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.

 

Top scientist resigns from post - admits Global Warming is a scam

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Those are a very good posts by me. Well done Raymundoko!

From that thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It looks like I fully support warming and man contributes...
edit on 26-9-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Nice timing there....

Tell us why you think regulating CO2 output is a bad idea?

edit on 26-9-2015 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
That's the paper that was retracted :-) Mann co authored it with Rahmstorf.

Sorry you didn't get the memo.



Thanks for the clarification.
Can you please now direct me to a link showing the paper has been retracted and explaining the same?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

You realize that this story is from 2010, don't you?

And that the principle reason for his resignation was 100% bogus?

1) He claimed that the American Physics Society rejected 'out of hand' a petition to establish a topical group on the physics of climate. In fact that was exactly the opposite: it had been enthusiastically agreed to. By resigning all he accomplished was cutting himself out of the work of the topic group.

2) He claimed that when the 'scam bubble' burst and the funding was cut off, his department (at U.C. Santa Barbera) would be crippled by the loss of revenue. In fact his department received exactly ZERO climate research funding.

3) Of course by calling charging his colleagues with a money grubbing scientific fraud on a grand scale he wasn't exactly endearing himself to those colleagues. And he was pontificating on a subject on which he had zero research in - no papers, no seminars, no nothing.

My point? Why dreg up an old story that had no legs when it was fresh?

The denialist's propaganda war has been lost - why keep beating on the dead horse?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The retraction is in the paper itself, pg7...

The paper has been removed from the journal 3 times. He resubmitted in September and it may get removed again.

To use proxy data and ignore real data is a flat out lie in the scientific community. Mann knows what they did as he had a similar paper removed in 2011. Rossy dismantled his paper and a journal wouldn't even touch it after that.

Rossy retired and they slightly changed the paper and re-published with Rahm as the primary author.

The link I listed earlier is from the actual measurements which show no slowing.

a reply to: Indigo5
edit on 26-9-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




That's the paper that was retracted :-) Mann co authored it with Rahmstorf.


That is a false assertion. The paper has not been withdrawn. Sorry you fell for the WUWT hit piece.

EDIT: One figure has been replaced from the original. The new figure is better but does not affect the conclusions of the paper. The WUWT hit piece seems to focus a lot of attention on that figure, if only to make the silly claim that Central Africa must have just as much data collection as the North Atlantic. Maybe while he was laughing at Watt's silliness, Rahmstorf noticed that he actually had a better graph. Ok, maybe WUWT has its purposes after all.



They used proxy data and intentionally left off data with actual measurements. Some uneducated chumps fell for it...


Also a false assertion. Oh sure, they used proxy data to establish an historical baseline.


The study used proxy measurements of the Atlantic currents, using ice cores, tree rings, coral growth and ocean and lake sediments, to estimate regional temperature variations and so assess how the Gulf Stream has changed over the past 1,000 years.


But they also have actual measurements carried out by the RAPID Project over the last 10 years available to them in addition to lots of other data. Now 10 years of data is not enough to prove Rahmstorf's assertion one way or the other, but the RAPID project does recognize a trend over those 10 years - a Gulf Stream slowing down trend. The Project researchers themselves say they don't yet have enough data to say that it is climate change or other factors causing it, but clearly Rahmstorf thinks he does.

Incidentally, the RAPID project claims to have made more measurements in 10 years that Professor Rossby has done in 20. In its first year, the RAPID project found that the actual volume of water being moved was actually four times the volume recorded by ship recordings - Dr. Rossby uses ship bound measurements.

Obviously Professor Rahmstorf has enough confidence in his methodology to make such a call. Time will tell if he is right or wrong. There is nothing fraudulent about drawing conclusions from one's research and publishing it. That is what scientists do - then other scientists try to duplicate his results or at least find fault with his reasoning. Its open season for truth seekers; knee jerk deniers need not apply.



Mann is a fraud.


How the heck do you inject Mann into this story?

Just because the author of the pop-science article included a quote from him? The gulf stream research was by Professor Rahmstorf and the article makes that clear. (EDIT: oh, I see, Mann is listed as a co-author - my point stands).

Watt is an incompetent fraud and his personal vendetta against Mann makes him a pitiful human being.
edit on 26/9/2015 by rnaa because: grammar and spelling

edit on 26/9/2015 by rnaa because: link to RAPID Project article

edit on 26/9/2015 by rnaa because: mann is listed as a co-author

edit on 26/9/2015 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/9/2015 by rnaa because: comment added about the figure replacement



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
The retraction is in the paper itself, pg7...

The paper has been removed from the journal 3 times. He resubmitted in September and it may get removed again.

To use proxy data and ignore real data is a flat out lie in the scientific community. Mann knows what they did as he had a similar paper removed in 2011. Rossy dismantled his paper and a journal wouldn't even touch it after that.

Rossy retired and they slightly changed the paper and re-published with Rahm as the primary author.

The link I listed earlier is from the actual measurements which show no slowing.

a reply to: Indigo5


I am confused? I thought you said this paper was retracted??

When I researched it, it appears it has not been retracted???

And unlike your inference, this is research from multiple sources, not just one scientist??



The Latest Research - Rhamstorf

This new research (Rhamstorf 2015, see reference 4) is from the German National Environmental Agency (Potsdam Institute), Penn State, Spain's Environmental Institute and the University of Bristol in Rhode Island. These researchers have combined an analysis of temperature with modeling to evaluate where in the North Atlantic the Thermohaline Circulation is most vulnerable to disruption, and confirmed that weakening of the Gulf Stream is unprecedented in the last 1,000 years.

www.truth-out.org...

It appears this is a stream of research, by multiple institutions, examining many different data and coming to the same conclusion.

Attributing it to single researcher is false...claiming the recent research has been retracted is false..

If his Data was not accepted and re-submitted years ago...that is a good thing as it speaks to a very high evidentiary standard from the publication or the researchers or reviewers.

That aside...this is not a singular researcher or institution or data set anymore.

I would appreciate more precise, accurate and honest debate of the evidence.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Honest debate? I gave you a link to the organization that does the actual measurements. No slowing...

Scientist comes in and used proxy data and says it is slowing.

Real measurements say one thing, assumed measurements say another.

Who is being dishonest?

I also think you are confused about what retraction means. A portion of the paper was very wrong, so the paper got removed. They changed the wrong section and put it back up but included the same proxy data. It got removed again. Then the inserted the real data and it got republished. The retraction is on pg7.

You are also confused about who authored the paper. Yes the data came from multiple organizations but the authors were Rahm and Mann.

Any time proxy data is used to give current trends when real measurements are available you HAVE to question it.

That's why Mann's famous hockey stick had to be revised (hockey stick is just the name, the effect is still accurate) because he used proxy data in place of hard data to slightly exaggerate the issue.

a reply to: Indigo5



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Who said withdrawn? A retraction is not a withdrawal. Once the paper is removed and retracted it is republished. Notice the date of republishing was this month...

Also, you didn't link to RAPID, you linked to a blog.

I forgive you, you aren't a scientist.

Edit: I follow Judith Curry, not WUWT.

a reply to: rnaa
edit on 26-9-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your friend is an idiot.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ok, you're a science denier.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Wow, I didn't notice that post. Maybe his friend is the Janitor?

a reply to: nOraKat



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your friend is an idiot.


Well if he is, he is still a meteorologist at NASA.

That kind of quip is the work of a juvenile response of a person
who has nothing of value to contribute to the thread, so they
throw out things like "your friend is an idiot" "you are a liar" etc.
All symptoms of an intellect that can not make a cogent argument
and so resort to playground, third grade taunts.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
In elementary school Al Gore told my entire school that by 2010 the polar bears would be gone and so would the polar caps.

I stopped buying GW, CC stuff in 2010.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOccupation

Good on you for not listening to AL Gore, but don't let him make you ignore others.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Why not let bureaucrats and politicians control the energy sector, what could possibly go wrong? Hell, may as well turn everything over to the UN, I fully trust corrupt elitists thousands of miles away to have my best interest at heart, why wouldn't they?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

news.nationalgeographic.com...
It's kind of funny we don't see much comparison between earth and other planets from the mainstreem.


A lot of facts came out from a lot of phds that were met with the same old
smear campaign. The climate gate emails from hadley CRU were the killing blow
for a lot of ppl . For me it was the documentary "The Great Global Warming swindle"
which is viewable at some online vid sites.

The one thing I can say for sure is that the ppl at the top in corporations, government,
and banking are a bunch of lying con-men scumbags, and they cover for each other,
and large section of the justice system should be renamed to the "Just Us" system.

If anyone at this point expects anything coming out of any corporate media to
provide reliable truth, they are delusional.

The "operation mockingbird" media has been revealed to be a total CIA front.

I am not trying to tell you where to find the truth or who to trust, I am just telling
you that we are being lied to on scale that exceeds the imagination of even those
who consider themselves awake.

The live vivisection of babies for profit and then cackling about it like the
stygian witches out of some ancient greek horror story was the final straw for me.

These ppl running this Psyop are psychopathic monsters, top to bottom, and
they do not have a single shred of humanity in their demonic evil minds or souls.

Global warming as bad of a fraud as it is can be said to be just the tip of the
iceberg as the entire system top to bottom is one giant fraud as has been
discovered with alternative cures for cancer, and simple plant cures for
malaria like Artemisia.

en.wikipedia.org...

The lies through all aspects of the system are so unbelievable, that if
I were to list half of them here ppl would have a mental gag reflex and
simply dismiss them out of hand.

This plant cure above has been known by China for decades, and only
now has it leaked out.

Millions have died for this ONE lie.

Democide is not an accident, its intentional, and I may not be able
to get most ppl to believe that, but if you look at the history books
you too will see a pattern that defies the explanation of accidental.

262 million dead at the hands of government OUTSIDE of war...
in just the last 100 years.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 27-9-2015 by Ex_MislTech because: spelling



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: NWOccupation




In elementary school Al Gore told my entire school that by 2010 the polar bears would be gone and so would the polar caps.

I don't believe you.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your friend is an idiot.


Well if he is, he is still a meteorologist at NASA.

That kind of quip is the work of a juvenile response of a person
who has nothing of value to contribute to the thread, so they
throw out things like "your friend is an idiot" "you are a liar" etc.
All symptoms of an intellect that can not make a cogent argument
and so resort to playground, third grade taunts.



Yes its called Ad Hominem attack.

Its where they choose to attack the person, instead of the argument.

The simple logic being that if they could defeat the evidence, they'd attack
that, but they can't so they choose to "delay, deny, discredit" the issue and ppl.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I don't either. That the Florida keys would be underwater I would have believed, but I've never heard him give a date on any animal going extinct.

Maybe as a kid he misunderstood what Al Bore was trying to say?

a reply to: Phage







 
71
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join