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.
I cannot believe that you are so naive as to seriously believe that if a mainstream scientist did not tow the party line (and I am not just talking AGW) that he would find it easy to get funding for the next project. Dream on.
It has nothing to do with disagreement - it has everything to do with facts.
First off there is a patently clear denial industry out there that is feeding you the vast majority of your talking points. How is pointing this out a "flaw in reasoning"? You can try to write it off like that all you want, but the evidence for this is all over the place and ignoring it the way you do only helps reinforce your own stereotype.
Then when someone turns the skeptic tables on you, and puts the slightest bit of pressure on your stance by looking at the WHOLE STORY, you play the victim and claim you're being ostracized for having an opposing viewpoint - but all you're really doing is dodging the question. Somehow you think you're immune from this scrutiny simply because in your world you've painted yourself the heroic underdog fighting the evil empire, and therefore can do no wrong.
and then bragging how devoted I am to upholding the purity of the scientific method.
And I'm not the one trying to lecture people with graphs I don't understand
Google record warm temperatures.
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Some how I don't think you will though
Yes, I misinterpreted the graph and I have admitted that. At least when I make mistakes I can admit them, which is more what you can you.
I happen to know plenty of scientists, I study under them. And your sweeping generalization is what's beyond naive. Most scientists I know are intensely brainiac nerds who are way more motivated by the pursuit of knowledge and truth than money. Yes they need to put food on the table like everybody else, but that's what those administrative and teaching gigs tend to take care of.
If there's anything tainting their approach maybe it's the fact that some of them are driven by the need to be acknowledged by their peers too much, but this is precisely what makes the world of peer-review so robust and self-refereeing in the end anyway.
To think that they are all "in on it" is downright absurd, and nothing but some paranoid tinfoil fantasy of those who understand absolutely nothing of the actual business.
If their integrity was compromised others would be calling them out on it immediately. Meanwhile the only ones actually "blowing the whistle" are the ones who are routinely shown to be taking their pay cheques from much more dubious sources.
I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong.
Unfortunately your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The idea that we have painted ourselves into some desperate corner stems from your own lack of full understanding on this topic, not ours. Want proof?
Originally posted by PuterMan
It would be possible to postulate, were that to be verified, that the existing vegetation could counterbalance the loss by land clearance if sufficient CO2 was available. This in fact is no different to what would happen naturally when there is large loss of forest and increased CO2 (Just forget humans for a moment.)
Note: Well it seems that my hypothesis may indeed be correct. As I continued on through the document I cam across this on page 22/90 of the PDF file
A ton is therefore 1020.528 tonnes
Mr Williams Pratt's figure of 8 gtons is therefore 8.164663 Giga-tonnes always assuming that when he says tons (as he does) he is referring to the Imperial measure. Converting his figure of 750 Giga-tons of CO2 to metric I arrive at approximately 765.437 Giga-tonnes. As you will see below this is very close to the weight of CO2 in the atmosphere.
According to figure 7.3 in the IPCC report 165 gtC is the anthropogenic element of the Carbon in the atmosphere sink. Unfortunately 165 matches neither 200 or 54.5. Since by you own deliberation you ascribe all the increase in ppm to AGW can you explain the derivation of the figure 165 gtC which appear not to match gtC or gcCO2?
0.6% of the figures (see item 4) is either 4.549758751 gtCO2 or 1.240843296 gtC, neither of which is 19 gtC or 19gtCO2. Can you explain where the figure of 19 gtCO2 is derived?
Using your 29 gtCO2 and the IPCC figure of 45% retention, this means that of 29 gtCO2 the retention should be 13.05 gtCO2. Yet NOAA is saying it is 19 gtCO2. Do you have an explanation for this apparent difference.?
Forgive me for observing that there appears to be something wrong with these calculations. I would be delighted if you could explain them, and show me the error in my calculations that makes me get different results from the IPCC.
cdiac.ornl.gov...
The figure uses data from the 1990s, so it's not ideal to apply really. For example, the NOAA data you move to is from 2007.
You see, this is what irks me, Puterdude. I'm not your friggin' monkey! lol
'citizen' auditing
And, overall, what is the point of your perseveration here?
Originally posted by PuterMan
Mainstream science is funded by governments with a tax and control agenda and most scientists have to go along because otherwise they would not get research funding. This no different to my way of viewing it than someone who is not mainstream turning to big oil or anyone else to get funding.
I cannot believe that you are so naive as to seriously believe that if a mainstream scientist did not tow the party line (and I am not just talking AGW) that he would find it easy to get funding for the next project. Dream on.
"The Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming," said the report, which is the result of a 16-month probe by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues."
Hansen, who holds a doctorate in physics, has been issuing warnings of the consequences of man-made pollution of the atmosphere for 15 years. He rightly refused to comply with the gag order. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he told The New York Times, noting that "public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." According to Hansen, many scientists within the government have been pressured to avoid public discussion of climate change.
Climatologist Jeff Masters, who blogs for the Weather Underground, denounced government censorship aimed at downplaying the dangers of global warming. "Our taxpayer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically appointed officials concerned with 'making the president look good.' Climate change is of critical importance ... and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best.
Indeed, "goals" and "caps" on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen -- caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).
Originally posted by PuterMan
The figure uses data from the 1990s, so it's not ideal to apply really. For example, the NOAA data you move to is from 2007.
That is a point.
'citizen' auditing
'citizen' auditing? Why do you persist in assuming I am trying to pull you up. I am not auditing, just developing an understanding. Neither is it my 'job' to educate or help people with understanding my area of interest including help systems that I participate in the upkeep of voluntarily however I certainly hope I do not respond to people in the tone that you respond.
I wish to get the basis right before I look at the rest.
Originally posted by melatonin
I pity your anti-science leanings, and I think you do have little experience of science and scientists.
Oh, come on. That post was actually fine and not barbed at all, and I don't think you're trying to pull me up. The term is just meant to express that you are less than someone with the skills or knowledge to understand what you're doing.
I think how it all has gone down sort of illustrates that very clearly, and shows that without some basics you're going to have these issues............ So, again, my aim is not to be mean or rude, I just don't have time (or the motivation) to school you in the way in which you appear to think I should.
What I'm trying to get across when asking 'what is the point', is what is your aim? What are you trying to find? What do you expect to find? What is it you want to know?
And I'm not interested in the answers.
I didn't say any of that for me, it's to hopefully help you figure out just what the hell you're trying to achieve by playing with the numbers?
Originally posted by PuterMan
Originally posted by melatonin
I pity your anti-science leanings, and I think you do have little experience of science and scientists.
Quite how you deduce that I do not understand but then I am beginning to realise that 'anti-science leanings' is one of the little barbs that you like to prod people with to see if you can get them worked up.
Originally posted by PuterMan
Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Poptech
Google record warm temperatures.
Starting with warm temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 19,400,000 results (0.26 seconds)
You'll get more articles then you will about cold weather.
Now with cold temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 538,000 results (0.16 seconds)
Some how I don't think you will though.
Wel obviously you did not back up your argument before you posted.
Case closed.
Starting with warm temperatures: Let me Google that for you This returns: About 19,400,000 results (0.26 seconds)
I use them because they are actually up todate, all those links I used are for 2010. They always SOURCE and REFERENCE the material. The quotes used are always attributed to its source, the papers and studies too, so you can research it all yourself.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by atlasastro
Just on the subject of Science Daily, tell me why do you always quote this source
which is not credible in my opinion for the main reason that it never almost without exception presents anything than an alarmist point of view
www.sciencedaily.com...
The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.
www.sciencedaily.com...
Dire or emotionally charged warnings about the consequences of global warming can backfire if presented too negatively, making people less amenable to reducing their carbon footprint, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley.
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of California - Berkeley. The original article was written by Yasmin Anwar, Media Relations.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
University of California - Berkeley (2010, November 16). Doomsday messages about global warming can backfire, study shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from www.sciencedaily.com... /releases/2010/11/101117094248.htm
which is not credible in my opinion for the main reason that it never almost without exception presents anything than an alarmist point of view
usually cleaned from an AGW friendly alert service. It is not a scientific web site and is not the original publisher of anything.
On top of that it hardly belongs to a credible scientific institute. Part of the iVillage Your Total Health Network
Is this souce of yours more credible than Poptech's site? I don't think so.
Is this souce of yours more credible than Poptech's site? I don't think so.
I don't think.
MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
Originally posted by Danbones
MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
Yeah, "Science" is a comic book.
darn scientists are messin up the scam.
MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.
Yeah, we can see how well life is flourishing at the moment. Not.
Apparently all that avaliable plant food made the earth a veritable paradise and the high carbon periods are when life has flourished the most.
This is why C02 is introduced into greenhouses
because there isn't enough to make plants REALLY happy in the air now.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span
Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.
Which they fixed. Still showing a warming trend.
There is the NOAA sat that was scewed to read temp up to 15 deg higher than it actually is...
Then there are the Canadian mathmeticians who showed the Global warming models went up no matter what numbers were entered in......
So, because the fundi mental figures of the global warming crowd were designed to justify the fleecing of the global population and were not designed to convay the truth,
the math I suspect
WILL NEVER WORK OUT.
And now thanks to the inconvienient truth movement's exposure of the some of the more glaring warming frauds hopefully the Carbon trading scam math will never work out either...
If you will notice now the carbon trading scam has been trashed, have any of you warmers noticed the price of oil lately....
Yep... that's right....see you @ 200.00 $US a barrel dudes.
Mr inconvienient OCCIDENTAL OIL....
Pig oil is funding WHO??????
Woud that down jacket be the one with the buckles on the back?
I luv my down jackets and quilts.
Get it in while you can.
AND ICE FISHING.
The movie An inconvienient Truth has so much dis info in it, it is illegal to show it to school kids in Britian while labeling it a documentary.
Your "myth" above fails to include the fact that the ICE CORE samples measured the environment without 6 billion people in it, all consuming and emitting vast amounts sequestered carbon (see OIL, GAS and COAL).
So comparing ice core records and CO2 and then using them to dismiss CO2 trends related to man is a false logic.
But anyway you actually prove that anthropogenic CO2 is significant because you are referring to NATURAL trends in climate and CO2 levels.
We can determine the many different facets that give us the information that a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to temp. Increases of around 3 degrees.
So, we can refer to the levels of man made GHG emissions as being significant along with rising temps because we have the history you mention as a guide to NATURAL CO2 in relation to temperature levels. It is pretty simple logic really. Well, at least to most people.
Actually, the CO2 related to AGW is totally unprecedented and has nothing to do with any natural process. Never before in the entire history of the earth have humans released so much CO2 into the atmosphere. If you can point out in the history books where this has happened before, you may start making some valid arguments.
CO2 is known to effect temperature. Again, it is pretty simple to equate.
Yeah, we can see how well life is flourishing at the moment. Not.
The reason scientists are worried about CO2 is because temperature rises will effect sea levels which will effect literally hundreds of millions of people.
It will effect rainfall that will effect the globe and its ability to supply agriculture and people with water, water supplies for millions from seasonal Glacial melts will be threatened, the list goes on.
Introducing the benefits of CO2 are fine, but ignoring the "issues" that scientists have raised as a concern is quite frankly astounding.
In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span.
Which they fixed. Still showing a warming trend.
Your rational or accusation for the scientists "inspiration" for "creating fraudulent temps" has failed to materialize.
NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defence to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.
U.S. physicist Dr Charles R. Anderson) agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.
The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously comprised.
NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia.
(Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.