It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

I am well aware of biology. Thank you very much. I am married to a man who has dual degrees in biology and microbiology.

Please condescend more. It is quite entertaining.



Just throwing it back at you. So you should have better insights then having a husband with such credentials. My brother had a full scholarship to university of chicago for physics. Has a phd and works as a wether modeler. Not for climate change but how it affects the market. He also has a ba in molecular biology. So i have some second hand knowledge too.




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I highly recommend you format in a way that makes it readable.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: luthier


The United states has made huge strides towards cleaning up the environment in my lifetime. I'm 43
Nothing is perfect but progress is being made.


The difference really is extraordinary and we can thank the environmental movement and citizen activism for the change, not the federal government.

Green peace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘I fear a global cooling’ – Rips Obama for ‘hollow’ climate claims



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You cannot preserve everything that is or was and new things will be. That is the nature of evolution.

Since we have only been paying attention for such a brief span of time, you cannot say with any certainty if what we are observing are normal rates of extinction or not for many of those species. There is simply no way to know what all the niche species were in the extinct biospheres of prehistoric times. Your kidding yourself if you think we have the complete fossil record of every one.

We still don't know every living species out there today.



Koala's and cheetahs come to mind here....they are self exterminating.

Cheetah's have basically no genetic diversity, o e illness will kill all.

Koala's can o ly eat 1 plant eucalyptus.... This is obviously not a good thing for any animal.

Many species put themselves out of the life cycle, others don't adapt to changing conditions, others are wiped out by plants or animals that they can't defend against, others by natural disasters.....

Why is it these folks only think it is bad if man, a work of nature, which gave us a big brain and tool using mentity and body, does it?

I don't get this.

Us killing a species is no different than a volcano or a t Rex killing a species.

The species is gone because it couldn't adapt.

Us doing it or any other cause is no different.


Your absolutely right as long as you are ok with putting us up there with other extiction events like volcanoes. We may just adapt ourselves right out of a habitat.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You cannot preserve everything that is or was and new things will be. That is the nature of evolution.

Since we have only been paying attention for such a brief span of time, you cannot say with any certainty if what we are observing are normal rates of extinction or not for many of those species. There is simply no way to know what all the niche species were in the extinct biospheres of prehistoric times. Your kidding yourself if you think we have the complete fossil record of every one.

We still don't know every living species out there today.



Koala's and cheetahs come to mind here....they are self exterminating.

Cheetah's have basically no genetic diversity, o e illness will kill all.

Koala's can o ly eat 1 plant eucalyptus.... This is obviously not a good thing for any animal.

Many species put themselves out of the life cycle, others don't adapt to changing conditions, others are wiped out by plants or animals that they can't defend against, others by natural disasters.....

Why is it these folks only think it is bad if man, a work of nature, which gave us a big brain and tool using mentity and body, does it?

I don't get this.

Us killing a species is no different than a volcano or a t Rex killing a species.

The species is gone because it couldn't adapt.

Us doing it or any other cause is no different.


This is false and shows a misunderstanding of the fragile nature of our biosphere and how we are interdependent with its health.

The fact of the matter is that we are causing the greatest damage possible (excepting some epic wipeout scenario like a giant asteroid strike or something) to the environment. By causing species extinction rates on a level beyond even the time of the dinosaurs, we are gravely endangering ourselves and the future health of al species.

Even from a selfish perspective, it very much does matter.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
It is only to show people the topic list in the document so that they can see that it addresses many denier claims. People should click the link and go to the document.

But, I did follow your advice and reformat it. Thanks.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.


There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

It is a local concern.

This is why there are, or should be, standards imposed on goods brought from countries that refuse to impose standards. Also we have our own standards on foods caught in our waters.

However, I must ask you - if China is such a problem, how is punishing the US even more going to address that?



That is the biggest joke perpetrated on the US of all

that the US is causing all the problems

when it is China whose air is so bad they may have to evacuate Bejing

Is China being punished for the air quality so bad that children can not play outside?
And the US has to cut it's "carbon emissions" because of China???

www.theguardian.com...

The babies among the responders don't know what the air was like in the 70's, horrid and far far far worse than today, as was the water, and there were far fewer trees too. The US has done a remarkable and commendable job of cleaning up the environment. And now the mantra is that the US must pay for what the communist countries refuse to do in cleaning up.
Fraud again, just to control the populace and extort money from the little people in the form of carbon credits.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

It is a local concern.

This is why there are, or should be, standards imposed on goods brought from countries that refuse to impose standards. Also we have our own standards on foods caught in our waters.

However, I must ask you - if China is such a problem, how is punishing the US even more going to address that? Curtailing what we do isn't going to change what China does. What you're saying is that if you have a big tumor in the right lung, you ought to cut off part of the left lung to make it better.



I am not for carbon taxing or anytype of taxation. In fact i am for incentives and tax breaks for creating artifacts that solve problems. I am well aware of the global warming scam. I just cant sit by and say everything is fine. Its not. We are only producing useless junk that creates waste and we have more people globally producing waste and consuming every day. At some point the conversation needs to happen what happens when india and china reach us consumption levels?

You also fail to address animal migration and currents.
edit on 9-2-2015 by luthier because: sp



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.


If they focused on the last 800 years they would have factored the medieval warm period, where wine grapes were grown in england...tell me how many wine grapes can be grown in England today?

Exactly..
It was much warmer then than now.....

Thanks for saying anyone not in climate science can't undeslrstand the science.

If you aren't in auto mechanics you can't repair cars.

If your not in computer engineering you can't replace a video card.

If your not a professional football player you can't understand the game.


Now that we established that is a retarded freaking statement...let's try to talk facts.

There is nothing about this debate someone well versed in science and reasonably smart can't understand.

Even string theory, quantum physics and astrophysics can be understood by a large percentage of folks with any sense.

This is less comex than any of these subjects.

Do not condescend to me. I bet my IQ and science education trump yours, while you try to tell me I am not smart enough to understand a rudimentary subject like climate change.
edit on 9-2-2015 by infinityorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp



Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.


There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.


Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

There are examples of creatures like Terror Birds that went extinct because of increased competition. They could not adapt to newer predators who moved in on their turf. In the case of the Terror Bird, I believe it was N. American felines that are currently thought to be the prime suspect.

Does that make the N. American prehistoric feline an ELE like volcanos?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Well, although I do agree that global warming is part of an agenda and agendas usually include misinterpreted information, I believe we should take better care of our planet. Especially dumping unnatural chemistry into the environment. Manmade chemicals should be banned as should all genetically modified organisms. They shouldn't be crossing unrelated plant DNA with other plant DNA either, even though this is not considered GM at all and the companies do not have to disclose what is being used because of patent protection. Even wheat is being modified, as long as they don't tie ragweed genetics to it I don't care so much but there is no way of knowing what they are doing, it is a trade secret.

That is life I guess, we have no control over what is done, if you get allergic to something, start wondering what unknown changes are being thrown on us.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp



Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.


There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.


Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?


Anarchist not Anarcho-Communist. For one thing I don't see addressing climate change now as any more authoritarian than anything else going on with governments these days. No suggested policies or new taxes (revenue neutral by the way) will change anything for we the people.

What happens of we do nothing and you are wrong? The change in Earth's overall temperature throws weather systems off, there's seal level rise with both major droughts and major flooding throughout the world. You want to talk about Totalitarianism? When millions and millions need to migrate or starve how do you think governments of the world are going to respond?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.


If they focused on the last 800 years they would have factored the medieval warm period, where wine grapes were grown in england...tell me how many wine grapes can be grown in England today?

Exactly..
It was much warmer then than now.....

Thanks for saying anyone not in climate science can't undeslrstand the science.

If you aren't in auto mechanics you can't repair cars.

If your not in computer engineering you can't replace a video card.

If your not a professional football player you can't understand the game.


Now that we established that is a regarded freaking statement...let's try to talk facts.

There is nothing about this debate someone well versed in science and reasonably smart can't understand.

Even string theory, quantum physics and astrophysics can be understood by a large percentage of folks with any sense.

This is less comex than any of these subjects.

Do not condescend to me. I bet my IQ and science education trump yours, while you try to tell me I not smart enough to understand a rudimentary subject like climate change.


Lol. Not even close. Your funny. So your anticdotal grape evidence proves what? I am not even a climate change believer in the traditional sense but that is so ridiculous. People who use one example from history is pretty funny. Also grapes need a particular climate and soil not only heat. Its not exactly warm in oregon where they grow grapes, or argentina, chile..

You cant just take small refrences out of a large study. What the previous poster said was all this was taken in account and still anomolies were found. I cant confirm or deny this because i have a backround in science and an iq at least as high as yours so i
know in order to refute evidence you first need to read the report(understand it) do all the math, check the sources etc. Cause thats how science and peer review works.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.


If they focused on the last 800 years they would have factored the medieval warm period, where wine grapes were grown in england...tell me how many wine grapes can be grown in England today?

Exactly..
It was much warmer then than now.....

Thanks for saying anyone not in climate science can't undeslrstand the science.

If you aren't in auto mechanics you can't repair cars.

If your not in computer engineering you can't replace a video card.

If your not a professional football player you can't understand the game.


Now that we established that is a regarded freaking statement...let's try to talk facts.

There is nothing about this debate someone well versed in science and reasonably smart can't understand.

Even string theory, quantum physics and astrophysics can be understood by a large percentage of folks with any sense.

This is less comex than any of these subjects.

Do not condescend to me. I bet my IQ and science education trump yours, while you try to tell me I not smart enough to understand a rudimentary subject like climate change.


Your science education does not.

I am a former science teacher with a masters in science education.

Not only that, climate change science is FAR from rudimentary, and actually incredibly complex. The fact that you think it is would support my contention that in fact, you don't have a strong understanding of it. It is in no way shape or form the same as my fixing my own tv or changing the battery in my car.

It is hilarious to watch a bunch of lay people or people with a chemistry degree or engineering claim they suddenly know more than thousands of scientists with PHDs regarding one of the most complex scientific systems we know of on this planet.

Please address this science paper which addresses 99% of all of your contentions.

Then let's talk. nas-sites.org...
edit on 9-2-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

There are examples of creatures like Terror Birds that went extinct because of increased competition. They could not adapt to newer predators who moved in on their turf. In the case of the Terror Bird, I believe it was N. American felines that are currently thought to be the prime suspect.

Does that make the N. American prehistoric feline an ELE like volcanos?



Lol thanks BTW...my son is studying to be a paleintoligist and we watched a show about terror bird a few months back....I had nightmares of giant chickens chacing me for weeks.....brr...send a cold chill through me thinking about it.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, although I do agree that global warming is part of an agenda and agendas usually include misinterpreted information, I believe we should take better care of our planet. Especially dumping unnatural chemistry into the environment. Manmade chemicals should be banned as should all genetically modified organisms. They shouldn't be crossing unrelated plant DNA with other plant DNA either, even though this is not considered GM at all and the companies do not have to disclose what is being used because of patent protection. Even wheat is being modified, as long as they don't tie ragweed genetics to it I don't care so much but there is no way of knowing what they are doing, it is a trade secret.

That is life I guess, we have no control over what is done, if you get allergic to something, start wondering what unknown changes are being thrown on us.


I am IO and I approve everything in this message


Oh damn elections are next year.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

There are examples of creatures like Terror Birds that went extinct because of increased competition. They could not adapt to newer predators who moved in on their turf. In the case of the Terror Bird, I believe it was N. American felines that are currently thought to be the prime suspect.

Does that make the N. American prehistoric feline an ELE like volcanos?



Again its anecdotal not scientific. When this event you describe happened did it also wipe out insects, microbes, flaura, and fauna at the same time? Nope. You are talking about first of all a hypothisis of extiction of birds. I am talking about polution that kills several different forms at once from micro to macro.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
With all due respect, I think that you are wrong that most climate change believers don't understand life systems or cycles.

In fact, one of the main dangers of climate change is that it will shift climactic zones and basically destroy many many habitats, hence killing off many species or disrupting ecosystems and life cycles. Then too, food systems and agriculture will be threatened, greatly increasing the odds of food shortages, etc.

This is all talked about a great deal.

Remember, climate change is dangerous for the effects (food security, ecosystem destruction, droughts, extreme weather, etc), not just because it may happen.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join