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.

 

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The position written in the websites of such groups does not speak for the mayority of the scientists which are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change....


so the are rejecting man made climate change fears even if they say they aren't?


Would you care to explain what stuff i posted is not true?....


World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears
'kay? kay


So now it is a personal attack to respond to your "claim" that I "must check my position"?.....


i said you should check the background on the stuff you're posting, not your position, you really do like to spin a statement, don't you.




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I have been presenting evidence that every claim made by the IPCC is wrong, and what experts on those fields and which were part of the IPCC have to say about it....



so you admit that neither Paul Reiter or Chris Landsea have rejected man made climate change in the excerpts you presented to us?

[edit on 31/7/09 by pieman]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
BTW, I have made my statements about this issue clear. While I do think that there are some real environmental problems that need to be addressed, NONE of them are atually being addressed by the Global Warming crowd. In fact all that the Kyoto protocol, siomilar protocols and the taxes being put on CO2 emissions are doing NOTHING to stop the emissions of real toxic chemicals, and gases into our rivers, lakes, and oceans.

It is a known fact that the worst polluters in the world, such as China, India, Russia, etc, etc, have stated they will not accept ANY cap emissions, and the UN, the EU, and every other political group that is behind the biggest scam in human history are agreeing that only nations like the U.S. shoud be paying, and cleaning up the act of all nations, including those who are the worse polluters...

All that the Global Warming scam is doing is puting more money into the pockets of the rich, and the elite, and giving them more power and control over people.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

so you admit that neither Paul Reiter or chris landsea have rejected man made climate change?


I think it is very clear what they are saying.... They state the claims made by the IPCC that hurricane storms will get increadibly strong because of warming, is wrong, in the case of Chris Landsea. In the case of Prof. Reiter he has stated that the claims that there will be more tropical diseases because of the warming is inherently wrong....

I am posting slowly what scientists have to say about the claims of the IPCC, and until now the ones i have posted have made it clear that Climate change is being POLITICIZED......



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


STOP listening to the beliefs of OTHERS... STOP using what OTHERS say to JUSTIFY your own BELIEFS... STAND on your own observations or you STAND ON NOTHING


[edit on 31-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]


This post is just another deflection attempt and about the worst piece of advice I've seen handed out on ATS.

Allow me to paraphrase the quoted post:

Don't pay attention to experimental evidence from scientists. Instead, rely on your own very small-sample anecdotal evidence (gee, it sure seems hot here today) in order to make your own judgments as to what's going on with the earth's climate. And do this especially if your own personal agenda does not agree with the findings put out by scientists.




[edit on 7/31/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


but neither are rejecting the fact that climate change is man made, this is true, isn't it?

i believe you have been shown in every case to be misrepresenting your sources. i find this fairly disingenuous.

EDIT: because i was being rude.

[edit on 31/7/09 by pieman]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
so the are rejecting man made climate change fears even if they say they aren't?


In the case of most of the scientists who wrote to the editor-in-chief of ACS, yes they are rejecting the claims of the IPCC and the Global Warming crowd...

I am starting to think you are only trying to derail the thread.


Originally posted by pieman
'kay? kay


Are you claiming that most of the scientists who wrote to the editor in chief of ACS do not reject the claims of the Global Warming crowd that mankind is to be blamed for Cliamte change?....



Originally posted by pieman
i said you should check the background on the stuff you're posting, not your position, you really do like to spin a statement, don't you.


And I showed that the statements made in that "stuff" i was posting is true....

You really like to derail threads such as this one don't you?...



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
In the case of most of the scientists who wrote to the editor-in-chief of ACS, yes they are rejecting the claims of the IPCC and the Global Warming crowd...


but again, not the ACS itself, which is what you, or your source, claimed in the headline.


Are you claiming that most of the scientists who wrote to the editor in chief of ACS do not reject the claims of the Global Warming crowd that mankind is to be blamed for Cliamte change?....


no, i haven't, not once.



And I showed that the statements made in that "stuff" i was posting is true....


you haven't shown the statements to be true, you've shown that statements were made, i've shown they were then misrepresented. either by you or your source, either way, misrepresented.


You really like to derail threads such as this one don't you?...


i love to thrash misinformation, it just feels so good, kicks my weekend off nicely.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

but neither are rejecting the fact that climate change is man made, this is true, isn't it?

i believe you have been shown in every case to be misrepresenting your sources. i find this fairly disingenuous.

EDIT: because i was being rude.


The only one being disengenious is you, not to mention your constant attemps to derail this thread, and your personal attacks at me which show you to be nothing more than a troll....

I did not misrepresent anyone, I posted what some of the scientists are saying, which are refuting what the IPCC are saying, and which are stating that Climate change has become politicized...

Are you claiming they are not stating this?...

BTW, I haven't finished posting what scientists have to say, but some troll had to come along and start derailing the thread...

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

i love to thrash misinformation, it just feels so good, kicks my weekend off nicely.


No, you love to be a troll more so in a topic which obviously has turned into a religion for some...

I am not wasting my time with someone such as you anymore, even if you keep derailing the thread...



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

First of all, it appears that you are confused a bit... the entomologist, as well as the other so called "experts" were most of the scientists who agreed with the IPCC report, and constituted MOST of the IPCC contributors....


I stand corrected on the entomology professor, but I also stand by the fact that the National Post is hoooey and is not to be taken at face value. Its agenda is to make fat cats even fatter, and I do not share those values.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I stand corrected on the entomology professor, but I also stand by the fact that the National Post is hoooey and is not to be taken at face value. Its agenda is to make fat cats even fatter, and I do not share those values.


And I showed that the statements of Prof. Reiter as stated in the National Post ARE TRUE, nomatter how many times you try to claim it is a source not to be trusted...

The only ones making fat cats fatter are those people who keep backing the scam made up by politicians, polycymakers, and environmentalists on a quest to get more power and more money.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.

At this point, the modellers jibbed. The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”. So how did they get there? To quote Manning again: “the fossil intensive scenario was not introduced by climate modellers or indeed anyone directly associated with the WG I report.” Instead it “was a response to final government review comments” on earlier, less drastic scenarios.
In other words, it was the result of political interference.

Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.

Several other top scientists who had contributed to the scientific part of the IPCC Report echoed these criticisms. This follows a pattern which can be observed over the past decade. The IPCC claims scientists world-wide agree with its alarmist predictions. But only a handful of these scientists ever appear, and they are almost invariably dependent on government greenhouse budgets for their livelihood. By contrast, really top experts who have genuine independence are often scathing about the greenhouse scare.

Many highly distinguished scientists have said they do not believe in the greenhouse threat. We hesitate to call the following group a consensus, because you can’t expect consensus in fields like climatology where so much remains to be learned. But in view of the calibre of scientists involved, we call it a Greenhouse Hall of Fame. New nominations are welcome!

www.warwickhughes.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I am submitting what will certainly be fodder for the "Off-Topic Post" banner:

If you're intent is to simply oppose the OP, do so. But your ranting about past posts and your determined 'spin' on reality is not contributory.

There has been no cause for the disrespect offered up here. It does not reflect well on you or your position.

Objecting to how someone turns a phrase or interprets an ambiguous statement does not require all this derision.

The point was well-made that this is an example of the case not being 'settled' despite all of us being repetitively told by Madison Avenue/Hollywood that it is.

Your objections to the OPs position is not about the OP it's about you. Start your own thread and stop making this into a debacle of opinions.

Science is observation, observe rationality; practice making a point that has to do with the matter at hand.

//I apologize for not participating - but I hate non-constructive exchanges that seem like perennial partisan or ideological bullying//

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

First of all, it appears that you are confused a bit... the entomologist, as well as the other so called "experts" were most of the scientists who agreed with the IPCC report, and constituted MOST of the IPCC contributors....


I stand corrected on the entomology professor, but I also stand by the fact that the National Post is hoooey and is not to be taken at face value. Its agenda is to make fat cats even fatter, and I do not share those values.


You do realize man made global warming is dead in fact for the last 11 years data shows the earths cooling.Politicians and environmentalists are in full damage control trying to do everything they can to keep the money rolling in. Mark my words eventually they will be blaming co2 on global cooling and continue to try to make money.

Suggest you might want to read about what the EPA did!

www.cbsnews.com... otsheet/entry5117890.shtml



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Here is a very informative video which starts with the claims amde by Al Gore, and the Policymakers at the IPCC, and then has the interviews of several scientists who disagree with the claims that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the Global Warming crowd.

At 4 minutes 12 seconds the video starts showing what Climatologists who disagree with the Global Warming claim have to say about this topic.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


BTW, when you want to make a conclusion on a topic such as Climate Change you need more than just your own faith, you need to check all the facts for then to reach an intelligent conclusion.

Your last statement seems to say that your opinions on Climate change are based only on faith.


Yes, they cling to global warming hype like I cling to my god and my gun, lol



Not at all...

My whole point is that you should cling to nothing that another says.

You don't need external justification for your beliefs in order to believe them. And when you continue to look for justification, you are simply attempting to manipulate yourself or others.

I don't believe in anything other than what arises within my own mind. I will take into consideration what others say, but there is no human more perfect or less fallible than myself.

Be your own God.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Here are some of the "peer-reviewed research data" which contradicts the claims that we are experiencing an exceptional and unprecedented Climate Change.

There will be other research data which shows that manmade CO2 is not responsible for Climate Change.


doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001


Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.

Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications

Fekri A. Hassana,

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK

Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com

The above research shows that during the Medieval Warm Period there were extreme floods which caused famines, and economic disasters that are unmatched in the last 2000 years.

Are governments getting their countries ready for such disasters if the current Climate change gets to those levels as what occurred during the Medieval Warm Period, or are they only filling the pockets of the rich, the elite and giving power not only to these people but to some environmental groups which want to control what we do in our daily lives?



[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Here is a very informative video which starts with the claims amde by Al Gore, and the Policymakers at the IPCC, and then has the interviews of several scientists who disagree with the claims that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the Global Warming crowd.


if this was a balanced video, wouldn't it have climatologists that believe CO2 causes global warming debating it with climatologists that don't believe it?

a scientist is always going to out debate a politician in a science debate, what does that prove? it's not as if it's difficult to find scientists that believe global warming is caused by man. why wouldn't they use these scientists?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Some people, and even some scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period was only a regional event, but in fact the oposite is true. It is known to have been a global event which had extremes of much warmer temperatures than at present, while some areas did not experience as much warming.


Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994
DOI 10.1007/BF01092411
Pages 143-169
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005

Jean M. Grove1 and Roy Switsur2

(1) Girton College, Cambridge, U.K.
(2) Wolfson College, Cambridge, U.K.

Received: 22 September 1992 Revised: 12 October 1993

Abstract It is hypothesised that the Medieval Warm Period was preceded and followed by periods of moraine deposition associated with glacier expansion. Improvements in the methodology of radiocarbon calibration make it possible to convert radiocarbon ages to calendar dates with greater precision than was previously possible. Dating of organic material closely associated with moraines in many montane regions has reached the point where it is possible to survey available information concerning the timing of the medieval warm period. The results suggest that it was a global event occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D., possibly interrupted by a minor readvance of ice between about 1050 and 1150 A.D.

www.springerlink.com...



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join