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.

 

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

page: 7
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That was posted tongue-in-cheek, but of course it does!

Socialism in the USA started right after the Great Depression with Roosevelt's New Deal. Now that TPTB are encountering resistance to more socialism, they need another economic collapse to usher in another wave of help programs to get even more people hooked deeper on that government aid hook. People who don't need government aid to survive are hard to control... can't have that.

The most central aspect of any economy is energy. Raise energy costs and the cost of everything goes up. Make energy scarce and you make everything else scarce... jobs, products, services... so is it any wonder TPTB are attacking our energy, based on the one thing we cannot remove (the reduced form of carbon), and proposing a scheme to fix the 'problem' that by its very nature limits energy production?

Kinda obvious if you ask me.

TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.

The year the phrase "man made global warming" was coined by Al Gore and the fascist left wing nut jobs was the same year carbon tax credits came into existence and ironically Al Gore founded a software company who developed the trading systems used to track and trade carbon tax credits.

How difficult is it for the idiot left to connect the two dots on that one? They constantly bitch and moan about "right wing conspiracy" all the while perpetrating one of the greatest conspiracies of our time. Right next to their hyperventilating conspiracy theory of "Russian collusion". LOL.


edit on 2-4-2018 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: purplemer

Cleaning our air? CO2 is not a contaminant. You guys are scary with your ignorance.


Of course it can be considered a contaminant. At what point would you consider it such. Would you have to wait until CO2 levels where high enough that you had problems breathing or could you be prudent enough to put that arbitrary line in at a point before.




posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.



lolz
That is incorrect. Scientist have been studying it long before Al Gore came along.




posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Greven

The only peril facing us is from greedy govts, corporations and globalists devising ways to destroy our standard of living and by stealing from us in the most covert ways possible.

First, you decided that these entities are greedy and trying to destroy your standard of living.
Then, you decided that they would be doing that via global warming (taxes or whatever).
Out of necessity, you concluded that global warming must then be wrong.
Consequently, you embrace any topic that you think disproves global warming.

When you approach the topic from that angle, you will never get to the truth. This is true of many others who believe the same.


I am more likely to get to the truth than someone who believes the Govt telling them they have to pay more tax in order to save humanity.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Outlier13




Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.



lolz
That is incorrect. Scientist have been studying it long before Al Gore came along.



You're not understanding what I am referencing. I am not referencing "climate change". I am referencing the mythical conspiracy of the left known as "man made global warming". Al Gore and the political left perpetrated mass fraud on the American public by making false and inaccurate claims that somehow in the 258 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that man alone has dramatically altered the entire biosphere and ecosystem of a 4.5 billion year old planet. That is beyond laughable.

Regarding the study of the Earth's climate both present and past scientists have been studying climate change on a global scale since they first began harvesting ice cores in 1957.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Outlier13




Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.



lolz
That is incorrect. Scientist have been studying it long before Al Gore came along.



You're not understanding what I am referencing. I am not referencing "climate change". I am referencing the mythical conspiracy of the left known as "man made global warming". Al Gore and the political left perpetrated mass fraud on the American public by making false and inaccurate claims that somehow in the 258 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that man alone has dramatically altered the entire biosphere and ecosystem of a 4.5 billion year old planet. That is beyond laughable.

Regarding the study of the Earth's climate both present and past scientists have been studying climate change on a global scale since they first began harvesting ice cores in 1957.


But there you go. Why should I believe you? You might be right. But I have actual scientists and scientific organizations and college departments and thousands of papers telling me the there is a thing "man made global warming".

Forget about Al Gore and the left. I'm talking about actual scientists.

So besides YOU. Who should I be listening too? I do research and read papers and articles when I can and it does appear that there is scientific consensus or at least as close as scientists get, like with evolution and gravity. I believe in Gravity and evolution too. Scientists also tell me the earth is older than 6,000 years. I have no way of doing the research to see if their correct, but I believe them on that.

So how are scientists right on Gravity, Evolution and the age of the earth and vaccines, but wrong on global warming? Like how do you know that we're living on a 4.5 billion year old planet? That could be a vast conspiracy by Al Gore? The earth could be 6,000 years old. We have some historical records telling us that and some scientific papers telling us that the earth is, Indeed, young?
edit on 2-4-2018 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




Regarding the study of the Earth's climate both present and past scientists have been studying climate change on a global scale since they first began harvesting ice cores in 1957.


Yes and the scientists are in major consent that climate change is man made. The opposing propaganda comes from the petro chemical industry and the one nation that has the petrodollar.(The USA) I guess that is where you are getting your information from. Enjoy your bias I would rather edge my bets with the science.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.


People like you make me laugh. You dont have a clue do you. You are making stuff up. If you are so sure of yourself why dont you get the thousands of pages of statistical data and write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. You cannot.

Trot on.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
You know what bothers me most about the topic?

It seems that most are more concerned with winning a debate than actually coming up with avenues that everyone can get behind.

There are so many things we could do better in regards to the environment. However, I could never blame anyone for being skeptical when the best solutions are specious written agreements, taxes, and begging for donations.

If AGW advocates really want action, rather than imaginary medals and trophies, they'd do well to introduce technologies, processes, and techniques that everyone can get behind.

Hell, you wouldn't even need to bring AGW into the conversation at all. Just invent cool, new stuff without shoving in the seemingly endless desire to be "right."

Nearly everyone left, right, and center can get behind plenty of things that would make a meaningful difference on our level of environmental impact as a species. Why is it more important to convince others of a specific way of thinking than actually making a difference in all of our lives?



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer


If you are so sure of yourself why dont you get the thousands of pages of statistical data and write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. You cannot.

Nor can you. Nor can I. Nor can anyone. It don't work like that.

Scientific papers are not regurgitations of research done by others. They must include new, original research or at least repeats of previous experiments for validation or rebuttal of those experiments. You're thinking of a high school essay, not a journal publication.

As for peer-reviewed, it is not possible to submit a peer-reviewed paper. Peer review happens after the paper is editorially reviewed and published, by peers. That's why it is called peer review, and peer review is why it is published so peers can access the information it contains to review it.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: purplemer

Cleaning our air? CO2 is not a contaminant. You guys are scary with your ignorance.


Of course it can be considered a contaminant. At what point would you consider it such. Would you have to wait until CO2 levels where high enough that you had problems breathing or could you be prudent enough to put that arbitrary line in at a point before.



Greenhouses run CO2 as high as 1500 ppm. There's a good starting point.

CO2 levels were between 1500 and 2000 ppm during the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods when life thrived. Also good starting points.

Fact of the matter is, plants are at starvation levels for CO2 right now.

CO2 becomes toxic to aerobic life forms at around 10,000 ppm. Also a good line in the sand.
edit on 2-4-2018 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Peer review happens after the paper is editorially reviewed and published, by peers.
Incorrect. While papers are often critiqued after publication, the peer review process occurs before publication.



Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands
authorservices.wiley.com...




In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:
guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu...




Most scientific journals, conferences and grant applications have some sort of peer review system. In most cases it is “double blind” peer review. This means evaluators do not know the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the evaluators. The intention behind this system is to ensure evaluation is not biased.

The more prestigious the journal, conference, or grant, the more demanding will be the review process, and the more likely the rejection. This prestige is why these papers tend to be more read and more cited.
theconversation.com...




Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject area of the journal, review materials they publish for quality of research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal, before articles are accepted for publication.
library.sdsu.edu...



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I hear you mate. There is data that suggests man contributes in some degree to the climate. I am in no way saying man does not. That would be asinine on my part. We are a biological organism part of a massive eco-system that is the Earth and we certainly have an impact to some degree. But absolutely no way in hell are we the sole nor exclusive contributor as is regularly reported by the alarmist left stream media who is hell bent on pushing a completely false narrative that man is destroying the planet. That is utter BS.

I find it amazing the Earth was able to rebound from an asteroid strike which wiped out most of life on Earth and here the alarmist left stream media makes people believe the Earth will die from man's industrialization. Again...laughable.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Not bias. Critical thinking.

Keep letting others tell you how to think.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Outlier13




Aside from the fact there are literally thousands of pages of statistical data that support there is no such thing as man made global warming the easiest way to realize it is a conspiracy was simply this.


People like you make me laugh. You dont have a clue do you. You are making stuff up. If you are so sure of yourself why dont you get the thousands of pages of statistical data and write a peer reviewed paper on the subject. You cannot.

Trot on.


Anytime you want to go head to head in presenting publicly available data that supports either side of our argument just let me know.

I'm well suited for the challenge.



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13



I find it amazing the Earth was able to rebound from an asteroid strike which wiped out most of life on Earth and here the alarmist left stream media makes people believe the Earth will die from man's industrialization

I haven't really seen any claims that "the Earth will die." I have seen some dire predictions about coastal inundation and changes in rainfall patterns leading to probable drastic impacts on civilization. Large scale human migration and misery. Like that.

How long did it take for the "rebound" from the asteroid, btw?
edit on 4/2/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing




But there you go. Why should I believe you? You might be right. But I have actual scientists and scientific organizations and college departments and thousands of papers telling me the there is a thing "man made global warming". 



Are they using adjusted numbers in all of those scientific organizations, college departments, and thousands of papers telling you that there is man made global warming?

Are they adjusting the numbers, or aren't they?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: amazing




But there you go. Why should I believe you? You might be right. But I have actual scientists and scientific organizations and college departments and thousands of papers telling me the there is a thing "man made global warming". 



Are they using adjusted numbers in all of those scientific organizations, college departments, and thousands of papers telling you that there is man made global warming?

Are they adjusting the numbers, or aren't they?


They are using extrapolations and computer models, which means they are feeding man-made non-observed numbers into man-made formulas that cannot account for the variables they haven't realized they are missing yet.
edit on 3-4-2018 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Change is inevitable. Humanity must adapt or go extinct. Keep your eyes open.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join