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 Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Still you guys. I believe in Man Made Global Warming because scientists tell me it's happening. Showing me graphs, does little, to sway me one way or the other, but show me a dozen scientists and scientific departments that tell me it's happening and I tend to believe them. I'm not a fossil expert either, but I believe science when it tells me we have evolution. I don't understand gravity that much but most scientists believe it's a think so again I'm going to believe them. Most scientists also believe in childhood vaccinations, I have my reservations but with much research, I've gotten my children vaccinated.

Again, by telling me that I'm being hoodwinked into believing a scam, you're telling me to ignore NASA> So really that's a whole other conspiracy theory right. You guys saying that AGW is false or debunking it should start a thread on NASA and why they're lying to us, who's in on it and why the conspiracy hasn't been broken open, but YOU peeps on this thread figured it out. Hmmmm.




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Yes ignore science and listen to the people making all the money while those same people tell you agw is all about making money...



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Roy Spencer is not a credible source of information. I'm pretty sure he's bankrolled by the Heartland Institute...


But being bankrolled by the US federal government, Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club is okie fine?

www.forbes.com...

Follow the money. AGW alarmists rake in magnitudes more levels of cash than Climate Realists.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Still you guys. I believe in Man Made Global Warming because scientists tell me it's happening. Showing me graphs, does little, to sway me one way or the other, but show me a dozen scientists and scientific departments that tell me it's happening and I tend to believe them.
...


That's the gist of the problem. The majority of the people who "believe" in AGW jumped in the bandwagon simply on faith, not on understanding.

BTW, several of us have shown not what "dozens of scientists have to say" but what hundreds of scientists have to say, including many scientists from the IPCC.

The claim that the IPCC had thousands of expert scientists was shown several times to be false. Only a few dozen scientists are/were experts in climate change, and the majority of them have spoken out against AGW. I gave several examples of such scientists from the IPCC that have spoken against AGW. These scientists have even mentioned that the IPCC doesn't care about the science itself .

Read the evidence that is shown if you want to keep up with what is being discussed for crying out loud.


This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

He was/is not the only one...

In fact, several REAL EXPERTS, many who participated in the IPCC reports have made similar accusations.


...
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."

18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."

19. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

20. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
...

undeceivingourselves.org...




originally posted by: amazing
...
You guys saying that AGW is false or debunking it should start a thread on NASA and why they're lying to us, who's in on it and why the conspiracy hasn't been broken open, but YOU peeps on this thread figured it out. Hmmmm.


And it has been done several times. Even NASA scientists have spoken out and even stated what they believe is happening.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

For example. Look at what Rob Gutro from the Goddard Space Flight Center stated at the end of the following link in 2005.


...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

CO2 has been wrongly labeled as a "pollutant". When Gutro is saying that "it is clear to climatologist that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas" he is stating the warming is not being caused by CO2.

He is not the only one who has pointed this out either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

For example. Look at what Rob Gutro from the Goddard Space Flight Center stated at the end of the following link in 2005.


...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

CO2 has been wrongly labeled as a "pollutant". When Gutro is saying that "it is clear to climatologist that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas" he is stating the warming is not being caused by CO2.


No, that's completely wrong!

It's stating that it fully compatible with the effect from CO2 and greenhouse gases which are well mixed in the atmosphere and whose influence is globally distributed and not any local heat island effect or any other effect relating to local emissions pointed to by denialists.

So, tell me, what physical influence does have an effect globally and in paricular in polar areas?


edit on 29-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

It isn't wrong... CO2 has been labeled by the AGWarmists as a pollutant. Not to mention, again, that the majority of the GCMs are wrong, despite the AGWarmists claiming that the GCMs are just giving a modest prediction and "not the true catastrophic effects of CO2". Yet even the "modest predictions" of the GCMs are wrong.

As for what could be causing the poles to warm more? Gee, i don't know take your pick. The Earth's magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster now.

Meanwhile i cannot link directly to this research without permission, I can at least link to Adrian Kerton's website which shows some of this research which point to a possible link between temperature changes and changes in Earth's magnetic poles.

www.adriankweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...


We know that despite the claims from the AGWarmists that underwater volcanoes have been melting large sections of the Arctic, and there are far more underwater volcanoes than land volcanoes.




Daily news

9 July 2007
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves

...
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.
...
The programme found 201,055 volcanoes over 100m tall. Previously, satellite data had identified 14,164 volcanoes over 1500 m high.

Hillier then extrapolated the data to estimate how many volcanoes exist beyond the areas the research vessels sounded out. He estimates there are about 39,000 volcanoes that are higher than 1000 m, leaving nearly 25,000 yet to be directly discovered.
...

www.newscientist.com...

Then there is the fact that we have only measured the CO2 released by 33 volcanoes out of 150 land volcanoes despite the AGWarmists claiming volcanoes are not a major source of CO2.



Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
Robin Wylie, University College London | October 15, 2013 07:11pm ET

...
We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.
...

www.livescience.com...

Yeah I know the above article is an op-ed, however the volcanologist's statements about how much CO2 we have measured, and from how many volcanoes is not based on opinion, but on fact.

Not only that, but there is also CO2 outgassing from the ocean floor which we can't even measure for the most part. So this claim that all the CO2 that has been increasing is because of mankind again is wrong. It's a false claim based on assumptions.



edit on 31-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join