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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




No, it was intended to say that Bates did mean it and isn't a hoax.

Bates did not say that data was manipulated. The Daily Mail made that up. They admitted it. You and the Congressional "science" committee ate it up.



Phage we should be on the same team concerning the CO2 not raising the temps, but sadly, no.
Same team? Hardly. You seem to be in a shrinking minority of those who do not think that global warming is occurring at all, much less that it is caused primarily by rising CO2 levels.
edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

..


1st this was invented during the oil crisis during the Reagan years when we all said get off of oil! They could have went to the automakers right then and ended the ME war for oil, or our need to extract it is why I keep this fire going.

They wanted $1,000,000 for the one part that you would need to make the car run on water instead of compressed H2, so Nissan who built the prototype said no to that. Now, it is $10,000 anyone can build it. I am sure Dr Ricketts will give you the plans, as he thinks it is the right thing to do. An engine using the H2 compressed variety I think will be sold by BMW/Mercedes that will use H2. A little different than driving up to a pond and filling up and not being taxed eh? That is the future, one day maybe still being taxed for the road usage to cover the lost revenue of oil. Won't be too much longer now but it is a long time in the making.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




That's dumb argument and adds nothing to the conversation. If CO2 is going to kill all life on earth
You say I am making a dumb statement and then make a claim that CO2 is going to kill all life on earth ...LOL More CO2 makes for a greener planet and higher yields in crops ...hint ,we eat crops and live because the CO2 feed the plants . The more plants the cooler the planet . But go ahead and take that flight and buy that second car to park in your 3 car garage because as a scientist you are smart and that makes you exempt from doing dumb things .
edit on 26-11-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




No, it was intended to say that Bates did mean it and isn't a hoax.

Bates did not say that data was manipulated. The Daily Mail made that up. They admitted it. You and the Congressional "science" committee ate it up.



Phage we should be on the same team concerning the CO2 not raising the temps, but sadly, no.
Same team? Hardly. You seem to be in a shrinking minority of those who do not think that global warming is occurring at all, much less that it is caused primarily by rising CO2 levels.



Baker's and my concern are the one way "bias". What I ate up was that BIAS was one way. That says to me that there is 'less science, more grasping at straws' to prove a failed model and it is FAILED.

Agreed on part two i was trying to say in some other life where you had the right information loaded in, you would be on it. You do make it fun I suppose but I suspect you are an absolute paid shill ......I am hoping that isn't true....I do see value in a good debate with any one who can defend their points.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




You do make it fun I suppose but I suspect you are an absolute paid shill

Yeah. Right. The final recourse.

I'm also a shill for the Nibiru denial forces, btw.
edit on 11/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

1st this was invented during the oil crisis during the Reagan years when we all said get off of oil! They could have went to the automakers right then and ended the ME war for oil, or our need to extract it is why I keep this fire going.

They wanted $1,000,000 for the one part that you would need to make the car run on water instead of compressed H2, so Nissan who built the prototype said no to that. Now, it is $10,000 anyone can build it. I am sure Dr Ricketts will give you the plans, as he thinks it is the right thing to do. An engine using the H2 compressed variety I think will be sold by BMW/Mercedes that will use H2. A little different than driving up to a pond and filling up and not being taxed eh? That is the future, one day maybe still being taxed for the road usage to cover the lost revenue of oil. Won't be too much longer now but it is a long time in the making.


I disagree it was suppressed by big oil. Tech may have been there, but extremely expensive and limited as I said before. If this was an analog system able to do great things in the 70s and 80s then anyone could have taken this tech and ran with it. Why would Japan, China or EU not take this to the heights to do great things since all are dependent on oil from others and this would have been great for them?

Let's look at today with computer power compared to the late 80s much less than the 70s. ETA10-G/8 abd was operating at 10.3 GigaFlops and a new Q9650 runs at 50 GigaFlops right out of the box. Think of that power under the hood to control this future tech that they didn't have, couldn't have, back then.




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



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Yeah. Right. The final recourse.

I'm also a shill for the Nibiru denial forces, btw.


They need to pay you more...just saying...



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

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


And the slowdown was only in the surface temperatures. The ocean heat content (down to depths, not surface), kept on barreling up with no pause. Which is what you expect, most of the extra heating goes into ocean depths, not surface.

What seems to be happening is that there are ocean dynamics and effects which are not in some of the models, as the excess heat was sequestered beneath the surface more than expected. This is a dynamical effect which changes from year to year and in an El-Nino configuration the heat (which doesn't go away, it has to be radiated to space sometime) re-appears on the surface as the ocean dynamics fluctuate. The global warming is on top of that cycle so therefore the El-Ninos come out hotter than before, and this will continue.

It is known in oceanography that heat can be deposited and sequestered and transported around the planet in water with timescales of decades to hundreds of years. Seems hard to believe but it is true. Also remember that extra heat, on the global scale, does not dissipate except by raising the temperature of the surface and eventually radiating to space (which is getting harder with more greenhouse gases). Since the center of the Earth is warmer than the surface, heat absorbed by the ocean has to come out up, and otherwise stays in the ocean.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




The global warming is on top of that cycle so therefore the El-Ninos come out hotter than before, and this will continue.

Spikes in a trend.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist




Grant money isn't what pays salaries. Grant money isn't allowed to go into our pockets, that's illegal.  It goes to fund the research and the basic necessities for that work, nothing else. 




It's also a complete fallacy that a tenured professor could or would lose their position if they publish work that "goes against the grain". It's complete BS. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having discussions about H. Sapiens and Neanderthal admixture events in huge Pleistocene, we would still be insisting that Clovis First was the only possible model for settlement of huge Americas and refuse to recognize the numerous sites that predate Clovis Culture by thousands of years, we wouldn't be talking about new hominids like Homo Naledi that make human evolution not quite as linear and easy as it was presented 20 or 30 years ago, we wouldn't have decoded multiple genomes and on and on. 




The only people who seem to believe that there is some weird old boys network in science where everyone gets together, does their secret handshake and plans out what the world is allowed to know are people who have some repulsion to higher education  have not worked in huge sciences or have never attended a scientific conference. Because anyone who has ever been to a conference can tell you that there is always dissent and competing hypotheses vying for attention. There is no unified front in any way. 




The truth if it is that if one were to publish and the results couldn't be independently repeated, then you would be persona non grata. Not if you publish something out of left field and it's able to be verified.




You just couldn't be more wrong, pharmacist or not. A tenured professor has more job security than you do whether they publish or not and grants aren't for personal profit. One would lose their tenure if they were found pocketing grant money and that's the truth of it.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




No, it was intended to say that Bates did mean it and isn't a hoax.

Bates did not say that data was manipulated. The Daily Mail made that up. They admitted it. You and the Congressional "science" committee ate it up.



Phage we should be on the same team concerning the CO2 not raising the temps, but sadly, no.
Same team? Hardly. You seem to be in a shrinking minority of those who do not think that global warming is occurring at all, much less that it is caused primarily by rising CO2 levels.


Where do you come up with that idea..people can just look outside and actually are..and realizing that listening to the religion of science is not helping anyone.

Face it..you WANT all the claims of humans being pure scum and all that to be true.

Compartmentalized science that pretends to know how the Universe works and yet offers no proof and has yet to be right even one time.

It is the religion of choice for the greedy..and the ones who believe everything they are told by the "educated elite".

If anything we see almost NOONE believing AGW as told is true in any form.

All you hear is the controlled media and the shackled scientists repeating lies and half truths like the damned preachers in church...



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




You do make it fun I suppose but I suspect you are an absolute paid shill



I'm also a shill for the Nibiru denial forces, btw.


Oh i didn't say you were wrong every time bro! Never wrong however is not the case. You do appear to be shilling for the bad guys who lie. SMH....



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phage

Yeah. Right. The final recourse.

I'm also a shill for the Nibiru denial forces, btw.


They need to pay you more...just saying...


Yep, and Anti also..

These guys have their pet peeves.... The data has to be massaged to avoid the 30's warming and the medieval warming period and so many other small details of this nature are exposed in thread after thread. They show up and embarrass themselves over and over with no pride. Quit shilling....



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




The data has to be massaged to avoid the 30's warming and the medieval warming period and so many other small details of this nature are exposed in thread after thread.

And yet. That data appears.

Weird.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




The data has to be massaged to avoid the 30's warming and the medieval warming period and so many other small details of this nature are exposed in thread after thread.

And yet. That data appears.

Weird.


Weird you wouldn't know, yes.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Justoneman

1st this was invented during the oil crisis during the Reagan years when we all said get off of oil! They could have went to the automakers right then and ended the ME war for oil, or our need to extract it is why I keep this fire going.

They wanted $1,000,000 for the one part that you would need to make the car run on water instead of compressed H2, so Nissan who built the prototype said no to that. Now, it is $10,000 anyone can build it. I am sure Dr Ricketts will give you the plans, as he thinks it is the right thing to do. An engine using the H2 compressed variety I think will be sold by BMW/Mercedes that will use H2. A little different than driving up to a pond and filling up and not being taxed eh? That is the future, one day maybe still being taxed for the road usage to cover the lost revenue of oil. Won't be too much longer now but it is a long time in the making.


I disagree it was suppressed by big oil. Tech may have been there, but extremely expensive and limited as I said before. If this was an analog system able to do great things in the 70s and 80s then anyone could have taken this tech and ran with it. Why would Japan, China or EU not take this to the heights to do great things since all are dependent on oil from others and this would have been great for them?

Let's look at today with computer power compared to the late 80s much less than the 70s. ETA10-G/8 abd was operating at 10.3 GigaFlops and a new Q9650 runs at 50 GigaFlops right out of the box. Think of that power under the hood to control this future tech that they didn't have, couldn't have, back then.





Al Gore ignored it and that is why I claim it was suppressed. He knew it was working and driving example as he taught at that University at the time of all this. I encouraged him about it and got crickets back.... He also ignored it while it was winning 1st place for alternative fueled cars. He could have built some and thus shown the world, but he chose to prove he was greedy and not providing for the Earth at all. Nissan could have built it but being Japanese they don't rock the international boat and maybe some three letter agencies.



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



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
1) the Daily Caller ?



Daily Caller - Right BiasRIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: The Daily Caller is an American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller produces sensational headlines and has a right wing bias in reporting and has made false claims according to Snopes and Politifact. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017)


mediabiasfactcheck.com...

and

2)


It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions?

Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past.


...


Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. [/color]


qz.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 27-11-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

Al Gore ignored it and that is why I claim it was suppressed. He knew it was working and driving example as he taught at that University at the time of all this. I encouraged him about it and got crickets back.... He also ignored it while it was winning 1st place for alternative fueled cars. He could have built some and thus shown the world, but he chose to prove he was greedy and not providing for the Earth at all. Nissan could have built it but being Japanese they don't rock the international boat and maybe some three letter agencies.


The problem is the world is greater than Al Gore, and capitalism is greater than the oil companies. When I see all these so called oil dependency killers it is like they were created in someone's garage, and somehow it is so secret and advance the world in general can not create it, or invent it.

I just think that is all just a nice conspiracy story with no real substance.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
Recommend watching PBS Nova latest episodes:

"Killer Volcanoes"
"Killer Hurricanes"
"Killer Floods"

They research past events much more destructive than our modern times



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I had that idea about separating hydrogen and oxygen by hydrolysis using solar energy to power a car back in 2002 I think... I was told by my professors that it couldn't be done and I believed them.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join