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.

 

Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
Lately I have noticed a lot of members here that are skeptic of the Global warming scare. Skepticism is a very good thing, but what is it that sets off our alarm? Is it conflicting points of view? Contradictions with what we have already learned? My skeptic alarm goes off when I think "who benefits".
When it comes to reading reports on global warming you have to think, who benefits from this report? Do I benefit? Does the author benefit? Does the person or organization funding the author benefit.
Who benefits and what is the benefit we should be all asking.


You immediately start off with identifying skeptics but have yet to define what constitutes a skeptic: anyone that disagrees with you? You say it is good but then ask 'what sets off the alarm'? This begs me to ask: what alarm? Alarm what? Alarm meaning...? And then in just two sentences later you start telling us how much better you are than the rest off us because your "skeptic alarm" goes off.

Wow, so within three sentences of stating that skepticism is a good thing, you immediately start talking about your conceited self and you tell us how we have to think when we read reports on global warming:


When it comes to reading reports on global warming you have to think, who benefits from this report


Thanks buddy, because none of us knows how to think. But in your eye benefit means money and only money it would appear. So now answer me this: what does this have to do with global warming?

I was not born yesterday, I know what you are doing and why.




posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by enaught
you immediately start talking about your conceited self and you tell us how we have to think when we read reports on global warming:

I was not born yesterday, I know what you are doing and why.


And I know what you're doing. Your derailing a thread with personal attacks. You best stop now, I won't say that again.

Can we please get this thread back on topic?

mrwupy
ATS Moderator



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   


you immediately start talking about your conceited self and you tell us how we have to think when we read reports on global warming:

I was not born yesterday, I know what you are doing and why.


Instead of attacking other members, why don't you go an do some research about Global Warm proponents and where they get their funding just like Umbrax is doing for the Skeptical side, I believe he already said he welcomes imput of that nature.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Great thread Umbrax, with good information. Thank you.


Keep up the good work. Please.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Good post Umbrax, lets try some examples.

"Smoking does not cause cancer!" - tobbaco company

"Gobla warming is a natural event on planet Earth!" - oil companies

"War is good for business!" - weapon manufacturers

"Greed is Good! Buy and Consume More!" - business and economy companies

Greed will destroy us all. I wonder when people will become more responsible for their actions, some people just do not feel any guilt for harming themselves or any others with their actions, lies and/or disinformation.


Prevent is always better than the cure, some damage cause by toxins and pollution maybe permanent, advance technology may not reverse the damage. the future is worrying.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Environmental science is one of the most in-exact sciences in the world. There is no definite answer, especially considering the "science" to it is so political. The science against global warming is often funded by industry and oil corporations, the science for global warming is often funded by huge environmental organizations.

The fact is, no one knows if global warming is happening or not.

FACT: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.
GUESS: Rising CO2 levels are creating a "global" warming affect.

You have so many variables to consider. Look at the sciene to ocean levels. You might think measuring ocean levels is fairly easy. It isn't. That act in itself is so complex, it's crazy. Then you have measuring climate change. How is the climate change measured? Also, where is it measured?

If climate change is measured in a city, a city is hotter than the surrounding countryside. Scientists thus subtract a certain amount of temperature from their temperature measurements taken within cities. But how do they know that those subtractions are correct, especialyl since many major cities are increasing in the amount of heat they give off?

Furthermore, why is it that certain cities will measure as having lost heat while others claim an increase in temperature, when both cities are in the same state oftentimes.

Since there are lots of cities and these cities give off heat, could they be heating the atmosphere somewhat?

Where is the evidence that global warming causes flooding and increased rain, when the amount of storms on this Earth has not increased any?

Is "global warming" is happening, then why is the Antarctic continent growing colder?

Furthermore, why is everyone afraid of the polar ice caps melting when Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice, and is growing colder?

HOW are many of these "predictions" made by scientists? Many of them through computer models, which are highly-inaccurate.

How can we claim that we're "messing up the enviroment," when the environment has no set state in the first place?

Why is it that environmentalists throw the word "global" into many effects that may not be global at all?

Scientists rely on grants to do their research. Who funds the research? Industry and environmental organizations. Scientists doing research for these organizations want to please them, to keep more grants coming in, so they naturally bias their research.

Why is it that so many environmental critics are RETIRED professors, guys who no longer rely on grants?

Scientists are like Renaissance painters. Those painters were commissioned to paint portraits, it was how they made $$$. Well naturally, they wanted to please the people paying them, to keep their jobs. Scientists are no different.

Environmental science does not utilize the double-blind experimental method the way a science like medical science does (which creates a LOT of inaccuracy).

IMO, global warming is nothing more than a modern scare like the old Theory of Eugenics.

The theory of Eugenics claimed a genetic problem in humans and claimed essentially, that unless the weak portions of the gene pool were wiped out, the human race would die out eventually. It was supported by prominent politicians, celebrities, prominent scientists, and research was carried out at the great universities.

Yet, it was grounded in virtually no factual science.

The Germans became the greatest in it, which led to (drum-roll) the extermination of the Jewish and other people they carried out.

After WWII, the great theory of Eugenics, which the entire world had believed in, died out completely.

Global Warming isn't quite the modern version of this, but it is incredibly similar.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by WheelsRCool]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The science against global warming is often funded by industry and oil corporations....


Who funds it is not the issue. It's the Validity of the science that is the issue. If you are even semi-literate(scientifically literate that is), you will see quite quickly that there is a consensus within the literature. No need to rely on Journal Census's, just rely on your own mind. It's a bit of work, but if you're keen on the issue, then I encorage you to do it!




The fact is, no one knows if global warming is happening or not.


Bzzzt! Wrong answer. The Correct answer was B. Global Warming is happening and has increased in speed over the last half of the 20th Century. Global Warming is not a Model, it's an Observation. Here are some sites that shed some additional light on this subject.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

cdiac.esd.ornl.gov...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

nsidc.org...

nsidc.org...

sealevel.colorado.edu...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

www.newscientist.com...



FACT: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.
GUESS: Rising CO2 levels are creating a "global" warming affect.


CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. This is a proven Fact which is Easily testable. All you need is a sealed Greenhouse with the ability to pump in additonal CO2. You could also do this on a smaller scale as well, and the fact remains, that we are disrupting the Carbon Cycle(You learn about that in Grade 10 Science nowadays in case you were wondering). This cycle is delicately balanced and our observations of the Natural world has taught us that it doesn't react predictable to a sudden stimulus...like us for example, or a Huge Volcano, or an Asteroid strike for that matter.



You have so many variables to consider. Look at the sciene to ocean levels. You might think measuring ocean levels is fairly easy. It isn't. That act in itself is so complex....


It may seem to be complicated to the Laymen, but to those who've dedicated their lives to the study of such a thing, I'm sure it's nearly second nature by now. I've posted a bunch of links to some places where they are measuring it. Take it how you like.



If climate change is measured in a city, a city is hotter than the surrounding countryside....


They do? I thought they take temperatures of various micro-climates from around the world and then plot them into a graph to see what the average is. It's how I was taught it was done.



Furthermore, why is it that certain cities will measure as having lost heat while others claim an increase in temperature, when both cities are in the same state oftentimes.


Weather Pattern difference. A city that's just a hundred miles away could be experiencing completely different weather patterns due to a variety of factors. IN the long term say over ten year, a drop in one city and an increase in another city could be solely due to the fact that one city increased it's greenspace while decreasing it's blackspace while the other did the opposite. When comparing cities you also have to take into consideration a host of other variables. When you spend your entire life on such a problem, the task would probably seem managable. BTW I believe Biochemistry is far more unpredictable then Weather and Climate.



Since there are lots of cities and these cities give off heat, could they be heating the atmosphere somewhat?


It depends on the average cloud cover. The more cloud cover, the more heat gets deflected down back towards to ground. Water acts in a similiar to as Carbon Dioxide does in that it traps heat.(in other circumstances it can leech heat from the ground level as well.



Where is the evidence that global warming causes flooding and increased rain, when the amount of storms on this Earth has not increased any?


Umm...how many storms did the US have to deal with last year? Have you heard of the Spring Floods in Europe? How about the Ice Storm in Quebec? Or the Heat Wave in Europe that killed 50k+? Or how about the Continuing droughts plauging vast streches of farmland? The evidence is there if you look for it, the fragile earth forum is a good place to start.



Is "global warming" is happening, then why is the Antarctic continent growing colder?


There is actually very little data about the changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets, and the conclusion of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is so little that with the uncertainty, it might even be shrinking. This is not a surprising phenomenon as such an increase would be the result of increasing percipitation and this is fully consistent with a warming world as the antarctic is a desert and warmer climates tend towards more percipitation. And even if you warmed 10 oC from -50 oC, you would still be accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.

There is some widespread glacial melting on the Antarctic peninsula and ice shelves are breaking up, but it does indeed appear that the mass balance on ice at the south pole may be positive but negligible. This does not, however contradict the theory of Global Warming in any way whatsoever.

While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the center for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctice, around three orders of magnitude larger. So any potenial gain in total volume of ice on the planet due to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland's ice sheet.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

cires.colorado.edu...

www.nasa.gov...



Furthermore, why is everyone afraid of the polar ice caps melting when Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice, and is growing colder?


See above for a partial answer. The problem isn't floating ice, it's ice on land that has been shown to be melting that has people worried. The first warning signs are here now.



HOW are many of these "predictions" made by scientists? Many of them through computer models, which are highly-inaccurate.


Global Warming is not an output of computer models, it is an observation. See my first paragraph for empiracal observations. Mere extrapolation gives us a picture of an increasingly unpredictable outcome, depending on the amount of CO2 we put up there.



How can we claim that we're "messing up the enviroment," when the environment has no set state in the first place?


We are "messing it up for us and our roommates." Our Biochemistry, as well as the Biochemistry of every animal and plant species on this planet is finely tuned to a somewhat preditable climate. We've seen numourouse instances where what we were doing caused massive depopulation of native species. The Acids we spew into the atmosphere falls back to the ground as Acid Precipitation which lowers the pH of soils, rivers and lakes and totally screws around with their reproductive processes leading to widespread ecosystem disruption that is directly attributed to OUR actions.

Okay I'm finished, I'll let someone else deal with the rest of your Strawman Post.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'd like to now if Early Homo-Sapiens paid off Homo-Neanderthalis.
I think we paid them off with beads, and a few spearpoints.
You know, keep them quiet, hanging out in the Europe/Med. Areas,
Until climate changed too much, and too quickly for those slightly less adaptable humans.

What I really mean is, the Earth bounces back and forth between ice ages.
And it does it wether we contribute or not.

Instead of arguing about the cause, what will we do, to adapt?
It will eventually happen, and there is nothing we can do about it.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
A general warming trend has been observed, but no one knows if it is from human-made causes or not, which is the problem. The Earth has seemed to be going through a steady warming trend for the past 150 years, but then again, so have the other planets throughout the solar system.

But "global warming" itself is a theory. That theory predicts that the upper-atmosphere will heat up, then the ground will follow suit. But that is not the case, as the upper-atmosphere is not heating up the way the ground is.
science.nasa.gov...

And yes, it does matter who gives the funding, it matters greatly. Whoever gets the funding is going to want to please their funder, and will thus bias their reporting to do so. The fact that the double-blind method is not universally creates a lot of misinformation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but whether it is actually causing a "greenhouse effect" is highly, highly debatable. For one thing, it has been shown that the temprature was rising at the same rate it is currently observed (in general) to be rising long before there was much man-made CO2 thrown into the air.

There are other anomalies too, such as why was there a cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 when more and more CO2 was going into the atmosphere.

And no, measuring the sea levels is not an exact science that scientists have "down pat." There's too many variables. That would be like saying that scientists have predicting the climate "down pat."
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

Here are some of the things used in sea-level measurement: glacio-hydro isostatic modeling, eustatic and tectonic efects on shoreline dynamics,holcene sedimentary sequences, intertidal foraminifera distributions, carbon analysis of coastal paleoenvironments, aminostratigraphy, etc...sea level measurement is very much up for argument.

No one understands it completely. And it is just one aspect of understanding global warming. Understanding the upper-atmosphere, where the satellites take measurements, is very complex too.

And yes, temperature does tend to be the mean of multiple measurements. But, if it is, and those measurements in themselves are inaccurate, then how can they be considered reliable?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Please don’t derail this thread.
The title of this thread is “Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics.” There are plenty of other existing and current threads debating Global Warming. Many of them address issues brought up by WheelsRCool.
Please continue your debate on one of those threads.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
There is no never-neverland where cilamatescientist conduct their research for free. Climatescientist alike compete for the same funding, whether federal grants or private donations. Dismissing someone's work based on who they recieve funds from is a decision made out of poor character.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I just dugg this thread. Here is the link.

digg.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by etothex

Dismissing someone's work based on who they recieve funds from is a decision made out of poor character.







!!!

Ever heard the phrase "conflict of interest" ???

"Conflict of interest" means that researchers are pressured to find results favorable to their funders' financial interests.

And no, all funders do not have financial interests riding on research results. Nor do all researchers have investments in their funders' companies or products.

Some, if not many, scientists still have integrity. And truth is not a spinnable commodity, although information may be.


.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
It is nice to see that something I've been posting about for nearly 2 years is getting some TV exposure.




THE DENIAL MACHINE

In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming. This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm with science pitted against spin and inflammatory words on both sides.

How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, pitting left versus right, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?


I just caught the end of the show tonight. I believe it will be available online soon.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Although I am still reserving my judgement on the issue, I must say that I have a hard time swallowing anything that Al Gore or the United Nations says about global warming (or anything else for that matter).

I might take some heat for being an "alexjonesite," but I'm going to post a link to this article anyway because I think the information provided is somehow relevant to this discussion.

SUV's On Jupiter?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Umbrax, here is a link to an about-face statement by a former climate change skeptic, published in Scientific American magazine earlier this year:


www.sciam.com...


Michael Shermer, the author of that piece, was convinced by much of the more recent scientific findings on climate change. He is thus a good example of a former prominent skeptic on global warming who is not connected to companies whose environmental actions contribute to global warming.

The "outing" of climate change skeptics who have received funding from corporate contributors to climate change has also been collected on the website of Ross Gelbspan, author of Boiling Point and other books on climate change:

www.heatisonline.org...

See, for example, the links on the front page of that site to a number of analyses of skeptics.

Thanks for the links you provided.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Thanks for your links uphill, and for bumping this thread.


...I keep losing it!




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
You have a conservative think tank and an industry lobbyiest.

But these guys are not doing the actual climate research. Some researchers find evidence for, others find evidence against, global warming. They don't need to be shills for 'bad industry types' anymore than others need to be 'useful idiots for obessive environmentalists'.


Not so, Nygdan. Almost all jobs for scientists these days are working for corporations. The corporations will only accept viewpoints that helps them sell their products. It's junk science at best. The feds don't have many paid govt scientist jobs any more. The corporations have taken over science.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Busy editing....

The petition project mentioned earlier in this thread with some ( worthwhile ) commentary on it:

www.oism.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.transport2000.org.uk...

timlambert.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...

I think now we have something to discuss?

Stellar

PS:I think it would be somewhat fairer if you at least give people the time they normally get to edit their posts before you moderate them? When i posted ( from open tab and posted i immediately released that i should edit before you noticed but i guess 20 minutes was too long?

It's one thing if you want to keep things well organized but is this not a bit excessive?

Stellar


[edit on 29-11-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So any comments on the 'global warming' we see happening on all the planets excluding ,apparently, this one?


Yes, lots of comments here.
Fragile Earth » The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

The topic of this thread is "Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics."
Please review this link, Debating Global Warming/ Derailing Threads.

Thank you.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join