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

Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has not occurred for 2 decades

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:51 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Seems we've moved on to meme salad. I don't know how you even dissected that last post... lmao.

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 10:56 PM
Song, I think we are seeing a cooling trend in Europe and the eastern US. I think the magnetic pole shift is impacting this. It is a part of the big cycles affecting the Earth and I think that currently undersea volcano's are helping to heat up the oceans.

The data prior to the AGW crowd coming along said we were going to warm up several Degree's C eventually as we are still really coming out of an ice age. Were heading toward a cyclical warmth but the solar cycle affects slowed that down. I agree with you, who knows maybe Geo Engineering really is a factor to some degree in all this and causing overall confusing data. Still, we should warm up to be similar to the Dino times but I think not till we get real cold again because of the sunspot cycle being at this very low point.

I could be wrong on that but i feel the geological records were pointing to the warming and the huge swings in temps in the 60's. Then back in the 70s the global cooling prediction emerged that seems to hold water now for me.

So sans the records from our past underscoring a problem when sunspot activity slows, we will warm up. I just feel not because of man made reasons. Mankind sure will poison the Earth and himself but the heat affects not so much IMHO.

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:00 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Justoneman

You as a person that is ignoring data claiming there is a trend of ignoring past data is ironically priceless.

You are not debating science at this point you are simply arguing your opinion which is not backed up by the science.

You already admitted that you cherry pick from science that suits you while ignoring other science.

I know that trying to debate someone who does that is about as fruitful as playing chess with pigeons. You are a step above some of your compatriots in my book though because by you being honest about being intellectually dishonest has saved me the time and effort of coming to that conclusion on my own so I thank you for not wasting my time.

Honestly you try that tactic? It really is ok with me if you feel that way. It helps others see your attempt at obfuscation of the data debate because it doesn't fit for you. So, please live in that world where the scholars don't debate each other with hard data and continue to delude yourself that you know the truth,. For it appears you are satisfied with that which you have been fed without question and the case is closed.

I don't see anything that shows me you actually attempted to consider the information I am providing about the scientists. It as if, you have made up your mind and have presented nothing to really counter those observations. I suppose my objective here was to bring to those who's gut tells them you guys are off base a little clarity as to where they can find scientist in disagreement with the seemingly fake science they see in the news that reeks of bad logic. You wish to protect that paradigm?
edit on 24-4-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2015 by Justoneman because: correct the grammar

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:09 PM
a reply to: jrod

All of your links are from the same website.

Beyond feeling better about yourself, what does convincing a few remaining hill billies of AGW have to do with stopping climate change?

Let's say that tomorrow everyone wakes up and is 100% in agreement that AGW is real. What changes?

We still need to burn fossil fuels for our society to survive and to continue to evolve. The people that actually control the outcomes of this world don't care whether or not some random person thinks AGW is real or at least partially real.

What does that tell us then? Is this just like almost every other social issue being forced upon us? Causing us to waste our time arguing over whether or not something we can't control is actually happening or not?

I work from home, and hardly ever drive. I recycle, I turn off lights when I leave the room, I unplug all my electronics when I am not using them. What changes if I do or don't believe in AGW?

Knowing your track record in never answering any questions I won't expect an answer.

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:15 PM
a reply to: Justoneman

I see no point in your position that shows me you actually studied the information I am providing or even considering it

Let us recap your information.

A cherry-picked excerpt from skeptical science which they debunked and you ignored.

A one-hour twenty-minute youtube video of an opinionated radio talk show.

Two articles about Magnetic North shifting.

Your idea and my idea of pertinent information to the subject varies far too much.

The only linked information that you gave that had any relevance was countered by your own link so I don't see any reason to entertain you further.
edit on 24-4-2015 by Grimpachi because: durp

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:20 PM

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grimpachi

Seems we've moved on to meme salad. I don't know how you even dissected that last post... lmao.

It isn't easy. I wish he would use a better translation program because it seems there is a lot of meaning being lost with the one he is using.

That is assuming the salad is a result of a language barrier.

posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 11:30 PM
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

One website, more like just one news source(NBC) not exactly one source given there were different writers getting information from different sources. It required very little time or effort on my part.

I can post a plethora of other sources, probably won't on this thread because that information will just be lost as this thread is a dying one.

I'll just wait until a denier thinks he has a slam dunk argument, source, and credibility on a new thread and get that plethora of links on the first page.

In these threads, the average reader only looks at the first and last page. This is likely why we have so many hit and runners that will post when a new thread opens up. Psy-ops games do apply here.
edit on 24-4-2015 by jrod because: My bad, thought that comment was about 3 NBC news links...different thread....

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:42 AM
a reply to: jrod

See you don't even attempt to answer one of my questions.

Your post is a great example of misdirection. Say the words plethora and sources a few times, all while belittling whoever might be posting on these threads, and referencing Psy-ops games.


posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:15 AM
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

So instead of posting any relevant information pertaining to the OP, you are just going to criticize me for linking

Because that information is only from one website, despite citing a plethora of scientists and papers, it is not valid for you?

I am not going to waste my time to link other 'sources' of information. You are ignoring what the 95%+ scientific consensus is telling us!
edit on 25-4-2015 by jrod because: tu quoque CJ

edit on 25-4-2015 by jrod because: NOT the first time c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3 asks many bogus questionS, then pretends like the other person is being deceptive

edit on 25-4-2015 by jrod because:

edit on 25-4-2015 by jrod because: 6 questions asked in one response....are you serisously accusing me of misdirection?

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:37 AM

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: mbkennel

I think volcanic activity might better explain this graph of energy affect listed as 10 to the 22nd Joules, than CO2 forcing would.

Why? Where is the evidence? What is the quantitative estimation and measurement? What reason would volcanism cause that increase? Why is volcanism increasing now?

And in any case, how do you NOT heat up thanks to the measured increase in greenhouse effect?

Throw in the geological data for cyclical warming and cooling and I have some reason to have serious doubt.

What does that have to do with it? It's just throwing up things that are vaguely related and saying "see!"

At this point we all should ultimately question if we can trust that the NASA agenda is not skewed by politics.

I think we should question if the 'skeptical agenda' is skewed by politics, which has overwhelming evidence, just as the mainstream climate results have scientific evidence.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:37 AM
a reply to: jrod

I didn't criticize you for linking all of your sources from one site. I only made an observation.

Again, you used the word "plethora", and made no attempt to answer one of my questions.

I haven't said whether or not I believe in AGW.

I did ask you quite a few questions though. Care to answer 1 in 1000?

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:09 AM
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Your first question was a loaded question, that is a bad start.

The rest are wishy-washy and the kind of question you would expect a fortune teller to give a good answer to, but not the kind of questions a good skeptic and scientist can give a good answer to.

We still need to burn fossil fuels for our society to survive and to continue to evolve

That is a fallacy! This is what the fossil fuel industry wants the American people to continue to believe.

edit on 25-4-2015 by jrod because: claim to not criticize me, but indeed criticize me in the resonse loaded with questions

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:34 AM
A reply to everyone who is saying that I cherry picked the article or that I listened to someone else. Nonsense! The article is about how global warming "paused" 2 decades ago and how even the most mainstream policy following scientists have finally admitted that it has not occurred in 2 decades. They are saying it has "paused". On what basis? Has the upward trend resumed? No. So calling it a pause is starting from their chosen presupposition, that the Earth is warming. If you start from the point of 'lets look at the evidence' then your conclusion must be "the climate was warming but it has stopped for the last 2 decades". That is all we know for sure, that it was warming but has not for 2 decades. Whether it has paused is yet to be determined. Had I written the title as "Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has stopped" then I would be putting my own spin on it. Therefore my title is totally justified.

Secondly, I dont follow any global warming or climate change or what have you blogs, I have an alert on my google news page for science articles and this came up, I usually avoid climate change articles as I find them as boring, badly interpreted* and as sensationalized as creation science articles. Yes I am a Genesis believing Christian^ but I am also a published, awarded scientist and bad science is bad science. Saying it has paused is bad science but good politics.

Thirdly, yes the third reply on page 1 has got the right article, I don't know why some here are being asked to pay, I don't have to, never have, but I am in Australia, maybe that has something to do with it.

So I will repeat what I said in the op: climate scientists (both pro and against) don't know everything and not everybody who disagrees with them is an idiot. The article admits they do not know why the climate has not warmed in the last 2 decades.

* Both groups of scientists interpret data biased by what they want it to say, hence the term "pause" in the article.
^The language in Genesis does not preclude a long age Earth.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 02:37 AM
a reply to: jrod

How is that a fallacy? What does burning fossil fuels have to do with Americans?

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 03:46 AM
a reply to: Cinrad

So from what you are saying if true means you honestly didn't comprehend the article.

With your zealous zeal for quote mining you missed that the "pause" is actually just a slowdown. In other words it is warming just not as fast as they thought it would.

If you had taken the time to read the whole thing and actually look at the provided graph you would know that.

Instead you quote mined two sentences out of the entire article and made up your own title.

That is complete intellectual dishonesty.

It is your responsibility to provide a link everyone can read luckily Sremmos provided one. You could have at least confirmed his was correct instead of doing a post and run.

You are correct that not everyone who disagrees with the scientists are idiots, but a good case can be made that people who don't comprehend their own OP articles could be.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:04 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Are you saying that I dont comprehend my own post? And if you are then are you saying I am an idiot?

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 05:50 AM

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Its not warming!!!!!

The Dioxide of carbon does gives a lot of problems to the world. But global icnrease of temperature? it's not one of them, CO2 weights more than air and is unable to reach the so called ozone Layer. it usuallys stays on uptitudes above cities which gives apparently increase of temperature.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: Justoneman

It's actually the opposite. Our planet should be in a mildly cooling phase eventually leading to another glaciation. We should not be warming.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:38 PM

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: Cinrad

You seem a little off on this....

The article says...

The near two-decade long "pause" in rising average global surface temperatures was a "distraction" that did not change long term model predictions of a much hotter world this century

I think the fact that their model did not predict this pause speaks volumes about their 'research'. .

We have imperfect science that models tornados and lightening...and yet they can not predict the next tornado touchdown or lightening strike.

This does not mean that tornados and lightening does not exist.

The demand that scientists must predict phenomena with near term precision or the phenomena does not exist ...has to be the most ignorant and desperate rhetoric surrounding this issue.

Because a weather man can't tell you if it is going to be 73.2 degrees or 75.8 degrees at noon in Miami tomorrow does not mean that they can not do a fair job of predicting the weather. It doesn't mean that weather prediction is a hoax either.

Because a scientist can only narrow a dinosaur fossils age down to a + or - a thousand years...does not mean the dinosaur never existed.

The way in which deniers abuse their own intelligence to continue to follow their commitment to a falsehood is not healthy for either themselves or the country at large.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:50 PM

originally posted by: Cinrad
a reply to: Grimpachi

Are you saying that I dont comprehend my own post? And if you are then are you saying I am an idiot?

I am not questioning if you comprehend your own posts, but I do question if you comprehended the article your OP is about.

I am not saying you are an idiot because the question still remains if you purposely misrepresented the article or if it was unintentional. Only you know which one is the case for sure.

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in