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.

 

For those of you in the UK watch Channel 4 @9pm

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

And how come the same never happened 410kya? That Interglacial was the last one to be similar to the current one in terms of milankovitch cycles and it too lasted over 10,000 years - as clearly shown in the graph. Yet nothing like the 20th century has ever occurred before.


410Kya the Earth was not being affected by the same factors that are occurring today. Again, why try to separate the natural factors which cause climate change?...

Ths following graph shows what was happening to the Earth's magnetic field during that time and what is happening now.



As i have said many times already, several natural factors have been converging in this time period which do cause climate changes and account for the current changes.

The Earth magnetic field has been weakening since 1845, and it is still weakening, while at most parts of the Earth it is 10% weaker, in others it is as much as 30% weaker.

Add this to the fact that the Sun's activity has increased during the last 60 years more than during the past 8,000 years +, as well as other natural factors such as the warming trend the Earth has undergone since the last Ice Age, all of these are the factors that change the climate.

The geological record shows that CO2 levels lag temperature, hence anthropogenic CO2 is not exarberating Climate Change or Global Warming.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Muaddib]




posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The geological record shows that CO2 levels lag temperature, hence anthropogenic CO2 is not exarberating Climate Change or Global Warming.


Logical fallacy alert!

Non-sequitur.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Logical fallacy alert!

Non-sequitur.


Really? how exactly is that when CO2 levels have been 4,400 ppm before and the temperatures were very similar to today?...

The fallacy is from your part.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really? how exactly is that when CO2 levels have been 4,400 ppm before and the temperatures were very similar to today?...

The fallacy is from your part.



Originally posted by Muaddib
The geological record shows that CO2 levels lag temperature, hence anthropogenic CO2 is not exarberating Climate Change or Global Warming.


You proposed that because temperature increases have increased CO2 levels that therefore CO2 cannot increase temps.

A>B therefore B not> A

Non-sequitur.

And comparing the earth 400-500 million years ago to now ain't the best comparison, the uncertainty is rather high for reconstructions for such timescales (resolution of about 1 million years), plus the biosphere was rather different then. That era doesn't really provide any useful indications of current circumstance. There were multiple extinction events during this period, who knows what was going on? Not me and not you. It's pretty much a mystery.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
That's all we have, the evidence left in the geological record, and we don't have to look back millions of years to understand that there are natural factors happening now which affect the climate which have not happened for a very long time, and it is not just one factor, but several of them.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's all we have, the evidence left in the geological record, and we don't have to look back millions of years to understand that there are natural factors happening now which affect the climate which have not happened for a very long time, and it is not just one factor, but several of them.


Like what?

Don't tell me - magnetic (no increase in cosmic rays, which would cause cooling anyway), ISD (would likely cause cooling), solar (cannot account for warming).

This is why your position is faith-based. You have little evidence, just an intuition. Nothing more. You may be right, maybe there is some unknown current unexplained variable, but your position is still wishful-thinking.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
No wait, don't you tell me...the small amount of anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for Climate Change/Global warming..... It doesn't matter if the CO2 levels that exist in the atmosphere are 0.037% to 0.038%....

Who cares if the oceans are still warming caused by Holocene warming, and not because of mankind..., which started to warm over 11,000 years ago, it is still warming and will probably continue to warm.... This is one of the many natural events, and this one takes thousands of years to develop but can, and has brought abrupt Climate Change countless of times in the past...

Who cares if the Earth's magnetic field is weaker now than it has been for the past 770,000 years, or that the Sun's output has increased in the last 60 years more tha during the last 8,000 years +....

Who cares if during warming events magmatic and seismic activities increase due to the pressure released from the tectonic plates, as the ice masses shrink in some areas and increase in other, which in turn keep warming the planet...

Wow....and to think there is a more evil greenhouse gas which retains twice the amount of heat than CO2, that is far more abundant than CO2 and no matter if we know as a fact that during warming events the levels of water vapor increase, still it is anthropogenic CO2 which is to blame for Global warming...

Please don't try to talk about "faith" when it is obvious who is acting on faith alone...

There is not one iota of evidence from the geological record that CO2 levels have been the cause for Climate Changes, and in fact during both warming and cooling events CO2 levels have been higher than they are now sometimes and lower at other times...

Keep your faith that "the evil mankind has caused Climate Change/Global Warming"... I know since science has shown us that Climate Changes have happened countless of times during the existance of Earth, and mankind has not been around on Earth even for 0.000000001% of the time Earth existed.... Yet some want to claim we can control and mitigate Climate Change....


It is mankind I tell you... Mankind is " The Master of the Universe"... or at least some seem to think.... I call it a "serious God Complex issue"... For you apparently it is gospel...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I have provided evidence that the program maker (Martin Durkin) of "the great global warming swindle" is a liar and someone who does not actually care about the topics he wishes to make documentaries about.

He has made ridiculous claims in the past like "breast implants benefit women's heath" and "environmentalists are Nazis"

He has forced a major British TV station to make an apology regarding the content of one of his documentaries.

He is banned by another.

So why is it that this is conveniently ignored?

This thread was started to discuss the documentary "the great global warming swindle" and when you look at the background of Mr Durkin it becomes clear that any "evidence" he provides is shaky at best.

When discussing GW Al Gore has been attacked many times as if discrediting Al Gore discredits GW... So... Anyone care to discuss Martin Durkin??



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

You have voted undercoverchef for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



It is officially a inaccurate and not to be believed source for info on this subject due to the response of the lead contributors after it was screened.




The Causes of Climate Change
Open Letter to Channel 4 Head of production of "The Global Warming Swindle."
by Prof Carl Wunsch

10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch

Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



In addition to this a leading contributor from the IPCC has slammed all the so called "spin science" proposed in the documentary providing confirmed an actual data sources to refute every main point made in the argument by the makers.

The truth can be found here....

Prof Sir. John Houghton FRS Lead Contributor of IPCC - Ripping the Psuedo Science to Pieces WITH FACTS

did you know smoking was good for you?mmm yep of course paid scientist man.... did you know 85%of physicists in the US work for the military establishment....also that more American climate scientists work for oil and industrial sources than research and education...

just a point....

and the truth shall set you free and maybe stop this from happening !

Carbon Dioxide at Its Worst Interesting Stuff

well I am being sarcastic however back to the slow death that might affect us all look her for the facts by the worlds best climatoligists and related specialists on this issue, on what is happening NOW!

Probably The Only Independant and Truthful Site on Climate Change on the Net The Place of Real Science Not Psuedo Science

njoy

regards

Elf



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
.......................
When discussing GW Al Gore has been attacked many times as if discrediting Al Gore discredits GW... So... Anyone care to discuss Martin Durkin??


What has been discussed about Al Gore is his rigged data.

For example, in the Global Warming Swindle one of the scientists who makes a comment about Climate Change/Global Warming is Dr. Akasofu, who has more experience and knowledge than Al Gore can ever have on Global Warming/Climate Change.

That documentary does not present all the evidence which debunks the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming, but it is a start.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

You have voted undercoverchef for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



It is officially a inaccurate and not to be believed source for info on this subject due to the response of the lead contributors after it was screened.


Keep giving "way aboves", sorry to tell you it proves not a thing.

There was only one scientist who complained pretty much about not being given enough time to explain more of what he thought about Global Warming.

Most of the scientist who spoke only had a few minutes to talk, and really there are enough climatologists who don't believe in the "anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming" that there was no need for Wusnch to be in that program, which gives some doubts as to what really happened behind the claims of Wusnch...perhaps this was a ploy to counter the fact that "several of the IPCC reviewers which includes scientists have been saying their statements were ignored and the IPCC has become a political tool instead of an agency to find the truth behind Global Warming.



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
In addition to this a leading contributor from the IPCC has slammed all the so called "spin science" proposed in the documentary providing confirmed an actual data sources to refute every main point made in the argument by the makers.


Really?...let's see another of the scientists who was in that program has to say about it...

Dr. Akasofu has been the director of the International Research Center in Alaska studying Climate Change for the past 9 years, before that he has been involved in Solar-terrestrial physics which included auroras and the effect of the sun on the Climate on Earth for several decades...

You want the truth about Climate Change, you will find some truth here.
www.iarc.uaf.edu...




Originally posted by MischeviousElf

The truth can be found here....

Prof Sir. John Houghton FRS Lead Contributor of IPCC - Ripping the Psuedo Science to Pieces WITH FACTS


Truth in that?....

Several scientists that were lead reviewers of the IPCC report have said quite the contrary to what is claimed in that link..


Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu...



According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
.............
To understand why the IPCC does this, Canadians need to appreciate that the summary is not a scientifically neutral document. It is written to fulfill political objectives in support of carbon dioxide-reduction negotiations.
........................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
..........................
This unorthodox reporting procedure led to the "Chapter 8 controversy" in 1995, in which significant and unwarranted modification of the IPCC science report was known to have been made before it was issued, so as to conform to the summary.


The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...









Originally posted by MischeviousElf
well I am being sarcastic however back to the slow death that might affect us all look her for the facts by the worlds best climatoligists and related specialists on this issue, on what is happening NOW!

Probably The Only Independant and Truthful Site on Climate Change on the Net The Place of Real Science Not Psuedo Science

njoy

regards

Elf


As for the "sarcastic part, that was really bad, but anyways, as to the "Real Climate site?... Michael Mann is one of the directors of that site the same Mann that claimed the Medieval Warming and the Little ice Age did not happen, and he and some colleages tried to make these Climate Change events dissapear...but i guess that does not matter huh?... or the fact that Mann's Hockey Stick Graph ahs been discredited, even though he and colleages keep trying to revive it...


Sorry but you have not found any truth, instead you found more lies by Mann and associates.

BTW ME, you do know that CO2 is needed for life on Earth right?.... In order for it to "kill life" it has to exists at levels of 15% of total gases in the atmosphere, and right now it exists at 0.0380% of total gases, and mankind is not going to get it to 15% or anywhere close even if we continue to emit CO2 at the levels we are doing today until 225,000 years in the future...a lot will happen from here to then...

Sorry ME, the only thing you have proven is that you haven't researched the topic well enough.

Please, before you go around claiming you found the truth, dig into the topic a bit further and read some of the already discussed topics in the forums.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
oh the spin......


Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent".


Source

well he might not believe global warming has an "strong" influence on hurricanes...however


After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Republican administrators preferred Landsea over other scientists in NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change


Source

maybe not the most reliable source then especially as he resigned over hurricane variability not causes of global warming... was that the republicans who like him? the ones who did this to the IPCC and one of the best climatoligists in the world because he wouldn’t "water" down reports .


The Bush administration this week moved to oust a top scientific official targeted by ExxonMobil in a confidential memo to the White House. Bold language in the ExxonMobil papers released today by NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council) reflects a brazen, behind-the-scenes effort by the oil company and other energy giants to disrupt the principal international science assessment program on global warming.


This is from 2002 and the spin carriers on still...

Don’t you guys look out the window and see whets happening like the rest of the world?


Under Watson's tenure, the IPCC last year produced its third comprehensive assessment of the state of climate science, concluding that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities," and predicting that average global temperatures will rise between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century -- conclusions reaffirmed last spring at White House request by the National Academy of Sciences.


Source

THIS IS FROM 2002! ru guys like Lilliputian or something

And further more the following massively respected chairman of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri had this to say in 2005.


that he personally believes that the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to "survive".


Source Independant on Sunday UK

and as Daniel Lashof, science director of the NRDC Climate Center said at the time



It's bad enough that ExxonMobil controls White House energy and climate policies ,Now they want to control the science too


mmm well lets look at some more truth...


Under Watson's tenure, the IPCC last year produced its third comprehensive assessment of the state of climate science, concluding that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities," and predicting that average global temperatures will rise between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century -- conclusions reaffirmed last spring at White House request by the National Academy of Sciences.


Some here as always using the same dodgy data seem to be trying to infer that there are only a couple of scientists like 30 who are involved in the work and conclusions of the IPCC report, and findings to date....

Again just spin, no basis in fact


A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of
Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).


Sounds enough for a large consensus to me? pan global scientific facts , measurements, evidence and consensus..


The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to the earth’s climate.


To surmise they feel that:


The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most
reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified.


Source

Regards

Elf



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

well he might not believe global warming has an "strong" influence on hurricanes...however


The 2006 hurricane season was supposed to be worse than 2005, and yet what happened?...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
maybe not the most reliable source then especially as he resigned over hurricane variability not causes of global warming... was that the republicans who like him? the ones who did this to the IPCC and one of the best climatoligists in the world because he wouldn’t "water" down reports .


You should be posting reliable sources... Commondreams is not a reliable source...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Don’t you guys look out the window and see whets happening like the rest of the world?


Have you looked at the history of the Earth's Climate Changes and not realized this is just another cycle?....

The current warming we have been experiencing is not even the worse. There have been worse and more abrupt Climate Changes in the past.

The IPCC had been using a graph which was flawed for a couple of their reports. They never cared whether the data was good or not.

The Hockey Stick Graph, which the IPCC used since 2000 has been discredited


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
THIS IS FROM 2002! ru guys like Lilliputian or something


Sorry... you are providing links to "Commondreams" and then asking if those who don't accept or believe this are "like Lilliputian or something"?...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
And further more the following massively respected chairman of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri had this to say in 2005.


Again "CommonDreams"....


The world has not reached "dangerous levels of CO2 that would annihilate humanity.... For CO2 levels to be lethal they have to exist as 15% of gases in the atmosphere, and currently CO2 is 0.0380% of all gases present in the atmosphere...



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
you post links to common dreams????


wtf that’s like saying anything posted on ATS is not official, common dreams holds on its site the original report which was written by

THE INDEPENDANT ON SUNDAY UK a far from unreliable source infact the only independent (from business and politics) mainstream publication to date..

so the source is 100% fine.

Second once again you keep on about dodgy hockey and stick graph? wtf ? please show me the graph and where you believe it is wrong... cmon man your not stupid you know as well as I do that that litter bit of spin from the Oil Industry has recently been proven to be totally incorrect infact in peer review (which im sure you are aware of) over the last 2 years the information on this graph has now accepted within the wide scientific community.

Oh the claims that only 30 scientists are involved in the IPCC and these claims, well I just above pointed out the list of Science Academies that totally endorse all findings of the IPCC... where is your actual evidence for the 30 odd scientists?

Oh the spin.... you again as always keep talking about historical climate variations, yep your right the climate changes? who said it does not? do you have any thing to show that the IPCC reports or the rest of the research by climatoligists and the like are not looking at that? have not taken these variations and factors into account? because I would be intrigued...I can see from the latest IPCC how this incorporation of this data is now stronger than ever in modelling... it has always been a part of the IPCC reports.... it would be like an oceanographer not taking into account water... I really don’t know what you are on about there.

Oh the Spin...... With the links I posted above showing without ay shadow of a doubt both government and industrial interference into the public release of the true data on global warming, don’t you feel maybe you should look at this with an balanced view? I would be very concerned if the very people I was trying to protect and stand up for then lied to me and my family and threatened my safety, and my children’s heritage... that’s all they are doing to you.

With the historical changes in climate you mention do I know about them... well in detail actually im sure you are aware then that the last 5 major extinctions of life on the earth... you know real big ones not like the 65 million year old dinosaur one popular because of tenuous links with an impact from a meteorite (probably didn’t cause it) , however the 5 previous big ones, where nearly all life was wiped out 80% plus of all life... what’s the common factor?

what’s the proven cause of these catastrophic events....

CHANGING CLIMATE

and you want to use it as an excuse to fiddle with it more? to produce more factors for such an extreme shift again soon? sounds like standing upwind from peeing to me... or like dipping a bandage in boiling water before putting it on a large burn... it isn’t going t help the condition or speed up the recovery just make it worse.

Regards

Elf



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
you post links to common dreams????

wtf that’s like saying anything posted on ATS is not official, common dreams holds on its site the original report which was written by


Unfortunately there are many posts in these forums which use less than reliable sources.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
THE INDEPENDANT ON SUNDAY UK a far from unreliable source infact the only independent (from business and politics) mainstream publication to date..

so the source is 100% fine.


How is so when I can show you dozens of more uptodate "news sources" which disagree with the claim from that article.

As an example.


Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
By JULIE WHELDON - More by this author »

Last updated at 00:22am on 5th March 2007

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
.................
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The title of the article should be "anthropogenic CO2 cause of Global Warming is a myth". But the information on that article is more uptodate and shows there are scientists who disagree with the claim that mankind has caused Global Warming/Climate Change.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Second once again you keep on about dodgy hockey and stick graph? wtf ? please show me the graph and where you believe it is wrong... cmon man your not stupid you know as well as I do that that litter bit of spin from the Oil Industry has recently been proven to be totally incorrect infact in peer review (which im sure you are aware of) over the last 2 years the information on this graph has now accepted within the wide scientific community.


That graph has been discredited by most scientific circles, even the IPCC does not use just Mann's data and graph anymore, although for some reason they are using 10 extrapolated graphs, two of which use Mann's data and a couple of them which when seen by themselves show a different picture to the claims being made by Mann and associates in this forums and in the "Real Climate website" where Mann is one of the directors.

Mann's graph and data tried to bury the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age periods and Mann and associates tried to claim the 20th century is the warmest in over 2,000 years, when that is not true at all.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Oh the claims that only 30 scientists are involved in the IPCC and these claims, well I just above pointed out the list of Science Academies that totally endorse all findings of the IPCC... where is your actual evidence for the 30 odd scientists?


I already gave a link with statements of some of the scientists who were lead authors of the latest IPCC report. Check the links i gave on my post before yours. First they disagree with the IPCC conclusion, and second one of them states that there were only 30 scientists who were part of the IPCC summary/report. The rest were policymakers, environmentalists with no much knowledge on Climate Change, and even industry people.


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
...........
do you have any thing to show that the IPCC reports or the rest of the research by climatoligists and the like are not looking at that? have not taken these variations and factors into account? because I would be intrigued...I can see from the latest IPCC how this incorporation of this data is now stronger than ever in modelling... it has always been a part of the IPCC reports.... it would be like an oceanographer not taking into account water... I really don’t know what you are on about there.


If what you were claiming was true then there wouldn't be scientists who believed anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of the current warming. Perhaps you should keep up with the threads in these forums where we have been discussing all of this long before you posted this thread...



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Oh the Spin...... With the links I posted above showing without ay shadow of a doubt both government and industrial interference into the public release of the true data on global warming, don’t you feel maybe you should look at this with an balanced view? I would be very concerned if the very people I was trying to protect and stand up for then lied to me and my family and threatened my safety, and my children’s heritage... that’s all they are doing to you.


The fact is that there is more data which shows mankind did not cause the current Global Warming/Climate Change, which is why so many scientists disagree with the IPCC summary/report.

This is an example of one of those scientists who disagree with the IPCC report.


Dr. Ian Clark is a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. His graduate work in isotope hydrogeology was at the University of Waterloo and the University of Paris.[1]

In 2004 Clark wrote a letter to the Editor of the The Hill Times saying:

That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are many others like him, such as Dr. Akasofu.


Because the pre-1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change. Contrary to the statement by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect."

Ironically, the IPCC's own climate-change models also point to carbon dioxide's irrelevance in climate change. The Earth's warming is not uniform: Different geographic regions are warming at different rates, while others are actually cooling. Dr. Akasofu asked the IPCC's Arctic group to apply its global climate models to "hindcast" the geographic distribution of the temperature change during the last half of the last century. ("Hindcasting" asks a model to produce results that match the known observations of the past – a model that can do this helps establish its ability to predict future conditions.)

To his surprise, the model's results showed dramatically different temperatures than those obtained from actual readings, with no apparent relationship between the two. Initially, Dr. Akasofu thought the problem lay in the model. "However, this possibility is inconceivable, because the increase of CO2 measured in the past is correctly used in the hindcasting, and everything we know is included in the computation. It took a week or so for another possibility to dawn on us: If the warming and cooling is not caused by the greenhouse effect, the models will not show CO2-related warming and cooling."

To examine that possibility, Dr. Akasofu checked to see if the magnified warming in the continental Arctic was still increasing, in line with the ever-increasing amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere. To his surprise, the continental Arctic had stopped its magnified warming, and was now warming only at the same rate as the rest of the world. The upshot: The IPCC models tend to confirm that: "Much of the prominent continental Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

www.urban-renaissance.org...

There have been several attempts by the "let's blame mankind crowd" to destroy, hide and bury data which contradicts their claims.

I have given several times examples of those "attempts at hiding facts which contradict the claims from scientists like Mann and associates"

I will be posting "again" one of those cases where the "let's blame mankind crowd of scientists/environmentalists" have been trying to eradicate data which contradicts their claims.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
(continuation)

Since you gave a "news link" to back your own claims I will post a "news link too to back my statements.


So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

There are several dozen examples of what the "let's blame mankind crowd" has done to those scientists who disagree with the claim mankind caused the current warming trend.

Scientists have lost their jobs, they have lost funding just for doubting the claim that mankind caused the current warming.


When Science Becomes Dogma

I may lose some friends out there, but I have to speak up about a phenomenon I've noticed over the past few years. It came to the fore for me with the recent story about the battle between the TV meteorologists over stripping the American Meteorological Society certification from any weatherman who expresses skepticism about the degree to which global warming can be blamed on human activity.
..................
My concern is that global warming has become on par with religious dogma. When anyone, including legitimate scientists, dares to present contradictory data or a different interpretation of current data, they are attacked and harassed. It is assumed that they have evil intentions or are shills for the oil industry. Anyone who does not toe the global warming party line is considered akin to Holocaust deniers. Any data that deviates from the established doctrine is dismissed as biased or not worth looking at.

www.social-marketing.com...

Yet you don't see much of what the "let's blame mankind crowd" are doing to bury facts and evidence which contradicts their claims.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

With the historical changes in climate you mention do I know about them... well in detail actually im sure you are aware then that the last 5 major extinctions of life on the earth... you know real big ones not like the 65 million year old dinosaur one popular because of tenuous links with an impact from a meteorite (probably didn’t cause it) , however the 5 previous big ones, where nearly all life was wiped out 80% plus of all life... what’s the common factor?

what’s the proven cause of these catastrophic events....

CHANGING CLIMATE


Which tells me even more that you are not aware that there are other Climate Changes in between the major changes which caused extinctions...

In the last 15,000 years there have been over 12 Climate Changes on Earth and many of those have been warmer than the current period, yet there was no "major extinctions".

Yes, the flora and fauna suffers from Climate Change, and those that survive have to adapt, but that's the way it has always happened.




Originally posted by MischeviousElf
and you want to use it as an excuse to fiddle with it more? to produce more factors for such an extreme shift again soon? sounds like standing upwind from peeing to me... or like dipping a bandage in boiling water before putting it on a large burn... it isn’t going t help the condition or speed up the recovery just make it worse.

Regards

Elf


Fiddle?... There have been up to 16 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere on Earth as there is now, yet there was no "runaway global warming"...Earth did not become like Mars or Venus.

If anything the geological record shows us that the Earth has experienced warmer climates and CO2 levels have been both lower and higher than todays.

The Medieval and the Roman period were much warmer than today yet CO2 levels were much lower.

During the Ordovician period CO2 levels were from 4,000-4,400 ppm (right now they are 380 ppm) yet temperatures were similar to the present.

There are other examples of time periods like the above. That and the fact that even the current warming started 260 years before CO2 levels began increasing should tell people we are in a natural cycle of Climate Change.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join