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

In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:16 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know, if you had just bothered to post some links to back up your claims at the beginning of this discussion, it might have at least gotten off to a better start.

Go back and look through the first 5 pages of this thread and maybe you’ll understand where the rest of us are coming from.

5 pages of the same old worthless hearsay and hyperbole: “all the scientists predictions have failed”, “Al Gore said we’d be under water by now”, “there’s no evidence”, “everything is China’s fault” blah bleblaah. None of it was sourced and none of it was even remotely factual. But it gets treated like conventional wisdom around here just because enough parrots repeat it over and over again.

Meanwhile, there were plenty of resources left throughout this thread showing how and why these memes are inaccurate, but these were of course (as usual) simply waved off and ignored, in favor of more empty rhetoric.

That’s where the militant denial observation comes from, and I stand by everything I said before, because the proof is right here in the pudding of this thread.

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:34 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So now you’re at least providing some links, which is a step in the right direction. But your case is still coming up extremely lacking.

First off here’s exactly what you wrote:

No, see, this is a form of fear mongering and toying with people's emotions. There is zero--ZERO--proof that what he is using as an example will happen...he's playing in hypotheticals and presenting them in a factual manner. Actually, Antarctica is gaining land ice and sea ice. And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.

The idea that there is “ZERO proof” is utterly ridiculous, and if you honestly believe that then I don’t care how many years you claim to have been researching anything here. If this is how much you've learned after a decade then you are either hopelessly uninformed, or blinded by your bias, or both.

I already posted a graph on page 2 showing enhanced GHG heat trapping happening in our atmosphere right now. This is underpinned by a 150 year old physical understanding of the mechanism behind the process, which has been predicted and confirmed several times over through empirical observations. It’s called the scientific method - and all of its boxes here have already been checked. This ship has sailed.

The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

So please quit pretending like Al Gore is the one dealing in hypotheticals, because it’s actually you. We already know the greenhouse forcing mechanism works, so understanding that it will make things melt is not hypothetical, it’s basic cause and effect. It’s like putting a pot of water on a stovetop and turning it up to high, but then claiming there’s zero proof that the water will actually boil.

Even if we imagine the stove was brand new, and never witnessed it boil anything before, we already know it was properly engineered and passed all its QA inspections in the factory. The mechanistic explanation alone is a sufficient cause, and it has nothing to do with "collecting enough data". It’s possible something happens that produces an unexpected result - maybe the stove gets damaged on the way from the factory to the kitchen - but guess what, at that point it’s your scenario that is hypothetical, not the one based on proven physical processes.

Yet you keep trying to twist this whole thing backwards. The scientific method doesn't work by starting at the end result and reverse-engineering a hypothetical answer. That is really only how the first step - a hypothesis - may get formed. In this case it already happened over a century ago. For someone who's apparently a decade deep in research here you seem to be pretty ignorant of these fundamental facts.

The question then becomes whether things are proceeding as expected. What’s happened since then has only justified the theory of man-made global warming, not invented it like you seem to think it has.

On the flip side that also doesn't mean the theory can’t be falsified, so in light of that let’s talk about your links…

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:43 PM

It would seem to me that if people want to stop all the 'climate change' nonsense... that man should stop chopping down the forest. But, if they do that, how else will all these 'climate change' scientist print out 1000's of pages of nonsense?

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

For starters - I specifically asked you for a link to back up what you wrote here:

And while Greenland is losing ice, Northeastern Canada has been seeing dramatic increases in ice accumulation, offsetting the loss of Greenland.

Which you have still failed to provide. I’m very eager to see this data, since I've never heard such a claim before, and in fact have many links showing Canada’s ice sheets going right down the drain with Greenland’s. So please go ahead and enlighten me with your ten years of research.

As for Antarctica, your first link is only for the Antarctic Peninsula, and is essentially refuted in a subsequent paper by the very same authors. Their data here on the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet (in black) shows a substantial net loss overall:


As for the second link, it should be first of all noted that increased snow accumulation in Antarctica has long been predicted by climate scientists. This is from the 1st IPCC assessment report in 1990:

In terms of the mass of snow, however, the responses are less uniform. In general, within the Northern Hemisphere, a decrease in the mass of snow is indicated, whereas an increase occurs within the Southern Hemisphere. These changes in mass, however, are not uniform but, to some degree, depend on latitude, elevation and season. Throughout the year, snow mass north of 30°N latitude and north of 68°S latitude is expected to decrease in response to climatic changes, while snow mass is expected to increase over Antarctica, south of 68°S latitude.

Chapter 7 - Seasonal snow cover, ice and permafrost

This point is reinforced in the abstract of your own link:

A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.

The question of whether this indeed offsets losses is much more complicated. This study is an outlier among more recent data, I could point to numerous others that contradict its findings straight up:

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

But another important note is the fact this study was just a preliminary conference paper, and never actually published. It is not listed among the lead author’s publications: H. Jay Zwally Profile

What is listed under Dr. Zwally’s publications (and only a few months after the SCAR conference paper was presented) is this seminal work instead:

A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

Look at the amount of people that contributed to it – it’s like an all-star team of Antarctic researchers lol – and it features many of the authors from your two links. Here’s what they concluded when they put all that research together:

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

The point is your links so far have very little merit, and the authors themselves go against what you’re trying to say they’re saying. The overall body of research points to ice mass loss in Antarctica, and right now you’re just doing what every typical climate denier does: cherry-picking the little bits of incomplete data that support your views, ignoring all the other more ubiquitous research that says otherwise, and then misrepresenting and building strawmen out of the whole thing. Nobody cares how many years you've spent researching the topic, your posts will be judged by their content and that’s it. If you don't want to be treated like every other two-bit denier then simply don't act like one.

I really don't care how much you think I'm trying to bully you - I am merely holding you accountable for what you say. You claim it's Al Gore doing all the myth-mongering and yet all I see is you (and the other skeptics here) doing exactly that, while completely misunderstanding what Al Gore even said in the first place. Post something legitimate to back up your wild claims and we can have a perfectly constructive conversation.

I can't wait to see this Canadian glacial data that offsets Greenland.

edit on 11-3-2015 by mc_squared because: clarity

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 11:28 PM
Incidentally back to the actual topic at hand - a couple more interesting stories in the Washington Post today:

In October, this paper ran an obituary for Rick Piltz, a whistleblower who left the Bush administration after exposing, as our obituary put it, “how top-level George W. Bush administration officials edited scientific reports to minimize the link between human activity and climate change.”

Florida officials’ ‘ban’ of the term climate change is straight out of the Bush playbook

As the scandal thickens in Florida, now there's a bit of a paper trail beginning to emerge:

But the story of Elizabeth Radke, who in late January got an e-mail from her co-author, a program coordinator with the Florida Department of Health, casts a degree of uncertainty on Scott’s assertions. Before publication, their study needed clearance from the Health Department in Tallahassee. So Sharon Watkins, chief of the department’s Bureau of Epidemiology, marked up the paper, homing in on the phrase “climate change.”

Fla . scientist told to remove words ‘climate change’ from study on climate change

Really just par for the course at this point, but more fodder for the deniers to magically ignore.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:22 PM
Ask Barton Bibler about Rick Scott and his 'climate change' policy.

On March 9, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) suspended a state employee for speaking about climate change at an official meeting, which made its way into the record of the meeting, according to a complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Barton Bibler, a long-time DEP employee, received a letter of reprimand ordering him to take two days personal leave. The agency also instructed Bibler not to return without medical clearance.

Bibler currently serves as Land Management Plan Coordinator in DEP Division of State Lands.

On February 27, Bibler attended a Florida Coastal Managers Forum, where a number of attendees discussed climate change and sea-level rise, among other environmental topics.

Bibler’s official notes reported all of that conversation.

DEP superiors directed Bibler to remove any “hot button issues,” such as explicit references to climate change. The letter of reprimand, dated March 9, accused Bibler of misrepresenting the “official meeting agenda (so it) included climate change.”

This just keeps on getting more insane.

PEER is calling on the DEP Office of Inspector General to open an investigation, to determine the propriety of handling Bibler, including forced leave and the directive to waive privacy rights to allow the DEP to review a physician evaluation.

Philips is also asking for the agency to explain on what basis are they banning the use of the terms climate change,” “sustainability” and “sea-level rise.” He also claims the orders to censor meeting summaries is a violation of Florida law forbidding alteration of official records.

“Not just the employees but the citizens of Florida should demand a full investigation into what the heck is going on inside DEP and whether we can expect more cases like this,” Phillips said. “Under Governor Scott, the Department of Environmental Protection functions like a gulag where those in servitude who show any spark of honesty are simply made to disappear.”

Despite all of this, many will continue to deny there is such a policy in place within Florida's Department of Environmental Protection. All we can hope for is an investigation and some answers.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:40 PM
a reply to: jrod

Just more unconfirmed malarkey from jilted "sources".

Maniacal assumptions and crazy hyperbole.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:42 PM
I have recent made a thread of the title that I am not believe in the climate. I wanted to state the full title, but however due to restrictions was unable to manifest the sentence as I would have wished. However I attracted undue critisicm in the light of this, but most people were not aware of the circumstances under which I operated so I forgive.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Are you going to ever post anything of substance in this thread? I thought you just pulled the hit and run on page 1 in hopes of contributing to the derailing of this thread and topic.

The proof is there, but you just want to play the 'hear no evil, see no evil' game.

All of us who are able to think for ourselves can hope for is an investigation and some answers from Rick Scott and the DEP and related agencies on this apparent gag order.
edit on 19-3-2015 by jrod because: of

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:07 PM
a reply to: jrod

No, policies are things that are in writing. Things that are put up on walls in office buildings. Other than word of mouth, where is the proof that these words are "banned". I don't doubt that there was language used that let people know those words weren't preferred, but that is different than something being banned as a government policy.

You failed to answer my question so I will ask again, what changes if tomorrow the Florida government announces they 100% agree that AGW is settled science? I don't disagree that things are warming up. I don't disagree that climate is changing. I don't disagree that man has a part in this.

I DO disagree with the amount humans influence the climate.

My main concern and point in all of these threads is that this is being used to push an agenda. It is used to distract people from the real issues. It is used to divide people. Just like ALL politics.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

There are defacto polices that are not in writing in effect in many work places. This person has been canned pending a favorable mental evaluation for defying the climate change gag order.

DEP superiors directed Bibler to remove any “hot button issues,” such as explicit references to climate change. The letter of reprimand, dated March 9, accused Bibler of misrepresenting the “official meeting agenda (so it) included climate change.”

This thread is not meant to divide anything, it is to get to the bottom of the obvious monkey business that is going on with Florida and their Department of Environmental Protection among other shady acts that Florida's 'leaders' keep on getting away with.

edit on 19-3-2015 by jrod because: There are a plethora of threads in the Fragile Earth forum that address the questions you posed earlier, and I am not going to waste my time responding to hypothetical lines of questioning.
edit on 19-3-2015 by jrod because: cleanup
extra DIV

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:18 PM
excellent information mc_squared...but, it's not going to change the deniers mind. remember that there were supposedly rational people that were members of the new country called America, that believed that in the burning of witches not too long ago, and in slavery only 165 years ago.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:23 PM
Tell you WHAT.
YOU show the scientific explanation that conforms to the laws of thermo Dynamics and I won't deny that the sun has grown HOTTER.
ANYTHING else is junk science.
WE put off more carbons than industry..well MAYBE not CHINA who obviously is NEVER going to be a part of this.
Polar caps are shrinking througout the solar system.
WE didn't create THAT now did we?

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:51 PM
Climate change is bull# ~ Signed a fellow Floridian. I haven't been here long but that sounds messed up. They can kiss my ass because I'll think for myself.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:09 PM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Now in south Florida, during September(when the gulf steam is moving the most water, think of it as a river in flood stage), many areas are subject to coastal flooding as a result of spring tides(the bigger tides as a result of the moon and sun working together in terms of tidal forces).

Are you going to try to deny this happening? If there is not a problem with the sea level, then why is there the need to constantly pump sand on our beaches?

Our climate and our topography is changing.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Polar caps are shrinking througout the solar system.

You sure about that?

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:31 PM

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Polar caps are shrinking througout the solar system.

originally posted by: Kali74

You sure about that?

Well the Sun is 25 million (f) degrees hot.

Something's gotta give eventually.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:31 PM

"the science" has been wrong every single time

Really, they were right about increased flooding, right about increasing drought, right about animal and plant species dying or moving, right about stronger storms in the Northeast. I can't think of any predictions that weren't right.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 10:36 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

It's kinda verifiable so... check it out, maybe?

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:38 AM
a reply to: CB328

and Scientificly it doesn't at all comply with ANY theory of thermo dynamics.
THEY refuse to verify THAT little fact.
Yes Kali 74 PRETTY

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in