UN Blowback: More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims , page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 53 times

reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 08:04 AM by blueorder

Originally posted by Raud

Eh, what???

Let's tax the hell out of it. It will make us change focus and develop better, cleaner and most of all cheaper energy (at least in the long run). What can we possible lose from doing that? What grinds the gears are cheap, greedy people afraid of change. Just as always. It is my planet too you know!

The other factors you mentioned makes no sense at all. It sounds more like the worst case of ill-directed paranoia I have ever heard.

It is not communism we are talking about here. Get out from under whatever stone you are hiding beneath.

Poor countries are being kept poor for other reasons.

You resort to demonisation and hysteria, you sound like a good little global warming footsoldier

THE TRUTH (as the poster you mocked said) SHOULD BE IMPORTANT! First and foremost that alone is reason enough.

Secondly, you can tax the mohammed out of your own pocket, I have no desire to allow more of my money to be taken away to fund something which could all be the biggest pile of poo ever.

And it IS about control, hence middle class pukes protesting at the London airport over possible expansion are like a bunch of religious zealots who don't want the peasants having cheap flights.

GW merchants should be mocked mercilessly, I would vote for a party that would lock these freaks up, how does that grab you for "control"

reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 10:46 AM by Majic

Topic Only, Please

Let's put an end to the ad hominem attacks that so regrettably yet predictably mar discussions of this topic.

Disagreement is fine and different points of view are welcome, but substituting insults for intelligent discussion is not.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Please post accordingly.

reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 02:49 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
How about unaltered records? Since 2004, temps are falling, to below 1980 levels! Click on this image to see current downward trends.

Talk about "facts and the source!" I guess I shouldn't have limited my liars to politicians and Gore, but should've included scientists.

I was a bit rushed when making my post earlier, and I was particularly interested in the above graph. This data is apparently the UAH data up to part of this year.

When I saw it, alarm bells rang. As I showed earlier, the satellite data is actually very similar to the surface temperature data. So, how the hell do we find such a drop in temps at the latter part of the graph for the trend line, given we have had similar periods of temperature plateau?

After a bit of investigative work...

The above is the exact same data set. The UAH satellite analysis. The trend line is the 100 month moving temperature average - a suitable method of assessing the trend over time. The trend is not cooling, and clearly shows the graph presented by the OP is a joke, it's just a trend line pulled from someone's imagination.

Not surprisingly, it comes from an article in the National Post by the journalist Lorne Gunter, a well-known hack who posts all kinds of tripe about climate science. Indeed, the newspaper itself is well-known to be haunted by all kinds of BS about climate science.

Talk about "facts and the source!" I guess I shouldn't have limited my liars to politicians...

You didn't. As well as Inhofe, you included a journalist.

Please, people. These climate denial websites are unreliable. If they told me the sky was blue, I'd bleedin' check outside.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 11:02 PM by jdub297

reply to post by melatonin

The data and graphics I have incorporated into these posts are all credited (and accredited) while yours have no such foundation. When you speak of things made up out of someone's imagination, I have no choice but to conclude that you refer to your own submissions.

You can try the ad hominem attack as I have provided you targets. When you post conclusions without sources and graphs without references, you wisely leave no opportunity for attack against the author/creator.

Your opinion that someone is a"hack" or lackey or toadie or whatever does not change the underlying facts.

Man is too insignificant an infection of this planet to affect it globally. We surely can piss all over ourselves and surroundings; but, when we leave, nature comes in and cleans up the mess.

Man does not cause climate change. Man can not change the climate. If he could, you'd have nice weather and you don't.

Hubris has led to so much of man's failure. It is sad in this age of enlightened objectivity that we can fool ouselves to think that we are greater than we are.

We should do everything in our power to conserve the scarce resources we have available. Diverting govt. and NGO resources to false ends takes away valuable assets that could otherwise be focused on the man-made problems we can lessen or remediate.

Will you be serving as a prosecutor, or witness, in Brown's proposed World Climate Court?
recernt ATS post

[edit on 15-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 15-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 15-12-2008 by jdub297]

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 02:36 AM by malcr

Originally posted by Keyhole
Hmmm, what does the UN's own data say now?

UN Data Shows Global Warming has Stopped

Kyoto was supposed to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. But since it was signed, the atmospheric concentration of this putative pollutant continued to rise, pretty much at the same rate it did before Kyoto. [...] Since Kyoto, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped-even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen. According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big "El Niño," which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. [...] Even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.

2008 Will Be Coolest Year of the Decade

Friday 5 December 2008

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

Presumably you will be posting the analysis that shows why this is the case? No didn't think so. God forbid a skeptic shows all the data and all the analysis so that the big picture can be seen.

I'm not going to provide a link for the rest. The non skeptics know exactly what analysis I'm talking about. The skeptics prefer to be ignorant hence the above incomplete posting.

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 02:58 AM by alienesque

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by Keyhole
Hmmm, what does the UN's own data say now?

UN Data Shows Global Warming has Stopped

Kyoto was supposed to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. But since it was signed, the atmospheric concentration of this putative pollutant continued to rise, pretty much at the same rate it did before Kyoto. [...] Since Kyoto, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped-even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen. According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big "El Niño," which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. [...] Even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.

2008 Will Be Coolest Year of the Decade

Friday 5 December 2008

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

Presumably you will be posting the analysis that shows why this is the case? No didn't think so. God forbid a skeptic shows all the data and all the analysis so that the big picture can be seen.

I'm not going to provide a link for the rest. The non skeptics know exactly what analysis I'm talking about. The skeptics prefer to be ignorant hence the above incomplete posting.

hello

can you explain why the governments and scientists no longer use the term 'global warming' and have opted for 'climate change' instead?

to me this would seem like an excuse for eternal measures...as fighting 'change' is never ending....you can fight man made global warming just once...and it would go away...you introduce the measures that stop it and it stops....climate change however means a never ending list of changes is needed..as 'change' will always happen...

its like the war on terror...they fabricate problems that..if they want...can continue for ever.

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 03:50 AM by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by melatonin

The data and graphics I have incorporated into these posts are all credited (and accredited) while yours have no such foundation.

To a newspaper? The data you posted earlier is very deceptive. Even blinkin' Watts accepted that after being shown why by Leif Svalgaard.

Any data I have presented can be readily constructed from the original data source, much of it comes from Tamino's blog. You can find the original data online and construct it yourself with a bit of nous, it's easy enough. Best leave the stats to those who understand them, though.

Man does not cause climate change. Man can not change the climate. If he could, you'd have nice weather and you don't.

And you talk about unsupported claims, heh. Quite an assertion, and a cracking non-sequitur.

Originally posted by alienesque
can you explain why the governments and scientists no longer use the term 'global warming' and have opted for 'climate change' instead?

It's probably a better description, as it's not just about warming.

However, you do know that the US republicans were quite keen to use the term 'climate change', rather than 'global warming'. Hunt down the Luntz memo, and remember the Bush government has been no friend of science on this issue - they have gagged and hindered scientists all the way.

When you find it, you'll see that they preferred the term as they thought it less scary.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 04:42 AM by alienesque

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by melatonin

The data and graphics I have incorporated into these posts are all credited (and accredited) while yours have no such foundation.

To a newspaper? The data you posted earlier is very deceptive. Even blinkin' Watts accepted that after being shown why by Leif Svalgaard.

Any data I have presented can be readily constructed from the original data source, much of it comes from Tamino's blog. You can find the original data online and construct it yourself with a bit of nous, it's easy enough. Best leave the stats to those who understand them, though.

Man does not cause climate change. Man can not change the climate. If he could, you'd have nice weather and you don't.

And you talk about unsupported claims, heh. Quite an assertion, and a cracking non-sequitur.

Originally posted by alienesque
can you explain why the governments and scientists no longer use the term 'global warming' and have opted for 'climate change' instead?

It's probably a better description, as it's not just about warming.

However, you do know that the US republicans were quite keen to use the term 'climate change', rather than 'global warming'. Hunt down the Luntz memo, and remember the Bush government has been no friend of science on this issue - they have gagged and hindered scientists all the way.

When you find it, you'll see that they preferred the term as they thought it less scary.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

hi..thanks..if its not about warming..and rising sea levels..and melting ice caps and glaciers..what is it about?

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 08:07 AM by melatonin

Originally posted by alienesque
hi..thanks..if its not about warming..and rising sea levels..and melting ice caps and glaciers..what is it about?

And precipitation, droughts, ocean currents, and wind patterns. It just covers the whole collection of relevant issues.

I use either, but accept that 'climate change' is probably a more correct term, due to regional variations. It's not really a very recent term, the 'CC' in IPCC itself shows this - at least 20 years. Even the National Academy of Sciences Charney report of 1979 uses the term 'climate changes', but also 'global warmings'.

I do like the fact that the Charney report had estimates of climate sensitivity (2x CO2) of 3'C (1.5-4.5'C). 30 years of research later, we have 3'C (2-4.5'C). If we keep spending millions on research for the next 30 years, we might get to 3'C (2.5-4.5'C), lol.

Charney Report 1979

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 08:17 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by melatonin

To a newspaper? The data you posted earlier is very deceptive. Even blinkin' Watts accepted that after being shown why by Leif Svalgaard.

Originally posted by alienesque
can you explain why the governments and scientists no longer use the term 'global warming' and have opted for 'climate change' instead?

It's probably a better description, as it's not just about warming.

"Blinkin' Watts?" The resort to ad hominem attacks does nothing to support your position, but betrays an emotional attachment bereft of scientific support. Let's call everyone names, no? Hack, toadie, lackey, jerk, fool, bloody, winkin', blinkin', and nod.

Face it, science and facts confirm over time that GW modeling and predictions are, have been, and probably will be wrong. But, they generate headlines, publicity and funding. The U.S. is now fully on board with Dr. Chu's nomination. That doesn't make them right. Chu is a Nobel Laureate, just like Albert Gore, Jr.. He is still fallible, as is the Hon. Gore.

Please identify the "newspapers" published by my sources:
Dr. Ian Wilson, Univ. of Al., Huntsville, Jnl. of Geophysical Research, Brookhaven National Laboratory, American Enterprise Inst., Geophysical Research Letters, Belgian Royal Meteorological Inst., Jnl. of Coastal research, Meteorological and Atmospheric Physics, Danish Nat'l Space Center.

If their findings are broadcast by newpapers, so much the better.

As for the diversion from 'Warming' to 'Change; let's face it:
when you are losing appeal, you re-identify yourself, witness the progression in the 'States from 'Democrat,' to 'liberal,' to "progressive."
Same bankrupt philosophy, same members, different name.

The climate will always change; it does so a lirttle every day. U.S. Republicans realized that from the start. Dem/Lib/Progs never will.

Have you made your weather any better yet?

Will you be a prosecutor or expert witness in the UN "Global Warming Court" PM Brown endorses?

Global Warming Court Will Punish Americans

p.s: Hey, do you recall this 'newspaper' info.?
"IPCC Scientists Caught Falsifying Data"
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 16-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by jdub297]

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 08:30 AM by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
"Blinkin' Watts?" The resort to ad hominem attacks does nothing to support your position, but betrays an emotional attachment bereft of scientific support. Let's call everyone names, no? Hack, toadie, lackey, jerk, fool, bloody, winkin', blinkin', and nod.

lol, it's not even a term referring to him in a negative fashion. Give it up. If I said 'not even frickin' Watts' would you think that means he's a fricker?

You are getting desperate.

Please identify the "newspapers" published by my sources:
Dr. Ian Wilson, Univ. of Al., Huntsville, Jnl. of Geophysical Research, Brookhaven National Laboratory, American Enterprise Inst., Geophysical Research Letters, Belgian Royal Meteorological Inst., Jnl. of Coastal research, Meteological and Atmospheric Physics, Danish Nat'l Soace Center.

I was talking specifically about the UAH data you presented earlier from the National Post. The data itself is fine, it's exactly the same as I presented. The difference is in the trend line.

One is a statistically appropriate method to assess the data trend, the other is just deceptive. If you followed the discussion at Watts' blog, you would find what they think the newspaper dude did. He either drew it by hand, or used an inappropriate 6th order polynomial. As Leif showed (a solar scientist who called it 'fraud'), if we extend the data out, we'd have this:

lol

As for the diversion from 'Warming' to 'Change; let's face it:
when you are losing appeal, you re-identify yourself, witness the progression in the 'States from 'Democrat,' to 'liberal,' to "progressive."
Same bankrupt philosophy, same members, different name.

Oh my.

Will you be a prosecutor or expert witness in the UN "Global Warming Court" PM Brown endorses?

Dude, when the lezbollah revolution comes, your fate will be the same as Sirius Cybernetics, lol.

p.s: Hey, do you recall this 'newspaper' info.?
"IPCC Scientists Caught Falsifying Data"
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Yeah, it's another deceptive attempt to discredit Hansen and GISS. They did nothing wrong. I answered in that thread, refer to them.

The way people respond to such issues is quite telling.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 09:30 AM by jdub297

reply to post by melatonin

Your Watts/Svagaard extrapolation is exactly what I've noted:
projections and predictions of weather/climate are inherently flawed,

GW advocates contend that man's contribution (less than 50%) to overall
CO2 concentration (.00038) justifies taxing small farms and businesses out of existence.

I know that the tide has turned, but I'll be damned if I support any such expansion of authority; govt'l, ngo, or otherwise.

Will you be a prosecutor or expert witness in the Global Warming Court? See you in Court.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 09:50 AM by jdub297

reply to post by malcr

Kudos and a star. Facts speak for themselves, regardless of who brings them to light.

Unfortunately, you are a voice in the wilderness when it comes to popular science.

reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 11:10 AM by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by melatonin

Your Watts/Svagaard extrapolation is exactly what I've noted:
projections and predictions of weather/climate are inherently flawed,

I'm not too sure what you mean. Watts posted the National Post article on his blog without any real critical awareness - showing his naivete. Many commenters highlighted the problem with the trendline, including Leif Svalgaard. Leif's a bit of a contrarian, a 'real' sceptic rather than pseudosceptic - he does expect an honest assessment of the data.

If you are talking model predictions, Hansen's model from 20 years ago ain't doing too bad. They depend on the scenario used, if a comet hits the earth on Xmas day, I doubt his climate model would do so well compared to reality - he probably never thought to account for such events.

GW advocates contend that man's contribution (less than 50%) to overall
CO2 concentration (.00038) justifies taxing small farms and businesses out of existence.

I don't think that's the case. You are certainly mixing the politics and science way too much. We have had a period where oil prices rose massively in the recent past, I didn't see people whining so much about how the oil companies were forcing small companies to go bust. We have guberments who can just magic hundred of billions out of nowhere to help banks and fight wars, lol.

The potential consequences and reaction is nothing to do with the science. Even if acting in any specific way means companies going bust, it has absolutely no relation to the science itself. The reaction to the science is in our hands, it ranges from do nothing, to do something.

That's where your issue lies. It comes through your posts loud and clear. Indeed, your method is exactly that highlighted in the Luntz memo - spread FUD. And has a long history going back to tobacco health science.

I know that the tide has turned, but I'll be damned if I support any such expansion of authority; govt'l, ngo, or otherwise.

Will you be a prosecutor or expert witness in the Global Warming Court? See you in Court.

Heh, no tide has turned. It's a manufactroversy.

Never fancied myself as a lawyer, so witness it would be.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 01:26 PM by jdub297

reply to post by melatonin

Is it warm in there?

The cozy governmetal wrap is meant to keep us quiet and cool, lest we stir and move about too much. When did you get covered in the fleece?

Environmental data are everyhere, you can pick and choose. But once you commit to accept an idea, you're foredestained to lose.

Man does not change the global climate. He cannot change any place he leaves. When he leaves Earth, it will return to its natural state. That's what "natural" means.

reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 08:28 PM by melatonin

Originally posted by Keyhole
Hmmm, what does the UN's own data say now?

UN Data Shows Global Warming has Stopped

Sorry to pick yours, but I looked for the easiest to find...there's usually more than one per thread. At least yours just quoted 'stopped' warming, the normal meme is 'cooling since 1998!1!!1'.

Well, it's the end of the climatological year, and if we have had to accept (not) that climate had been cooling since 1998, then it has now been warming since 1999.