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.

 

Space, Climate Change, and the Real Meaning of Theory. Real Scientists and Empirical Evidence?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold



That about says it all.




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven



That's really funny, given that you didn't even source your chart at all


Source is here Greven link, Its a median of data sources including Vostok ice core, GISP2 ice core, Kilimanjaro ice core etc.



You're citing a study that claims sea levels are rising, but you want to dismiss part of that study and not the whole?


The study was done by Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA on the Antarctic ice sheet gains or losses not sea level rise. He mentions that Antarctica isn't attributing to sea level rise as reported by IPCC.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: glend

I love when you all find one scientist to cling to but then ignore plethora of others that disagree.
Which I am sure will be followed by "Well those ones are just paid to say things!"
And then I google that guy and every webpage that has his study is selling some kind of book or DVD about how AGW is bunk.


A study on just this topic proves you wrong here

But I am wondering why you feel I am being unreasonable in quoting Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, once Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, when others I am replying too are posting graphs from skeptical science that is owned by self-employed cartoonist John Cook who likes dressing up as Hitler.

WHY IS THAT?


edit on 22-8-2016 by glend because: fixed



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Temperature records are being fabricated to support a world carbon tax worth trillions. Instead of parroting what media tells you is trith or not, go check out temperature records for yourselves at the locations IPCC say are warming [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html]here[/u rl]
edit on 22-8-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

despite chemotherapies ineffectiveness....

www.icnr.com...



An important paper has been published in the Australian journal Clinical Oncology. This meta-analysis, entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer. Although the paper has attracted some attention in Australia, the native country of the paper's authors, it has been greeted with complete silence on this side of the world....


Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy. Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients. Yet despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.


But you keep believing whatever you like



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




CO2 released by us being the culprit, as we have observed on Venus.


I didn't know we were burning fossil fuels on Venus. Thanks for the update.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Elementalist

I can see you're a lost cause.

Apparently you think your opinion trumps years of scientific training and knowledge. You're exactly fitting of the description in my opening post. A poster child of scientific denialism.

Let me guess your google skills are more reliable than peer review scientific study..right?



I follow science very much so, I love sciences especially biology, anatomy, geography and much more.

Which, all come from the universe, not humans. Science is the study of what nature is and always has been doing.

I'm just giving an opinion, yet am labeled a "lost cause", by a nobody on the Internet.

If we sat down for a drink and conversed, you would change your mind. But that's a lost cause.

The condescending tone is unwanted and immature, change it and grow up.
I'm just looking a little deeper then "some years" of scientific observation.

Nowhere did I say fact.. just depeer thought, but you're a smart ass, so no conversing with you unless science said so.

Scientific denialism. .. lmao




posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Idc what the guy who owns the site does, that is just some ad hom attack the has nothing to do with the site and the claims they make which is often supported by experts in their field as well.
My point is that you will find that one guy, appeal to his authority and then try and show that since he says it, it must be true. All while ignoring the other experts that disagree with him.

And again not so sure you read what you posted in that study.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
They tried the carbon tax here in the UK. The power companies immediately raised tariffs to cover it. The public's reaction forced the politicians to do away with the tax and the companies lowered their prices back down.
Nothing changed, I imagine, with regard to carbon emissions etc.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: projectvxn




CO2 released by us being the culprit, as we have observed on Venus.


I didn't know we were burning fossil fuels on Venus. Thanks for the update.


That's a neat argument. I was talking about CO2 in Venus' greenhouse effect. It's a process that is well understood.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Not only are you wrong, you are also posting unsubstantiated pseudoscience.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

Every post you make makes me believe otherwise.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: glend

Idc what the guy who owns the site does, that is just some ad hom attack the has nothing to do with the site and the claims they make which is often supported by experts in their field as well.
My point is that you will find that one guy, appeal to his authority and then try and show that since he says it, it must be true. All while ignoring the other experts that disagree with him.

And again not so sure you read what you posted in that study.



Yet you googled the authority of the scientist I mentioned and try dismiss his credentials because what did you say, "every webpage that has his study is selling some kind of book or DVD about how AGW is bunk." Hypocritical not?

But he was not a lone scientist dissenting against common consensus.




“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

"Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about
AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with
Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their
brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” By 49 Former NASA Scientist


The sad truth is that science is being manipulated by those that will profit in the trillions by introducing a carbon tax and by trading in carbon derivatives (aka governments and banks). It is not science but a dogma.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Of course you're going to say that



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: glend

Idc what the guy who owns the site does, that is just some ad hom attack the has nothing to do with the site and the claims they make which is often supported by experts in their field as well.
My point is that you will find that one guy, appeal to his authority and then try and show that since he says it, it must be true. All while ignoring the other experts that disagree with him.

And again not so sure you read what you posted in that study.



Yet you googled the authority of the scientist I mentioned and try dismiss his credentials because what did you say, "every webpage that has his study is selling some kind of book or DVD about how AGW is bunk." Hypocritical not?

But he was not a lone scientist dissenting against common consensus.




“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University

"Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about
AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with
Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their
brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” By 49 Former NASA Scientist


The sad truth is that science is being manipulated by those that will profit in the trillions by introducing a carbon tax and by trading in carbon derivatives (aka governments and banks). It is not science but a dogma.

Your appeals to authority are lacking.

Hans Jelbring thinks the greenhouse effect is because of pressure and published this in a journal that is known to have low standards... like his article:

This paper has purposely been kept more qualitative than quantitative to avoid elaborate formula and explanations –and to make it easy for all to diges

Some 'Climatologist ' he is.

John Reid can't do math, since he thinks this:

Although poor in nutrients, the Cromwell Current is rich in dissolved inorganic carbon with the result that, when this current comes to the surface near the Galapagos, excess carbon is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. A simple calculation shows that three gigatonnes of carbon dioxide are outgassed per year, i.e. equal to about half the calculated human contribution per annum.

That figure is way too low:

originally posted by: Greven
The EPA estimates 0.43 metric tons of CO2 emissions per barrel of oil. We consumed more than 36 billion barrels of oil last year, for approximately 15.5 Gt of CO2 emissions from oil alone. Worse, coal is estimated to contribute over 40% of CO2 emissions; oil sits closer to 33%. Cement production is a smaller chunk, adding only 1.5-2 Gt of CO2.

So his credibility is pretty shot too, by his own words.

If I was bored enough and had the time I'd go check on the rest, but seriously it's pathetic that people cling to these charlatans as some sort of bulwark against simple #ing physics.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: projectvxn

Of course you're going to say that


Indeed.

I don't subscribe to unsubstantiated BS. I don't subscribe to naturopathic and homeopathic witch doctor crap. I don't subscribe to pseudoscience with cherry picked data and misrepresentation of scientific studies in order to sell heirloom seeds to people in their doomsday vaults.



new topics




 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join