

There is another compelling argument that can be given to support this hypothesis. Sime, et al. have found that past interglacial climates were much warmer than previously thought. Their analysis of the data shows that the maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340 kyr were between 6 C and 10 C above present day values. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that past interglacial carbon dioxide concentrations were not higher than that of the current interglacial, and therefore carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for this warming. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide that would be needed to produce a 6-10 C rise in temperature above present day values exceeds the maximum (1000 p.p.m.v.)

So if the author’s just constraining the 6-10 C rise to Antarctic climate, even though the paragraph simply references "interglacial climates" and makes no mention of the Antarctic part, then please explain why is he connecting this phenomenon to global CO2 concentration in the same paragraph? I like how you blame it on my poor reading comprehension skills though - when the only reason I even made the connection to Antarctica is because I went and actually checked the paper's references after.

Localized temperatures, especially in polar regions, could have all sorts of other explanations and would really say nothing about what the overall CO2 concentration must be. It’s a completely unfair comparison and it does not “support” the hypothesis as the paragraph states. It's really a non-sequitur - so if it wasn't put in as an outright bait and switch tactic then it should have been at the very least flagged for clarity during peer review.

And why I got the strong whiff of denialism is because this is a classic denier move. Ever seen this graph before:

It's a wattsupwiththat classic, and people post it on ATS all the time as "proof" of how insignificant modern warming is.

Except it's been completely bastardized for dishonesty. Because it's only for Greenland and just shows how much local temps can swing wildly compared to global average. Also it actually only goes up to 1855 AD, not 2000, but that's neither here nor there right now. Point is the paragraph in question reeks of the exact same bait and switch.

So no, I did not read the rest of the paper, because once I got to this part I started to get the impression I was severely wasting my time, but I will go back and have another look.

But I'd love for you to explain further how this extremely sketchy paragraph is apparently just due to my poor comprehension. Please enlighten me

new topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in