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: intrptr
You're forgetting the tenets of the psyop. Can't call it "Global Warming" in winter, because its cold out. They call it that during summer when temperatures are warmer.
Like chemtrails and 911, Climate Change is used to deflect away from environmental pollution , resource depletion, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.
originally posted by: SolAquarius
originally posted by: intrptr
Climate Change is used to deflect away from environmental pollution , resource depletion, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.
This has always bugged me the over emphasis on climate change. While ignoring things like fukushima the pacific garbage patch deforestation, the spike in species extinction and toxic chemicals in the water supply.
It's like the only emphasis is on climate change as the one and only issue and everything else damaging the environment and life on earth is swept under the rug I find that highly suspicious.
Actually because we are still learning about the climate, global warming was renamed to "climate change."
originally posted by: dfnj2015
Scientists agree, man made global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is real:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
You have linked to the site run by John Cook. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and has done work with the IPCC. He also wrote the most famous of the consensus papers. Look above for the graphic built from HIS own data. It's deceptive, manipulative and frankly downright fraudulent the way that paper was presented. I've heard both Obama and the President of the Sierra club parrot the numbers. Not sure about Obama, but the guy from the Sierra club had never read the paper.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: schuyler
Here's the complete list of links addressing each argument you may have:
Global Warming Links, sorted by argument
It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.
It's a farce because Jesus says it's a farce.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy
Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?
Are all climate scientists unbiased?
If not, then how many are biased?
How can a lay-person distinguish between a biased scientific journal and an unbiased scientific journal?
The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).
Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."
But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."
The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:
Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."
Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).
Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"
Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.
You obviously have jaded opinion.
There is no honest debate here
Why are you speaking about carbon soot? Would you like to debate that or would you like to debate C02? Very little soot will go into the air from a properly burning Nat Gas plant.
It is a fact when you burn fossil fuel it puts carbon soot into the air. It's a fact not an opinion.
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity...
... The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Is that right? Well here's the abstract of the papers, readers of the thread can decide for themselves. I didn't manipulate any data bro, I exposed the papers presentation of the data for what it is, a HOAX.
originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: D8Tee
No, you did something very bad. You did something unethical and unscientific. You did something that is the main cause why 57% of the american public either disagrees or is unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.
You and your bs methods are mentioned in the conclusion of the cook report! Let that sink in for a moment
You took the data from the papers and made up some nonsense 'quantify' 'minimize' subdivision to manipulate the data so it can fit you rhetoric.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.