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: 8
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

No...the same scientists ...it is a strategic ladder of denial.



1.CO2 is not actually increasing.
2.Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3.Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4.Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5.Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6.Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it , and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

en.wikipedia.org...


That list is referring to any denier and written by Michael Mann...


Want me to show you where you pretend scientists and orgs were claiming nothing was happening???


Are they real or pretend?
edit on 25-9-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You mad bro?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Science's reason for existing is to help better understand the universe around us by testing hypotheses and discarding the ones that are found to be wanting and leaving the ones that hold up to testing.


Sure do have something to say.

The Global warming science is settled which is the EXACT opposite of what global warming defenders keep saying.

That's what they call trying to have it both ways.

And the ad hominem began here:




Because you aren't thinking hard enough.

edit on 25-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
How did this get 60 flags?

5 year old story and an OP that refused to answer the questions on why it needed to be rehashed.

Funny that people are willing to take one mans word when it benefits them but when the majority of scientist say something its all bs and money fueled.


Would you be surprised if a thread talking about Climategate got 60 flags too? I wouldn't be.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Science's reason for existing is to help better understand the universe around us by testing hypotheses and discarding the ones that are found to be wanting and leaving the ones that hold up to testing.


Sure do have something to say.

The Global warming science is settled which is the EXACT opposite of what global warming defenders keep saying.

That's what they call trying to have it both ways.



Who says that Global warming science is settled? No science is settled. How about proving that absurdity? Link me to some prominent scientists saying that Global Warming Science is settled and there is nothing more to learn about it.
edit on 25-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko



Are they real or pretend?


I dunno know? You tell me? How about you direct me to some of your supporting "science" that leads you to believe that CO2 emissions are not effecting climate change?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

How is telling humans that they are contributing to screwing up nature on the planet supposed to lead someone to a false sense of security?


Because it gives them control.

"Oh, it's our fault. If we just clean up our act soon everything will be fine".

When in reality it's truly out of our hands.

I'm not denying that global warming is occurring, but there is a deceptive emphasis placed on this one particular aspect to this epidemic, rather than climate change as a whole. Yes, we're contributing. But even if we cut all Co2 emissions today, it would simply delay the inevitable.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

How is telling humans that they are contributing to screwing up nature on the planet supposed to lead someone to a false sense of security?


Because it gives them control.

"Oh, it's our fault. If we just clean up our act soon everything will be fine".

When in reality it's truly out of our hands.


That's a stretch and you know it!


I'm not denying that global warming is occurring, but there is a deceptive emphasis placed on this one particular aspect to this epidemic, rather than climate change as a whole. Yes, we're contributing. But even if we cut all Co2 emissions today, it would simply delay the inevitable.


It's impossible to say what will happen at this point if we cut emissions. We are in uncharted territory when it comes to climate trends.

Why conservatives must fight climate change


This is oh-so-speculative because we have never seen such high atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in all of human history. The last time such high concentrations existed was during the Pliocene Epoch, some 3 million years ago. Temperatures were then about 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are today and, in part because there was no Arctic ice cap, sea levels were somewhere between 33 and 131 feet higher than at present.

Even if we take major steps now, concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases will continue to increase for more than a century. We are literally running an unprecedented experiment on the planet with few data points to suggest how it will all turn out.

Basic physics, however, tells us that warming will follow increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Even if the catastrophe scenarios of double-digit warming don't play out, we're not necessarily out of the woods. The most likely spread of future warming according to the IPCC, about 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit, could have catastrophic impacts as well.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

So we should just stick head in the sand and act like we have no hand in it? In the name of 'progress' we have changed what this planet looks like, and have the arrogance to act like that won't change things.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Science's reason for existing is to help better understand the universe around us by testing hypotheses and discarding the ones that are found to be wanting and leaving the ones that hold up to testing.


Sure do have something to say.

The Global warming science is settled which is the EXACT opposite of what global warming defenders keep saying.

That's what they call trying to have it both ways.

And the ad hominem began here:




Because you aren't thinking hard enough.



Thats because any time they want to end the argument the retort is always "The Science is Settled"

The typical reaction from the agenda pushers is to stop any debate......



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Seems like many people on this thread have been saying the science is settled the other way too.
Shoot that is almost the entire premise, that since this one guy says it, well must be the truth then!
Also lumping in the idea that if you agree man has some effect on the climate change then you must be for cap and trade full stop.

Bringing up five year old stories is the way to go about it I guess.
edit on thFri, 25 Sep 2015 15:18:46 -0500America/Chicago920154680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Did I say co2 doesn't lead to climate change? co2 does lead to warming and is logarithmic in effect. You are the one claiming skeptical scientists claim something and then pointed to a list created by the leading AGW scientist to back it up.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

So you admit they are the leading AGW Scientists.


Maybe LEADING Scientists means something different to you than what it does to the scientific community.

Leading is synonymous with chief, principal, most important, and foremost.


The findings of those leading a field of science are far more credible and respected than the findings from those who are not.

Just an FYI.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I got tired of reading beyond page four, so I'm going to jump in here and then move on. It seems to me that most people are missing the point entirely, one scientist says manmade gw, another says gw is not manmade and the whole world argues. Meanwhile the big bro' wheedles in crackpot laws that only bite the poor in the pocket, like they need any more bs, and the same people who get rich off pollution go laughing all the way to the bank, the one in the Caymans...
What? You think carbon tax and ridiculous "solutions" like that are going to hurt the big companies?! Who the fudge profits out of every crisis there has ever been? Who constantly evades tax and forces the working peasants to foot the bill? Who deflects attention off themselves and directs it to the scapegoat, that is welfare recipient's by the way, people's hatred of them is fuelled by the very problems the super wealthy puppet masters create, and you all follow the script perfectly.
Anyone heard of the human zoo's? We are living in a social experiment, and guess what's going to happen when the experiment is over?
Tick tock, tick tock, we going to keep wasting time debating whats destroying earth, or are we going to rise up against the giants in lab coats observing us behind the glass? Apparently we are going to keep debating, cause its important to be right, aye!



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Science's reason for existing is to help better understand the universe around us by testing hypotheses and discarding the ones that are found to be wanting and leaving the ones that hold up to testing.


Sure do have something to say.

The Global warming science is settled which is the EXACT opposite of what global warming defenders keep saying.

That's what they call trying to have it both ways.

And the ad hominem began here:




Because you aren't thinking hard enough.



Thats because any time they want to end the argument the retort is always "The Science is Settled"

The typical reaction from the agenda pushers is to stop any debate......



Wait...You posted some letter from just one of the almost 5,000 members of a science club...a letter sent 4 years ago as if it breaking news??

Who has the "agenda" again?

WOW... Your OP is misleading, your evidence is non-existent...and this "scientist" represented .002 of 1% of the membership the club he dropped out of.

LOL
edit on 25-9-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Might be assuming to much here but it seems OP has decided to selectively respond.

Maybe he is just busy though.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
No.

I find it annoying that you can never back up your claims that AGW is bogus with any legit information.



edit on 25-9-2015 by jrod because: ce



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

I'm not denying that global warming is occurring, but there is a deceptive emphasis placed on this one particular aspect to this epidemic, rather than climate change as a whole. Yes, we're contributing. But even if we cut all Co2 emissions today, it would simply delay the inevitable.


You mean from immediately, to millions of years from now? I'm up for that kind of delay.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Loved it!



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Indigo5

a list created by the leading AGW scientist to back it up.


Curious as to why you term them leading "AGW Scientists"?

Do we call cartographers "leading round earth scientists"?

Or Astronomers "Leading heliocentric scientists"...aka, the sun at the center of the solar system vs. earth

Cuz I am pretty sure they consider themselves just Scientists reporting data and conclusions.




top topics



 
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join