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.

 

Man made global warming and ocean acidification thoroughly and scientifically discredited.

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier

It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.


But the whole man made global warming debate is much more complicated than just Carbon and water vapor. It also takes into account Methane, N2O, and Ozone and furthermore we know that small changes in things can have huge impacts.


I agree it is complicated, but why then is the focus on carbon? Why have all these pollutants combined had little to no effect on climate?




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier

It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.


But the whole man made global warming debate is much more complicated than just Carbon and water vapor. It also takes into account Methane, N2O, and Ozone and furthermore we know that small changes in things can have huge impacts.


I agree it is complicated, but why then is the focus on carbon? Why have all these pollutants combined had little to no effect on climate?


I don't know why the media and blogs focus on Carbon and even a lot of the actual research but a big part of climate science does deal with these other gasses and in particular methane. I think all of these pollutants combined are having a big effect on Climate. The climate has definitely gotten much warmer in the past couple of decades, that much we know for sure.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid



Only to the Climate Change Church,
Fact: there are hundreds of scientists that don't support the CCC
edit on 28-9-2015 by manuelram16 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid




Only to the Climate Change Church,
Fact: there are hundreds of scientists that don't support the CCC

You say that there is a Climate Change Church, yet I say unto thee "...there is a Climate Science Debunker's Church"
Fact: There are thousands of Scientist that don't support the CSDC



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta




Ive been standing outside planned parenthood all day.


The line to get in that long?


V



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing
So you're saying Climate Change is not commonly scientifically accepted fact, !!!good!!!
maybe it's about time to stop the bullying and PC police



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"IPCC has 50+ years of peer reviewed papers"

Yep that figures, you global warmers have problems even with dates, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. How does one peer review papers on global warming when IPCC and NOAA have continually stonewall FOI requests for models and data which should be public domain.
edit on 28 9 2015 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
So here is an example from an article in The New York Times of how failed models of climate change are.

Wobbling on Climate Change



GREENBELT, Md. — I’M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.

In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age:

“And the lead scientist at NASA said this — he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That’s what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you’re welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing.

“So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up — is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no...

“How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?” That “lead scientist at NASA” was me.
...
And that, I thought, was that.

So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn’t explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages.


So, even Congress is a bit puzzled on the accuracy of climate models.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Ive seen the 1 guy vs 1000 guys argument for about 1000 different 1 guys at this point.

Waitng for someone to say, well its just these 2 guys...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Variable

There is a going out of business sale. 2 for 1 .



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier

It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.


Who cares. Your stuck on temperature. Thats a small part of the problem. Do you believe the ecosystem will not change as India and China require more resources to grow their economies? Where will be getting all the oil, clean water, metals, and other resources to do this ? Once the materials start becoming scarce more and more wars will happen.

I love the anti environment crowd they love winning a battle to die off in the war.

The more flora and fauna disapeer the more the earth will change.

I don't care about climate change arguments at all. It's consumption economics that will deplete unrenewable resources. Changing over to sustainable energy and consuming less will do more than any blowhards taxing people. Getting rid of lobbyists will allow renewable energy to grow faster.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.


Animal habitat sustainability etc; came into the calculation some time ago, so much so, one panel person or IPCC member...but I think the latter, resigned because researchers needed to include animal habits/habitation and so on, because it was becoming crazy, I present among others, the Arctic Squirrel,

'Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, and Nigel Golden, from the University of Wisconsin, spent eight days in the Kolyma River watershed in north-east Siberia, Russia, studying the burrows of arctic ground squirrels.
They found that when squirrels made their burrows in the permafrost they mixed soil layers, increased aeration, moisture and temperature, as well as redistributing soil nutrients – all of which could contribute to an increased thawing of the permafrost and release of organic carbon.' In other words, the little feckers were trying to stay warm

wryheat.wordpress.com...

There's probably some paid research going on to find out why Aliens are visiting Earth, and my guess it that they come here for their holidays because Earth is so cuddly and warm due to climate change, and by so doing, (summary) increasing the farting population. The plus side, there are no lizard aliens coming here to do a bit of chomping!

To add, anyway here is the video from an award winning Channel four documentary circa 2007 called The Great Global warming Swindle, (I think maybe the ol' squirrel gets a mention too) but don't quote me. The documentary had critics, including OFTEL and there were minor errors, but I think the Niddy Gritty remains true, and needs to be considered.




edit on 28-9-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.


Animal habitat sustainability etc; came into the calculation some time ago, so much so, one panel person or IPCC member...but I think the latter, resigned because researchers needed to include animal habits/habitation and so on, because it was becoming crazy, I present among others, the Arctic Squirrel,

'Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, and Nigel Golden, from the University of Wisconsin, spent eight days in the Kolyma River watershed in north-east Siberia, Russia, studying the burrows of arctic ground squirrels.
They found that when squirrels made their burrows in the permafrost they mixed soil layers, increased aeration, moisture and temperature, as well as redistributing soil nutrients – all of which could contribute to an increased thawing of the permafrost and release of organic carbon.' In other words, the little feckers were trying to stay warm

wryheat.wordpress.com...

There's probably some paid research going on to find out why Aliens are visiting Earth, and my guess it that they come here for their holidays because Earth is so cuddly and warm due to climate change, and by so doing, (summary) increasing the farting population. The plus side, there are no lizard aliens coming here to do a bit of chomping!



I wasn't referring to climate change effecting habitat. I was referring to the population increase and acquiring of natural resources and the effects of pollution on habitat. Pointing out 3 billion possible new high consuming people needing more resources than several usa's combined. (Near future)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
More people also means the possibility for more solutions. As is pointed out in this article, so long as people have been able to worry, they have been able to do so about over overpopulation. www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marid Audran
More people also means the possibility for more solutions. As is pointed out in this article, so long as people have been able to worry, they have been able to do so about over overpopulation. www.nytimes.com...


Well a historian isn't exactly who I would look to for a forecast. Right now many people don't even think its a problem.

www.sciencedaily.com...


news.nationalgeographic.com...





edit on 28-9-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: imd12c4funnMan made global warming and ocean acidification thoroughly and scientifically discredited.

From what crackpot did you get such trash!
Every CREDIBLE scientist in the field knows better.
Why is it that you need to ignore the 99.99999% and focus on the 'anomaly'?
You can always find some freak to validate one's own ignorance and belief infestation!
Does your pet monkey also discredit 'evolution'?

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes
(And can find some 'freak website' to 'validate' it!)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
The presentation in the OP by Dr. Easterbrook is demonstrably false. He has misrepresented and manipulated data in order to exaggerate global cooling and minimise global warming. He has doctored graphs, quoted incorrect figures, and then claimed conspiracy when his results aren't taken seriously.

A cursory five minute investigation into Dr. Easterbrook and his claims has revealed this.

Over the first decade or two of the 21st Century, the IPCC projected close to 0.2°C surface warming per decade. Thus I am very curious to find out where Easterbrook had obtained the information that led him to assert that the IPCC had predicted a 1°C increase over the first decade of the century. Easterbrook's depiction of the IPCC projection is quite unlike the report's actual model projections.

Easterbrook has selected a model run which happens to simulate a large temperature spike right around 2011, after which temperatures immediately fall and don't return to their 2011 levels for another 20 years. This anomalous temperature spike is due to the fact that Easterbrook relied on a single model simulation as opposed to the average of a number of simulations.

Easterbrook elected only to show the HadCM3 greenhouse gas-only forcing simulation data up to 2011, at the peak of its short-term temperature spike, exaggerating the supposed difference between models and data.

To summarize, he chose a figure which represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols. He chose a single model run with an anomalous temperature spike in 2011. He only presented the data from 2000 to 2011, which concealed the fact that the temperature spike in 2011 was a short-term anomaly. He exaggerated his distorted IPCC temperature rise by a factor of two.

Thus Easterbrook's claim that the IPCC TAR projected a 1°C global surface warming from 2000 to 2010 was not even remotely accurate.

The man is a retired geology professor. It is claimed he has studied climate science for five decades, but he holds no relevant qualification.. He singles out UK and US scientists as managing a conspiracy/hoax, despite there being a worldwide scientific consensus from fields ranging from astrophysics to oceanography, climatology to paleogeophysics, meteorology to geophysics and atmospheric chemistry. Climatologists, glaciologists, biogeochemists, hydroclimatologists, physicists, paleontologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists all understand and accept the anthropogenic climate change issue.

His fudging of a few IPCC numbers thoroughly and scientifically discredits nothing but Dr. Easterbrook himself.

There is a 97% global scientific consensus on the fact the anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Congratulations on finding one of the ill informed 3%.

Here is a list of national or international scientific bodies, representing that 3%, who support the position rejecting anthropogenic climate change:


*sigh*
edit on 28-9-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
a reply to: amazing
So you're saying Climate Change is not commonly scientifically accepted fact, !!!good!!!
maybe it's about time to stop the bullying and PC police




LOL not sure I said that. Not sure it's bullying. It's like if you didn't believe in gravity and I kept trying to tell it was true and that thousands of scientists said it was. Would that be bullying? I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: amazing

Ive seen the 1 guy vs 1000 guys argument for about 1000 different 1 guys at this point.

Waitng for someone to say, well its just these 2 guys...


But you know it's thousands.

If you go to NASAs website. They think it's real. And they link to I think 200 scientific organizations that say it's real. That's thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific organizations and associations. Well known and well regarded ones.

Then you have to ask yourself, are they all lying to us? Is this the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world that all of these people are lying to us? That defies logic.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
At last , another true scientist speaks up against these false prophets.....



Don Easterbrook, Professor emeritus of geology, Western WA University has gone before the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change to present the real facts on global warming.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join