It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: Ghost147
Must be new, you're purporting it to be free
We are also told that there is a 97% consensus among scientists, and that according to President Obama “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Of course, all such a number really does is nothing more than boosting the “credibility” of the people and the organizations that are advocating the manmade global warming theory and install more fear in the public. Unsurprisingly, when you actually start doing some research on your own and read beyond the headlines a very different picture emerges. The particular study, that was conducted by Cook et al and on which this whole 97% consensus nonsense is based, has been proven to be inconsistent, misleading and biased on multiple occasions. For example in this study, this paper and many more. Cook’s desperate attempt to avoid losing face with a new paper has been flat out rejected by Earth System Dynamics, stating that it would need “substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal. The problems are several fold.”
According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact. In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?" A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists." Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal's "impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it", but blamed this on "the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people."
Climate change skepticism
When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
Part of the journal's official mission statement reads: "E&E has consistently striven to publish many ‘voices’ and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more sceptical analyses of ‘climate change’ and the advocated solutions".
American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
First you're wrong about the origins of the 97% consensus figure. It originated with an article Doran (2009) published in EOS, detailing a survey conducted by the article's co-author, Margaret Zimmerman, in 2008. Prior to that was Oreskes (2004) published in the AAAS's esteemed jounral Science.
“A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”
"Skepticism" does not equate with "real science." Real scientists are skeptics, thats true, but scientists also follow the evidence. even if the "97%" number is incorrect, the vast majority of scientific studies have found evidence that the current climate change is man made. The minority of scientists that are skeptics of man-made climate can put forth their claims, but the conclusions are drawn from the consensus.
Originally it was called "Global warming" due to the warming trend that alerted scientists to the concept, but that was decried by people saying "It was -20 this morning in arizona! how do you explain that "Climate scientists?"
So then it was changed to "Climate Change," and for a long time it was denied that the climate was changing at all (where the word "deniers" started)
Thank you though for raising your arguments and pointing out some of the inconsistencies that I apparently have in my story. I wasn't aware of the "fake news website". Nonetheless Al Gore has invested a lot in the carbon trade, so that should point out some of the conflicts of interest.
And regarding the arguments that you made about the melting of the Arctic: I was simply pointing out that Antarctica is gaining ice mass and not losing it. It is not related to the question whether the Arctic ice sheet is gaining or losing ice.
And irrelevant links from wattsupwiththat? I don't agree with that. I think it is a very helpful and valuable source for a lot of information on climate change. Also the comment section often have very interesting and deep discussions.
And you disregard a source like the heartland.org because of an incident that happened in the past? Then we in theory could do the same with many other sources that have had their credibility questioned in recent years, e.g. NASA, NOAA, IPCC just to name a few.
originally posted by: Ghost147
Why, exactly, is it so bad to focus excessively on cleaner fuels, free energy, sustainability, reduction of pollution, reduction of waste, taxation on companies who produce both an excessive amount of pollution and unnecessary pollution when there are greener alternatives, the protection of ecosystems, the advancement in technology that leads to green energy, so on and so forth.
That is what the people who accept the concept of a human-influence over global climate change want. Why is that bad?
Europe's climate change goals 'need profound lifestyle changes'
Leaked European commission document calls for wide-ranging debate on how to keep global warming to 1.5C
European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes” required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.
The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian.
It was written in response to last December’s Paris climate summit, which agreed a plan for cutting emissions to net zero after mid-century, and an intent to peg global warming to 1.5C.
Temperatures have already risen by 1C since pre-industrial times and slamming the brakes on climate change “is by no means an easy undertaking”, the document says.
“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.”
Democratising Global Governance:
The Challenges of the World Social Forum
This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian
'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account
I appreciate your post giving the counter argument and if it was actually 7 days old, you may have room for suspicion of an agenda being pushed.
originally posted by: snchrnct
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: snchrnct
Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.
I hope you understand that it was merely a way to highlight one of the many absurdities that we have come accross when discussing manmade global warming?