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.

 

Global Warming: The Greatest Public Opinion Modification to date?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:
DSO

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Global Warming is what I am now calling one of the biggest disinformation/public opinion manitpulation ever created. Here is how i see it (and please feel free to disagree) :

1) It all started with the climate scientests that required funding. In order to secure funding they created this "crisis". This makes their research look vitally important, thus dollars start flowing to the cause. More and more of the climate researchers caught on and began forming a "consensus"

2) The UN took this "scientific consensus" and warped it into political action through the Kyoto accord. This is a major case of the UN exerting its influence over countries( and a part of the greater NWO/global government movement, which doesn't belong in this thread). However this attempt failed to get the USA on board and thus for the most part it was a flop.

3) Enviromentalists saw an opportunity to take the science and UN's reports and use it as ammo against companies. More and more left leaning political groups saw political opportuntiy by embracing climate change, and thus began mass marketing of global warming. The left bias media jumped on board and helped fuel the disinformation.

There is a breif veiw of how i see it. If you have questions, comments, or wish to correct/add to in any way my veiw, please post below.




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The real shame about all this dishonesty in promoting Global Warming is that it takes away from real causes. But apparently in climate science truth is based on how loud you can yell.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Funny - when I opened this thread, I was thinking the exact opposite:

1) Scientific consensus on an issue that will stand to negatively impact the petrochemical industry
2) Massive lobbying by said industry of government officials in the USA to cast doubt on the research by implying economic collapse if changes are made
3) Massive amounts of money spent on lobbying the media to paint scientists as greedy, environmentalists as wackos, and the threat as imagined
4) Tying the issue to a political party in the United States, making the issue partisan in a nation that spends far too much time on partisanship


...and so forth.

Edit: The tactics used in America around this debate very closely mirror those used by "Creation Scientists" from the mid 80`s on. See: The Thin Edge of the Wedge.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by vox2442]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DSO
1) It all started with the climate scientests that required funding. In order to secure funding they created this "crisis".


One correction here.

1) It all started in the 1880s when, after Fourier/Tyndal showed how the greenhouse effect works a couple of decades earlier, Arrhenius demostrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 would likely enhance the GE resulting in warming.

If you want a good history of climate science, Spencer Weart's site is worth a perusal. It should show how it has developed over time with important figures, such as Callender (1930s/40s), Revelle and Keeling (1950s/60s), making significant contributions to the understanding of the greenhouse effect, climate change, and our impact on the atmosphere.

The discovery of global warming

I think your interpretation of the rest is wrong too, but hey-ho. The IPCC is acting on the science, Kyoto was never sufficient, but if you take the science as likely being correct, then action is a simple and obvious response to this. Environmentalists were always going to support such science, but I don't think it is disinformation (because the science is not). If you want to irritate environmentalists, then nuclear is one of the options to reduce our impact from GHG emissions. They don't like that either, but they can't have it both ways.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by melatonin]


DSO

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
Funny - when I opened this thread, I was thinking the exact opposite:
[edit on 17-11-2007 by vox2442]


I guess the issue can be taken from either side. In the end no one wins, we are all just lied to repeatedly by both sides.

Thank you all for your opinions so far (and thanks for keeping this discusion civilized so far).

Just for the record: I believe humanity is partially responsible for GW, however not to the extent that some claim it to be.

I also have a couple other thoughts to pass by you guys.
1) GW and Kyoto/similar legislation are attacks on capitalism and free market practice. If you look at the mandates being requested, there are no way companies can stay profitable. The market will adapt, but the ammount of money being sucked out of companies for GHG reasons is rediculous. If government took a proactive approch they would help companies with research into clean technology such as hydrogen, clean coal, and solar. (i have nothing against cleaning up the enviroment, just don't do it the wrong way).

2) Carbon Credit Trading: Totally false market resulting in no real change just spreading the intensity around. No good from either side of the GW debate.

Also If you find blatent uses of blaming GW in the media Please feel free to post below.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
What is the truth about global warming? Since 1870, the Earth’s temperature has risen one-half of 1 degree Celsius, i.e., almost imperceptibly, and most of this rise occurred before World War II. Since 1979, according to satellites and high-altitude balloons, the planet has begun to cool.

Second, of the 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide released annually into the atmosphere, 95 percent is the work of nature, only 5 percent the work of man. Mankind’s contribution to any global warming is largely inconsequential.

Finally, even if global warming is occurring, there is no reason to fear it. According to scientists, the Earth has warmed up by 5 to 9 degrees since the Ice Age. Were it not for that warming, much of the United States would still be glacier country.

While much good has been done in the name of “preserving the environment,” a wing of that movement has become a radical cult, its adherents intolerant zealots who believe themselves possessed of some great truth denied to the rest of us. Their goal is power; their ambition is to take control of the destiny of nations in the name of preserving and exalting their goddess: Mother Earth.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terrylynn
Since 1979, according to satellites and high-altitude balloons, the planet has begun to cool.


It hasn't. Satellites show that warming is entirely consistent with ground measures. That is, temps are still rising.


Second, of the 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide released annually into the atmosphere, 95 percent is the work of nature, only 5 percent the work of man. Mankind’s contribution to any global warming is largely inconsequential.


This is a red-herring. We release more CO2 into the atmosphere than is required to account for the yearly rise in atmospheric CO2. CO2 is released by nature, CO2 is absorbed by nature. It was a fairly good balance, until we started releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 that had been locked up out of the carbon cycle. Indeed, it appears to not have been much above 300ppm for at least 650,000 years.

The 33%ish increase in CO2 from the pre-industrial period can be easily filed under human effects (i.e., 25% of the CO2 in the 383ppm is human sourced).


Finally, even if global warming is occurring, there is no reason to fear it. According to scientists, the Earth has warmed up by 5 to 9 degrees since the Ice Age. Were it not for that warming, much of the United States would still be glacier country.


That's good. Better an interglacial than a glacial climate. But that doesn't mean adding another 2-4'C will not have important negative effects. What we need is a fair degree of climate stability, that is helpful to human civilisation in a number of ways.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Global temperatures have leveled off since 1998. Also if you compare CO2 plots with temperature plots you'll see that CO2 changes lag BEHIND temperature changes. Indicating that CO2 changes are a result of and not a cause of temperature change. I did a small report on this back in Feb of 2007.

www.climatepatrol.com...

While the difference is hard to identify when the numbers are on the way up they are VERY clear on the way down. Given the line we get fed about CO2 and the effect on global temperatures it would be impossible for temperatures go fall in advance of a CO2 decrease. Yet somehow this seems to be the norm. In fact the temperatures at times fall well in advance of the CO2 decreases. And of course those charts also show how regular this temperature cycle is.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Global temperatures have leveled off since 1998.


Not really. What we had was a very strong El Nino year in 1998. Even if you actually cherrypick the data from 1998 onwards, there is still an upwards statistical trend.

Moroever, the GISS data set has 2005 as warmer than 1998, whereas, Hadley 1998>2005. Thus, it takes a double cherrypick to assess the data in this way, and when you do, there is still a degree of warming trend.

ABE: here we are, quickly thrown together in Excel:






Also if you compare CO2 plots with temperature plots you'll see that CO2 changes lag BEHIND temperature changes. Indicating that CO2 changes are a result of and not a cause of temperature change. I did a small report on this back in Feb of 2007.


CO2 is both a result and a cause.

You need to get beyond binary thinking. It would be silly to suggest that CO2 during ice-age cycles would just appear from nowhere. It would have to be the result of something. And that something is temperature increases. This leads to warming of carbon sinks, which then release CO2. CO2 is a GHG, and will therefore cause more warming.

That is called a positive feedback.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DSO
 


You hit the nail right on the head. There is no $ in disproving man made global warming! And it may be true that the earth is getting warmer, however it is warming up after a 300 year cold spell!And who is to say that the resent climate is the best or prefered climate? One thing is for sure, most life thrives when the planet has gotten warmer! We couldn't stop the sun from getting hotter if we wanted to. We didn't cause this warming spell" if it's happening at all", so we sure can't stop it!



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
reply to post by DSO
 


There is no $ in disproving man made global warming!


Oh, come on.

The industries that have railed against GW in the media and in political circles:

- oil companies
- coal producers
- the automotive sector
- electric companies
- the aviation industry
- transport and shiipping companies
- the logging industry

That`s for a start.

Can you honestly say that NONE of those industries would see an increase in revenue if GW were disproven?

Back to my original post - it has been the leaders in these industries who have (apparently with some success) been working to disprove GW in the minds of the average joe. There are scores of media relations consultants making a bundle on this stuff. And it`s all in plain view.

What truly boggles my mind is how, on an internet forum designed to discuss all manner of conspiracies, can this one blatant conspiracy be not only brushed off but accepted and supported - while the threads on lizard shapeshifters infiltrating the security forces down at the mall get 500 stars.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Not really. What we had was a very strong El Nino year in 1998. Even if you actually cherrypick the data from 1998 onwards, there is still an upwards statistical trend.

Moroever, the GISS data set has 2005 as warmer than 1998, whereas, Hadley 1998>2005. Thus, it takes a double cherrypick to assess the data in this way, and when you do, there is still a degree of warming trend.


There isn't a warming trend. It ended. People can draw that line any way they want to attempt to manipulate public perception. 1998 marked the end of the warming trend. We like to do damage control by calling it an exceptional el nino but it is what it is. So are we going to start discounting numbers from any year that there has been an el nino? I think not. 1998 was the warmest. With the exception of 2005 there has been a downward trend in global temperatures since then.

For those who haven't read it...


Here is where you have to stop and think about the numbers and understand where they are going. 1998 was the warmest year on record. I don't think many would dispute that. 2005 was the 2nd warmest year on record. Because of the 2005 ranking keep in mind that the numbers for 2002, 2003 and 2004 will be one notch lower than I am going to list. These numbers were the ranks at the time they happened. 2002 was the 2nd warmest year on record (now 3rd warmest). 2003 was the 3rd warmest on record. 2004 was the 4th warmest on record. 2006 was the 6th year on record.


That is what I discovered when looking up global temperature ranks. I don't see how anyone could get warming trend out of that. You have this and the evidence from the Vostok cores that shows CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes and proof that these changes are part of of a regular cycle and we still believe there is an issue?

Lets pretend that 1998 wasn't the warmest and that with the exception of 2005 that the following years weren't subsequently cooler. Today's temps still aren't as warm as what was experienced during the medieval warm period. You don't need models, projections, forecasts, worst case scenarios, etc. This is just historical fact.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
There isn't a warming trend. It ended.


Only if you have no understanding of statistics and have a penchant for cherrypicking.


1998 marked the end of the warming trend. We like to do damage control by calling it an exceptional el nino but it is what it is.


yeah, it was a strong El-Nino year. 1998 was an anomaly.


So are we going to start discounting numbers from any year that there has been an el nino? I think not. 1998 was the warmest. With the exception of 2005 there has been a downward trend in global temperatures since then.


No, what we do is keep collecting and analysing data as we always have before. Only by cherrypicking an anomalous year, and then ignoring statistics can you make a point.

As I pointed out, NASA GISS have 2005 as the warmest year. There also isn't a downward trend in temperatures since 1998, the data is above in my post. Both still show upwards trends between 1998-2006, but CRUT3 is less than NASA GISS.


That is what I discovered when looking up global temperature ranks. I don't see how anyone could get warming trend out of that.


I just have. The data is above. You are cherrypicking a single year and a single data-set to misinform. When we take all the data for a longer time period, the satellite data clearly shows how 1998 was an anomaly:



It's pretty difficult to look at that data and not see 1998 as exceptional.


Lets pretend that 1998 wasn't the warmest and that with the exception of 2005 that the following years weren't subsequently cooler. Today's temps still aren't as warm as what was experienced during the medieval warm period. You don't need models, projections, forecasts, worst case scenarios, etc. This is just historical fact.


We don't need to pretend, we can just use NASA GISS data instead of Hadley CRUT3. Even if we do have a period of lower warming trends (or even cooling), it doesn't mean that stronger warming won't continue soon after, indeed, some are predicting a slowing of warming for a few years, before it speeds up again. Only time will tell, climate depends on many factors and simplistic binary thinking isn't appropriate.

Of course the MWP was warmer than now....that's why all the major NH multi-proxy reconstructions show otherwise.



[edit on 18-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


That last graph you used looks like the Hockey Stick Graph which has been debunked. It completely omits the 'Little Ice Age' during a time where solar flares were little to non-existent.

I think what is more crippling to the global warming camp is mounting evidence that the sun is the cause of warming and is the cause of many celestial bodies in our solar system to warm.

EDIT: here is a link to mars warming on National Geographic LINK

[edit on 19-11-2007 by DINSTAAR]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The graph is actually from the most recent IPCC report and contains several large scale multi-proxy reconstructions, and not the MBH98 reconstruction - the denialists/septics bugbear.

The reason they look like the original Mann study is because they essentially are consistent with the findings of the first multi-proxy study (i.e., they validate its findings). This is generally ignored, of course.

Solar activity is insufficient to account for current warming, indeed much of the data shows that solar activity has been on a downward trend for a while, with no big increases for a few decades before that (i.e., 1950ish).

The warming of a handful of planets and moons is not really surprising, they can only warm, cool, or stay constant, and with dozens of major solar system bodies, a few warming is no great shock. Most have other valid explanations for their possible changes in climate and, for example, uranus is actually cooling.

The one I like to point out is the warming for Pluto. Apparently it has warmed about 2'C. If this was due to increased solar activity, we would definitely notice it, heh.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join