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: 8
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I have contacts with a few people in NASA as well as a few in the Met world. I studied meteorology in college and grew up on the space coast.

Be careful when you make such claim, because some of us have the resources/network to confirm or in your case call BS on the claim. No sane or intelligent person is going to believe a claim like that. The fact you got several stars on the post just shows there is likely something fishy going in this thread.

Look who is footing the bill of the top anti-climate change researchers:

www.desmogblog.com...


A billionaire “vulture capitalist” and major backer of the US Republican Party is a major funder of the think tank of Danish climate science contrarian and fossil fuels advocate Bjørn Lomborg, DeSmogBlog has found.

New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s charitable foundation gave $200,000 to Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) in 2013, latest US tax disclosures reveal.

The grant to Lomborg’s think tank is revealed in the tax form of the Paul E. Singer Foundation covering that foundation’s activities between December 2012 and November 2013.

edit on 9-2-2015 by jrod because: /..d




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: crayzeed

I do know a few people who are adamant that climate change is a hoax, scam, or liberal hippy BS so inherently evil . I've watched them in action, they are the same ones who don't think twice in throwing their fast food garbage out their car window when they are done.

Future generations(not just humans) should not be burdened because of some of us are self-centered jerks that could care less what becomes of this world after they perish.


No.

In addition, I think we already have too much governance and I believe it is in opposition to the best interests of you and me.

As for the fanaticism of the church of anti-humanism:

“The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.”

-Paul Valéry



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: crayzeed

I do know a few people who are adamant that climate change is a hoax, scam, or liberal hippy BS so inherently evil . I've watched them in action, they are the same ones who don't think twice in throwing their fast food garbage out their car window when they are done.

Future generations(not just humans) should not be burdened because of some of us are self-centered jerks that could care less what becomes of this world after they perish.


Well alot of people who know how to computer model have ran the same climat e models and they are flawed. Al gores involvement also throws a shadow of doubt on it. Govenment scientist also get grants and research money and if they ever stop researching or say they have a answer th e money train ends.

SO yeah it would be great to improve the planet but the darn thing pretty much has ups and down itself.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Ok....none of you really have a point. We as a species need to look at what we are doing and collectively make better choices. The government, specifically the US military does recognize the problem of climate change, the CO2 problem and are making plans accordingly.

It baffles me that so many posters seem to reject this reality and like to turn this into a debate and then dilute and misdirect the topic until it dies.

CO2 is increasing at a rate that we have not seen ever in human history, we are also pumping CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of industrialization and our dependence on oil, yet some still try to argue that there is no proof that human activity is causing the increase of CO2, also CO2 does indeed cause radiative forcing....

edit on 9-2-2015 by jrod because: conjugate verb



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

CO2 increasing is just because we humans are around. Until they are all unanimous scientific agreement with believable models(that are not flawed)I cannot agree with you. ALso SInce when does th e governement tell the truth?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

You are acting like CO2 is not a by product of combustion, and we as a species have an apparent addiction to using the combustion of fossil fuels to move our vehicles and power our electrical grid.

The oil companies want us to remain dependent on their product...

The link is obvious to those with open eyes, but most prefer the digital wool of celebrity gossip and such.
edit on 9-2-2015 by jrod because: playing with fire



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   



Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.



More CO2 in the air means more plant growth




posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Me stating what something is or in that instance, what it isn't doesn't mean I describe myself that way.

How are you so drastically misunderstanding everything I say?

I'm not saying only government can save the planet, I'm asking you what governments will do when the shtf with the climate. Pack up and go or slap us in chains?


The movie The Road covers it pretty clearly I would think.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




More CO2 in the air means more plant growth


And...?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

You are acting like CO2 is not a by product of combustion, and we as a species have an apparent addiction to using the combustion of fossil fuels to move our vehicles and power our electrical grid.

The oil companies want us to remain dependent on their product...

The link is obvious to those with open eyes, but most prefer the digital wool of celebrity gossip and such.



One problem with those such as yourselves is that you actually think that science itself is pure.

And you also believe that regular, normal humans are at fault for all of this.

You have no problem with the science being manipulated, as long as it saves us from ourselves,
And you think we can save the world from us regulars, everyday humans by making us stand up and fight our tyrannical governments from holding back all the beneficial technologies.

The same groups holding you back ARE in charge of the Science Academia at large, they are connected in every way.

It seems very one dimensional in scope, to believe that you are seeing things clearly.

Humans have never gotten the truth, I am not sure why you choose this as your "war to fight" cause TRUST ME , those REALLY in the know, are not worried in the SLIGHTEST.

They will decide when and where things advance, always have and always will, punishing the commoners for the sins of those we never see is beyond reproach and is truly sad.

This is how they get us to hurt one another, without most ever knowing it.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
'The common man' does not have the time to do his own research, he has to work, dig the garden, mow the lawn, paint the bathroom, look after the kids, eat, sleep, all the other thing he has to do, scientists mostly have other people to do most of that for him, plus he's paid to use huge computers to spew out any figures/graphs pie charts he wants, (or for the people who support his lifestyle), Joe Public might not have the skills needed to work his way through the maze of conflicting 'information' so Joe takes the TPTB at their word, just what else can he do?
I spend four hours a morning some days on news blogs, scientific sites, if I had to work, I just could not do that, just for an instance, eight hours sleep, eight hours at work, plus an hour for lunch, travel time an hour each way, that 19 hours out of twenty four, five hours for washing, breakfast, tea, supper, household choirs, weekends? you kidding??



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen



Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.



More CO2 in the air means more plant growth



Not much help when we are chopping down more trees then we are planting.



Despite decreased deforestation rates in some regions, forest ecosystems are still under great threat. According to WRI research, 30 percent of global forest cover has been cleared, while another 20 percent has been degraded. Most of the rest has been fragmented, leaving only about 15 percent intact.


World resources institute

Most of those forests have been transformed into urban development and grazing grounds so there is no little chance of reforestation.

Co2 might promote plant growth, but you need space for those plants to thrive and we are running out of space.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, but that is what Luthier suggested, and what I replied to. Do not make strawmen where there are none.

Personally, I would favor an "all in" approach, Manhattan Project style, to fusion energy. At this time, no other solution is viable. Fusion energy would not only solve a multitude of problems but would also make the transition much more economically viable and hence the changeover quicker.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: xuenchen



Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.



More CO2 in the air means more plant growth



Not much help when we are chopping down more trees then we are planting.



Despite decreased deforestation rates in some regions, forest ecosystems are still under great threat. According to WRI research, 30 percent of global forest cover has been cleared, while another 20 percent has been degraded. Most of the rest has been fragmented, leaving only about 15 percent intact.


World resources institute

Most of those forests have been transformed into urban development and grazing grounds so there is no little chance of reforestation.

Co2 might promote plant growth, but you need space for those plants to thrive and we are running out of space.



Hahaha. Most of the forest in the us was once cleared for farmland. Btw, north America more forested now than ever in recorded history.

Easy to see, I've spent much time in the forrest. Old growth vs 1-200 year growth is easy to spot.

Reforestation happens. It just happens that much of the world is behind us in this cycle.


CO2 Is a joke. It's on us. Most Of The C02 on earth is dissolved in the oceans. Raising the temperature of the oceans even a fraction of a degree releases more C02 than man could hope to if he were trying.

Just pay a dollar every time you exhale.


PS. Running out of space if soooo funny. You get to decide yourself whether you live in a world of scarcity or abundance. I cannot fathom why so many choose the former. You lose benefits, it breeds resentment against fellow man, and you can't see how truly grand and amazing the world is.
edit on 10-2-2015 by ISawItFirst because: Added Post Script



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

Most Of The C02 on earth is dissolved in the oceans. Raising the temperature of the oceans even a fraction of a degree releases more C02 than man could hope to if he were trying.
Then why are concentrations of CO2 in the ocean rising?


Just pay a dollar every time you exhale.
Why? That CO2 came from the atmosphere, not fossil fuels.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: grandmakdw

I have contacts with a few people in NASA as well as a few in the Met world. I studied meteorology in college and grew up on the space coast.

Be careful when you make such claim, because some of us have the resources/network to confirm or in your case call BS on the claim. No sane or intelligent person is going to believe a claim like that. The fact you got several stars on the post just shows there is likely something fishy going in this thread.


Is that a veiled threat? Sure sounds like it.

Still sticking by my story. Check it out.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: yuppa

You are acting like CO2 is not a by product of combustion, and we as a species have an apparent addiction to using the combustion of fossil fuels to move our vehicles and power our electrical grid.

The oil companies want us to remain dependent on their product...

The link is obvious to those with open eyes, but most prefer the digital wool of celebrity gossip and such.



I didnt specify the human activity. I know co2 is from combustion. Id love to see alternative engines and power,but also oil is used in more than just fuels. ID prefeer nuclear for power or hydro electric.Also most coal powered ones have filters that scrub alot of c02 away. The other countries will not stop using it and do not even have scrubbers. GEt china to stop using coal first. the world will follow.

ALso where did i mention celebrities at?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Are you kidding? If we actually figured out practical cheap energy, we might actually be able to get into outer space where there are all sorts of available resources which would become practical, and we would get out from under their thumb. Some of us might even become *gasp* free again.

Not to mention they would lost that wonderful control mechanism on earth, too.

They just don't want actual cheap energy. It would mean people could stop living in mud huts and dying of malaria.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

lol

And whoever develops the technology would be instanty rich beyond comprehension. Whatever company developed the technology would likewise reap mega billions, not to mention have a lock on the technology assuring many more billions building the energy plants.

As far as the "technology" TPTB are hiding to keep us in mud huts and dying of malaria is bs technology that someone has tried to promote and sell but turns out to be fraudulent. There is absolutely no business logic to supressing a legit money making technology....except to paranoid people who buy into every bs story that comes down the pike.

The power and draw of making big bucks on a new technology obviates any explanation involving paranoia.

Regarding, these days, someone inventing something in their garage that provides free energy or cheap energy... that's just bs for obvious reasons.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Most Of The C02 on earth is dissolved in the oceans. Raising the temperature of the oceans even a fraction of a degree releases more C02 than man could hope to if he were trying.
Then why are concentrations of CO2 in the ocean rising?


Just pay a dollar every time you exhale.
Why? That CO2 came from the atmosphere, not fossil fuels.




Are you saying that most of the co2 on earth is not in the oceans?

For clarity:
Atmospheric co2 is approx 0.04%.
What we exhale contains approx 4% co2.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join