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.

 

New Study Indicates Gulf Stream Shutting Down Due to Global Warming

page: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Show one time that man has reported on the works of others with even the slightest bit of integrity. He notoriously is dishonest when he does these audits.




posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



So you start with a ad hominid and get 2 stars for doing so . I am sure there will be a few more . Climate Audit seems to have a nack to get to the dirt of the matter and SM seems to be very cordial and accommodating to most of the commenters that join in It is a very active place and they welcome anyone to bring it . If you got it you should take it there . ad-hominid don't score points but facts sure do . Maybe you would like to correct his Wiki page en.wikipedia.org... The pro-agw crowd dispize him because he shows there errors . They say things like why would I show you my data because you will only find something wrong with it ..lol ..lol ...Science is supposed to be reproducible ,but if you don't tell other scientist how and what you did and you make them take you to court to release your data then there is something wrong with that scientist .

When you get your pals to review your work that is not peer review .I would expect that a well established site as Climate Audit would get the authors to defend their work and some do and some try and some run and hide . Mike Mann wont show up there . Too big of a coward and a phony and he knows it .



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Hardly ad hominem. The guy is proven to be dishonest. His wiki page doesn't really do him any favors either, I'm not sure why you bothered linking it. If a person is going to accuse others of fraud, they really shouldn't practice fraud in order to back their claims.

Pretty good article here, with examples. If you care to learn some truth, that is.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
and for the ice on the antarctica:

www.nasa.gov...

I think you misunderstand. That is sea ice - ice around Antarctica - not on the continent nor on the ice shelf.

This sea ice is seasonal and more sea ice does not mean good things for the ice shelf - it might be indicative of increased melting of the ice shelf into the ocean. Ice is mostly fresh water and salty seawater does not freeze as easily as fresh water.


Antarctica is not the same as Arctic.

Antarctica: land continent. Ice accumulation from many thousands of years.

Arctic: no land. Ice is floating only. So changes in Arctic ice reflect temperature in water significantly.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
go humanity! yes we can!



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

It’s an ad hominem because you are not allowed to practice skepticism on the skeptics.

This debate has already been pre-defined by the Non-Intergovernmental Panel of Climate (self) Characterization:

- On the one side you have the mainstream scientific community, aka the smarmy think-they-know-everything ivory tower establishment, aka the global warming alarmists.
- On the other side you have the anthropomorphichominid (sp?) climate change skeptics. They can do no wrong because they are the underdog and they call themselves skeptics. This means any claims of cherry picking, data manipulation, dishonesty, etc on their part is invalid…because they already accused the other side of that FIRST (it’s like calling shotgun).

If you therefore approach any climate skeptic claim with counter-skepticism, you are by definition practicing reverse-skepticism, which is just global warming alarmism - which makes it an ad hominem that indicates you can’t handle someone having a different opinion than you. You are thus resorting to petty personal attacks because your global warming religion house of cards has already collapsed.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Of course. But you gotta call it out, right? In case reasonable people are reading.



Have you ever gone on a skeptic forum and read any threads on climate deniers? They're harder on them than we are by miles... lol



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Oh that hit piece ...One of the commentators put it " Bob

Mid Atlantic US
September 22, 2014
Assertion above:
McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003” and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.

Bio of S. McIntyre found on the net includes the following:

I graduated from U.T.S. in 1965. I stood 2nd in Ontario in the then province-wide Grade 13 examinations and was 1st in Ontario (and in Canada) in the high school math contest in 1965. I studied mathematics at University of Toronto, graduating in 1969 with a B.Sc. My focus was on pure mathematics – courses like algebraic topology, group theory and differentiable manifolds. I stood 2nd in my class in 3 of 4 years. As an option, I took several economics courses, including econometrics. I was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT, but before doing so, felt that I should have broader social science background and studied PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford University on a Commonwealth Scholarship, graduating in 1971. For family reasons, I decided that I should stay in Toronto in 1971 rather than going to MIT and began work.

One could take the position that an undergraduate math degree is not applied science. On the other hand, the oversight of mineral exploration programs, an activity also listed in his bio, certainly encompasses applied science.

He’s a smart guy with a strong math background. Ad hominem attacks on his background distract from the message and put your credibility at risk.

I’m not aware of any reason to think that Professor Mann’s knowledge of math is superior to that of McIntyre.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You know it's pretty easy to fact check. Did he or did he not misrepresent data and statements made by scientists while conducting these 'audits'? The answer is, yes he did. Am I (and other science supporters) lying, or is McIntyre? It's up to you to do the research and find out. Or maybe you just prefer to speak without really knowing for sure so that your position never has to change.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

You asked a question and then answered it for yourself . You have the answer you need to keep your world view .I have seen some of his errors and have seen him correct them .Climate Audit is more of a process that gets worked out in the comment section and adjusted accordingly in the op .



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Have you seen this?


Cameras Were Placed In A Remote Area In Greenland. What They Captured Is Stunning And Terrifying

…the film clip from the “Chasing Ice” documentary is also proof that climate change is having a profound effect on our planet.

The Ilulissat Glacier was calving and for 75 minutes it retreated a full mile and collapsed an area of ice the size of Manhattan!




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

In other words, the characterization McIntyre of being an 'amateur' is correct. He doesn't have any professional experience in any geophysical data analysis and certainly hasn't published significant work in that area at a professional level.

It's like comparing a guy who programs medical databases to a cardiac transplant surgeon, when the 1st one is disputing the mainstream scientific consensus that blood circulation is driven by the pressure created by the heart and not the gall bladder.

And then finding out that the anti-heart-circulationists are funded by tobacco and junk food billionaires.

And when cardiologists make $80,000 a year, after many years of poverty, and they're accused of pushing their science as a hoax all for the money.


edit on 27-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
This is serious stuff. I firmly believe in climate change - the facts speak for themselves. However, I don't think that we are doing the right thing about it. Cutting carbon emissions, curtailing our lifestyle, etc, is just not practical because most people don't care enough until the c**p hits the fan.
Am I the only person who thinks that we should be spending money on managing the effects of climate change, not panicking about how to stop it?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathAndGravity

I posted a link to prominent climate scientists stating just that.

We need to adapt, prevention is not an option.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Nasa Refutes you guys here OR more like Mann,,,, we got to be careful when panicking over natural events or those who "never let a crisis go to waste" make fools out of us collectively.

wattsupwiththat.com...
edit on 27-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I am not saying things aren't happening or I am for using oil. By now you know that is not my story. I am saying whatever is happening on this grand scale has happened and will happen again. AND those that are greedy are using it to their advantage and we are debating the wrong subjects on ATS. We need to be getting back into the scientific idea game where inventions are our thing..

Here is where they stifle the real debate folks, you know honest debate with scientist going back and forth minus the cherry picking.

thefederalist.com...


Here is my contention on what is really driving this thing

www.sciencedirect.com...


AND THE MAG POLES,, they have moved dramatically. NO WAY CO2 did that is there?


Think how CO2 could affect the magnetic field,,,,I can't think of one,, enlighten me if you can.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
My apologies i am a busy human , so i am hitting all these at once tonight..

Here is a place to find real scientist going against the 97% consensus.

www.populartechnology.net...


And something from "Townhall" that i find interesting to add

townhall.com... etter&utm_campaign=cd8c98e0e1-The_Great_Climate_Change12_22_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b80dc8f2de-cd8c98e0e1-131646629
edit on 27-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Saw Chasing Ice a few years ago - it really is a visually stunning and epic film, particularly that capture from the Ilulissat Glacier.

One thing I find particularly interesting about this movie is the impact it's had on some skeptics, especially the kind that watch a lot of FOX News. These are the type of people who are always arguing that the global warming "hoax" is based off of fear and emotion. Usually when you try to show them actual science they just reject it offhand and stick to the same script about "alarmism".

But the funny thing about Chasing Ice is, as good of a film as it is, there's not much science in it - just some very powerful and moving images. And yet this movie seems to have won a lot of those same skeptics over with emotion:



Kinda says a lot about how their thought patterns work and how much they project that experience onto others



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

GREAT link. Will share.




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathAndGravity

Am I the only person who thinks that we should be spending money on managing the effects of climate change, not panicking about how to stop it?

No, you're not. Regardless of what the effects are, to benefit anything at all, you need to spend money on engineering and start now to help. This is why I thinks its a load or turds today, it's people making money on fear and/or just not caring about life down the line.




top topics



 
48
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join