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: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Tu quoque buddy.

Where are the technical facts that dispute AGW?

More CO2 is good for plant life is not going to cut it...

We are on pace to doubling the CO2 count in just a couple of human lifespans...



What about the links I have given you already that has the applied math wizard from Australia showing new and valid science showing that CO2, even if it is increasing, is still not DRIVING climate change? CO2 contributes only 1/10th to 1/5th to any effect on the climate. According to his findings where he actually crunched the true numbers, the warming crowd has totally exaggerated the significance of CO2 affecting our climate.
redicecreations.com...

I do doubt you will see this splattered all over CNN and MSNBC though, because the people paying them have been on board with the scam for way too long, past the point of no return.

The real reason that I know this guy is right, isn't because he has 6 degrees in applied mathematics, or because he worked for the Australian government as a scientists doing climate modeling research.

It is because of all the climate ALARMISTS so vocal that the public must believe this or else. The climate alarmists are pushing an obvious agenda.

They are not caring about our climate at all in reality. Show me one example where any of this scam's captains have curbed their own carbon footprint! Has Al Gore switched off his lights at night? All 300 of them? Has he sold his gas guzzling V8 vehicles?
Has Obama curbed his use of Air Force one? Not even a little bit. He has wasted 150,000 gallons of jet fuel in a months time. That is a nice big contribution to the atmosphere.

We don't need scientists or anyone else to tell us the truth of this matter when we can get the truth from the captains of the carbon credit scam by watching their behavior.




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Again you post an opinion piece and try to pass it off as if it were a legit piece of information. Again you cry carbon credit scam without actually addressing any of the science and data that support AGW.

When you rant about Al Gore and through the term 'alarmist' around, no intelligent person on this board will take you seriously.

For the record, what you posted was a piece from Joane Nova, a shill for Australia's coal industry. NOT VALID SCIENCE!

edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: arr

edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: bs



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Again you post an opinion piece and try to pass it off as if it were a legit piece of information. Again you cry carbon credit scam without actually addressing any of the science and data that support AGW.

When you rant about Al Gore and through the term 'alarmist' around, no intelligent person on this board will take you seriously.

For the record, what you posted was a piece from Joane Nova, a shill for Australia's coal industry. NOT VALID SCIENCE!


It isn't just opinion. The guy worked as a climate scientist for the Australian government. And he has 6 degrees. Way above your pay grade and mine. But he's a shill? Are you sure it isn't you? What is your vested interest in climate science? It doesn't appear to be one looking for truth. Also, what I said about not needing this guy or any other scientists findings is totally valid. Look at what the preachers do and look if they follow their own sermons. Obama supports this global warming bit. That right there is a gigantic RED FLAG. A proven LIAR supporting nothing but BS. All the data showing man made warming has been exposed as lies a long time ago. Have governments come out and agreed to stop burning coal? No? When governments obey their own BS then we can talk about bailing them out on this. They haven't slowed output even a little bit. They just want everyone to "believe". RED FLAG.. can you say red flag?

No person intelligent or not on this board will take YOU seriously.
Does Obama and Al Gore curb their own carbon output? No they do not. They put out more carbon than an entire neighborhood of people. That all by itself condemns them as liars. L I A R SL I A R S

They don't abide by their own preaching because not even they believe the BS they spew. They just want to promote a scam and get everyone on board a big push for a huge tax scheme. Why else would people encourage belief in something while not following their own dogma? Answer that one oh wise one. Everyone's waiting...
edit on 19-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to NoCorruptionAllowed
The guy is Joane Nova's husband, a known shill for Australia's coal industry.

I see you just keep up playing the political rhetoric game instead of actually addressing the science and using the Appeal to Authority Fallacy instead of addressing anything of scientific merit.

David Evans debunked

P.S.,

Your 'expert' has yet to have a peer reviewed paper published.....
edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: facepalm



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to NoCorruptionAllowed
The guy is Joane Nova's husband, a known shill for Australia's coal industry.

I see you just keep up playing the political rhetoric game instead of actually addressing the science and using the Appeal to Authority Fallacy instead of addressing anything of scientific merit.

David Evans debunked




Like I said before, and I will keep saying it:

Look no further than the actions of the captains of the global climate agenda, to see and watch how they live, to know if it is legitimate or not.
Based upon their lifestyles staying the same, and wasting energy like there is no tomorrow, the whole thing is a big fat LIE.
You don't need science to understand human nature, greed and pride. Just watch the actions of those promoting the scam to find validity. Based on this, there is NO validity.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

One doesn't need science to understand this?

Really dude, how stupid do you think this board is?

You can away with the BS on most forums, however this one you will be called out in it. Too many people here can think for themselves and can seperate the actual science from junk opinions and political rhetoric.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

One doesn't need science to understand this?

Really dude, how stupid do you think this board is?

You can away with the BS on most forums, however this one you will be called out in it. Too many people here can think for themselves and can seperate the actual science from junk opinions and political rhetoric.


People can think for themselves? I don't see you doing that. I don't see those following Al Gore doing that either.

Look no further than the proponents of global warming by their own lifestyles to know if it is real or a hoax. The best scientists in the world are worthless if they are on the take.. Getting paid by government to "find" things a certain way..
And I love how you keep ignoring my pointing out how these "captains of AGW" are wasting energy with wild abandon not even curbing their own carbon output, while preaching to the masses to believe everything they say. And their followers only have ridicule and rhetoric to answer any relevant questions against them.
We are done. The argument is over with.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Again no science from you, just fluff and political rhetoric.

Why are you so obsessed with Al Gore and Obama? Neither are scientists.

I try to bring data and science to this discussion and not try to 'win the argument' using dishonest debate tactics, logic fallacies, and so on.

It is absolutely asinine that you claim scientists are being paid off by the government to push an agenda, then provide a link to a fossil fuel shill who claims to be an expert despite the fact he has yet to get any of his work published.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Again no science from you, just fluff and political rhetoric.

Why are you so obsessed with Al Gore and Obama? Neither are scientists.

I try to bring data and science to this discussion and not try to 'win the argument' using dishonest debate tactics, logic fallacies, and so on.

It is absolutely asinine that you claim scientists are being paid off by the government to push an agenda, then provide a link to a fossil fuel shill who claims to be an expert despite the fact he has yet to get any of his work published.


Science and data don't matter if those proposing carbon credits are not themselves following their own preachings.

Perhaps if those people believed in their own fallacy, and obeyed what they preach, then maybe they wouldn't now be using every tool at their disposal to get everyone on board with the hoax. Changing the name didn't help much.

Al Gore was the one who first came out claiming the entire thing was a global crisis. Bill Clinton handed Al Gore the microphone at his farewell speech and he promptly began his sales pitch about "global warming" Remember?

The people claiming CO2 is driving climate are not following any personal lifestyle changes to indicate that they themselves believe CO2 does anything to drive the climate.
You know it, I know it, and the whole world knows it. You prove that with every response and your unwillingness to address this little tidbit.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And once again you prove you don't know how to f'n read.
Read my posts. Climate change does exist, and it has existed since the world began. What drives climate change has been the same thing driving it since the world began as well.

Albedo modulation. The waxing and waning of the cycles of the sun. This is why climate change has also been detected on other planets in our solar system. Carbon dioxide only causes minor warming. It isn't the major driving force of climate change.
The entire reason why this whole thing is being argued the world over now, is to promote a carbon credit tax scheme for a-holes to make a ton of cash with like some have already done. This can only be accomplished if the problem can be totally blamed on CO2 as a cause of climate change. (They used to call it global warming) Change the name to suit the game!
redicecreations.com...
blogs.news.com.au...


What makes you so sure that can be the ONLY possible driver of climate change? You make it sound like since we've identified one major contributor to climate change in the universe, suddenly there is no possibility for any other major contributor to do it. Why?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Science and data don't matter if those proposing carbon credits are not themselves following their own preachings.



That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in these climate discussions.

Science and data are everything in this discussion.

You have directed your attention to politicians who lie for a living and not just ignore the science, you claim its irrelevant! Keep up the strawman arguments focused on politicians, that tells us who can think for ourselves thst you truly are grasping at straws here.

Insight on climate change vs global warming


edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: v



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No one was caught posting false information. Besides I've already linked to YOUR scientists' credibility. Lots of big oil funding behind them. I wonder why? Couldn't be because they see the growing threat of them going out of business as we try to move away from being reliant on oil because it contributes to global warming? NAAAAAAAH! That doesn't make sense. Businessmen ALWAYS give up their businesses without a fight when they are shown to be detrimental to society.

How a PR Firm Helped Establish America's Cigarette Century


Hill and his colleagues set to work to review a full range of approaches open to them. Dismissing as shortsighted the idea of mounting personal attacks on researchers or simply issuing blanket assurances of safety, they concluded instead that seizing control of the science of tobacco and health would be as important as seizing control of the media. It would be crucial to identify scientists who expressed skepticism about the link between cigarettes and cancer, those critical of statistical methods, and especially those who had offered alternative hypotheses for the cause of cancer. Hill set his staff to identifying the most vocal and visible skeptics.

These people would be central to the development of an industry scientific program in step with its larger public relations goals. Hill understood that simply denying the harms of smoking would alienate the public. His strategy for ending the "hysteria" was to insist that there were "two sides." ... This strategy -- invented by Hill in the context of his work for the tobacco industry -- would ultimately become the cornerstone of a large range of efforts to distort scientific process in the second half of the twentieth century.


Oh wait they've done it in the past. These tactics seem familiar though...

Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry


The importance of public perception of scientific consensus has been established in a number of studies (e.g., here, here and here). Perhaps nothing underscores its importance more than the strenuous efforts that opponents of climate action have exerted in attacking consensus. For over two decades, fossil fuel interests and right-wing ideologues have sought to cast doubt on the consensus:

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that our paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature has come under intense attack. Since published 6 months ago, nearly 200 articles have been published online attacking our paper. The attacks have come in the form of blog posts, Youtube videos, cartoons, papers, reports and conspiracy theories. The most entertaining conspiracy theories are Christopher Monckton's suggestion that the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters was created for the purpose of publishing our paper and Anthony Watts' accusation that Dana Nuccitelli has vested interests in oil.

Attacks on any scientific consensus, whether it be human-caused global warming or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibit five characteristics of science denial. Similarly, the attacks against our paper have exhibited the same five characteristics. Some of these characteristics are on offer in an opinion piece by Anthony Cox published in the Newcastle Herald. I was granted the opportunity to publish a response in the Newcastle Herald, which was published today:



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The UN mantra of AGW has been bastardized into the phrase Climate Change to make it politically correct.
Everyone accepts Climate Change is real.
Intelligent people know that AGW is complete cr@p.

edit on 19-10-2015 by Cynic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cynic
The UN mantra of AGW has been bastardized into the phrase Climate Change to make it politically correct.
Everyone accepts Climate Change is real.
Intelligent people know that AGW is complete cr@p.


So true.
And what we have now is groupies who are themselves baton carriers on their knees for their PC masters trying to shove a bunch of fake science into the mix to give their argument more validity, while those before mentioned masters burn more fossil fuels than they could ever hope to burn themselves by sheer volume alone, and cost as well. Those masters pay no attention to science, or their own use of fossil fuels and wanton carbon input into the atmosphere, because they know they are full of Sh^t, and only use it to attempt to convince everyone else to just "believe" to create a sort of "critical mass" and this will hopefully soften the blow when a behemoth tax scheme is announced that will "deliver us" from this crisis like magic.
While the carbon credit scammers ride off into the sunset laughing, towards their own bank.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Science and data don't matter if those proposing carbon credits are not themselves following their own preachings.



That has to be one of the stupidest things I've read in these climate discussions.

Science and data are everything in this discussion.



Practice what you preach. When Al Gore and Obama, and others riding that same broken bandwagon believe their own words, then and only then should people listen. Science and data that is true is important. What these idiots claim is something else more akin to the contents of an outhouse. Blind acceptance from proven LIARS is what is actually stupid.

edit on 19-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Can't dispute the science so you resort to attacking my knowledge of the subject.


What you call science is easily disputable. You are just too confused to understand it.



originally posted by: jrod
Your talking points have been debunked over and over.


Really? prove it...


originally posted by: jrod
Can you provide evidence that the increase of CO2 we are observing is NOT caused by burning fossil fuels?


This shows just how much knowledge you have in this subject. You are always keep claiming that the increase in CO2 is all man made, when that is far from the truth.

First of all, mankind emits approximately 8 gt of CO2 annually. Meanwhile all natural sources emit around 210 gt. But the natural emissions are not constant from year to year. They vary, and the variations from year to year can, and do exceed the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

When the Earth warms, and it started warming in the early 1600s, the biosphere warms and all natural sources emit more CO2. So natural emissions of CO2 have also been increasing.

I am pretty sure you have seen articles about emissions of methane increasing naturally because the Earth has been warming right? Well, alongside the increase natural emissions of methane, CO2 among other ghg also increase naturally... So this claim of yours that mankind is the cause of all the CO2 increase is false.


originally posted by: jrod
Again opinion pieces are not evidence, neither is your opinion.


lol, that's all you ever post, really confused opinion of someone who doesn't understand and obviously doesn't want to understand, or can't, how climate changes occur.


edit on 19-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Anthropogenic CO2

Using the C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratio we can conclude that the extra CO2 is indeed coming from burning fossil fuels.

Skeptical science is a good start for anyone who his willing to their own research.

Keep up the personal attacks, that tells me I am doing something right.

edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: missing word

edit on 19-10-2015 by jrod because: add link



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Let's take a look at a graph which shows the "predicted increase in warming globally by 2100."



Notice something strange about where the increase in temperatures are "supposed" to be worse by 2100?

Let me mark the areas where most of the warming is "supposed" to occur.



The most warming will be "supposedly" occurring in the south American Amazon Rainforest, and the Arctic.



But how is that possible if supposedly "mankind" is the cause for the increase in CO2 which the AGW camp claims it is anthropogenic CO2 causing the warming?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   


Albedo modulation is what drives the climate. CO2 only contributes a little bit


So, how much is the albedo modulated by cutting down millions of acres of forest and paving over millions of square miles of the planet????

When the climate of entire regions changes in just a few decades I have a hard time believing that's just a natural occurrence. My state is being visibly altered by climate change and is starting to have serious damage done to it from drought, fire, hotter temperatures, etc.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

wow... first of all, pointing out that you are confused is not attacking you... You have stated in the past and in the same post that you "believe AGW is a hoax as well" and then you agreed with the AGW claim. That shows someone who is really confused. It is not a personal attack...

Second of all, skeptical science is a website known to lie. Among the many claims they have made is that the Sun's activity stopped increasing for the past few decades.

This is part of the lie they claim.


...
The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.
...

www.skepticalscience.com...

But the thing is, first of all their claim that solar irradiance has been decreasing for decades is false


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...




During times of quiet solar activity the total solar irradiance had been increasing.



www.nasa.gov...

The study was conducted for 24 years only thou, from 1978-2002.

Yet other older studies also show that the sun's general activity had also been increasing.


The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

October 28, 2004
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...

www.mpg.de...

Not only that, solar irradiance is not the only source that can cause natural changes on Earth's climate.

Magnetic storms in the sun had also been increasing and continued to increase until about 2006, when it decreased and since then has been fluctuating wildly.



Notice that in the above graph the solar cycles are leveled off to simply show the difference from year to year. the blue data points at the bottom shows the increase in activity of magnetic storms on the Sun.




edit on 19-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join