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.

 

12 failed theories about AGW?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Justoneman

Just my opinion, but the man-made climate change crowd was more about globalism, one-world government, control, power, than it was about saving the trees and stuff.



.....And just like back when it was we were creating a new ice age.. and needed to switch from paper bags, to plastic bags.... there was then a large percentage of "True Believers".... who never would believe they were being used as tools... the scientist said so.... therefore it is true.
and when then didnt pan out, they kept their mouths shut until everyone forgot about them and here they are again.

The game started when we went from being told the "Average Temperature"..... to it being called the "Normal Temperature".... implying that any deviation from said temp is abnormal and surely man made.




posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Justoneman

The planet is not going to go away. However, the quality of life for people living here could go to Hell.

It all comes down to whether you believe in science and the motivations of scientists. Scientists are smart people. They can make money doing anything. I think Big Oil propaganda has all you right wingers twisted in a not. What is good science and what is superstition is why we have science in the first place.

The 97% consensus on global warming

And the other 3% are paid shills for Big Oil.



Science isn't really science anymore in the fact that certain things, whether true or false, will not be published if it in any way will effect the carrer of said scientist. Plus the political pressure put on some of them. If science was the way it should be, then we would have had all of Tesla's nifty gadgets way long ago. Plus who knows what other tech is being supressed.


Here is one that is being suppressed

wkrn.com...



Hydrogen fuel cells are not suppressed tech.
More power is required to separate the hydrogen from water than you get out of it.


It is not supressed but the Car driving with it in that video is. That was built about 30 years ago when Nissan moved to North America. They took the design from the University and built a prototype... Just now getting one from the German companies.. So, i conclude they have held this motor back. It isn't that expensive to build but the heads are different than a normal motor is the only issue for a manufacturer.


edit on 26-11-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
My Dad, whom I am very proud of, has always believed in climate change. He also says global warming is false.
Dad is a super genius scientist with many degrees in many fields, and he has even been summoned to the White House by a vice President to meet with top officials. One of Dads many titles was director of research for a fortune 500. He was also their Chemist, and microbiologist.

It is about money



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I've flipped my position on this subject. Mainly because I explored the evidence they have put so much effort and funding into discrediting.

There was a time when powerful lobbyists and corporations fought hard to convince the public that lead was totally safe and no threat to the public health and environment despite growing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Similar things happened with CFCs, some vaccines etc.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, it is a major part of the economy.

The weather isn't the indicator, the trends are, and real science shows how we are producing more greenhouse gas than our planet can eliminate naturally.

Maybe this is one we will deny and push too far until we are over the edge and into a runaway warming scenario before we accept that we were wrong?

Way too late in the game.


edit on 26-11-2017 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
I've flipped my position on this subject. Mainly because I explored the evidence they have put so much effort and funding into discrediting.

There was a time when powerful lobbyists and corporations fought hard to convince the public that lead was totally safe and no threat to the public health and environment despite growing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Similar things happened with CFCs, some vaccines etc.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere, it is a major part of the economy.

The weather isn't the indicator, the trends are, and real science shows how we are producing more greenhouse gas than our planet can eliminate naturally.

Maybe this is one we will deny and push too far until we are over the edge and into a runaway warming scenario before we accept that we were wrong?

Way to late in the game.



Not just no, but oh hell no that is wrong!

www.livescience.com...

5 times today's peak levels. This also states we were producing more CO2 now than the current volcanism
of 2014. I point that out because temps didn't go up over the last several years... the pause and all, you know



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I would add that the sequestered carbons of the limestone deposits and dead organic matter will form CO2 in the perfect combustion chamber of a magma well. CO2 emissions will expand and contract based on the level of vulcanism occurring. A Pinatubo type of eruption blast tons of acids and CO2 into the atmosphere and causes global winter, and potentially an ice age is likely again one day if geological history remains in play.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The World will always need smart people. Scientists make money no matter what they publish. I don't think the scientists really care what the data says. Most of them are atheistic nihilists who are probably amused by the idea that their data is being ignored and humanity will destroy its own quality of life. It will just confirm the scientists bigotry that most people are morons.


The highlighted part is not true. There is only so much grant money out there, and they are all fighting for it. So to go against the grain, or publish an article that might be deemed unpopular by their peers GREATLY reduces the chances that further study gets funded.


You misunderstand what I am saying. Anyone with a PhD from MIT is NOT going to be a poor person.


I know plenty of poor PhDs. Some of them can't even find work in their chosen fields due to various circumstances. Education alone does not make a person successful.
edit on am1111201717America/Chicago26p11am by annoyedpharmacist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
I know plenty of poor PhDs. Some of them can't even find work in their chosen fields due to various circumstances. Education alone does not make a person successful.


Absolutely. I know some poor PhDs personally. Most of my acquaintances with BS degrees are doing a lot better financially than my PhD buddies. Not bashing the PhD, but more education simply does not mean more money by default.
The fields are incredibly competitive to boot.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

97% of scientists agree that the fudged data shows that climate warming is a bought and paid for study.


Pure idiotic superstitious drivel. That's the whole point. How do you separate good science from junk science. 97% think it's not junk science. Maybe you should try reading one or two sentences on the subject before you start talking about you butt. I find it funny how people who are experts on superstition think they are experts on scientists. That's the point of the reference website is to debunk people like you!



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

"Doctors recommend you smoke cigarettes because it cleans out your lungs."



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




I point that out because temps didn't go up over the last several years... the pause and all, you know


Pause?


The rise in temperatures did slow for a while, but that was a while ago.

edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: dfnj2015



Scientists are smart people.
I would say they are educated but smart ,not so much .I know some smart uneducated people who also do dumb things .Most if not all scientist have a bigger CO2 footprint mainly because of $$ . They fly around the world for conferences when they could do Skype or if they were smart find a way that produces less CO2 .


That's dumb argument and adds nothing to the conversation. If CO2 is going to kill all life on earth maybe we need some science rather than your driveling argument that scientists are hypocrites because they burn fossil fuel BS. This is the lowest possible quality of argument against public policy.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1


the quality of life for people living here could go to Hell.


The earths population is at a all time record .We produce more food then we ever did .We have more hospitals and doctors then ever .We have better built homes ,roads ,and schools . Compared to the time of our for fathers I would say they were living in your "hell"


Population is only a problem because public policies do not address social issues. Laissez faire capitalism is destroying our planet with artificially created demand for products people do not need.

If you want to cut down population fully fund Planned Parenthood and hand out condoms for free.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1


It all comes down to whether you believe in science and the motivations of scientists.


What motivates scientist ? Do you think there could be different things at work in scientist ? maybe money ,maybe prestige ? Maybe some have altruistic reasons but my guess is not many . Scientist are constantly being quoted as saying they were surprised by what they found because they thought one thing and now they have to re-access the way they think . Things like animal species that have been extinct for millions of years that are still chugging along . Science text (what they say) is always being changed or adjusted to fit new ways of measuring or just thinking about things . I believe that science is a moving target .


Scientists are motivated by doing good science. Smart people have lots of money because they are smart.

I think you know very little about science and the scientific method.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1


They can make money doing anything.
LOL ...



Jack donkey's do smile.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1


I think Big Oil propaganda has all you right wingers twisted in a not.
There are a lot of left wingers that drive cars and travel in planes and trains .Use items made from fossil fuels and eat GMO's or crops fertilized with extracts from fossil fuels . Heck just look at Hollywood and the life of the rich and famous . You can't get any more left then them . Maybe they are just Big Oil Shills who like to lean left .


Again, another BS argument. Pure meaningless drivel.

Here's the problem with people like yourself. Science does work. Just look at this graph with regards to public policy and ozone depletion:

images.slideplayer.com...

As I said, the atheistic nihilistic scientists are probably laughing at the moron right for not taking their data seriously. I very much doubt the scientists are motivated by your superstitious delusions you are projecting on them.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The World will always need smart people. Scientists make money no matter what they publish. I don't think the scientists really care what the data says. Most of them are atheistic nihilists who are probably amused by the idea that their data is being ignored and humanity will destroy its own quality of life. It will just confirm the scientists bigotry that most people are morons.


This post is nothing but assumption and opinion.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




I point that out because temps didn't go up over the last several years... the pause and all, you know


Pause?


The rise in temperatures did slow for a while, but that was a while ago.


Oh, did it now?

This might disagree with you and notice the date is 2017.

science.house.gov...

You keep trotting out the proven false and it doesn't make it proven true Phage!



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

The 97% consensus on global warming

And the other 3% are paid shills for Big Oil.


Aaah! 100% that clears that up then, all in a neat package..no room for doubters at all.

But, but If I were to believe what you say above at face value, then I would be kidding myself, because I know that there are people in your 97% who don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, but who have contributed to what makes up the reports, and where the 97% figure comes from, while the IPCC continues to publish their names anyway.
Kinda sad when the IPCC has to behave like that don't you think.
And BTW, you don't necessarily need to be a right winger, or anything else for that matter to have serious doubts about what is now called 'Global warming'...(well it was called that a minute ago), I think it's moving to 'Regional warming' soon. Serious doubts really from the get go.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


This might disagree with you and notice the date is 2017.
That headline is inaccurate. Bates made no claim that data was manipulated. His complaint was that, in his opinion, protocols were not properly followed for the release for a paper.. His words:


"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
source
edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

 

Lamar Smith was fished in by a really bad magazine article. So were you, apparently.


The Daily Mail has been forced to apologize for an article it published which suggested climate researchers in the United States were manipulating data.

In an article titled "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data", the Daily Mail made bold claims that "a landmark paper exaggerated global warming" and that the report's remark that a pause in global warming didn't take place "was based on misleading, 'unverified' data".

www.iflscience.com...
edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yea, yea...
I want some of what you have been taking.


www.insidescience.org...

ETA

Other items, but you can play the it isn't true game again with them no matter if they are true. There are set of you guys that are like automatons. Prattle on about angles to the item and ignore the money game being played by some already powerful people.
edit on 26-11-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

An article about the Daily Mail article?
Is that supposed to mean that Bates did say that data was manipulated? Because he didn't. Oh, your source:

For his part, Bates maintains his criticisms of the Karl study and his concerns about how climate data are managed. But when it comes to the reality of climate change, he sees eye-to-eye with his former colleagues.

"Global warming," Bates said, "is a scientific fact."




Re: your edit.
Yes, the oil companies are very powerful, indeed.

edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman


Here is one that is being suppressed

wkrn.com...


How is it or any new tech being suppressed? Where did someone like Elon Musk come from then... Most new tech is just that ...new, in its infancy, at the point kind of useless until it reaches the point that we can actually benefit from it.

Lets look at the electric car, was very small and slow with less than 100 miles on a charge that took all night to charge... Not very many saw this a viable tool, but what happens when that electric car can get 400 miles on a charge and take 30 mins to recharge and does 0 to 60 in less than 3 seconds, oh cost about 30k. The combustion engine goes the way to the horse...

Dr. Ricketts even suggested their experiment is a lot like the Wright brothers 600 foot flight... Maybe one day we will have a H2O fuel cell...I don't think big oil could stop that even if they tried...



edit on 26-11-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

An article about the Daily Mail article?
Is that supposed to mean that Bates did say that data was manipulated? Because he didn't.


Re: your edit.
Yes, the oil companies are very powerful, indeed.


No, it was intended to say that Bates did mean it and isn't a hoax. His reason being the bias his colleagues displayed was one way, as in the decisions were all for their model (paraphrasing).

Phage we should be on the same team concerning the CO2 not raising the temps, but sadly, no. I will have to remain with my knowledge of the data as my basis for my position. Some of which is certainly first hand. I have, over the years, laid out the story in fine detail how this is done to you in these threads.

One big item I was concerned was the Temperature probe locations, something I have 1st hand experience with setting those probes up correctly. I have shared that the data is verified based on using a pre-approved minimum set of standards of probe locations and we do do accuracy checks. We also establish proof our equipment works right and was located according to the type of monitor. This is done no matter the study we do as a matter of good data collecting practices, In fact, that are also required by the CFR if the data is to be certified for use by the research scientist or who ever would think they need it.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join