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.

 

Yet another scientist, this one a Nobel winner, says Obama is dead wrong about climate change

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Howdy,

I'm not sure the Pope even has a Master's degree in chemistry, or any degree in chemistry for that matter. I realize that that was circulated throughout the media, but I don't remember seeing any conclusive evidence for the claim. Regardless, allow me to be serious for a moment's time.

I like debate in science; it keeps scientists honest and exposes frauds. Yes, there are dishonest scientists and frauds (often employed by corporations... think Big Tobacco when they employed the physicist Frederick Seitz to help hide the dangers of tobacco).

en.wikipedia.org...

Full disclosure, I just graduated with a degree in geology (B.S.), and I hope to be employed by the petroleum industry (although I may end up in environmental work...). I support oil and gas/fossil fuel extraction and accept the scientific consensus that CO2 increases in the atmosphere increase global temperature. I don't know the advanced science behind climate change, but I understand global climate changes in the far past are correlated with carbon reserves and volcanics as well as Milankovitch cycles...

Point is, I know the climate has not been steady in the past. I am writing to you while essentially on tropical marine limestone from the Paleozoic. I know we are messing with carbon reserves during our interglacial period (we are still in an ice age), and I know that carbon dioxide has been observed to trap heat... But that is theory. At the end of the day, I know that science is fallible (although perhaps the best method of understanding the natural world), and there are many unknown variables and feedback loops. However, the Earth IS warming. Just like the Earth warmed in the past, we are warming now.

To conclude, no, I don't care that the Pope sided with what I believe is the position with the most evidence. I'm empathetic with his position of trying to help the weak and the poor, though. Even if you consider him, us, misguided and delusional, there are good intentions. I guess the road to hell is paved with those, though.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Perhaps not agree. At the least, give pause.

Please note rather than addressing the scientific data he puts forth, the argument falls into his qualifications to comment-which seem higher than any of ours, cough, cough,-which seems in lock-step with the left's propensity to attack the messenger as oppose to the message.

Not one poster has questioned his scientific argument. NOT ONE.

Let's re-state a theorem that gets short-shrift: Climate change is a normal occurrence.

Be it London, or western North America where a dry spell is causing numerous wild-fires.

Africa is getting much needed rain right from Egypt down to the Serengeti...nothing new. Change is normal.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

So .... someone who can earn the Nobel Prize for work with superconductors knows nothing about the principal of heat transfer?

Is that what you're contending?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ummm so how are you NOT also engaging in proof by intimidation?

Ignore him. Ignore Obama. They didn't win in the PROPER fields, but all the ones who have believe ... so you must agree.

Proof by intimidation.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

It's not so much whether it's a normal occurance all round...

It's about whether the propensity of climate decay is at normal rates...



& given the state of industrial industry, nuclear fallout, not just from Chernobyl or Fukushima, but from tests all those years ago, to the smoke and mirrors underground tests now, along with fracking, oil spills...

To say the carnage is not being exacerbated by "man", or rather man's inadequacies, is outlandish, as it is in fact a highly probably realisation.
edit on 9-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Here we go again. If we don't believe the skeptics we are labelled religious nutters. Which is an ignorant stance that can be applied either way. If that's how you wish to behave carry on, it speaks volumes about you!

Ivan Giaever the physicist. So freaking what if he is a physicist. This does not give give him some kind of immunity from being at best wrong and at worst an idiot. You only have to follow his speech and the usual well debunked anti GW drivel to see that. In fact his "method" of analysis in denying climate change makes me wonder how he even passed a physics exam at school.

The evidence and trends for climate change and worldwide warming are there for everyone to see. You either choose to believe or not but please do yourself a favour and stop deriding people who choose to believe the 96% group as opposed to the 4%. Nothing is ever 100% hence the expression "The exception that proves the rule".

Second point, stop the isolationism, there are way way way more people involved in climate science than a couple of US politicians. Look beyond the border of the US! It is frightening how inward looking the US climate denial is.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, I was highlighting the ludicrous notion that we should put weight behind the scientists rather than the goings on.

But thanks for taking me seriously, not many do.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I disagree. I see it as highly improbable.

I do see pollution as an issue but unrelated to climate change.

Everyone hates fracking. That's official. Leading the way in that diatribe is Big Oil! It wipes out the projected returns of already developed oil fields and throws out of whack the usual 50 year plans for development cost/return ratios with the drop in oil prices from the smaller 'mom and pop' operations.

Due to my profession, I have driven in all 49 states, 7 provinces and two territories in N.A..

I've seen where the old glaciers have cut huge swaths, where petrified forests are all that remain in now desert environments.

The changes we are experiencing are almost minute in comparison to what this planet has endured. It will likely continue. We will adapt...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: grimpachi
Again from you a banter of words. If you go to a school for locomotive engineering , what does that make you ? See any DEGREES that have something to do with climatology ? Just because he served on committees DOES NOT mean he had any degrees.And from what I read and you copied from wiki , he did not.




I think I see where your misunderstanding is coming from.

If you go back and read his bio that I posted you can see that the degree wasn't in locomotive engineering. That would be silly.

He earned a earned his PHD in Industrial Engineering, BTW that was his first PHD.

Its possible that you got the locomotive part mixed up with his previous work history as a Manager in the locomotive industry, but as I have already posted that was before he earned his PHD.

Can it be that you fault him for working at a job before going to college?


Oh and I didn't copy anything from Wiki. Shame on you for not clicking the link.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi
Again , beside the point. Where is a relative doctorate degree he earned that would qualify to be director of a team of so-called climatologists ? Oh , yeah a business and economics degree. Begin to get the bigger picture now ? No , you probably will not. Most of the time when you serve as head or director of a scientific research group you are a renowned leading PHD in that field. Plus , the study called climatology can only go back to what 1925 ? Geologists , archeologists , any one can go back thousands of years.And if they say the Earth has passed through many cycles like this over the years , I tend to believe the more established sciences. Thank you for playing the game , but it is game over and you are all outta tokens.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Howdy,

Thanks for sticking up for the old-school physical scientists. The Old Geology is much more established than the New stuff. Quite frankly, I think modern geological opinions, like plate tectonics (which gained a cult following in the 50's and 60's) are all garbage. Clearly the older established "exapanding earth hypothesis" ( I like Yarkovsky's of 1888. Much older, much better) are more established in the field. Disregard the modern consensus though.

Also, I agree that we should disregard everything we've learned about genetics and DNA. I mean, that stuff wasn't even well understood until after the 50's and 60's either. Let's go back to the medicine of the 1800's. Blood-letting and humours.

Really, I appreciate your defense of my discipline. The thousands of years of geology we can look at, now that's what my field is all about. We really should move away from all of those paleoclimatologists and ice core scientists (some of the most well-known are geological traitors, you know...) who agree with anthropogenic influenced climate change.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

So even though you got everything wrong it is "beside the point".

Except he did resign due to legal issues unrelated to the field.


lol


Industrial engineering focused on energy and impact on environment. Believe it or not those things are related.

Perhaps you skimmed over this in the article and missed it.



He has co-authored 130
papers, a large number of which are peer-reviewed, and written or co-written 27 books, most of
them about energy and the environment.


Besides the point right?
edit on 9-7-2015 by grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Ketsuko is currently trying to quell a migraine that started today, so she asked me to take over for this topic.

Hi everyone, this is Mr. Ketsuko.


originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: ketsuko

Howdy,




Sup?





Full disclosure, I just graduated with a degree in geology (B.S.), and I hope to be employed by the petroleum industry (although I may end up in environmental work...). I support oil and gas/fossil fuel extraction and accept the scientific consensus that CO2 increases in the atmosphere increase global temperature. I don't know the advanced science behind climate change, but I understand global climate changes in the far past are correlated with carbon reserves and volcanics as well as Milankovitch cycles...




I have dual degrees in Biology and Microbiology, with minor emphasis in Math, Engineering, and recently some Statistics.

I support energy production across the board. I see great opportunities in solar, geothermal and wind so long as the technology is leveraged correctly (ie not subsidized on macro-levels.) I'm also a big proponent of thermal depolymerization, especially with landfills and sewer treatment plants. If we could get that rolling, I think we could take a huge leap in recycling and sustainable environments in extra-terrestrial colonies. Thorium salts also hold a great amount of promise.

I also agree that CO2 has an impact on our environment. I do not agree that it has as significant an impact as others.

From what I have seen, CO2 levels are a posthumous indicator of climate change, not a harbinger.


Point is, I know the climate has not been steady in the past. I am writing to you while essentially on tropical marine limestone from the Paleozoic. I know we are messing with carbon reserves during our interglacial period (we are still in an ice age),


Would you then say we are still warming up from that earlier phase of our current ice age?


and I know that carbon dioxide has been observed to trap heat... But that is theory.


My understanding of CO2 is that it does trap heat, but very inefficiently. From what I have read it is a logarithmic storage, requiring 4X concentration to absorb the previous k.

In other words:

X ppm -> k
4X ppm -> 2k
16X ppm -> 3k
64X ppm -> 4k

Or in real terms, people are freaking out that we are currently at 400ppm from a previous level of 350ppm(?)* in the early 1900's. In order for CO2 to absorb the amount of energy to create an identical 'uptick' in temperature we have apparently seen, we would need to grow to 550ppm.

*Note: Improvements in technology have made our ppm detection in 2015 are much more precise than a century ago, so it is difficult to say what the ppm in the early 1900's really were. Ice core samples can range up to 7000 ppm, again it's not an exact science. That's one of my main problems with this whole issue. We don't know all the facts.


Textt the end of the day, I know that science is fallible (although perhaps the best method of understanding the natural world), and there are many unknown variables and feedback loops. However, the Earth IS warming. Just like the Earth warmed in the past, we are warming now.


Good to admit to man's inherent nature. We are fallible. Science is indeed our best tool to understand nature, but we must properly employ the scientific method and rule out all possibilities, and be willing to admit when our theories are wrong. Case in point, there have not been any computer models capable of both reproducing past climate changes and our current trends. When the 'experts' try to shoehorn their variables into the past, the present models won't work - and vice versa. This tells me we don't know all the variables. A major failing of the models is that they cannot predict precipitation, which is a major driver of cooling by condensation.


To conclude, no, I don't care that the Pope sided with what I believe is the position with the most evidence. I'm empathetic with his position of trying to help the weak and the poor, though. Even if you consider him, us, misguided and delusional, there are good intentions. I guess the road to hell is paved with those, though.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman


I too understand that he wants to help people. So do I. I think the best way to help people out of poverty is a thriving energy sector. Energy leads to production, production leads to opportunity, opportunity allows people to better themselves.

I would rather we keep utilizing carbon energy to power our technology so that we can innovate and advance. The history of mankind is learning how to weather whatever nature throws at us (pardon the pun.) We didn't get to where we are by putting out the campfires at night, staying in the trees, and leaving the skins/fur on the animals. We take advantage of resources and modify our surroundings to promote our welfare. We can do so responsibly of course, but we still need the power sources to clean up afterwards. By volume, petroleum and coal contain the most efficient stored energy on the planet. It would be silly to not use it.

As you say, we are still in an interglacial period. The tail end of that ice age is still coming. I would prefer that mankind has the technology and power to survive when it gets here.

Kind regards,
Mr. Ketsuko
edit on 9-7-2015 by ketsuko because: needed to add a signature



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: grimpachi
a reply to: Gothmog

So even though you got everything wrong it is "beside the point".

Except he did resign due to legal issues unrelated to the field.


lol


Industrial engineering focused on energy and impact on environment. Believe it or not those things are related.

Perhaps you skimmed over this in the article and missed it.



He has co-authored 130
papers, a large number of which are peer-reviewed, and written or co-written 27 books, most of
them about energy and the environment.


Besides the point right?

Got nothing wrong. Still nothing from you on any relevant degrees in climatology . I would even have taken a meteorological or even weather person....Industrial engineering has nothing to do with WEATHER and/or CLIMATE or its changes nor even a basic chemistry understanding of CO2 .Please stop reaching deep for something to say in defense of the IPCC , global warming . It was set up by the UN as a money making Ponzi scheme and remains that today. And the type of viewpoint you proclaim is dying fast. Most of the ones left have their 401ks invested in carbon credits. You do know President Obama is HEAVILY invested in the carbon credit and green energy sectors , right ?
I could write a book on those subjects as well.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Hello sir, welcome aboard.

Just like to say that was very informative and excellently put for a layman like myself to understand.



What you put forward, in regards to young science doing the leg work...
Is my only doubt in man-affected (rather than man-made) CC...

But I'm of the mindset, do something just in case, rather than wait for it to go belly up...


Not taxes though.
Maybe on energy conglomerates, but not so much on the guy in his 4x4.



Sign up if you have the time, or inclination...
Your input could be invaluable.


edit on 9-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

That is all besides the point. lol


Hey I am liking your style of debate.

Locomotive engineer. hahaha

Back on topic: A 1973 shared Nobel prize winner for work on super conductors that spent half a day "maybe" on Google learning about climate change thinks its Hocus.
edit on 9-7-2015 by grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.

I tried to look into this a few weeks ago and it really was one of the most convoluted topics I've ever researched in my life. Some data sets appear to say the average global temp has risen, and others say it has stayed the same for the last decade. Then I came across sources saying the data had been manipulated to make it look like it was increasing so that it would match up with their theories. Then there is the supposed 97% consensus among scientists, but it turns out that is a totally bogus claim, and the consensus is much lower than 97% when you do the calculations properly. Then you have some source saying the ice caps are melting, and other sources saying the ice caps are increasing in size.

Then you have the global greening issue, which is said to be a result of the increased carbon dioxide and higher temps, which create more favourable conditions for plants and trees, like a green house which is kept warm and pumped full of carbon dioxide to make the plants grow faster. But then you have the other side of the argument which says there are other reasons for the greening and why it might actually be a bad thing. I truly have never seen a topic more convoluted than the the topic of global warming, and that is saying something because I've researched many highly convoluted disinfo campaigns.

This video is a good place to start, the comments are full of people debating the issues I just mentioned:


Related threads:
Top MIT Scientist Mocks New UN Climate Report
Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal.
edit on 9/7/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Thanks much, but I will have to politely decline. The main reason I have not signed up is because I don't want Ketsuko to be accused of sock puppetry. Sometimes she conveys my thoughts in her posts, worded as she sees fit.

Kind regards,
Mr Ketsuko


edit on 9-7-2015 by ketsuko because: forgot signature (again...)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Howdy,
Your response is well reasoned, and I think I share several of your opinions. I want to make it clear, however, that I didn't mean to express my degree as authority, merely as a way of professing my bias toward the oil industry, rather than against it, while still accepting anthropogenic influences as likely factors in our current climatatic changes.

Furthermore, I agree that fossil fuels and nuclear power are the ONLY ways to sufficiently meet the energy demands of the developed and further developing world. It is also true that C02 is not the most efficient of greenhouse gases, although I am admittedly not as well versed as you seem to be in that field and thus cannot say more on that topic.

I am, however, more concerned about possible feedback loops that can be caused by even slight increases in temperature as a result of anthropogenic CO2. For example, it might be enough to unleash vast methane clathrate reserves in the ocean or frozen ground.

en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, yes, I agree that scientists in general still do not know all of the variables and might have less than perfect models. That said, they certainly know more of the variables and feedback loops than I do. I understand why you might have pause about their conclusions, but climate scientists are like any other scientist. Fallible, but the best we've got with the tools and data we have.

I am very glad there are skeptical people in this world who are willing to question authorities (it's one of the reasons I like this forum), but I haven't seen much conclusive evidence to suggest that the Earth is not warming. I do know that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from buried reservoirs. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are in an interglacial period, so things are just going to get warmer unless a powerful feedback loop that we are unaware of exists. Whether or not humans are the cause, the phenomenon seems to be substantiated by the best models fallible mankind can create.

I know, "argument from authority" and "slippery slope fallacy." No one is perfect, and no model or data set will be either. The best I think we can do is agree with what evidence we can and do have, though.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman

P.S. My sympathies to actual Ketsuko for the migraine. They are certainly not pleasant to experience.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Also I should make my opinion on this issue clear. I think that when a topic is this convoluted we shouldn't be making regulations and policies based around such unclear science. We should be worrying more about things such as oil leaks, overfishing, toxic waste dumps, nuclear disasters, hardcore deforestation, etc. Those things really change our climate in a tangible and observable way. Global warming is only one specific type of climate change and not even experts can agree that it's actually happening or that it poses a real problem for us. Global warming is nothing but a distraction from the real critical issues this Earth is facing, we should be paying attention to the magicians other hand, not the one he is waving around all the time.
edit on 9/7/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join