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.

 

Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Here's what those denied by the elite powers of the IPCC have to say:

fox news




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Here's what those denied by the elite powers of the IPCC have to say:

fox news


Cheers. Loved this bit:


"Their claim that debate is being stifled has the same credibility as members of the Flat Earth Society complaining about the round Earth mafia," said NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt.


Nice one Gavin. My sentiments exactly.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Dance clocky, dance!


Cool.


Oh well. So how many of these scientists were bounced from the ball? 3-8%?


The ball wasn't really for scientists anyway. I thought it was mainly a case of government representatives trying to come to some basic agreements on mitigation. Although there were a few sideshows going on with NGOs. For the main 'ball', I thought the guy from some small country made a great comment to the US envoy. something along the lines of:

"Well, if you are not willing to lead, get out of the way - leave it to us".

Good stuff.

The big ball for 'prominent' climate scientists this month was at the AGU in san francisco, it's where the latest science is presented


Guess they didn't have any...

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


The ball wasn't really for scientists anyway. I thought it was mainly a case of government representatives trying to come to some basic agreements on mitigation.




You mean it was just for tax collectors then, right? They are busy formulating a plan to strangle the world with an Al Gore type carbon tax.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
You mean it was just for tax collectors then, right? They are busy formulating a plan to strangle the world with an Al Gore type carbon tax.


Not too sure about that, I think it was solely about agreeing to make reductions in emissions. How we go about that is a different thing I suppose.

I'm not sure such a tax would strangle the world. It hasn't strangled the european countries using it. Not sure if what they have done is different to the 'Al Gore' version though.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Lets do a simple volumetric exercise...........put 1000 BB's in a coffee can........Note the weight in your hand.

Now take 3 BB's away............Note the weight in you hand again. Can you tell the difference? That difference is the total effect man has on CO2 on this planet. FACT not fiction...........


[edit on 17-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



There is great dispute over which comes first, Temp or CO2. Does CO2 cause temp rise or does temp rise release more CO2? Since CO2 is a natural gas all that has ever been made still exists on this planet in some form.

Personally, I think CO2 follows temp...................



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Gee, three pages of hooing and hawing, great. But just to address the subject of the thread for a minute, this entry from a Greenpeace blog may point to the reasons for these people being taken off the schedule.



members.greenpeace.org... xxon_s_team_busy_in_bali
So. Here I am at the climate conference in Bali where Exxon's team seems to be very busy trashing the science whilst the rest of the world is trying to solve climate change.

We have all sorts of groups turning up - but it seems the main lot is the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) which has received $US 542,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
...
CFACT's little tricks here are verging on the hysterical - walking around the press centre abusing journalists, and offering free massages in the hope that people will come and listen to their ranting. Nobody is taking them seriously. In fact many journalists I've spoken to just want to write about how much money they get from Exxon.

They have launched the International Climate Science Coalition - a group set up by a New Zealand sceptic lot - interestingly, Brian Leyland from New Zealand is leading the CFACT delegation - despite denying any connections to Exxon money.


None dare say, Exxon. This is a non story.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Lets do a simple volumetric exercise...........put 1000 BB's in a coffee can........Note the weight in your hand.

Now take 3 BB's away............Note the weight in you hand again. Can you tell the difference? That difference is the total effect man has on CO2 on this planet. FACT not fiction...........


Heh, do you think that is a coherent and convincing argument?

I'm really not sure what you are on about there at all.


There is great dispute over which comes first, Temp or CO2. Does CO2 cause temp rise or does temp rise release more CO2? Since CO2 is a natural gas all that has ever been made still exists on this planet in some form.

Personally, I think CO2 follows temp...................


There is little dispute on this issue at all. Just lots of noise from some people who use this to obfuscate.

Both happen. Increasing temperature reduces the solubility of gases in water. CO2 is a GHG.

Thus, if we emit CO2, it will warm the globe, and will very likely cause a positive feedback by reducing solubility in the oceans. No great shakes at the moment, as the oceans are still acting as a carbon sink.

Will probably change with time though.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
There is little dispute on this issue at all. Just lots of noise from some people who use this to obfuscate.

Both happen. Increasing temperature reduces the solubility of gases in water. CO2 is a GHG.

Thus, if we emit CO2, it will warm the globe, and will very likely cause a positive feedback by reducing solubility in the oceans. No great shakes at the moment, as the oceans are still acting as a carbon sink.

Will probably change with time though.


Again, there is much dispute in the area, IF, the researchers who do not share the same "religion" are allowed to present data.

As for your 1978 data, there is much more specific info available in the last 29 years. The reflective radiation model in this report has been refined many times over.

Based on the original model the earth would have stayed in the ice age forever. By the way, the "consensus" in the 70's was the earth was going into a freefall towards an iceage.

Look here..........

www.nationalcenter.org...



[edit on 17-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Again, there is much dispute in the area, IF, the researchers who do not share the same "religion" are allowed to present data.


They would like you to think so. There is little dispute, the lag is widely accepted, indeed was expected. The length of lag is more uncertain.

We don't expect CO2 to just appear in the atmosphere from nowhere. During deglaciation, the warming induced by orbital variations eventually leads to release of GHGs from ground and oceans sinks, these then lead to more warming.

Not exactly rocket science, it's called 'positive feedback'. However, during the modern period, we are releasing GHGs, so like the process of deglaciation, they will lead to waming.


As for your 1978 data, there is much more specific info available in the last 29 years. The reflective radiation model in this report has been refined many times over.


Eh? The data from Trenberth is from 1997. The data from Ramanathan is from 1978, they proposed the 9% figure, IIRC. So, yeah, we have a newer analysis since 1978, it shows that CO2 can account for between 20-26% of the GE...

Neither shows what your original link does. CO2 is a very significant GHG. H20 might have the largest slice of the pie, but it's pretty impotent as a climate forcing due to its very short residence time in the atmosphere (it enters back into the hydrological cycle very quickly). CO2 hangs around for decades, and readily accumulates, leading to long-term warming.


Based on the original model the earth would have stayed in the ice age forever. By the way, the "consensus" in the 70's was the earth was going into a freefall towards an iceage.


There wasn't any consensus at all on this issue. All that was certain was that it we didn't have enough knowledge to make reliable and useful predictions.

A few scientists thought that global cooling due to increasing sulphates swamping the GHG impact would be an issue. Others thought correctly that as we are in an interglacial, it will end eventually - could have been 100 years, or 5000 years etc. It's generally accepted that it will be of the order of thousands.

At least your link has something about right:


Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect


I assume they are using the lower end 1978 figure of 9%. More honest than the webpage you used earlier, but ignores the higher end of the range. I'll let you work through the cognitive dissonance now (c.f. your original link with this new one).

Later in that part they suggest solar variation is to blame. Unlikely, it's been pretty constant for decades, hitting a peak in the 1940s:



Can't be bothered with the rest, I'm sure it's of a similar standard.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by infinite
 



Who says GW is bad? The greatest growth in human history was between 900-1200 AD. The little optimum.

Clearly 1/3 of the landmass on this planet is uninhabitable over half a year. If GW does increase upper Canada, Siberia, Greenland become rich farmland. Perhaps ever antartica, who that be great or what.



comments like this show how little most people know about those awesome green things we call plants. I am curious, what makes you think the places you list will be "prime farm land"? I would be interested to know.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Again can someone explain how a warmer climate is bad? How making 1/3 of the planets landmass inhabitable a bad thing? Growing grapes in scotland again...................

A green Greenland. The theory that its name was derived from a 10th century "madison ave" marketing genuis of a viking is a bit silly isn't it?


listen mate, you obviously did not do much studying science. What makes you think that we ar going to have the amount of plant species around after a bit of severe global warming? it comes down to a lot more than temperature. plants require specific habitats. they wont pick up and move north when the climate changes. nor can people move them. sure maybe a few hundred miles north or south the temperature would be the same, but the micro climate would not be. the soils, the air, the minerals all change. look at a soil survey map some time....so ya it would be nice to go swimming int he ocean in Scotland, just don't expect to have all the creature comforts you do now (food).


Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by apc
[
Nope? Don't you mean Yup? If 3-8% of the "current greenhouse effect" is due to human activity, then 92-97% is not. Correct?

If you're saying over 90% of the "current greenhouse effect" is not caused by human activity at all, then what the hell are we so worried about?



I am looking forward to this answer myself. As a global warming skeptic I have calculated the human contribution of increased atmospheric CO2 as between 5-15%. Now Melatonin comes up with an even lower figure than I do! Amazing. The 16/106 in my signature reflects my belief that 16 PPM of the 106 PPM total CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 150 years is man made.


ya you would really be onto something if the green house effect was caused by only one chemical (co2)...unfortunately there are more than one and yes we (humans) pump those out too.


Originally posted by TheAvenger

You mean it was just for tax collectors then, right? They are busy formulating a plan to strangle the world with an Al Gore type carbon tax.


what a joke. it is all about taxes eh? do you cry about the trillion dollar debt to china we racked up in Iraq? come on man, the CO2 tax complaint is a joke. It is the last bastion of a defeated argument.




[edit on 17-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Join me and the many worldwide leading scientists listed below who do not deny global warming, but we deny the predominantly human caused aspect of it. Deny the ignorance of global warming alarmists.


Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Augie Auer (deceased)
Sallie Baliunas
Timothy F. Ball
Robert Balling
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reid Bryson
Robert M. Carter
George V. Chilingar
John Christy
Petr Chylek
Ian Clark
John Coleman (meteorologist)
Piers Corbyn
William R. Cotton
Robert E. Davis (climatologist)
Chris de Freitas
David Deming
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
Gary England
Bill Evans (meteorologist)
Vincent Gray (scientist)
William M. Gray
Michael D. Griffin
Craig D. Idso
Keith E. Idso
Sherwood B. Idso
Yuri Izrael
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Wibjorn Karlen
William Kininmonth (meteorologist)
George Kukla
David Legates
Marcel Leroux
Richard Lindzen
Patrick Michaels
Patrick Moore (environmentalist)
Luboš Motl
Kary Mullis
Tad Murty
Nils-Axel Mörner
Tim Patterson
Benny Peiser
Ian Plimer
Tullio Regge
Paul Reiter
Richard Courtney (climate)
Arthur B. Robinson
Tom Segalstad
Frederick Seitz
Nir Shaviv
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
James Spann
Roy Spencer
Chauncey Starr (deceased)
Philip Stott
Henrik Svensmark
Hendrik Tennekes
Jan Veizer
Antonino Zichichi






[edit on 12/17/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
comments like this show how little most people know about those awesome green things we call plants. I am curious, what makes you think the places you list will be "prime farm land"? I would be interested to know.


Because from 1979 until 2007 I was an environmental researcher who has given speeches from London to Hong Kong. The more data I found the more I realized man made GW was BS.

Upper Canada and Alaska is very rich farmland, Siberia is well forested and extremely rich land. GW fear is a multimillion dollar research scam.......

The greatest LIE of all is that GW is a future horror. There is absolutely no data whatsoever, to make that case. No different than flat earth and falling off the side on the earth.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Later in that part they suggest solar variation is to blame. Unlikely, it's been pretty constant for decades, hitting a peak in the 1940s:

[
[edit on 17-12-2007 by melatonin]


Please explain the solar super max we are experiencing. The superflare of 2000. The direct correlation between sunspots and earth weather.

www.space.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Please explain the solar super max we are experiencing. The superflare of 2000. The direct correlation between sunspots and earth weather.

www.space.com...


I don't need to, the data on solar irradiance was in my post.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


In a previous post you tried to say that solar activity has been "stable" since the 1940's. Nothing could be further from the truth. If stable please explain the solarmax...................and superflares in 2000.

And explain this...............

www.stanford.edu...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
In a previous post you tried to say that solar activity has been "stable" since the 1940's. Nothing could be further from the truth. If stable please explain the solarmax...................and superflares in 2000.


The data is in my post above. Solar flares in 2000. Cool, sounds great.

Solarmax what? Do you mean the max of the 11 year solar cycle? That is just a regular cycle, to assess a trend in solar activity, then this is removed (i.e., we look for the trend behind the cycle).


And explain this...............

www.stanford.edu...


It's the ramblings of a 'denier'?

Seriously, though, why would I want to? I have better things to do. Maybe you can pick out a couple of specific arguments you think are persuasive. I'm getting pretty bored already, so I have little motivation to critique in full a long article from 12 years ago.

It just seems an argument that rapid climate change will be great for all. Heh, tell that to the animals that went extinct during the PETM.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
Join me and the many worldwide leading scientists listed below.


More like creationists than I ever thought. Making lists and petitions. I wonder if we could do a similar thing to they have for evolutionary biology on Pandas thumb, and see how many scientists called Steve accept the IPCC position.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Nice try but you still avoid the question by just pointing fingers and screaming "denier". There is much data to debunk that GW is manmade, yet so many "believer" don't want to be bothered with something containing FACT. You point to a flawed study from 1978, yet won't read the data from 1995 from 'STANFORD" University. Hardly a "conservative" college.

GW is REAL, and the sooner we all realize that it is a natural cycle not vile evil of man, we can create the technology to compensate for the changes. In one hand the true believers scream help I'm melting, yet won't secure the energy needed to build an air conditioning system and fuel it.

Screaming the sky-is-falling and stopping the use of resources we have available NOW isn't working.

Build NUKES, use the heat to generate Hydrogen for transportation, use every last drop of OIL till its gone, (becuase its cheap). Use the saved money for research.

Devise superconductors for electicity transportation because 75% of all electricity generated is LOST in the wires on the way to be used.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join