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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Nice try but you still avoid the question by just pointing fingers and screaming "denier".


It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. That's why it continued on with 'seriously', it was a sort of juxtaposition of something not meant to be serious, and something that was.

At this point, you're just throwing random lengthy articles and squeeking 'Ta-da! What about that then?' without even making a point. So, I came back with just as useless a response to start with.


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.


You haven't even read the 1978 article, how do you know it's flawed? That would be some special powers you have there - does it generally go, 'it doesn't agree with me, therefore flawed'. At least show why you think it's flawed.

The article you link to is just the same old. As I said, point out something you think is particularly persuasive in the article, quote/explain/highlight it, and I'll respond. That's fair enough, no?

Or do I need to go through it assessing every point raised? As I said, it's a big article, I have better things to do. I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking you to show me what you find persuasive about it. I'm not doing the work for you here, you're already completely ignoring much of my responses to you.

And just because stanford is associated with it in someway doesn't mean it's worth the cyberpaper it's written on. The fact you mentioned 'conservative' raised my interest, it wasn't an issue till then.

So, lets go there - the Hoover Institution is about as 'conservative' as a academic department can get. It even has Maggie Thatcher as an honorary fellow, and has all those other 'non-conservative' academics like D'Souza and Condie Rice, heh. It has also been funded by Exxon since 1998 to the tune of around $300,000.

And the author is also associated with those other bastions of liberal academia - the industry-funded Cato institute, CEI, and probably others.

Amazingly, some of the people on Avenger's list above are also associated with these same two industry funded think-tanks (e.g., Michaels, Singer, Christy, Balling, Lindzen, Balliunas, DeFreitas). What a coincidence, heh.


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.


The bolded part was great, the rest - Yah, whatever.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
And just out of interest, as I was bored with a spare 15 minutes...

Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Augie Auer (deceased)
Sallie Baliunas (Marshall Institute, CEI, American Petroleum, Heartland et al))
Timothy F. Ball (Heartland)
Robert Balling (Heartland, Cato, Tech central et al)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reid Bryson
Robert M. Carter (Tech central)
George V. Chilingar
John Christy (CEI, Cato, Marshall, Heartland, Independent)
Petr Chylek
Ian Clark (Fraser, Heartland, CEI)
John Coleman (meteorologist)
Piers Corbyn
William R. Cotton
Robert E. Davis (climatologist; Tech central, heartland, independent)
Chris de Freitas (CEI, Heartland)
David Deming (National centre for policy analysis)
David Douglass (Heartland)
Don Easterbrook
Gary England
Bill Evans (meteorologist)
Vincent Gray (scientist; Tech central, Heartland)
William M. Gray (Heartland)
Michael D. Griffin
Craig D. Idso (Marshall, CFACT, CScarbon diox, Western Fuels, Peabody energy)
Keith E. Idso (CScarbon diox)
Sherwood B. Idso (Marshall, CFACT, CScarbon diox)
Yuri Izrael
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Wibjorn Karlen (Fraser)
William Kininmonth (meteorologist; Fraser, Heartland)
George Kukla
David Legates (Marshall, Tech central, NCPA, CEI et al)
Marcel Leroux
Richard Lindzen (Cato, Tech central, Heartland, Marshall)
Patrick Michaels (Cato, Western Fuels, CFACT, Tech, Marshall et al)
Patrick Moore (environmentalist)
Luboš Motl
Kary Mullis
Tad Murty (Fraser)
Nils-Axel Mörner
Tim Patterson (Tech central, heartland)
Benny Peiser (International Policy network, heartland)
Ian Plimer
Tullio Regge
Paul Reiter (Tech central, IPN)
Richard Courtney (climate; a coal dude)
Arthur B. Robinson
Tom Segalstad
Frederick Seitz (Marshall, CFACT, SEPP)
Nir Shaviv
Fred Singer (SEPP, Cato, Heartland, NCPA et al)
Willie Soon (american petroleum institute, Marshall, Heartland, Tech central)
James Spann
Roy Spencer (Marshall, Heartland, Tech central)
Chauncey Starr (deceased; Marshall, SEPP)
Philip Stott
Henrik Svensmark
Hendrik Tennekes
Jan Veizer
Antonino Zichichi

...............................................

OK, so out of the 64 people above, 30 are readily associated with industry funded think-tanks (assuming my counting was good).

www.exxonsecrets.org...

[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Amazingly, some of the people on Avenger's list above are also associated with these same two industry funded think-tanks (e.g., Michaels, Singer, Christy, Balling, Lindzen, Balliunas, DeFreitas). What a coincidence, heh.


[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]


And as one who once was funded by research grants, the entire debate is funded by someone with an intrest. Mega-dollars can be made in research on either side, so "industry" think tanks is BS. Look at the data, not the names on any stupid list.

My "expert" is better that your "expert" gets us nowhere. Raw data, not conclusions is the real truth. The raw data says CO2 contributions from man made anything is so small its silly to worry over.

How about a nuke in every city, and natural gas fired fuel cells in every home.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


wow and you talk about sticking to the data...i suggest you take your own advice.

link

link

link



[edit on 18-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
And as one who once was funded by research grants, the entire debate is funded by someone with an intrest. Mega-dollars can be made in research on either side, so "industry" think tanks is BS. Look at the data, not the names on any stupid list.


I don't think most scientists make mega-dollars at all.

But I do agree with the last part. Hence, why I said earlier that listmaking was a bit creationist-like. But if if such lists must be presented, full disclosure would be useful.

You did completely ignore most of my points again, so, well done.


The raw data says CO2 contributions from man made anything is so small its silly to worry over.


You haven't presented any data. Just a couple of websites with very questionable misleading maths.

ABE: meant to add as well, if you mean by 'nukes' that we should move to nuclear power, aye, I agree. I think it would be a wise step, bridging the move to predominately sustainable forms.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



Thank you, the data indicate a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but compared to what. 99.97% of the atmosphere is NOT CO2. Even if man double the entire CO2, then 99.94% would NOT be CO2.


Atmosphere, mixture of gases surrounding any celestial object that has a gravitational field strong enough to prevent the gases from escaping; especially the gaseous envelope of Earth. The principal constituents of the atmosphere of Earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.


encarta.msn.com...

CO2 is a natural GAS, it has been here forever. Trees die, burn, volcanos erupt, CO2 cycles.

MAN does not make CO2, he only releases it from one place to another. If you pour water from one bucket to another it is still the same amount of water.

Even with man releasing CO2 and other gases it is micro as compared to the entire earth itself. It is truely like worrying about a single grain of sand on the entire california beach line.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by heliosprime oopps mathmoron strikes]

[edit on 19-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I find it rather "FUNNY" how when the fact the 99.97% of the atmosphere is shown NOT to be CO2 this thread has died. All the fear caused by "we are all going to die from excess CO2" seems to fall away when the FACT that only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere is CO2 and man provides less than 1% (+-) of that.

How can man cause global warming through excessive CO2 emissions when the entire total man contributes is 0.003%?

Man made GW is "hipe" and a scam..............



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
I find it rather "FUNNY" how when the fact the 99.97% of the atmosphere is shown NOT to be CO2 this thread has died. All the fear caused by "we are all going to die from excess CO2" seems to fall away when the FACT that only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere is CO2 and man provides less than 1% (+-) of that.

How can man cause global warming through excessive CO2 emissions when the entire total man contributes is 0.003%?


It wasn't aimed at me, you were just ignoring half my responses as usual. This particular argument from small numbers is about as convincing as saying that because you only fed your 50Kg mother 0.0001g of polonium, she couldn't have died from that.

Also, your maths is wrong. Of the 0.0383%, we can account for about 25%ish if it. Pre-industrial the concentration was about 280ppm, we are now at 383ppm. Apes burning stuff can almost completely account for the rise.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Looks like the list of opponents is growing.

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only "about half a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.




[edit on 12/20/07 by makeitso]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You are operating under several assumptions
A- we know what the optimal temp is
B- climate change is man made
C- climate change can be stopped by man

The fact is that we don't know any of these to be "true" beyond any doubt. Anyone claiming otherwise is a snake oil salesman.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Interesting. To qoute directly from the source you are refering to:


This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]


link

The 400 scientists you named have opposing opinions to AGW (anthropogenic global warming), that is fine, rather than listening to their opinions I would be much mre interested in, and swayed by their research, specifically, peer-reviewed research.

Which leads me to sharing a quote from another source that seems to show the o trend towards consensus in the scientific community in peer-reviewed: research.



The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.


link

Personally, I will take research over here-say any day.


------------------------------------
Replaced quotes with 'ex' tags for external material

Please read Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 20/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


So let's say the peers of these folks with dissenting opinions review their work, and disagree with it. What then? You're right where you started. Those who believe in man made global warming, and those who don't, and nothing is settled.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Animal
 


So let's say the peers of these folks with dissenting opinions review their work, and disagree with it. What then? You're right where you started. Those who believe in man made global warming, and those who don't, and nothing is settled.


could you clarify what you are saying please, i don't understand what you are saying. thanks.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
oh wait i get it. you should look at the 'peer review' process. what it does is submit peoples research manuscripts to others in the field to test the veracity of their claims, the methodology, etc... what it prevents is what you are suggesting. peer reviewed literature that does not 'add up' does not get printed.

Peer Review

peer review

peer review

peer review



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You are operating under several assumptions
A- we know what the optimal temp is
B- climate change is man made
C- climate change can be stopped by man


OK, you are operating under the assumption that;

a) I defined optimum. (I didn't, I was responding to someone claiming the medieval 'optimum' was a time of parties and champagne in greenland).
b) The evidence doesn't suggest that a significant proportion of climate change since the latter part of the 20th century is anthropogenic. (It does)
c) That b isn't the case. (If b is true, then of course we can reduce this particular impact).


The fact is that we don't know any of these to be "true" beyond any doubt. Anyone claiming otherwise is a snake oil salesman.


We know very few things to be 'true beyond any doubt'. Such certainty is left to religions and mathematics. We have a good degree of certainity that anthropogenic impacts are having an important influence on climate.

....................

As for makeitso's list, some great exaggeration of qualifications on that page. Great stuff. Richard Courtney does not have a PhD, same goes for John McLean. Vincent Gray is a chemist associated with the coal industry (so is Richard Courtney actually).

As said earlier, these lists are so reminiscent of intelligent design creationists. But they actually do better, I think they have 1000 or so. They can make lists all they like, that's not science, so who cares. The consensus is in the literature.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you dismiss out of hand any scientist if they aren't in lock step with the environmental lobby? Again, there is no consensus that climate change is a result of man, much as some would like that to be the case. No scientist worth their salt can say- yes, we know this is THE cause of this effect, or that if we do THIS, the effect will change.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you dismiss out of hand any scientist if they aren't in lock step with the environmental lobby?


Nope, I like to see their evidence.


Again, there is no consensus that climate change is a result of man, much as some would like that to be the case. No scientist worth their salt can say- yes, we know this is THE cause of this effect, or that if we do THIS, the effect will change.


Yes, there is a consensus. It doesn't mean that 100% agree, it is found in the scientific literature. What some random think-tank associated emeritus dude thinks means little.

But we wouldn't be entirely correct to say it is the cause, it is more the case of it being one significant cause.

When you can show the very basic physics showing GHGs to not be GHGs is wrong, then we can ignore human activity.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Also, your maths is wrong. Of the 0.0383%, we can account for about 25%ish if it. Pre-industrial the concentration was about 280ppm, we are now at 383ppm. Apes burning stuff can almost completely account for the rise.


OHHH KKKKKKKKK.......duh........let's see......25% of 0.0383 is 0.009575% then 99.99043% of the earths atmosphere is unaffected by man made CO2 from all sources.

Lets be clear...................99.99043% of the entire planets atmosphere has absolutely noting to do with man's burning fossil fuel, my personal aircraft carrier sized SUV with lead lined tires, every hummer ever made, every chunk of coal, every can of soft drink opened...........

How can anything man does with CO2 have any effect on anything??????



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
OHHH KKKKKKKKK.......duh........let's see......25% of 0.0383 is 0.009575% then 99.99043% of the earths atmosphere is unaffected by man made CO2 from all sources.


Still playing small numbers, it really does mean nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And just for the 'duh' comment, this is what you said originally:


the FACT that only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere is CO2 and man provides less than 1% (+-) of that.

How can man cause global warming through excessive CO2 emissions when the entire total man contributes is 0.003%?


This was wrong, firstly, because it is actually .038%, if you want to use 2 d.p.s, it would be .04%. Next, we actually provided about 25% of that (the 383ppm). Thus, both the 1% and .003% figures are wrong.



Lets be clear...................99.99043% of the entire planets atmosphere has absolutely noting to do with man's burning fossil fuels


So what? The vast majority of the 99% has no impact on radiative transfer, being predominately N2 and O2. Again, if I place 0.0001g of polonium in 300g of water, will you drink it, it's 99.99% water? If you did you'd be dead silly (see what I did there?).

This 0.038% of CO2 can account for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect of the earth. In total, it is estimated that the earth is warmed 33'C by GHGs, so CO2 can account for about 3-8.5'C of this warming.

That is not insignificant.


How can anything man does with CO2 have any effect on anything??????


Because we are emitting massive quantities of this GHG at a rate faster than even during the PETM event. As a GHG, it will cause warming, it is basic physics.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Again, if I place 0.0001g of polonium in 300g of water, will you drink it, it's 99.99% water?

As a GHG, it will cause warming, it is basic physics.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by melatonin]


Sorry to derail the "mankinds express train to global warming hell" but simple physics does not equate an extremely radioactive and very rare man-refined toxin (polonium) to common carbon with 2 oxygen molecules and a few common electrons.........

Between 1970 and 1979, 21 famous musicians died in car accidents, they all played "music" as compared to non-musicians. Fewer musicians died between 1960 and 1969. Were the deaths due to an increase in music?

Linear logic is just silly............





[edit on 21-12-2007 by heliosprime]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join