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.

 

Great series debunking GW-denial pseudo-science

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The first video is downright retarded.

Everyone, "Climate Change" and "Weather" are totally different apparently. Yeah, that makes sense. Because, if weather is going on being its normal, chaotic self, wouldn't that mean there isn't a "crisis" per say?

And to all these people saying that the leaked CRU documents are "cherry picked," I suggest you go read them. I have, and they sure as hell don't sound very innocent, just from my humble analysis.

And it realhealhealheally pisses me off that everyone seems to have forgotten these weren't just any documents, these were the CRU's "top secret" documents, things they kept hidden. And they have reason to, it implicates them in cold, hard evidence as being subversive with information and manipulating data. By the way, this argument isn't old. It's not even a month old. So don't wave it off as such, DENY IGNORANCE.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It is scary to see how people actually backs up criminals, no wonder we are in trouble.



ClimateGate and the Copenhagen (Nopenhagen) will be an treaty based upon falsa data and manufactured evidence pointing the direction the ClimateHijackers Needs it to point in order to get the money they want, our money...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Be it science or politics, people all ways believe the big lie faster then the little lie.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
to the OP..i dont get it..whats so hard to understand about 'they manipulated the data and lied about peer review'?

if CC is manmade..and they had enough evidence to support this theory...they wouldnt need to lie....end....of....story....



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
ho, btw

"Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog."

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm going to say one thing that debunks the CO2 driven Man-Made Global Warming.

CO2 lags temperature.

That fact right there discredits the whole AGW hypothesis. Others though seem to want to ignore that fact.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
The entire "climate change" aka "global warming" thing is a hoax to steal billions of taxpayers' dollars.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
yep, this guy is basing his blog on the data from NASA, and recent CRU and NZ scandals show us how reliable those 'measurements' could be...

the Global Warming (and Anti Global Warming) movements are doing what they do because of the profit, they want to profit on your gullibility, taking your hard earned money away for something that is happening to Earth naturally (except for the garbage and exhaust gases which are still too small to influence the climate)...

... it's like they are taxing you because the Sun is rising up in the morning every day



here is an interesting chart (hopefully based on genuine data) which shows the ice age cycles, hence temperature cycles through hundreds thousands of years:




so, climate IS changing, it always has and it always will, with or without humans involved




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
This Quote from the hacked CRU emails really says it all:
"The fact is that we cannot account for the current lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can't"

Straight from the horses mouth.

The science is not "settled". Not by a long shot.

What we need is an honest, open scientific dialogue without political agendas.

Sadly, the deleted raw data from the CRU will make that all the more difficult.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week- "It's cold. So there's no Climate Change"

    This video starts off with an excellent point. It is true that there is a huge difference between weather and climate change. It also includes a great description of how water temperatures have a much greater impact on climate than air temperatures, a position I have argued for many times. But one little connection is missing:

    If the oceans are so good at warming the air (as is true), then how can it be said the the air is so good at warming the oceans?

    The reason for the greater effect of ocean temperatures is the difference in specific heat capacity between air and water. Thus, water which contains more heat energy per degree can easily affect air temperatures that carry only a small amount of energy per degree. But the converse is also true: air, having a small amount of energy per degree, has a hard time warming water, which has a large amount of energy per degree.

    CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is airborne. The effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is based solely on its capacity to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere. So exactly how is this making such major changes in the ocean temperatures?

    It's not.

  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Ice Area vs Volume

    I almost didn't watch this one. I mean, come on, of course there is a difference between are and volume! And of course the volume is what is important, just as the clip says. But here's a couple of problems with it...

    Looking at the animation, it does show that the 'perennial' ice mass shrinks over time. Another 'duh', since I don't know of anyone seriously watching the situation that will not admit that Arctic ice has been shrinking. But the perennial ice is not truly perennial as mentioned according to the animation. It clearly shows that even the thickest ice (represented by red) grows and shrinks on a yearly basis. Watch it again, but this time pay close attention to the strip of red that appears and disappears along the Greenland coast every year.

    The graph also has a couple of problems. First, it represents area of ice of a specific thickness, which is not volume but an approximation of volume. Second, while there is indeed a decline form the base period of 1997-2000 until 2008, there is also a small increase from 2007 until 2008. Is that substantial? Maybe, maybe not. But an explanation is missing...

  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar

    "Unequivocal warming"? No bias there... why not just state "warming"?
    OK, that's semantics, I'll grant you that...

    We have some astute observations in this clip, however, and I complement the maker on this. Let's see what the 'symptoms' are (according to the video):
    1. Warming is occurring only in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, the troposphere.
    2. Warming at the same rate at night as during the day.
    3. Warming is occurring more in winter than in summer.
    4. More warming at the poles than at the equator.
    The guy actually makes a strong case that the sun itself is not responsible for long-term temperature fluctuations. Such a strong case is made, as a matter of fact, that I will concede this point: the increases seen in temperatures on a global scale are not driven by the sun.

    So, what is driving it? Well, obviously greenhouse gases, right? Wrong! Greenhouse gases do not create heat by themselves; they trap heat from an outside source, in this case, the sun. So if there is no heat to trap, they do not contribute to warming.

    Let's look again at the data: Warming in the lower strata only, day and night, and more when the weather is colder. That is exactly what one would expect if the atmosphere were being heated from below by a steady heat source. If the problem were caused by greenhouse gases, the amount of heat trapped would vary somewhat during nighttime when there is no solar radiation to capture, and most definitely would decrease during colder months when the angle of the sun (and thus the amount of solar radiation per unit of land area) is lowest.

    It would seem we are back to the oceans being the driving force, not atmospheric CO2...

  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing

    OK, so Dr. Singer and Dr. Avery aren't reliable. So?

    Every week that we don't engage 'climate science', the oil companies make billions. Yes. But every week that we do engage present 'climate science', Al Gore, Jim Hansen, and their ilk make billions. What's the difference? Do we somehow like Mr. Gore and Mr. Hansen more than Mr. Chavez or Mr. Muhammed-Al-Rickashaw (or whatever the name is of the guys pumping oil are)? Or are we just supposed to like one group better than another?

    This is going on on both sides of the equation. Sure, think tanks are full of paid shills. But so are the climate scientists now pressing desperately for Cap & Trade. We have leaked e-mails that prove, if nothing else, that money and influence were their top priority.

    Now, let us apply this concept of "he lied then, he's lying now" equally across the board... We know that the IPCC has been caught numerous times publishing faulty data. So they lied then...

    Now, let me be clear. I in no way support just ignoring what is happening with climate. It would only help our prosperity and ability to survive and thrive to know how to predict trends, and perhaps how to minimalize such. But deciding that economic demolition is necessary because of a gas that cannot be responsible for observations is not going to do that, any more than sticking our . in the sand is.

    As a matter of fact, it could make things worse... plants need CO2 to live, and we need plants to eat...

  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week - I Love the 70s!!

    O... K... this time he does have a 'crock', but it's not about what he's trying to debunk. It's about him just not getting the point.

    During the 1970s, the popular perception among the public, due to media reports of scientific research, was that we were .ing into an ice age. Notice that statement says nothing about scientific consensus. The reports that are used, appropriately IMO, to show the fickle nature of climate research, are from popular media outlets. This may seem strange, but average people do not read scientific journals and instead base their views on what is reported to them by the media.

    Yes, there was an ice age 'scare' in the 1970s. I was there. Yes, public perception (and thus public opinion) was that science was predicting another ice age due to man-made pollutants. I really don't know what was published in scientific journals back then; I was honestly more interested in reading Playboy. What I do know was this: political pressure was being expended on the idea that another ice age was 'inevitable'.

    Please, please, please, someone get this through your .: I have never disputed scientific journal entries either way during the 1970s, only public policy attempts based on some scientists and associated media reporting. That's the same kind of media reporting that is happening right now, bu the way.

    I'll not debate this further. What was, was. Live with it.

  • Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

    OK, he makes a good point that urban heat islands are not the responsible cause. Now, I could debate this fact, but seeing as this is just a rebuttal and not an actual face-to-face debate, I'll concede this point just for the sake of argument.

    So, assuming that his conclusions are accurate and the heating is not correlating to urban areas, does that not destroy the idea of CO2 as being responsible also? After all, where are all the automobiles? In the cities, where all the concrete is. Where are all the people (the 'source' of CO2)? In the cities, walking on the concrete. So even if he is able to debunk the urban heat island effect, he also debunks the CO2 explanation at the same time.

    "Frozen carbon and methane" underneath the Siberian tundra? Really? Methane freezes at -297°F. Carbon (I am assuming he meant "carbon dioxide" as carbon doesn't liquefy under normal atmospheric pressure; it sublimes (changes directly to a gas) at 6588°F) dioxide freezes at -109°F. Exactly how darn cold does Siberia get again?


That's the first six, and already this very intelligent fellow has managed to debunk CO2-based global warming. Nice series! I'll get to the rest if and when I have time.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster


I guess for me, as someone who openly admits to not fully understanding all the science, i look at it the same way as i look at the history of smoking!!
For years smoking was promoted, even by doctors in the early years! And when people first started to provide evidence for the negative health implications of smoking there was uproar! People refused point blank to believe it. We even had scientist (mainly funded by the tobacco giants) step forward and provide warped statistics and data to counter claim the health implications.

So i ask... is it worth the risk???

Will it REALLY hurt people so much to drive an electric car??? With almost 80% of the world’s population living in poverty or near poverty... is this the BIGGEST injustice you can think of???



You say there was even a scientist who provided warped statistics and data in an attempt to protect the profits of big business? Now that we have proof the same thing has happened with agw(man-made is the stresser) and your still willing to believe what they told you anyways? There is proof that the data was manipulated but your still willing to go with it?

And no it won't hurt that much to drive an electric car, but then why aren't they affordable here? And what ever happened to the electric street cars? and trolleys? those were all electric but you don't see anybody talking about that.

I think we are all tired of being lied to, and manipulated by the government, which has been clearly shown to be the case(or by the UN IPCC in this case, which will be the world's government if people like you have their way).



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Anthropogenic climate change. Really? If it weren't for this climate change there would be no Anthropogenic, the evolutionary theory would probably not exist as there would be almost no change for us to adapt to.
The part i don't get is why would you want to tax yourself, i don't know if you've realized this but the government loves to tax the crap out of people the working class.
If you want to be taxed on every single move you make,
if you want to be taxed and every breath you release,
if you want to live in a world were working is not only the most thing you do; it is the only thing you do,
if you want to be enslaved and work only for the government,
if you have no values for your family,
and if you want a death sentence for the human race,
then go right a. vote for it but keep in mind, when we're in this trap it will be very hard to get out. If you haven't realized it yet you will regret it soon, very soon, and that is a promise.


And i really don't see the bad in our world becoming a giant tropical rain forest, and from what I've heard it's what you would call a paradise. It would also be way more sustainable and food would be easier to grow because it would be more humid. Rain would fall more often in places were it barely doesn't, that's just my little theory.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I need to go find that program that changes we-pages into PDF's. Yet more proof that AGW is a religion and not science.

As long as the Church of Climatology keeps calling people that fail to believe in your religion "deniers" you aren't ever going to get a rational debate out of the whole deal.

Man I really hope Al Gore and the lot of them end up going to prison for what they have done to people. At first when the leak came out I laughed, now I actually feel bad for the AGW fanatics.

The fact is CRU's raw data has been thrown in the trash. The fact is without the raw data the only data that exist is the adjusted data from the now discredited "scientist". AGW isn't even a theory, it is a discredited hypothesis. The amount of collusion it took for it to even get to point where it is now is down right insane.

Then when you look at the fact that the CRU has the worlds largest collection of data that has been "trashed" and is the basis for thousands of papers the whole field of Climatology has been set back decades.


Lol a religion?? I think you're projecting, man. Scientific consensus for man-made global warming is the opposite of a religion. However, this whole cult of global warming denial much more resembles a fanatical religion that grabs at any false-evidence/pseudo-science to legitimize its faith-based and uninformed beliefs on a matter which is scientifically sound and wholly logical.

The only people who should be going to prison are the fossil-fuel industry execs and their BRIBED pseudo-scientists, crooked politicians, and whack-job media personalities who propagandized/disinformed the populace into a false debate on global warming. The richest and most corrupt industry on the planet has a lot to lose if we take global warming seriously, so they've literally paid millions to hijack the public discourse and turn it into a circus.

The CRU emails haven't proven ANYTHING you mental-children have been saying about them. Your same old tactic of taking things out of context, not understanding the jargon, cherry-picking, and highlighting falsely-incriminating buzzwords/phrases is just not going to cut it whatsoever. You're merely taking all your wildest fantasies about what these emails COULD reveal and attaching them to the actual content of the emails. But I've said it before and I'll say it again- you can throw all your bullsh*t to the wall on global warming, but it won't stick. You have nothing, your arrows and slings are mirages in a drought-stricken ideological desert.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse


The people who are trying to make us aware of our carbon footprint,and are trying to tax the skin off us because of global warming are driving round the place in armoured motorcades,allowing the dumping of radio active waste in the third world,and flying about in private jets.

So why the hell should we believe a damned word they say?

Now I am all for preserving the planet for future generations,but how is paying massive taxes to corrupt governments going to preserve anything other that their own filthy rich bank balances?

Look at the last economic disaster these people created for us all-that was after we gave them all our tax money for generations and they still manage to cock it up...
It will be the same with the climate-we will lovingly give our money to the utter bastards who control this world thinking they will save us,only to find out a few years from now they have spent/lost/stolen all the money and the planets in a worse state than before.
But the elite will be richer.Surprise surprise!!


[edit on 30/11/2009 by Silcone Synapse]


STOP F*CKING TALKING ABOUT CARBON TAXES.

It seems like that's all you've got.

All of the true environmentalists I've ever heard from are NOT thrilled about Carbon Taxes and Cap & Trade. IN FACT! The left-wing and environmentalists were YEARS AGO the FIRST people to speak out against such things as passing the buck to the consumer when we really need stricter regulations on super-industries as well as a radical shift in the way we consume resources and make a living on this planet.

Do you even really know ANYTHING about carbon taxes? Seriously look it up, or here:
www.carbontax.org...
(I researched the founders of that website, don't seem to be corrupt/paid-off)

en.wikipedia.org...

science.howstuffworks.com...

www.thedailygreen.com...


A carbon tax is merely a semi-crappy (but in ways effective) compromise on the problem of carbon emissions. Cap & trade is an even worse compromise. Who is this compromise to? Not some world government, but to INDUSTRY fat-cats. We need to get corporations and bankers OUT of our government. And we need to make them accountable for their environmental/economic destruction.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Awww, are the poor lunatic climate change sympathizers having a hard time? My heart bleeds. Perhaps if they had slightly more than bovine feces for evidence people might actually believe the garbage they spew. It's all rather pathetic. Polar bears are still there, the ice caps are still there, the permafrost is still there, come to think of it, the only thing disappearing is the credibility of the environazis. At least we have managed to uncover that there is one "species" that would actually benefit mankind should they become extinct. Chance would be a fine thing.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by des9996
 





You say there was even a scientist who provided warped statistics and data in an attempt to protect the profits of big business? Now that we have proof the same thing has happened with agw(man-made is the stresser) and your still willing to believe what they told you anyways? There is proof that the data was manipulated but your still willing to go with it?


No... The point is that I am not prepared to take a chance with something that is so precious!

There may be proof, in the form of leaked emails, that some scientist manipulated data... but whenever you get a project on this scale you will always have some people who don’t play ball. Are you suggesting that, in the area of manmade climate change denial, NONE of the scientist have EVER manipulated or altered data to fit a hypothesis???

I am not arguing the science... because I trust none of them... scientists have become to entangle with politicians to be trusted.

I am arguing about what my instinct tells me, what I see with my own eyes, and what my morals allow.

My instinct tells me we can affect the environment and the atmosphere... We put a hole in the ozone and caused acid rain!!

My eyes have shown me coral reefs disappearing in the Caribbean, huge holes in the forests of South America, Bees vanishing, milder winters, extreme weather!

My morals say that even if it is a one in a million chance, we can’t take the risk.




And no it won't hurt that much to drive an electric car, but then why aren't they affordable here? And what ever happened to the electric street cars? and trolleys? those were all electric but you don't see anybody talking about that.



All new technology is too expensive due to the fact that greedy companies want to make money!! Because companies exploit climate fears doesn’t prove it to be false... just means that the companies have no morals (hardly a surprise there)
Playstation 3’s, I Pods, Plasma TV’s etc... All overpriced when first released!

Sorry but I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to Electric street cars and Trolleys.



I think we are all tired of being lied to, and manipulated by the government, which has been clearly shown to be the case(or by the UN IPCC in this case, which will be the world's government if people like you have their way).



And here is the problem... Everyone is arguing about either the science or the politics.

No one on this planet, on either side of the argument, can say with a 100% certainty that their theories, ideas and claims are fact!!
I have seen so many claims, counter claim, arguments being batted back and forth... it’s a joke.

Same with the politics... and now the two have been blended into one... people are using politics to disprove science... and science to argue against politics... it’s one big mess!!

My fear is that while we argue about our little theories the environment around us is collapsing... and one day we will stick our . up from the scrum and say “oh sh!t”

IT IS NOT WORTH THE RISK



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



Lol a religion?? I think you're projecting, man. Scientific consensus for man-made global warming is the opposite of a religion.


I can go find 10 million people that all believe in a different GOD and they will argue to the death about how he exist. Does that make it true?

Your scientific "consensus" is just that, a bunch of "scientist" that say AGW is happening. They have no proof or evidence, they just "say" that it is happening and you lap it up. Sounds like a religion to me.

Then you have another person that just said something along the line of not needing the scientist to know that "something" is happening. This person can "feel" it, and just knows "morally".

Sounds like religion to me.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy

STOP F*CKING TALKING ABOUT CARBON TAXES.

It seems like that's all you've got.

Not exactly; that's what we are arguing against.

Do you seriously think those of us who argue against Cap & Trade want something bad to happen to the planet? No, we don't. We do, however, see a problem with the 'science' being put forth and we also see a major power-grab by those same people who now run the oil companies. I have news for you: they are also investing in the so-called 'cleaner' technologies, and will still be reaping profits.

It would appear to me that we have a case of the Captain Planet Conspiracy here. Sorry, but Horace Greedly is not running around trying to turn the planet into one big pig-sty, and shouting a few words while wearing funny rings will not cause a green superhero to show up. Those cartoons were fun back then, but they were just drawings. Reality is much different.

Drop the CO2 scam, drop the extreme taxation scheme, stop wanting everyone (except you of course) to live in dark dank caves, and you'll have more allies to fight alongside you against true pollutants (NOx, SO2, HCL, excessive mercury levels, heavy metal toxins) than you'll know what to do with. But you guys have to drop the Cap & Trade scam. You have to quit saying CO2 is 'poisonous', 'toxic', 'deadly', etc. Those are false statements, and they will not be accepted. This very month, there is a conference occurring in Copenhagan to try and institute more controls on CO2. This month! Do you really expect someone who understands what is going on to just lie down and be steamrollered by these irresponsible thieves at the IPCC?

As long as these type of political shenanigans are happening under our noses in the name of 'environmentalism', expect to be called on environmental issues. That's how it works. You lay down with dogs, don't be surprised when you get up with fleas.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by NoHierarchy

I can go find 10 million people that all believe in a different GOD and they will argue to the death about how he exist. Does that make it true?

Your scientific "consensus" is just that, a bunch of "scientist" that say AGW is happening. They have no proof or evidence, they just "say" that it is happening and you lap it up. Sounds like a religion to me.

Then you have another person that just said something along the line of not needing the scientist to know that "something" is happening. This person can "feel" it, and just knows "morally".

Sounds like religion to me.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]


This isn't about religion and faith-based belief in god. This is about SCIENCE. Science is the ACTUAL STUDY of our universe without coming to supernatural conclusions. It involves the scientific method, experiment, hypothesis, observation, and requires results that can be independently verified/re-produced. Global warming has passed this test and is accepted by 97% of climatologists. When that many scientists studying their own piece of the puzzle all agree that the puzzle looks like man-made global warming, you should probably LISTEN TO THEM, and take rabid right-wing conspiracy theories with a large grain of salt. You know damn well that the right-wing is absolutely pro-industry and anti-environmentalist. They'll do/say ANYTHING to discredit scientists (in favor of Christianity), environmentalists (in favor of rabid "macho" consumption), and industry regulation (which is a GOOD thing).

There is a CONSENSUS. And that "bunch of scientists" are CLIMATOLOGISTS. They STUDY climate intimately for a freakin living! They have sh*ttons of proof/evidence, you have just closed your eyes to it because you've listened to dead-stupid, paranoid conspiracy theorists and concluded that you don't believe the ample/logical evidence. Sound science is not religion, it's quite the opposite. And global warming is absolutely sound science.

I personally don't need to say I "feel" it's real. The evidence supports it, it makes lots of sense, and the conflict of interest is to DENY global warming, not to admit its existence.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I present to you the very well researched and soberingly scientific video-blog series "Climate Crock of the Week" by Peter Sinclair.
...........................
If you consider yourself a real seeker of truth and respect sound science, then no matter your position on the subject, please be open minded to the facts/material presented. On the mountain of truth you never climb in vain...


Wow....so in order to refute the tons of facts which have been posted on this website you put the videos of some guy who starts making a false claim that those of us who don't think mankind is the cause for Climate Change he calls "climate deniers"....

NOT ONE OF US denies that there is Climate Change.... What we deny is the claims that mankind is the reason for Climate Change...

Then you go on puting videos in which this "dude" makes CLAIMS which have been REFUTED time and again...

The Medieval Warm Period, and the Roman Warm Periods WERE GLOBAL IN NATURE. Some other members and myself have posted dozens upon dozens of "peer reviewed research papers' which shows the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Warm Period happened AROUND THE GLOBE...

You have provided NOTHING NEW. These are OLD claims which have been debunked time and again.

Perhaps it is time for you to take your own advice, and IF you are a "seeker of truth" then READ the TONS of "peer reviewed research papers" which have been posted on this same forum, instead of believing "videos" of some "dude" making wild exagerations, and false claims.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join