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.


ATS label all Global Warming threads as HOAX

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by HankMcCoy

Hard to argue with the logic of Hank McCoy, lol.

I know what you're saying, but my logic was that labeling a thread HOAX, tends to reflect negatively on the author of the thread as being the hoaxer. If the author was under the impression at the time the info was real, it's my opinion that they don't deserve that badge of shame.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
If the author was under the impression at the time the info was real, it's my opinion that they don't deserve that badge of shame.

I disagree.

If someone is confident enough to stick their neck out with information that they cannot personally validate, they hold the responsibility for sending faulty information if or when it is presented.

This is the standard that journalists are held to as well. While I am not comparing ATSers to journalists, I am merely pointing out that there is a line in the sand drawn for this type of situation.

Personally, if I feel strongly enough to post about something, I am going to be able to eat a little crow if I am wrong about it, and if my information ends up being a hoax, I would be the FIRST to call for my thread to be labeled as such. But that's just me.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by HankMcCoy]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by HankMcCoy

We'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO, a hoax is intentional. But i would compromise with some sort of new label, like DEBUNKED, or something along those lines to highlight false info, not spread intentionally.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:51 PM
I dont think the lid should be closed on this, nor should it be labeled Hoax.

I imagine humans contribute to Global Warming on some level...
But it seems to me that the planet Has Been Warming since the last Ice Age.
Hasn't it?

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by HankMcCoy

We'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO, a hoax is intentional. But i would compromise with some sort of new label, like DEBUNKED, or something along those lines to highlight false info, not spread intentionally.

Debunked might be better.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by HankMcCoy

There we have it, democracy in action.

Admin, please get on that.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
If CO2 is behind the recent warming trend, then why did they have to hide the data pointing to a cooling trend?

Who knows? I don't even know if those claims are even real. Neither do you. Have you seen the before and after graphs?

How could they hide data that anyone and everyone has access to?

Here is a conspiracy: Global warming is so real that people are forced to change the data as to remove any doubt that might hurt the progress of fixing it.

Originally posted by 27jd
And why was there even data pointing to a cooling trend? Does CO2 lose it's ability to trap heat under certain circumstances?

There could be many reasons...

It has been scientifically proven that when ice caps melt, the really cold water starts flowing all over the world, and TEMPORARLY cooling happens because of that.

Also, have you ever heard of evaporative cooling? Evaporation of ice and water cools the air around it.

It has long been known that the Earth has several systems that help BALANCE the climate. Once we start messing with the balance, there is extreme climate change. It's like a pendulum swinging back and fourth. Hot.... Cold.... Hot.... Cold. It has been predicated that one day, the Earth will get stuck on HOT, and wont ever swing back to cold. This will happen because water will have a harder time turning back to liquid from a gas at higher temperatures, making Earth hotter. In other words "HEAT WILL WIN".

I'm not saying that will happen in our lifetime, but could happen in the future. Our Earth will turn out exactly like Mars. Read about Mars...

For now we have to worry about the pendulum swinging to far.

Also, our Sun is still going through a very quiet cycle. A solar minimum.

That means the CO2 is trapping less heat. That DOESN'T mean "global warming is only caused by the Sun", that actually means, the Sun is giving us a short break. When the Sun goes back to normal, the "cooling trend" will disappear, and we will be recording record highs once again.

Here is another good article with accurate data:

Originally posted by 27jd
But if the warming is manmade, how is it subsiding barring a sudden major reduction in CO2?

Global warming probably can't be stopped because it may be too late already... but we can slow it down, and must try to slow it down.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

No I don't believe that. I totally believe that crooks and liars are trying to make money off of it.

Then why, pray tell, would you respond to the question of who would benefit from 'green' technology with a different response?

Group A makes money off of oil. Group B makes money off of newer technologies. Both want your money. Both will say whatever they need to in order to get your money. And I would be willing to wager that if one wanted to take the time to dig up who is profiting from each, the same names will pop up in both categories.

I know for a fact the Gores made their money in big oil when Al Sr. was in Congress; he admitted it! Now Al Jr. is making big money in carbon credits. Do you get the point yet? The argument that oil companies are trying to screw us all is moot; they get the same return either way.

I know.... but it is NOT physically impossible to stop it from being freely dumped into the air. It can be collected.

And stored... where? A big balloon?

Technology does exist to reduce carbon dioxide, but at present it is extremely expensive and there is no more money to develop it further. Prototypes that reduce CO2 to pure carbon have been demonstrated, and in every case they were met with a lack of interest. Photosynthesis is the only way we have that is commercially available today to reduce CO2, yet carbon offsets for tree production/retention are politically unpopular.

Also, there are OTHER technologies that can be utilized to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, a coal burning plant can become a hybrid plant by using both solar power and wind power, and maybe even other technologies, along side coal.

No, they can't. If they could, they would... especially if, as you say, it is cheaper to produce power using wind or solar. Do you really think there is some 'eco-villain' sitting in an office somewhere laughing hysterically about how much fun it is to produce CO2? These companies exist to make a profit... period.

If a coal plant decided to reduce emissions by reducing the amount of burnt coal, and replacing that amount with solar power or wind power which is less expensive. How exactly would that increase costs? Sure it might cost them money to build the solar and wind power plants, but after that it is less costly than coal.

I'm going to assume you have never ran a business. The initial cost is included in the cost of production. If you have to spend $100 million on a plant that has an expected lifetime of 10 years, then you have an overhead cost of $10 million per year which must be figured into the cost of your product.

Let's look at solar... I'm just gonna open another window to one of my surplus suppliers... here's a small solar cell that produces 3V @ 40 mA, a total of 0.12 W. It costs $3.75, making the cost per watt $31.25/W.

Here's a larger one. Specs say 5 W @ 12 V for $68.00. That's only $13.60/W. Getting better....

Here's one that is 20W @ 12V for $198.00... that's about $10.00/W

And remember this is surplus, removed from equipment, sold as-is. This is not new pricing. So even with industrial pricing, you're not gonna get much lower.

The nuclear plant near me is designed to provide 1GW of power. At $10.00/W, that means a similar solar plant would need $10 billion just for the solar cells. That power must then be turned into AC, which is more cost. And that doesn't include the cost of the land to mount them on. The 20W cells are listed as being 530x340mm (20 7/8" x 13 3/8") in size. To produce 1 GW, you will need 50 million of them. Since each one covers a little over 279 square inches of area, that means you will need 279 x 50,000,000 = 13.95 billion square inches, or almost 97 million square feet, or 2224 acres. now how much does land cost? $10,000 an acre in most areas? there's you another $22.24 million. And it's far from free; you still have to have maintenance, to keep the solar cells clean if for no other reason.

Solar is cheaper... yeah, you have a real good grasp on how energy production works.

Or how about I ride a bike to the store instead of driving. Or how about I invent more efficient devices. Or how about invent a way to collect the emission from the vehicle. Some power plants use static electricity and electrically charge the emissions and then collect them with the opposite charge. That would keep the emissions from reaching the air. Or how about I buy an electric car, and charge it with solar panels.

Oh, feel free to do all those things. Why did you need me to motivate you? I'm real interested to see what you invent to save us all.

Incidentally, ionic attraction does not work well with CO2. It is covalent, not ionic.

Seriously dude. Magnets and wire and motion makes electricity. I can charge my laptop while I work out in a gym.

Yeah, and while you're at it, remember that those lights you are using while you work out need electricity; the generator you use is made in a manufacturing plant that produces CO2; and I'm sure that laptop is going to keep the winter cold outside.

Face it: we, including you, are hooked on power. We have to have it. Now, if someone comes up with a way to produce power that is commercially viable and cheaper, I'm all for it. If it doesn't produce CO2, no problem here (most of the power in this area is already hydroelectric). But when someone comes on and decides to tell me that they'll just invent something to fix problems the brightest minds on the planet can't solve... well, all I can say is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Well, that and "you are living in a dream world"...


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

I live in phoenix, of course i've heard of evaporative cooling, lol.

As for the reasons for the warming of the earth, i'm not going to pretend to know a great deal about it. You seem to have much more knowledge than myself on this subject. I just remember reading alot about dinosaurs as a kid, and the books talked about the earth being much warmer back then, with swampland all over, then the ice age took hold, then it subsided, etc. It seems to me the earth goes through cycles regularly.

But, i will keep saying, i'm ALL for reducing our pollution, improving the quality of our air, and the preservation of the natural world. I'm not advocating being wreckless at all.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Great name and I think if you had your way it would certainly be true. For one month the temperatures did not rise as steadily as they had been rising. You are saying this means climate change is a hoax?
Where the heck do you live? Where I live the climate is changing and rapidly.
You have no children, am guessing, this is why you can afford to be wrong.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by endisnighe

Let me see, the science community has deliberately manipulated the data and than destroyed the BASE data. Now they are using their FALSE DATA to further their CO2 tax scam.

Says you. And exactly are you that your word is Law?

I suggest you read this:

Just exactly how many people over how many decades in how many different countries are involved? This conspiracy makes faking the Moon landings look like a schoolboy prank

Incidently, Ive just recorded my warmest ever November. So global warming must be true

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Essan]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Sorry my friend - this is what you and other "non-believers" need to understand - and I perhaps used the wrong word. Its not about "belief" - you can believe whatever you want. What it is about is science.

The "ClimateGate" event does not prove global warming is a hoax at all - In order for that to happen there needs to be more research that disproves the theory.
The existence of fraud in one part of research that has been ongoing now for over 30 years in hundreds of locations around the world does not disprove the whole theory. (i.e. the many frauds debunked in the fossil record of human evolution) The evidence in favor of climate change and our involvement in it is still strong and stronger than the evidence against. Maybe that will change as we learn more but for now - sorry charlie

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:23 AM
We need to keep records of all the proceedings in this monumental scam. Has nobody ever wondered what chemtrails are really for? They keep the heat from escaping, making for warmer climate where the spraying is going on and has been going on since at least 1996. All the governments are in on it, they all state the same inane BS when asked about aerial spraying, namely, it doesn't exist. The same strategy the controllers use on US ufologists: TR-3Bs don't exist.

Earth needs a thorough cleaning job. The scum telling us we are poisoning the Earth are overlooking gracefully that it is THEIR factories doing the poisoning. We are being poisoned along with Earth. We need to discredit greedy scum like Gore and the likes and show them for the actor shills they really are, another facet of a global strategy to steal a lot of money by offering nothing in return. It's the usual Rockefeller scam.

The fact that the Solar System has been heating up continually over the past eight years or so of course falls on deaf ears whenever media whores and their politician counterparts are concerned. To perpetrate the hoax proves to be impossible. This shows in the fact that there are now two realities as far as the climate is concerned. In the scripted fake one we have Gore rocking the boat to put a tax on breathing. That expert named water vapor a dangerous "greenhouse gas". He who invented the internet must be right.

This conspiracy has lots of levels with different lies at every level. Only the liars dictating the lies stay the same because they're long dead.

The problem with you conspiracy buffs is that you do not know when to think big. What keeps global drug trade rolling? Money. Do you really think the most corrupt species of them all - the politicians - would say no to money? Think again.

They are poisoning all of us - except china - and they want to get paid for it. The swine flu hoax was no attack on humanity, it was the dress rehearsal for one. Already, 2 officials who interviewed Burgermeister lost their jobs because of taking her serious. The alien invasion is planned to run much smoother than 9/11, with no holo projectors burning out, no buildings mysteriously collapsing amid a thunder of explosions, no airplane passengers disappearing into thin air, no giant airplanes making tiny holes, no nothin'. They want what's left of your freedom, and as usual, they will try to trick you while telling you what they're doing.

I already put the fridge out on the porch because I don't want to miss a second of the action. Nothing better than a good laugh. Video of the demonic legions marching out of the LHC Stargate will sell for a fortune. Just don't shoot them while filming, holograms don't die and folks will say you photoshopped it.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by mrsoul2009

The "ClimateGate" event does not prove global warming is a hoax at all

You are correct in that. However, what the leaked emails do accomplish is to cast doubt on the veracity of the scientists involved and to call into question the very data that claims, predictions, and models are currently based on.

Of course, it is difficult to verify original data which has been destroyed.

At the very least, the scientists involved in 'Climategate' should be released from further involvement in the area of Global Warming, as should those in charge of these scientists. The data should be reconstructed as much as possible, with extreme care taken to make sure all data reconstruction is completely and utterly transparent to the public. That means publication in publicly-accessible free to view online and printed mediums, as well as a concerted effort to make sure anyone searching for such data will be able to find it easily.

Is that harsh? Yes, the publication and maintenance will be expensive and time consuming. People will lose their jobs, possibly without actual reason to do so. But we are not talking about a single paper that was circulated among researchers here; we are talking about a concerted pressure in a political direction based on the research in question. Once a scientist crosses that line between scientific research and political posturing, they also accept the same behavior restrictions that apply to the political stage. A politician who acts in a manner which can be seen as compromising has to answer to that action based on public perceptions, not based on scientific industry standards. So should a scientist who has crossed the line into political activity.

If such actions are not forthcoming, then the only reasonable recourse would be to completely throw out any and all models and predictions made with any regard to the questioned data. I would honestly hate to see that happen. But anything less than one of these options will be seen, both by the public and by myself, as an indication that the worst accusations have basis in truth... in short that the whole anthropogenic Global Warming theory is a myth.

If you light a fire, don't complain when you get burned.


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by outrageousfortune
Has nobody ever wondered what chemtrails are really for? They keep the heat from escaping, making for warmer climate where the spraying is going on and has been going on since at least 1996.

Been going on a lot longer than that. But interesting to see you believe in AGW

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by rusethorcain

Thank you, the name was picked intentionally.

As for me wanting the ENDISNIGHE to occur, c'mon, you can do better than that.

FACT: CLIMATE CHANGE has been occurring since the beginning of the world.
FACT: Governments and big business, could care less about you or me.
FACT: Manipulation of scientific data, for whatever purpose, is not science.
FACT: Blaming man for GLOBAL WARMING, has been on THEIR agenda for decades.
FACT: Hysteria about THEIR agenda, is now being referred to as the Church of Climatology.

Think about it. Do not question the scientists(priests). Do not question the numbers(bible). Do not question what needs to be done(penance).

Religion is the oldest form of control, and you and many others are following the new RELIGION.

reply to post by Essan

Okay, you gave me a link to a NATURE website. Who owns that site? Who funds the owner?

Answer me this question, who will benefit from the new religion of Global Warming? Could it be the VERY companies of big oil behind it? Do some research behind the scenes of who own these new carbon credits companies and than tell me their is no correlation.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by mrsoul2009

The "ClimateGate" event does not prove global warming is a hoax at all

You are correct in that. However, what the leaked emails do accomplish is to cast doubt on the veracity of the scientists involved and to call into question the very data that claims, predictions, and models are currently based on.

Of course, it is difficult to verify original data which has been destroyed.

Nature (Vol 462 | Issue no. 7273 | 3 December 2009) on page 551 in "Battle lines drawn over e-mail leak":

The UEA has launched an independent inquiry into both the security breach and whether CRU has dealt appropriately with the deluge of requests for raw climate data it has received under the UK Freedom of Information Act (see Nature 460, 787; 2009). It has also pointed out that more than 95% of the raw data used in CRU climate models has been publicly available for several years.

So what exactly has been destroyed? What's your source for this piece of "info" of destroyed data?

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by rhinoceros

So what exactly has been destroyed? What's your source for this piece of "info" of destroyed data?

That would be The Associated Press:

There was further criticism following the revelation that the university had thrown out much of the raw temperature data on which its global warming research was based. The university said in a statement last week that the data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, was dumped in the 1980s to save space when the unit moved to a new location.

Incidentally, there is a difference between saying "it is hard to reconstruct deleted data" and saying "data was deleted".


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
I won't be irate if ATS doesn't label them a hoax because it would probably get the site flooded with feds to post "ATS is run by the oil companies!!!!111." everywhere.

That being said Global Warming is a hoax on all of us to tax Co2 and in effect life itself. I hate pollution but that is not what legislators are fighting. Legislators and scientists that are bought and paid for like the ones at CRU are liars plain and simple and the media blackout of this story is further proof of an agenda.

So i agree label Global Warming threads a hoax if not because of these CRU emails just simply on the fact that it is climate change now not global warming so the term global warming is inaccurate even for the mainstream liars.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by endisnighe

It seems that you have much invested in your personal belief ...

Do you "believe" in UFOs or should we hoax that topic too? Unless of course you think that there's more incontrovertible evidence for ET visitation than there is for MMGW.

Other than the appearance of ego gratification, I'm not quite sure why you think this topic should be hoaxed ... I suspect you know that it won't but felt like a little self serving attention never hurt. That I can relate to.

Either way, we come to ATS to have these very discussions ... We're conspiracy theorists, not children. To most of us the clincher in any theory (if any btw for it is only a fool who thinks any books are ever closed) isn't dependent on a "hoax" tag.

Though you seem passionate about the whole thingie so I hardly think common sense will impede your momentum. Carry on I guess ...

Nice ad hominem attack with the common sense remark...

You are talking about apples and oranges. The CRU dumbskis are trying to push their hockey stick as fact.

Their theory's could cause major political change.

According to your common sense viewpoint we should let a bunch of scientists influence politics so we can be taxed into poverty to build UFO defense systems (with the current evidence of course).

Drake's equation makes common sense but I would it make sense to instill major treaties regarding it.

Common sense or ATS cliques?

I can starwman with you all day long if you like...


[edit on 3-12-2009 by lucentenigma]

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in