It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Climate Change Denial: Why?

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:50 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

How you did not see that I was showing that co2 is rising because of humans, and that we can track it is beyond me.

How did I manage to do that when I agree with your statement? I didn't link any models so far? Go check my history, I'm still talking about it with TheRedneck and I thought you referred to said model. You obviously didn't, thanks for clarification.

Emotionally charged BS is another problem, I already commented on that. In short, you're absolutely spot on again.
edit on 11-8-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I have read your models, specifically the one you provided with hard data from the last half century. Those are the models I am a fan of because they use hard evidence. Future models are the ones I have a problem with, as I have seen the be wrong since 2002.

I guess there was a communication breakdown and I did not see you were agreeing with me. I apologize for misunderstanding.
edit on 11-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:03 PM
a reply to: raymundoko


My language is full of satirical sidenotes, sorry for the inconvenience.

Now let's have a good fight again! Any thoughts on this one? You're a scientist and I'd like to read your thoughts on Adorno and Horkheimers statement.

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:20 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I have not read that article as of yet, but I will tonight. It is lengthy.

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:43 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Take your time and have a nice read!

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Don't you think science has moral obligations?

Absolutely. And the primary moral obligation is to tell the truth.

Politicians do not tell the truth, and therein is the collusion issue so problematic. In order for there to be collusion between politics and science, scientists must lie. That in itself destroys their credibility and their ability to do anything more to help society.

What good is a lying scientist? Absolutely none. The entire concept of science revolves around the search for truth.

On your paper: it's another attempt to adjust models to match reality. Think of it this way:

There are two possible types of feedback... positive and negative. Your car's cruise control uses negative feedback. It stores a value you set for the desired speed, then compares that to the actual speed values to decide what to do. If the car is moving too slow, it increases fuel mixtures to speed it up; if the car is moving too fast, it reduces fuel mixtures to try and slow it down. It is telling the car to do the negative of what the car is doing, thus the term negative feedback.

In positive feedback, imagine that the faster your car went over your set speed, the more it increased the fuel mixture. It wouldn't take long to be at top speed!

Now think of the atmosphere like a very complicated cruise control. Everything in the atmosphere affects, or feeds back into, everything else. Some of this feedback is positive, and some is negative, and none is fully understood yet. In order to understand the interactions, we use computer models to perform calculations we think are accurate in order to duplicate things we know from measurement. If our calculations are right, the results match our observations and we have a working model. If not, we know our calculations are not right.

But even if the calculations appear correct, we still have to verify farther by making accurate predictions. It is common for a system to be stable for a limited time, then 'blow up' beyond that. Figure 1a in your link is a good example of a system starting to blow up. Only after the model has matched observational data and successfully predicted future observations can it be considered accurate. As a matter of fact, a model is still considered 'suspect' for some time. The more complex the system being modelled, the longer this process takes.

This was the great 'sin' committed by the IPCC. Their model was adjusted, using some very questionable algorithms, to get it to align with known data. Once it was aligned, it was used to make predictions and blew up (remember the hockey stick?). Rather than accept their model was inaccurate, the IPCC released predictions to the public and openly supported political agendas based on those predictions. The result for me was probably a good thing: I realized they were so full of bull catnip their eyes were turning brown. But for most? It caused hysteria, panic, power grabs, and a loss of confidence in general.

Oh, and you're misreading the tolerance... 1.7 ± 0.43 means it is between 1.27 and 2.13, not that it is 2.13. That's a pretty lousy tolerance, TBH.


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:02 PM
a reply to: jrod

Not a problem.

Think about this: life has apparently existed here for at least a few hundred million years, and we know that all life manipulates it's environment in some way. That's a long time for the planet to remain stable in the presence of so many disturbances and indicates a stable system. Yet Global Warming advocates want to use extreme measures to stabilize what is already proven to be stable.

If a system is already stable but needs minor adjustments, the proper method is to use the inherent stability... in this case photosynthesis via phytoplankton... to make adjustments. It would take either an idiot or a fool, either term synonymous with politician, to risk massive destabilization by introducing new disturbances.


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Nope - no comment. You've been offputting enough to make me not want to click on it. So I didn't.
Don't be a disser.

Try acknowledging the things that people are correct about, instead of always telling them NO.

There's a game to help you do this - it's called "Yes, and....."

No matter what anyone says, you counter with that beginning.

You say: "YES, AND"

and that way you VALIDATE PEOPLE'S contributions.

Like people said to me - don't be a dick. I know better - I was just in a pissy, defensive mood - now you know better (because I taught you)....

so, just, don't do that. Don't be one of those trollish naysayers or gainsayers.

Just saying. Off topic, maybe, but not really. Climate Change is a contentious issue that you are not helping with right now.

edit on 8/11/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

LOL!! And I KNOW BETTER - so many times I say "nope!" or "no" or "NO" or whatever. I know better. I promise to do better, too.
From today forward.
Join me??

edit on 8/11/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 05:10 PM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nenothtu

Brilliant as ever. So glad you stopped in!

It fascinates me how the wildlife population ebbs and flows with the climate. Here in this deciduous forest where I live, things have been greener and greener and it's harder to keep the brush away. My mom and I both work like fiends to have pleasant yards - mine is generally much more "au naturel", but liveable - there are now margins around the perimeter that have been allowed to go wild - and they make formidable hedge-rows and privacy screens and living stockades.

We have deer wandering through pretty regularly, up here by the river it's different than just 10 miles south of here - entirely different 'climate' and 'soil', although the seasons in general are shared, of course.

Anyway - thanks again, neno - glad you caught mention of the thread!

Well, 10 miles south of you is mostly concrete and brick, I think. That was an area where I HAVE seen the river frozen over hard enough to walk across, where the street I lived on there crosses Blue River, I think it was. Just a few miles south of that, just before I'd get on Bannister, there was an island of nature where I would often see deer on my ride to work. You're right, just a few miles can make a big difference sometimes.

Right now, we've gotten so much rain that I may need a hay bailer to just mow my yard here... and on the weather the other morning, the weather man mentioned the "drought" that we are in. Drought? WHERE? I almost have to swim uphill to get to work now! Of course, he's 50 or 60 miles south of me as the crow flies, so it could be, I reckon, but nary a sign of it here.

One of the things affecting the local weather here is the fact that the air currents have to rise to clear the mountains, and when they do they cool, and precipitation results. That's part of why we get so much rain here, but not the whole story. It wasn't this wet, overall, when I left all those years ago. Sure, we'd get the occasional flood back then (because the terrain funnels ALL the rain down narrow channels), but overall it was a lot dryer. Cactus grew wild in some places. Not that it was desert by any means, but a lot dryer than it is now.

Basic physics says that warmer air can carry more water, and just my anecdotal observations here tend to bear that out. I've often wondered if that has been factored into the gloom and doom climatological models they keep trying to scare us with, but sort of doubt it, since I hear so many predictions of desertification from the warmer temperatures. COLD air tends to produce deserts, like the Sahara, because cold air carries less moisture to precipitate out. Once upon a time, where I live now was tundra, and for a few centuries desert too - dust blown from here lies a foot and a half thick on the banks of the Chesapeake, under the topsoil that is home to such a profusion of life now that it's wetter. That tundra/desert was produced by an ice age, not a global warming episode.

Musings like that part of what make me skeptical of this whole politicized climate change agenda.

I found the thread on the front page - it was just a happy accident that it was one of yours!

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:17 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The question isn't whether real science does that...The question is how much real science is actually being allowed to occur and is used in the development of our paradigms...

If you REALLY research the non-contrived evidence with an open mind, you'll probably come to the conclusion that there isn't much REAL science going on.


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:47 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

I doubt it. I know too many scientists who are actually earnest to fall for the idea that it's all "fake" science. That is sensationalist disinformation.

Scientists are serious scholars and very much genuine. "Fake" scientists are a scourge on our entire civilization.

But I'll leave it to you to discover that you are mistaken. MOST PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE is A) not front-page-style available to people who have limited vocabularies or knowledge regarding research. And it is also B) carefully conducted and recorded, regardless of your (or anyone else's) confidence in it, or acceptance of it.


Learn about scientific research. Then come back and tell us how "most of it" is bullcrap.

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

I think I can shed some light on that subject.

Experimentation can be expensive, especially if people want results fast. I recently designed a circuit board for one of my work projects that cost around $500 to get produced. We needed two boards, but had to order 10 because that was a minimum order. We had to use a company that would give fast turnaround. By contrast, I am about to place an order for boards for my personal research project. They're $10 for 10 of them, from China, with a two month expected turnaround.

Quite a difference.

I can get away with that because I am self-funded on my personal projects... always have been. I grew up in a world where money was in short supply, so I learned how to use whatever I had instead. That has always been a major source of delays, but then again I have no deadlines to miss. Few if any people coming up today are learning to do that.

I grew up in a world where I could have anything I wanted if I could figure out how to get it. I wanted a bicycle... so I found an old frame someone had thrown out, scavenged parts from more throwaways, bought a couple bearings, and went cycling. Others asked their parents for a new bike. I got an old rattle trap VW Beetle and access to my Dad's tools when I was ready for a car; my friends got late model or sometimes new sports cars.

Now when I need something fixed on my car, I grab some tools and fix it. They call for a repairman and complain about repair prices.

Typically, a scientist thinks up an experiment they want to perform, or an engineer decides on a project he wants to make. They apply for grants until one is approved. Then they work on it, using the grant money. The grantors, of course, want to see where their money is going, so there are periodic reports to make sure everything is on schedule. That means there's no time to save money... you spend what it takes to get results.

The work project I mentioned probably cost $1200. I could have built it here for less than $100 (labor not included in either estimate). Not as fast, but with similar labor hours.

At work I have $2000 oscilloscopes. Mine here cost $200 and does everything the expensive one does. It's a DS1M12 PC-based model. Mine also doubles as a frequency counter and DVD, with a self-written Matlab interface for analyzing data. I plan on getting a logic analyzer from the same company.

Where at work we specify specific part numbers, here I specify requirements and start checking surplus dealers. I can sometimes save 90% on components.

The point I am getting at is that everything costs so much and depends on making the money people (grant providers) happy. If the money dries up, the scientist/engineer is out of work and destitute. If the grant provider wants results, it's hard to say no, even if their requests are unreasonable or irresponsible. Precious few know how to survive without the steady supply of cash. And everyone will do whatever they must to survive.

In summary (yes, I know this rambled some), our society has laid the seeds of corruption by forgetting the how-to of living simply, the grant providers have succumbed to the "I want it now" syndrome, and the corruption that has always existed in government and overly-large industry is learning how to manipulate these to their self-interest.


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

For a really educated guess regarding the presumably lousy tolerance I'd like to see better ones first, with equivalent time-scales and a comparably huge system of course.

1.27 K warming doesn't sound bad enough for you? Just an increase of roughly 600%, not 1000% ... err... I'm actually surprised to see the second response to that issue now.

Anyway. Besides from all that I do agree with your fencing stance against nasty politics and rigged systems. Thanks for clarification! I've got a funny one for you:

“I remember in the ’70s, that [cooling] was the threat, the fear,” Posey recalled. Then he pivoted. “I’ve read that during the period of the dinosaurs, that the Earth’s temperature was 30° warmer. Does that seem fathomable to you?”

One freshman on the Democratic side couldn’t resist adding his own brand of insults, aimed not at the witness but at his Republican colleagues. “I have to say that, frankly, Dr. Holdren, at this point you should be prepared to address whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether indeed gravity is happening.

At House Science Panel Hearing, Sarcasm Rules

ATS members, you bet.

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Typically any error greater than 10% is considered very very inaccurate, regardless of the time scale and system size. We deal in 5% quite regularly at work, primarily due to the miniscule size of the system and inherent difficulties in measurement. We still complain about 5% tolerance.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but larger systems typically provide more accurate data. Multiple measurement points over wide time scales means much more data, allowing for errors in individual measurements to cancel each other out. So the error we are looking at is not measurement error, but computational error. That's much more serious.

1.27 K warming compared to expected 0.2 K is a huge difference, and that's the problem with the model. The results were off. The model is not accurate. This was not a test of the climate, it was a test of the model to see if it agreed with the climate. The model needs adjustments until it matches what really happened.

We do not discount measurements because they disagree with models, we discount models because they disagree with measurements.

Those supplying the money for this research will go over the report and decide if enough progress has been made toward the goal to deserve more funding. This probably has already happened (don't remember the date). The scientists will study their results and try to improve the accuracy of their model. The pundits will take the conclusions and spin them to make people think we are doomed to freeze in the fiery flood that can only be stopped by giving up their money and freedom. And the cycle will repeat when the next report is due.

I hope this clears things up for you.


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:30 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

So much to learn, so little time. Dialectic of Enlightenment, I should have learned that before. But I do understand status quo. Just keep doing what you're doing. Keep the systems in place. In this case, burn domestic oil instead of importing. Keep burning that coal. Never nationalize the oil and gas and make energy companies buy it like a front end tax. Never actually raise tax on energy. In fact, don't talk about raising taxes at all for anything. The bankers can magically create money for wars. What the hell, they can create it for phytoplankton and troposphere seeding too.

As for seeding the ocean with phytoplankton and seeding the troposphere (I've seen a few such "solutions" end up doing more harm than good). These proposed solutions are proposed precisely because the problem is recognized. But rather than stop the cause of the problem come up with ameliorations.

I had an uncle who practiced medicine in a kinda/sorta licensed way. His big complaint against medicine as practiced was that it was all about the amelioration of symptoms, and not stopping the cause. His philosophy was that the majority of health issues stemmed from the inadequate elimination of waste, ie. not pooping and pissing enough. He had this saying:

"If you walk into your bathroom and notice the sink is clogged and the faucet is running and the water is pouring all over the floor. Don't go looking for the mop to start mopping. First, turn off the water, then mop the floor, then unplug the drain."

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:56 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Now I'm confused.

1.27 K warming compared to expected 0.2 K


It's roughly 1.27 in the second half and 0.2 in the first, that's the issue. From nearly no warming to 600% increase min. at the end of the 20th century. Old news confirmed, actually.
If you read something with expected values from the quote or said results you've got it probably wrong.

Grab any study with observational data only in case of doubt, this is good one for ex.:

“These data are unique,” says Sharma. “They were collected by humans viewing and recording the ice event year after year for centuries, well before climate change was even a topic of discussion.”

Early citizen scientists collected rare ice data, confirm warming since industrial revolution

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 03:11 AM
a reply to: jrod

Jrod, the ones who keep showing a lack of total understanding as to what is happening is people like you. Time and again your completely nonsensical ramblings only catch the stars from other people who can't make heads and tails of this debate.

There is more than plenty evidence that shows your "religion" is simply a hoax. Sorry, it is. Water vapor accounts for 97% or more of the greenhouse effect in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs. CO2 accounts for nearly 5% at most of the greenhouse effect in that atmospheric layer. So there is no way in the world that the about 5% greenhouse effect from CO2 is stronger, and the lead for the 97% greenhouse effect from water vapor. More so since a single water vapor molecule is 10 times more potent than a single CO2 molecule. Water vapor exists in larger quantities, and it's 10 times more potent than CO2 ever will be. But the AGW camp want to claim that "CO2 is the most important factor" when it isn't. Not even close.

Not to mention the fact that temperatures lead before changes in Global CO2 levels change. Temperatures(natural ones since water vapor is 99.999% natural, are the cause and CO2 levels are an effect of increased temperatures.

But like always, your responses simply show not only how little you understand this topic, but the fact that your tactics never change... Trying to humiliate and insult those who don't agree with your religious hoax... Good job there jrod...

Your next response will be "but we have increased CO2 levels"... But guess what, those levels are still below the average amount of CO2 the Earth has had most of it's life. Not to mention that Earth has had higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now, yet it was colder instead of hotter.

It has also been proven to you time and again that people like you are living with Air conditioners/heaters and your ambient co2 levels are around 800ppm-1,000 + Yet you don't die, your plants don't die, your pets don't die.

edit on 12-8-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 07:05 AM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Can you give me the paragraph number (or at least page number) where this is mentioned? We may be thinking two different things.


posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:05 PM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

Not a problem.

Think about this: life has apparently existed here for at least a few hundred million years,

Been enjoying your comments, but had to offer you a revision for this one: life's been on the Earth for about 3 billion years. And, in fact, our oxygen atmosphere (waste products from the original life forms) was the cause of the first extinctions - the Great Oxygenation event

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: Byrd

Thanks Byrd. I didn't remember the exact time, so I made a low guess and added the phrase "at least."

And yeah, I know about the evolutionary change to use highly corrosive oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. Actually a fascinating subject, from a chemical viewpoint.

Nice to see you again.


new topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in