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: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Do your research. It takes nothing to Google Dr. Easterbrook and identify that his source of information is itself cherry picked from the IPCC.
edit on 29-9-2015 by sorgfelt because: typo




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: sorgfelt
a reply to: imd12c4funn

Dr. Easterbrook cherry picked and misused data from the IPCC to get to his conclusions. He is also a speaker at conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute, which, if you know anything, is one of many such organizations created by the Koch brothers to push their deceitful, distorted ideas on Republicans who don't do their research. The Koch brothers make most of their money from oil and gas and spend much of their money buying politicians and putting out propaganda. This is conflict of interest in the extreme, yet you prefer to accept a probable liar and ignore most scientists who are trying to make the best of a complicated set of data. I'll say that it is quite conceivable that climate change is being used by the elite for nefarious purposes, but they will use anything for their nefarious purposes, hoax or not. In this case, it just happens to not be a hoax.



So he testifies that he has no political agenda, doesn't take monies from any entities that might expect certain"favors" and is just showing data with no opinion either way and states that manipulation of data to make models show increasing temperatures is a fact but it's all cherry picked. The committee stated they appreciated his coming to present his data and would use it to weigh along with other data when making difficult decisions.

Once upon a time, there was a vote here in Washington State to decide if the viaduct should be revamped or if the tunnel project that the County was gungho to build would pass the vote of the people. The people struck down the tunnel project by voting no, but guess what... the voters got back stabbed and the project went forward anyways.

Another time, there was an ugly stadium known as the King Dome. When it was demolished and a new stadium was to be built, it was supposed to be built south of Seattle in the Kent/Des Moines area but the vendors with establishments in the vicinity of the old dome were able to strike the move and have the new stadiums built to their benefit in the same area as before.
My point is, if these types of shenanigans are possible in my state, what are the odds that international agendas regarding cap and trade, carbon taxes and global warming/climate change wouldn't pull the same BS no matter the facts?
It's a juggernaut that will never be stopped unless destroyed.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.

I only say that we need to keep an open mind.



Peer-review is one of the most biased wasteful things going, since the peers can bought off, paid for , or just plain stupid.

YA STUPID LOL.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh right, the IPCC... The same one which has used false claims to push for the AGW hoax such as "the Himalayas will melt by 2035"... or the claims almost every other year for the past 10 years that "next year there won't be ice in the Arctic"...

BTW, you should know by now that there is a lot more than just one scientist who disagrees with the AGW claim, and there are 100+ years of "peer-reviewed data" showing AGW is a hoax and the ongoing climate change and warming started in the 1600s...

edit on 30-9-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Yet in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather and climate occurs, water vapor accounts for about 97% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for only about 5%.

If we were to "assume" that all the warming which has occurred in the last 100 years or so was caused by AGW, which is not true. Then what you are saying is that out of the 0.7 degrees Celsius increase in the last century, that 5% of it, 0.035 celsius caused the rest of the warming. This is absurd.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You know there is a more up-to-date graph on that page too right? How come you chose the graph that doesn't even go up to 2004?


What is data source for the reconstructed data you have displayed? Hint, they don't say!


I got it from the same source you got your graph from. It's on the same page.


You like cherry picking data that supports your beliefs and try slam any information that doesn't. I know this because I was once in global warming camp (long before you) and have been party to attacking those that stood in the way of my beliefs as well. But when I actually took the time to research both sides of the argument I realized I was wrong. 500 parts of CO2 in a million hasn't caused any recent global warming. That is a lie that they cannot prove scientifically.


So because YOU are a bad debater and once was a climate change believer, that makes ME a bad debater? Lol that's pretty funny. I'm not cherry picking information here. I used the very same source you did. YOU are the one who is cherry picking since you didn't even seem to notice it on the page you linked.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh right, the IPCC... The same one which has used false claims to push for the AGW hoax such as "the Himalayas will melt by 2035"... or the claims almost every other year for the past 10 years that "next year there won't be ice in the Arctic"...


PLEASE don't tell me you are referring to Climategate here, because then I can't take you seriously anymore. Anyone who still believes that Climategate was a legitimate conspiracy is blinded by confirmation bias because they cannot accept that something they thought was true could be proven wrong. And Climategate was proven to be a manufactured crisis by something like 6 independent sources. There is no excuse, except cognitive dissonance, to believe otherwise at this point.


BTW, you should know by now that there is a lot more than just one scientist who disagrees with the AGW claim, and there are 100+ years of "peer-reviewed data" showing AGW is a hoax and the ongoing climate change and warming started in the 1600s...


100+ years of peer reviewed data showing it's a hoax? The discussion about man made climate change didn't even exist back then; how can there be peer reviewed papers saying it is a hoax then? Sounds fishy to me.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'm not going to say that man is or isn't screwing with global temperatures mostly because I don't believe anyone fully understands how the climate works. But I will say something about peer reviewed scientific consensus.
In 2005 two scientists were given the Nobel prize for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria. For the previous 30 years doctors were convinced that stomach acid caused them. You could say they had a peer reviewed scientific consensus. They were wrong.

I only say that we need to keep an open mind.



Peer-review is one of the most biased wasteful things going, since the peers can bought off, paid for , or just plain stupid.

YA STUPID LOL.


I'll take peer reviewed over writing down whatever comes to mind and saying its the truth unquestioningly like religion does any day of the week.

It's always funny how science deniers try to pick holes in science because it isn't perfect. Except, science isn't TRYING to be perfect. It's just trying to get the best answers for things possible given human abilities and human nature. It is also currently the BEST tool humans have to explain how the universe works.

If you honestly think science is so untrustworthy, then stop using your computer. After all, it was built using science not religion.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




If you honestly think science is so untrustworthy, then stop using your computer. After all, it was built using science not religion.



there's science...and there is "science". Things we can verify empirically..and things we cant. You thinking it's all the same is a fallacy.

Human predictions are notoriously inaccurate...in many scientific disciplines. This AGW thing belongs in Dreams&Predictions forums.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t




If you honestly think science is so untrustworthy, then stop using your computer. After all, it was built using science not religion.



there's science...and there is "science". Things we can verify empirically..and things we cant. You thinking it's all the same is a fallacy.

Human predictions are notoriously inaccurate...in many scientific disciplines. This AGW thing belongs in Dreams&Predictions forums.


First off, you are wrong. There is science and then there is pseudo-science. Pseudo-sciences (like ghost hunting, aliens, and bigfoot) assume an answer then use parts of the scientific method to confirm their assumption. Sciences like AGW collect evidence then build a theory around that evidence to make predictions about the future. The predictions can't be 100% accurate because we don't have all the information yet, but when the predictions are mostly on the mark we can reasonably say that we are on the right track. The difference between these predictions and the assumptions of pseudo-sciences, is that there is room for the predictions to be wrong (it's called the margin of error). And yes, before you say anything, AGW has a margin of error.

If you were to actually look at AGW theory honestly and outside what the right wing media tells you, you'd know that not all AGW predictions have been wrong. Only the most extreme predictions (which are naturally the ones that the right wing media latches onto to try to disprove AGW theory) have been wrong. All the more moderate ones are pretty much spot on.

Unfortunately for you, your post to me told me all I need to know about your knowledge about the sciences. You need to go reopen a science textbook and study it. Stop listening to news propaganda about how science works and actually go read some peer reviewed papers. Look at the evidence then come to your own conclusions. Sitting there and letting the media dictate how you think AGW works is just stupid.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




If you were to actually look at AGW theory honestly and outside what the right wing media tells you,


I actually barely know what right wing means...and I don't take my info from media. I mostly use common sense. That too is prone to error of course. But there is ample historic evidence, which has nothing to do with any media outlet, that Climate change is as natural as they come.

Due to "natural" levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with...my common sense tells me it's way too small to have the affect on climate AGW is proposing.

All this does not mean I'm against going green all over the planet. I'm actually all for it...because it's...well...natural. I like natural.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t




If you were to actually look at AGW theory honestly and outside what the right wing media tells you,


I actually barely know what right wing means...and I don't take my info from media. I mostly use common sense. That too is prone to error of course. But there is ample historic evidence, which has nothing to do with any media outlet, that Climate change is as natural as they come.


Yes, there IS natural climate change. No one is disputing that. In fact, even bringing that up as a point is just a distraction.


Due to "natural" levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with...my common sense tells me it's way too small to have the affect on climate AGW is proposing.


Well your common sense doesn't trump scientific evidence, no matter how much you think it can. Your common sense can only go as far as your knowledge on the subject.


All this does not mean I'm against going green all over the planet. I'm actually all for it...because it's...well...natural. I like natural.


Because it works symbiotically with the environment instead of parasitically. Simple logic there.

PS: If what you say is true and that you don't get your information about CC from the media, then it is likely you are just illinformed on the subject. I can sympathize with you there. When I first joined ATS, I stayed out of these discussions because I hadn't looked at the scientific evidence yet. I maintained that natural climate change WAS happening, I just wasn't sure about man-made climate change. Then I started looking at the data. Now, I'm familiar enough with the science to make a proclamation on it, and I what I've seen is that man made climate change is real. THEN I looked into the opposite side of the debate. What I found there was evidence of conspiracy, data manipulation, hiding evidence, and paying off scientists all to discredit climate change.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Well your common sense doesn't trump scientific evidence, no matter how much you think it can. Your common sense can only go as far as your knowledge on the subject.


I don't need to trump "science" man. Scientists do that for me. It's simple math....0,something, which by the way was historically much higher, has not melted the polar caps....which is one of the claims of AGW. We can attest to that without using any science. Since it didnt, common sense dictates...it will still not when CO2 levels are much much lower, by increasing that 0, something to 0,somethingelse.

Also...we all know...and this is verifiable science...that greens like CO2. My childish common sense says...that increasing greens (I mean plant life) should actually do the opposite...that is...cool the planet...not warm it.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Well your common sense doesn't trump scientific evidence, no matter how much you think it can. Your common sense can only go as far as your knowledge on the subject.


I don't need to trump "science" man. Scientists do that for me. It's simple math....0,something, which by the way was historically much higher, has not melted the polar caps....which is one of the claims of AGW. We can attest to that without using any science. Since it didnt, common sense dictates...it will still not when CO2 levels are much much lower, by increasing that 0, something to 0,somethingelse.


See, you are trying to justify disbelief in the theory by talking about an extreme prediction that hasn't come true yet. There are more moderate predictions that HAVE come true. Including a thinning of the ice on the ice caps. This is the VERY thing I'm talking about. You are letting your lack of knowledge on the subject be filled in with "common sense" instead of looking up the answers as to why the predictions were wrong, or if there are other (and more) predictions that have come true.

This is dishonest science, and it IS letting common sense trump evidence. Common sense is disproved by science all the time. You'd be surprised about many of the things we think are "common sense" that science has shown to be wrong.


Also...we all know...and this is verifiable science...that greens like CO2. My childish common sense says...that increasing greens (I mean plant life) should actually do the opposite...that is...cool the planet...not warm it.



This just shows that your knowledge of biology is also lacking. Are you aware that plants also consume oxygen? Also, there are FAR less plants on the planet than there used to be 100 years ago.
edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




This just shows that your knowledge of biology is also lacking. Are you aware that plants also consume oxygen? Also, there are FAR less plants on the planet than there used to be 100 years ago.



When a plant is green, it is giving off more oxygen through photosynthesis in it's leaf and sometimes stem cells than it is consuming through it's root cells so that is why you hear people say that plants are "opposite" of animals in that they take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen.


Yahoo



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Global warming is a fraud tactic used by those in power. In actuality, the amount of pollution affecting the climate is miniscule. Pollution is not really creating an overall global climate change.

The people in power also know how to manipulate the weather and they can change the weather in drastic ways in certain locations around the world.
edit on 30-9-2015 by itanosam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You missed the point as to why I mentioned that. I said that to get you to think about things a little deeper. I was trying to show you that things aren't as simple as, "Too much CO2? Introduce more plants!"

Trying to explain away complicated scientific concepts with a simple answer isn't scientific at all. I'm trying to help you evolve your thinking here, but if you keep going back to your confirmation biases as a defense against critical thinking then I can't help you.

Climate change: How do we know?


edit on 30-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What's your solution to man made climate change?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What's your solution to man made climate change?



I don't have one yet. It's such a complicated problem. Carbon credits certainly won't fix the issue though. Countries like China or Russia have been known to exploit carbon credit plans.

Kyoto protocol's carbon credit scheme ‘increased emissions by 600m tonnes’

Chinese plants and carbon traders exploit loophole

So we DEFINITELY need better solutions... But just because carbon credits aren't efficient enough doesn't mean that man-made climate change isn't real.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

PLEASE don't tell me you are referring to Climategate here, because then I can't take you seriously anymore. Anyone who still believes that Climategate was a legitimate conspiracy is blinded by confirmation bias because they cannot accept that something they thought was true could be proven wrong. And Climategate was proven to be a manufactured crisis by something like 6 independent sources. There is no excuse, except cognitive dissonance, to believe otherwise at this point.


Only the most delusional of people believe Climategate was a manufactured crisis . Not to mention that it wasn't just climategate... Keep up with the discussions that have been happening for years in these forums and you have been a part of... It includes the tampering of temperature data from Russia by the CRU. The deletion of raw temperature data by the CRU. The tampering of temperature data from countries including in south America including by NASA which i have shown in these forums the original raw data was completely different from the quality controlled "adjusted" data.

In specific i showed how the raw temperature data in Puerto Casado in Paraguay was completely the opposite to the adjusted data.

The "adjusted" data for Puerto Casado in Paraguay (1950-2014) from NASA website shows as.



data.giss.nasa.gov...

The "raw" temperature data from that same station from NASA shows...



data.giss.nasa.gov...


ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov...

You think the above is the only example of "adjusting" towards more warming when the raw data shows the opposite?... Read the following.

www.breitbart.com...

NASA claimed that the differences seen were caused because the data stations were moved. But then I showed a satellite image showing all of Puerto Casado which does not have any major differences in altitude and is in fact a very small area as one example of how NASA has been lying. Even if the data stations were moved to locations close to A/C vents, there is no way the difference between the raw data and the adjusted data would be the exact opposite.



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
100+ years of peer reviewed data showing it's a hoax? The discussion about man made climate change didn't even exist back then; how can there be peer reviewed papers saying it is a hoax then? Sounds fishy to me.


Over 100 years, in fact it is data for over 300 years because the Earth started warming in the 1600s according to global borehole temperature data. Meanwhile the AGW camp keeps claiming "this is unprecedented, and it's happening faster than ever" and claims like "there is no natural variable to account for the warming" while the data shows that Earth has been warming naturally since the 1600s. The AGW camp proclaims this started happening in the 19th century, which is not true.

Does data showing the Earth has been warming naturally since the 1600s show the AGW claim is false? yes it does when you tie it with all the other facts that the AGW camp keeps trying to dismiss. Such as the fact that we know that it is the greenhouse gas water vapor, and not CO2, which has been causing most of the warming, and not to mention the other facts such as the evidence showing the Sun's activity did not stop in the 50s, or the 80s like the AGW camp keeps proclaiming.


edit on 30-9-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join