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.

 

Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





As for the climate change skeptics... the joke is on you. If you think climate change is a lie and a conspiracy, you are living in a psychosis, far from reality. You have been fooled into thinking something that is true is not true.


May i ask why have you put Climate change into this paragraph ?

It is AGW you believe in so why did you not put that !

Climate Change is a catch all term which can refer to being Man-made Global warming/ A Natural warming cycle or a Natural cooling cycle.

Just because someone doesn't agree with AGW It does not mean they disagree with a natural cycle of warming or cooling.

Just to be clear.




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


But you then threw in that the ice melting off of Greenland was 600,000 thousands years old. I just pointed out the fact that there was an Ice Age about 650,000 years ago.



Now you are just trying, poorly I might add, to deflect from obvious facts.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 
AS you wish friend, you are no more right than me.Sorry if I upset your momentum. How about back to topic?.Global warming was already going to happen regardless of Human intervention or not? I'd say it is all about the sun.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Yes I say it is all about the sun too. I also believe it is all a natural cycles that we are going through now. There is not enough evidence or even data to determine if we are even having an impact. That doesn't mean we are not having an impact on the environment because of pollution and what not, but saying that we are changing the natural cycles of the climate is highly suspect and they are going to have to come with a lot of evidence and data in a transparent matter to convince me that we are changing the cycles of the climate.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 
Why do you think there would be a patent created for an substance that is designed to create a cooling effect that is distributed by planes at High altitude. would that mean the warming thing is a fact and they know it ? or something else is being dumped into the clouds?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Avenginggecko

Why don't you get off your butt and remove yourself from the carbon system, it's not that hard.

Really? Why not enlighten us?


Sorry I didn't see your reply. I'll give it a try!


I suppose I could grow a garden for food (wait, actually I do!), but there are some things I cannot grow locally, like citrus. Of course, I have to pay land taxes on the land I use to grow it, so since all my time is tied up in feeding myself, when do I have time to work enough to get the tax money?


I find it very hard to believe that all of your time is taken up in your garden. I have a rooftop garden that provides a decent, but small, amount of food for me. Farmer's markets would be an excellent way to supplement any lacking food in your diet. I can't vouch for where you live, but the farmer's markets here in Texas are pretty good.


I suppose I could raise a horse to pull a wagon so I could get to town for essentials I cannot grow in my garden... but then the trip would take a full day instead of a couple hours. And that's a day I can't work in the garden. Not to mention, I don't see many hitching posts outside stores any more. And where do I get the money to buy the things I need? Do you recommend I steal them or something?


Why not use a car or hybrid vehicle? The point of avoiding having cap and trade effects, if you believe they will be so ruinous financially, is to ween yourself from fossil fuels as much as possible. That doesn't mean you have to give up a vehicle or a weekend campfire. How often do you need to go to the store, anyway?



Electricity... well, maybe I could set up solar cells around my place... wait, so much of it is now in garden, where do I put them? And they certainly won't produce enough power to keep me in lights during the night. Back to the flashlight... oh, wait, I forgot batteries, and it will take a whole day to get new ones now, since I no longer use gasoline. I don't have any money to buy them with either, since I work full time growing food now. So the next time I need to go to the bathroom at night, I'll just stumble through the dark... maybe I can aim good enough to not totally disgust myself in the morning.


On your roof, for one, unless you live in a crater. if you have land, windmills can be built at home in a week or two of spare time. Also every major state has multiple major utility providers that provide green energy options. Even in Texas, the big oil state, I can list 3 or more companies that provide a 100% green options at competitive kw/h prices. That way you won't have to stumble around in the darkness and risk soiling yourself.


Oh, wait, what about electricity for cooking... has to be electric since we no longer are allowed to use heating oil or kerosene or natural gas. I have it! A wood fire! Oh, wait, that produces carbon dioxide more than oil. I guess I have to eat everything raw now... su much for growing cabbage or beans.


See above.


Forget showers. All the water I have now has to be carried home in buckets from a nearby spring or creek. So no more showers, and baths only every week or two. And those are ice cold, since I can't heat the water up.


See above.


I'm cold even without being wet. It is 34 degrees outside. It is 34 degrees inside, too. What to do, what to do? I can't use any hydrocarbons for heat. I can't burn wood for heat. Help me out here; how do I stay warm again?


See above.


It's one thing to say "don't use energy", but quite another thing to do it.

TheRedneck


Indeed. Thank the Lord I never once said "don't use energy." I believe I said, "It's possible for you to avoid the effects of cap and trade", which are two different things...

1. Alternative energy providers will solve much of your problem, seeing as how the wind farms, water turbines, and solar farms they have won't be taxed because they don't emit carbon. I actually saved money moving from a company that used fossil fuels for energy to one that provided green energy.

2. Buying a vehicle with 30+ mpg will stretch out the amount of gas you use...I know it's not an F250 or Tahoe, but that's not the point.

3. Growing your own food is great
, and farmer's markets are an excellent way to supplement your diet instead of buying bananas trucked from Columbia and Oranges hauled from Florida. I'm sure there's something like one relatively near anybody in the US. Any price hike in perishable goods will come from costs associated in transportation and distribution, which is why you go to a farmer's market, that way it goes from the farm, to the stand, to your hands.

Going green doesn't mean living like the Amish. You can still burn fossil fuels while reducing your carbon footprint to a tiny fraction of it once was...no peeing on your pajamas necessary.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Or maybe someone just filed a patent because they wanted too. Just because a patent exist doesn't mean anything. If I had the cash I could come up with an idea and file for a patent too. That doesn't mean I'm going to do anything with it.

Also Back during the depression it was hot and dry, people have always dreamed about being able to control the weather. Also just because they were able to provide a proof of concept for this patent doesn't mean it actually works like they say it does.

There are tons of explanations for a patent like that being filed. It has nothing to do with Global Warming though.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

Yes, caribou are completely different animals than cattle, but you appear to realize that. You got your own joke.


The age of the ice, however, is estimated, an educated guess at best. Viking records show they had agricultural settlements on Greenland not so long ago. I can only assume they weren't growing frozen rice in the ice shelves.


I am having some trouble with the carbon dating idea as well. It sounds straightforward enough, using C14 ratios to C12, but I also know that for some strange reason every carbon 14 dating request must include an estimate of the age of the item. Now why is that necessary when the whole idea of the test is to determine that age?

Also I seem to remember hearing about certain samples that were dated at different labs, and every lab came up with a different date.... not even close to the others.

I'd say the jury on carbon 14 dating is still out.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


That is basically what it comes down too. There really isn't enough data to even form a scientific hypothesis about AGW. First thing is we only have a 160 years of data which isn't even a blink of the eye when you comparing it to the age of the earth.

I would think we would need a few million years of data to be able to come up with at least a testable hypothesis. What we would need is a few ice ages and a few periods in between them.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

Estimates and indirect evidence can help with that, but in order to verify it, it is imperative that we have enough direct data that matches the indirect observations to properly verify them. We don't have that Take the tree rings for example. The theory sounded good, but it did not match observed data after 1960. So it should have been thrown out, but it wasn't... only the parts that differentiated were thrown out. There is no person with an open mind who would not find that dishonest and sloppy at best.

What we have here is an absolute disaster for science, brought about by an absolute travesty on the part of those involved in the emails. How dare they! How dare they compromise all the available data! How dare they place thier own selfish interests before those of science! How dare they degrade the profession by calling themselves 'scientists'!

This travesty will send echoes throughout the scientific community for years to come...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


denying the tens of thousands of peer reviewed and scrutinized scientific publications about the reality of climate change


You don't read what you post. That is clear now.


hyperbole and exaggeration are exactly what will be the end of the AGW scam.

You all are close to being past tense.

jw



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


That it will. It really is a shame. When I first heard the news I was excited then it sunk in that in a way it is really sad. The worst part about the whole thing is all the careers of scientist that have been ruined and now the possibility of a vehicle for World Government.

In way a good thing did come out of it though, there will be a push for greater transparency in science.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

Well, I hope you are right; transparency should have been there to start with.

Even if some good comes out of this, I still wonder, was it worth the cost? I'll admit I was happy to see the scam exposed, but this will be one very expensive lesson, especially in terms of public perception. The story of the boy who cried "wolf" was brought up (by me) and it is especially important. Will the public ever trust a scientist again in our lifetime? Science has done and can do so much for us...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Im gonna say something thats nobody is really paying attention to,
THIS SITUATION WE ARE IN ... IS LOOKING BAD , REALLY BAD !
Ive posted some semi funny stuff concerning all that i know , All the info on ATS over the last 7 years i have read alot of , and absorbed alot i can tell you , One thing christians have repeatedly failed to tell you is that this is all supposed to happen , One world government was always supposed to happen , whether at copenhagen , WW1, WW2 , whatever the case , they have failed here and there (the illuminati) , but the elite will not stop until they complete the job , fail here,try again here , if not ,lets try another way , they wont stop ! Why ?
The elite wanna control the world , yes , but there is something controlling them that christians are very shy in talking about , but yours truly is gonna give you the inside info , Check it Out ...
The terrible things that we are seeing , which are horrifying indeed , and ive prayed they dont come to fruitation , cause...honestly, i was scared , not just for me but everyone else , but from a true christian point of veiw , When every freedom of ours has been ripped out from underneath , when we are made prisoners of the elite , when the technology has been forced upon us , then we suffer , and all our heroes have been culled, the freedom fighters exterminated , familys torn , us overpopulated ones are identifyed and destroyed , WHEN THERE IS NO ONE TO HELP JOE THE PLUMBER, OR MACY THE WAITRESS , etc , IN OUR DARKEST HOUR , THE SON OF GOD , SHALL RETURN TO SAVE THE WORLD ,and those who repent and believe on his name ,will be saved . As the christians would say and have been saying for Hundreds of years , They talked of the chip for a very long time , they talked about ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT for as long as we know ..Revelations ...It was fortold that these extremes HAD TO HAPPEN , in order for the Big Guy to return.!! get it..?
And everyone would see his power to save, WOW . ..Interesting to note ,Christians were instructed to rejoice and be happy when these events occur , because all that meant was the coming of the lord was near , judging by the events in the last 7 years , i say hes near ., Ultimately , the christians have been waiting for the elite to pull this out of the bag , You either scared or you not , We can cheer on political leaders who scream climategate to save you , but know they arent, they really arent , they want votes ,then they will say they didnt have enough info on the new tax , then they will say the tax has been amended and it is now acceptable , and climate change is real ..Another lie , After Obama, i laugh cause its a new face for the same lie ! And it hurt..The Bible says this is all part of the plan, the plan to show the world whos the MAN when it comes to saving our butts ,, and we will see , whos the real hero for the people , who the peoples champion really is , but , ya know , thats a christian point of veiw , and what do they know ....right ,, ?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Wow! I have learned a lot following this thread.

When I first started hearing about global warming from my climatology friends a number of years ago, I took it with a grain of salt. Over the last few years I have followed the debate at a distance suspecting that while we might see global warming, it might not be man made.

Over the last six months, I have taken a hard look at the data and the methodologies used to analyse the data.

It scared the living crap out of me. I really don't want there to be man made global warming. When you look at the likely scenarios as to how this will play out, it's even worse. Like I said, I don't want man made global warming to be real -- I would sleep so much better at night if I could be convinced it was a hoax. In fact, I eagerly sought out the sceptical point of view only to be disappointed when I discovered it often only represented economic interests of those corporations that would benefit by denying global warming.

AllisOne, you are right about one thing. Consistently throughout the tirades that man made global warming is a fraud or it is all a conspiracy, I have seen a lack of logic, understanding of scientific methodologies, how scientists work to try and make their data reliable, and the usually socially inappropriate way they talk to each other. Those who have been arguing against you ask for proof, then refuse to consider it when offered, or they tend to lapse into political arguments about new world order or leftists or some such nonsense.

For the sake of my children and their children, I would love to be able to state that global warming is unproven and that the role of mankind in global warming is unknown, but I can't because the hard facts show that it is happening and we are a major contributing cause. And I hate that.

So if you are a global warming sceptic, please show me you science. Show me your data, show me your models that prove that this is all a hoax. Don't just finger point and name call and base your whole argument against on the belief in a conspiracy.

My challenge is this: Present the data that proves your contention that global warming isn't happening or that if it is, it is not man made. Not anecdotes or you heard something, but data that will convince me. And I would love to be convinced. Scientific, peer-reviewed paper quality data. Or re analyze the data that is there ina way that I would pass in one of my statistics courses.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


What you just typed was a bunch of rubbish.

There is not proof that AGW is or isn't happening. That is the whole freaking point. Also another thing I would like to point out to you, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics the burden of proof is on the climate "scientist".

So far they have no produced one iota of evidence or proof. The have refused for YEARS to release their data and computer models. What you are trying to do is the typical tactic of trying to pass blame upon somebody else.

You are acting out of emotion and further more your post sounds more shill like than actual concern. You start off with the emotional filled story and then try to pass on the burden of proof to the people that have been asking, once again, for YEARS to see the raw data and computer codes to reproduce the results of the climate "scientist". But they have stonewalled and REFUSED to release the information requested.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Avenginggecko

1. Alternative energy providers will solve much of your problem, seeing as how the wind farms, water turbines, and solar farms they have won't be taxed because they don't emit carbon. I actually saved money moving from a company that used fossil fuels for energy to one that provided green energy.

Hate to say your wrong everything will pay for carbon taxes. Lets look at your windmill for example the parts needed for your windmill will be made in a factory. They will be made using alot of energy and will get the companies that produce those parts taxed.Now it wouldn't be so bad if only one company produced every thing but thats not how the generator will be put together.That engine will have hundreds of parts each costing more because the company isn't going to absorb those taxes they will pass it on to the consumer.

Now as far as windmills you wont get power if the wind stops unless you use batteries.Do you have any idea of the large scale impacts of batteries on the environment? And the amount of carbon that gets produced in making batteries.And lets not forget the land that needs to be cleared for all these windmills.

Then all the hybrids your saying are so great for the environment well they batteries will go bad and there will be energy used to recycle them in fact more than it took to create them.Heres a shocker for you a hummer will end up producing less carbon over its lifetime than a hybrid!

If you think you can avoid higher prices your only fooling yourself.

Now the sad part is these added expenses if its from taxes of price increases, is there is no scientific proof man made global warming .In fact they had to alter temperature data to get them to fit thier pattern.No matter how bad they tried couldnt get tree ring data and ice cores to match tempratures we knew were measured.Forcing data to meet your expectations is nothing more than making up the facts.In science if the data doesn't match observations then that theory is done! Unless you happen to work for the foundation thats only reason to exist is to track man made global warming.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


Your cheating thats not the way science works you dont disprove something is not happening. Science describes and proves what is happening.No one can prove something if it doesn't exist!

Sorry to say the burden of proof is on all those researches getting grants to study man made global warming.Now unfortunately to keep there jobs they manipulate data.If they want to prove there right put the raw data out then your conclusions.Oh wait they accidentally lost that data ooops yeah and the dog ate my homework.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by metamagic

So if you are a global warming sceptic, please show me you science. Show me your data, show me your models that prove that this is all a hoax.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.
I started this thread on Dec. 1. So far it has 226 flags and I received 222 stars on the OP.

It is a simplified model that uses basic scientific concepts to show a maximum amount of temperature increase that could be expected from present carbon dioxide levels over the next 100 years. It is also very conservative, with several mitigating factors left out intentionally. If you read through that thread and consider everything that was said, you will realize that every concern that has been voiced either would skew the calculations more in favor of no serious warming coming from carbon dioxide, or cannot come even close to accounting for the difference between these calculations and the predictions that have been circulating form the anti-carbon dioxide doomsayers.

My conclusion: under the worst possible circumstances, the maximum increase in temperature that could possibly occur over the span of 100 years is 0.01°K.

Unlike the IPCC climate models, every piece of data is explained as to why it was included, why it was calculated the way it was, and any assumptions that were made. Unlike the IPCC 'scientists', I will gladly publish any and all communications I have had with others about these calculations.

The following communications have occurred between myself and others concerning the calculations described in the OP or the decision to post them:
" "
The foregoing was a complete list.

There were none.

No collaboration, no collusion, no password required, and open, clear explanations as much as humanly possible, with the publisher right here to answer any questions. I challenge you to find the same from any climatologist presently or previously employed by the IPCC or the CRU.

As I said, ask and ye shall receive.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by StaceyWilson

Interesting to note ,Christians were instructed to rejoice and be happy when these events occur , because all that meant was the coming of the lord was near , judging by the events in the last 7 years , i say hes near .,
. . . .
but , ya know , thats a christian point of veiw , and what do they know ....right ,, ?


No, that's not THE Christian veiw, it's A Christian view.

Some Christians acknowlege evolution as fact and want religion kept out of schools and governments, are non-judgemental, and don't believe recently made-up nonsence like the "rapture."




top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join