It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by pieman

the evidence is on the house of lords website but the evidence doesn't discount climate change, it discounts the projected effect of climate change on mosquito. for instance, you place a quote above that in full reads


you seem to present it as if the man is discounting climate change rather than a particular aspect of it. there seems to be quite a lot of spin in your posts.

I believe that what he is in fact doing, is attacking the credibility of the IPCC overall, and taking apart their arguments, and Pro-AGW arguments, one aspect at a time. Even if some opinions are not necessarily representative of his original broad point, any issue which pieces apart the status of a so called "consensus" does in fact prove a point in of itself.

BTW, I am not attacking your viewpoint, I am simply providing an alternate one.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:15 PM
Who cares if we cause "warming" or not. The real issue are special interests wanting it to be a non issue. Why? So they can continue to pump billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere making us all sick. If reducing emissions does not help with warming so what, it makes for a healthy environment who would not want that!?

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

-- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

I think that phrase is the crux right there EU. The "scientific study of climate change" I can accept. When you predispose it to "anthropogenic" you lose me. But “the science of anthropogenic climate change". The phrase makes no sense unless you're attempting to change the climate. This drivel is becoming well established in that it's been blindly accepted and advertised as gospel by bought and biased media. Brainwashing plain and simple.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by contemplator

Do you know the difference between CO2 and other REAL toxic gases, and chemicals?....

CO2 is NEEDED for plants, and trees, and it is a known fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 green biomass, as in plants, and trees, etc, flourish.

Let's actually hear it from those who deal with atmospheric CO2 to increase harvests in greenhouses...

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.

Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.

Actually some people who have greenhouses increase the level of atmospheric CO2 to much higher levels than 550 ppm. BTW to those who don't know it the amount of atmospheric CO2 on Earth is about 380 ppm, so it is NOWHERE near to being fatal for anything, much less plants who actually thrive with more atmospheric CO2...

Anyway further down in the above article you find...

By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.

CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.

The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.

Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.

Let's continue shall we?...

Why you get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with Johnson CO2.
Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process. Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1 ,000 ppm, results are higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1,500 ppm per unit in an average 24' x 200' greenhouse or an equivalent 50,000 cu. ft. volume based on one air change per hour.

Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

They need to stop worrying about how or why it is happening and start thinking of ways to educate the public in how to prepare for the coming changes instead! I am sick to death of the argument over man made or natural, it's happening, it's real, and it's going down pretty quickly now. People need to know what they can do to prepare, what to expect, ect.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by chiron613
1. The scientists are challenging the editorial, not necessarily the science behind the editor's beliefs. They objected to the editor's use of an insulting name (Climate Change Deniers), which was a way to lump up everyone who disagrees into a single, easily-attacked group. These so-called "deniers" run the spectrum from lunatic fringe to highly informed, thoughtful, concerned experts. You can't cram them all into a single group.

The tone of the editor's article was arrogant and offensive, whether the science was valid or not. This is what was objectionable.

2. These scientists are chemists and engineers, not climatologists, geologists, or others whose specialties would be more likely to have facts about global warming. They may belong to the world's largest science group, but they were individuals expressing their opinion on an editorial page.

3. This is NOT the American Chemical Society issuing an official statement. It is nothing more than a few scientists taking issue with the editor's comments.

4. Consider who advertises in Chemical and Engineering News. That's where the money comes from. Those are the people you want to keep happy, if you hope for your publication to succeed. Hint: It's not Greenpeace or the EPA.

Thanks for clearing that up for us!

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by space cadet

Back in 2004 i stated in this website that people should be moving away from any cities that were close to the oceans, because Climate Changes have affected mostly cities that were close to the oceans, but most people are not going to do this. Some people might not have much of a choice, while others will continue to believe nothing is going to happen.

The extremes in cold and heat the Earth has been experiencing is an effect of Climate Change, the warming does not cause much increase in hurricane strength, only about 1 - 2 mph more in a hurricane with 100 mph.

However, it should be clear by now that natural disasters have been increasing. Take a look at the increase of magmatic and volcanic activity, which has increased exponentially, and if the trend continues it might get worse.

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by chiron613

I am sorry...are you claiming chemists don't study gases?....

You do know that CO2 is a gas right?.....hummm....

A Brief History of the Study of Gas Chemistry.
If we were to greatly simplify the history of chemistry so that each century were defined by a single major field of discovery, the twentieth century would be remembered as the Century of Nuclear Chemistry during which our considerable understanding of the subject was developed from earlier theories. Then moving backwards in time, the nineteenth century would be remembered as the Century of Organic Chemistry during which period most of the concepts and principles of organic chemistry were discovered.

The eighteenth century would be the Century of Gas Chemistry, marked by the discovery of most of the common gases. Ingenious techniques with which to generate, collect and study gases were invented at that time . Entire laboratories were dedicated to the study of the new discipline of 'pneumatics'. Their discoverers gave the gases names such as 'fixed air', 'dephogisticated air', and 'inflammable air'. Despite these substantial laboratory accomplishments, the actual chemical identities of these gases remained complete mysteries until the very end of the century. The story of the early days of gas chemistry is interesting and important. It spans the entire century and serves as an example of how an erroneous theory can shape and misguide understanding and investigation. It is a story in which the chemical behavior of the gases eventually allowed the genius of one man, Antoine Lavoisier, to first postulate the precepts of modern chemistry as we know them even to this day.

BTW, yes most of the chemists who wrote to the editor were challenging the scientific claims being made by the editor-in-chief.

For example.

I am always intrigued by claims that science is settled, especially when it comes to something as complex as climate. Rudy Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?

Precisely why do you claim that the "scientific consensus of climate change has become increasingly hard to challenge," when nobody in the world claims that climate does not change?

Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?

Have you made the switch from "global warming" to "climate change" because any data whatsoever can be taken, however illogically, as evidence that man is changing the climate?

Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Thanks for clearing that up for us!

He didn't clear anything at all, he just made erroneous and false claims. But hey you yourself have stated that you don't need facts, all you need is to believe as hard as you can, and to never let go of your false belief.

But hey more power to you if that's how you want to base your conclusions.

Not to mention that this member obviously does not know that chemists do study gases and their properties, and that CO2 is a gas.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry but that is BS, you have to be a chemistry scientist in order to be part of this scientific organization.

Sorry, but that is BS. They have something called a non-scientist/society affiliate as one of their member categories. Undergraduates, and those still in school can also become members. You can also be in a related science.

And do you for a fact know they check up on your credentials. Prove it.

Can you show PROOF that mankind is causing Climate Change with anthropogenic CO2?...

I could show you evidence, not proof. Just like you do for it not being caused by man. But what is the point as I wasn't trying to make that argument in the first place.

So stop using your computer, and stop using your car, and stop using anything and everything that has plastic, but don't demand the rest of the world to do so based on the AGW religion...

Oh but wait, i still see you using your computer....

Oh give me a break. Is that the only way you see to stop using oil and gas? There are no other sources of energy? We don't need to stop using cars, etc...we need to use different forms of energy. Duh.

I never demanded anything. What I want is changes to the energy industry.

And I'm pretty sure I use less then half the energy of an average North American if not less.

How in the heck do you stop the Sun from changing activity?....

How do you stop the Earth from rotating around the Sun?....

How do you stop the Solar System from moving through space and entering different regions of space which affect the dynamics of the Solar System, and which also do affect Climate change on Earth?...

There is no solution to Climate change, there is only preparation for the changes.

Do you have PROOF that the sun is causing global warming? There is so much evidence against solar caused global warming. How can you believe that but not man-made global warming?

You show your bias. You aren't looking at this matter objectively anymore. You've made it something you want to fight against...Do you believe mankind should come up with technologies to continue extracting fossil fuels that are harder to get at rather then facing the fact that it is being depleted? What a waste. Why not stimulate the economy by creating new industry rather then keep a dying industry alive.

And there are so many plausible solutions to global warming. All are theoretical right now and have issues...but I'm glad not everyone has such a dire outlook on humanity as you do. It is called geoengineering and is basically a last ditch effort:
List of proposed geoengineering projects

In your world we should keep pumping out CO2 to help plant life. What a crock. Maybe we should stop cutting down rain forests instead. I'm pretty sure plants did just fine before we were around.

You clearly aren't just against the idea of man made global are against the idea of change.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:16 AM
But if Global Warming isn't man made .. then how are we going to turn all those Carbon Credits into commodities to spur the next economic Bubble?!?!??!?

Please.. think of the Bankers before you post such damning evidence against "Global Warming" .. We don't want to disturb their life style, do we?

--poor bankers.. Maybe they can design a Credit for Global Cooling (the next big thing)

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:08 AM
I would say that I don't care if we are or not responsible for the global warming. Any white lie to make us move forward when it comes to energy resource use is a good thing. Healthier environment is a good thing for sure.

I just wonder when they will come up clean and say that we can't do nothing to change that since it's being caused by the sun and it's part of big cycle that there is no way to change or prevent.

But then if they do that, chaos would probably take over and we would most likely make things even worst.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:44 AM
I think a bit of your headline got cut off:

"World's Crappiest News Source says World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears"

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:13 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Every article on the web is this exact same article by the exact same guy. So he is getting his byline spread around to many sites, but what is the reaction from other informed sources?

Is it just more hooey?

Is the negative reaction to the editorial a reaction against the science, or were the protesters offended by his wording? The few letters I read didn't seem to be protesting against the science, but were attacking the editor personally.

Sounds to me like some people don't like the way the editor is performing and the wording of his editorial was the straw that broke the camels back.

Edit: I just rescanned the letters quoted. Everyone of them was complaining that Baum was apparantly trying to say that there is no reason for further research, and no scientist in his right mind would support that assertion.

That has nothing to do with the ACS denying anthropogenic climate change, and everything to do with keeping research avenues open and internal ACS politics.

[edit on 1/8/2009 by rnaa]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by contemplator

Carbon Dioxide does not make you sick - it's plant food, and also what you exhale. And yes special interests are a big problem. Companies often cut emissions so they get carbon credits which they can then sell, to build new factories - even ones that emit gases that are actually poisonous. Oh, and since we're in the developed world, jobs will be outsourced for this reason.

If reducing emissions does not help with warming so what, it makes for a healthy environment who would not want that!?

It will wreck the economy, make our industries less competitive and drive up the cost of electricity, petrol, food, building materials and all other goods and services. It will lower living standards, but hurt the poor most of all. It will do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, but it will divert billions of dollars from more pressing environmental and humanitarian needs.

I could show you evidence, not proof. Just like you do for it not being caused by man. But what is the point as I wasn't trying to make that argument in the first place.

See, this is my biggest issue. Nobody has been ablied to prove it - despite the billions of dollars funded into climate science. And yet the political figures want us to jump off a cliff with all this carbon trading schemes and taxation? We NEED to get off fossil fuels, but the so called, "green power", is not the way to do it.

[edit on 1/8/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:42 AM

Climate change will occur. Always has. Always will. Does that make me a "purveyor of nonsense" or a "climate-change denier?" Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.

Al Gore...


What a great statement.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:06 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Perhaps those people who keep claiming that CO2 is bad for the environment now might understand why when Earth's atmosphere has had 7 and up to 12 times as much CO2 as now there was MORE green biomass, as in more trees, and more plants, not less, and life also flourished on land and in the oceans with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now...

Because there weren't billions of humans burning all the trees killing all the animals and filling the land, sea and air with harmful pollutants

But even if it were shown Arrhenius etal was wrong and a doubling of CO2 does not raise global temps, or that such a rise is beneficial, that's simply one aspect of AGW which in turn is simply one aspect of anthropogenic climate change.

Personally I think we should be more worried about the rain. Or lack of it.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:18 AM
The American CHEMICAL Society! They make their money from selling toxic chemicals that are causing climate change in the first place! Lets see the EPA, or FEMA deny climate change... that would be more interesting!

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by sweetbechtold

No. The American Chemical Society is a an American Chemical Society. You are made of chemicals. Everything is made of chemicals. And if we use that logic, the EPA have a vested interest in pollution as without it, they wouldn't have jobs. And as far as selling toxic chemicals? You mean the ones that improve your quality of life?

[edit on 1/8/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:48 AM
I see ElectricUniverse has taken the reigns from previous anti-GW Propaganda champion TheRedneck.

I always want to remind you all that since there is a prospect of actually going forward with the GW Scam a lot of companies are banking on the new system to cash in profits. This creates vested interests. From what I see the amount of money invested in this scam is already large (and International Banks are behind the push as well) and is growing at a rapid pace as more and more companies are pouring money into the scam.

ElectricUniverse: I applaud your enthusiasm in the subject and am with you 100% of the way. Excellent sources in this thread. If I could give you a hug or a high five...I would.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in