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: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I am sorry, perhaps you should re-read what I said. I did not indicate anything about the priority of it's role. I simply said it would logically slow down the scrub process.


Then we should see a much more erratic progression of atmospheric CO2 levels over the life history of the Earth; for, while land-based vegetation has never been a constant in the Earth's capacity to process CO2, the Earth's oceans have been uniformly constant in scrubbing the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years — much more constant than the transient plant life of Earth's limited land masses.

And I comprehended your writing quite well the first time — you're an eloquent and intelligent communicator.

— Doc Velocity


Well, there are other factors, such as the Taiga's permafrost layer of moss. It holds a tremendous level of carbon. I have not seen a comprehensive study showing all factors, just generalized of specific ones such as a University studying a specific wetland, or a specific factor such as that.

What I am trying to convey here is NOT that GW is real. That there has not been enough level-headedness to the whole debate. There are many sources of information which could hold the keys to this issue.

Screaming fraud at the top of ones lungs does not do anything but shut down rational discourse and make it impossible to make any progress.

The whole point of homogeneous information is to pull from multiple sources and see how they compare. If one source in 10 is showing anomoly you have to correct it or it drags the whole data set down. Something which appears lost in other exchanges in this thread.
In this case it is about the data is about temperature shift itself, not the temperature total. Various factors I have not seen included (together) in the larger papers are things like: volcanic activity in the period, solar activity, nuclear tests etc. etc. etc.

I really hope the GW IS a fraud. But to turn off ones ability to see evidence and weigh it COULD doom everyone on earth.

ie: less jumping to conclusions and more looking at evidence would be awesome.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You are aware that the oceans only absorb ONE THIRD of CO2 in the atmosphere right?


No, I'm not aware of that. I'd be interested to see the source of your data.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's May 2008 State of the Science Fact Sheet: "The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels..."

Last month, the Worldwatch Institute (an independent research organization for gathering data on critical global issues) stated: "The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of [Earth's] carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea."

Seems you can find statistics to support any contention with minimal research.

— Doc Velocity








[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Once again you show your lack of knowledge on this subject.

The oceans (water) are natural carbon sinks. They absorb CO2. However when the oceans are warmed, they loose their ability to absorb CO2 and they actually release CO2 they have captured.

How you don't know this is far beyond me. And why you are even daring to debate without basic knowledge of this is even more illogical.

You can now stop posting on this topic since you just proved you don't even know the basics of how CO2 interacts with Earth.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


Obviously, there is a great deal far beyond your reach.

Please re-read, all I stated was you can't make CO2 from H2O, it requires an additional carbon atom and one oxygen atom.

As for the rest I fully understand the food chain and absorption of carbon in sea water and it's resultant and extensive use by plankton and other smaller life forms. Pure water however, which is H2O, does not release CO2 as it is not part of the molecular chain and hence not possible. A body of impure water can release unused CO2 and if it is unused, then either overheating, overcooling, overfishing or pollution is causing a problem by killing off the life forms that use the carbon. So take your pick.

Corporations driven by banks to fill increasing supply by increasing population levels and of course NEW consumers, cause about 90% of all the pollution and 99.9% of overfishing, so if overfishing or pollution is the cause, let the people who made the money fix the problem. This never ending drive for consumerism and a debt driven society are our primary culprits and who is this controlled by?

Overheating or overcooling can be tied to the Sun's cycles or even pollution/CO2, maybe your handlers can tax the Sun and get it to sort out this mess or again the people making all the money off this can clean up their mess.

Make every person's money and assets equal unilaterally and then we can all clean it up, maybe. But as long as some dickhead in the UN or their legion of PR wankers like the IPCC is pontificating about what we should all do, while they don't, forget it. Not going to happen.

Now, get over yourself, mediate your emotions, become a little less hysterical and ponder our place in this reality we refer to as the universe. We are inconsequential, the earth will go on as long as it does, long after we are all dead. You have to remember that were are just another animal on this planet, albeit allegedly sentient and self aware, but that doesn't mean we can't go extinct as well due to natural catastrophes caused by the Sun, from space, the earth itself or our own folly by giving control over to those who created the problem so they can screw it up even more.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Well, I posted a link to the term "Carbon Sink" that explains most of it. Here is a couple sources:

www.earth.columbia.edu...



The oceans take up roughly a quarter of manmade CO2, but evidence suggests they are now taking up a smaller proportion.



en.wikipedia.org...


At the present time, approximately one third of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean.

source

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
• The oceans take up roughly a quarter of manmade CO2, but evidence suggests they are now taking up a smaller proportion — Columbia University
• At the present time, approximately one third of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean — Wikipedia


I think, first of all, one shouldn't base one's arguments on the opinions of Columbia University, which is a staunchly liberal, pro-climate-change-theory institution, and is widely recognized as such.

Nor would I ever base an argument upon my findings in Wikipedia, particularly in a contributed article devoted primarily to the Kyoto Protocol.

It's best to stick to the reputable information sources, those without a political axe to grind.

In my case, I cited the NOAA, which has in fact been accused of being pro-climate-change-theory, but which still maintains the oceans are sucking up 50% of the manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. I'll stick with the NOAA.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Obviously, there is a great deal far beyond your reach.

Please re-read, all I stated was you can't make CO2 from H2O, it requires an additional carbon atom and one oxygen atom.


I never said H2O can make CO2. You just failed at reading comprehension.

Now you are just arguing semantics. If you didn't understand what I meant about the oceans releasing CO2 when they are warmed then take a seat. All of it was explained in the link I posted.



Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Overheating or overcooling can be tied to the Sun's cycles or even pollution/CO2, maybe your handlers can tax the Sun and get it to sort out this mess or again the people making all the money off this can clean up their mess.

Make every person's money and assets equal unilaterally and then we can all clean it up, maybe. But as long as some dickhead in the UN or their legion of PR wankers like the IPCC is pontificating about what we should all do, while they don't, forget it. Not going to happen.


I can care less what people do to stop CO2 emissions. The fact is, they have to stop humans from emitting CO2. If they have to tax people to do that, then I am for it. It seems to be something that will work since everyone is crapping their pants just of the thought of it.

I can see people driving less, and walking more if they had to pay tax on emissions.



Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Now, get over yourself, mediate your emotions, become a little less hysterical and ponder our place in this reality we refer to as the universe. We are inconsequential, the earth will go on as long as it does, long after we are all dead. You have to remember that were are just another animal on this planet, albeit allegedly sentient and self aware, but that doesn't mean we can't go extinct as well due to natural catastrophes caused by the Sun, from space, the earth itself or our own folly by giving control over to those who created the problem so they can screw it up even more.


No you get over yourself. You come here and insult me and then expect me to not "step it up" and get a little angry at your total lack of knowledge?

Who the F are you? Nobody, just some kid with a South Park avatar, and not single clue about reality.

You think we are inconsequential...
Yeah, that is why humans have enough bombs to destroy the planet 100 times over. Sure ok, with your logic we can just trash the world, who cares right, we are inconsequential....

I wish people like you were removed from this planet just like rodent animal that you think you are. Maybe then we could actually get something done.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 



The e-mails are just being twisted around into something they are NOT. That is what is debunked, the twisting, and the misinterpretation.


Oh Twisting and misinterpretation, now that sounds like what they did with the data to come up with global warming. See it works both ways. Bit of a stupid thread really you should have know people on this site are up to date with all the latest information. I am sure you will catch up with everyone else in the end, may be when Gordon Brown and Al Gore do :0)



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Nobody said the e-mails were faked.... they could be legitimate.


They could be?

You do realize the CRU admits they are legitimate, right?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE in reply to bobs_uruncle
I wish people like you were removed from this planet just like rodent animal that you think you are. Maybe then we could actually get something done.


And here we cut to the chase and expose the simmering rage and illogic inherent in the pro-climate-change-theory argument.

Alas, when a crusade is based on fury and disrespect, it ceases to hold the moral and ethical high ground.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I wish people like you were removed from this planet just like rodent animal that you think you are.


Haha, way to destroy any credibility you might have had.

So how do you want to get rid of these people? Nuclear war? Engineered bio-weapons?

How about a climate catastrophe?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
So how do you want to get rid of these people? Nuclear war? Engineered bio-weapons? How about a climate catastrophe?


Too much collateral damage. For ramrodding political ideologies and economic agendas down the throat of the masses, nothing quite beats gas chambers and crematory ovens.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I think, first of all, one shouldn't base one's arguments on the opinions of Columbia University, which is a staunchly liberal, pro-climate-change-theory institution, and is widely recognized as such.


Really do you have a source that proves Columbia University, as a whole, is pro-climate-change-theory?

I don't care who is a proponent or skeptic anyway, their data is confirmed.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Nor would I ever base an argument upon my findings in Wikipedia, particularly in a contributed article devoted primarily to the Kyoto Protocol.


The findings are not from Wiki, they are just linked to from Wiki.

I can just do what you do and discredit every source you put forward. But I'm not pathetic enough to match your actions.

That said, you know your stupid post you made from the NOAA? Well that exact quote is found in Wiki word for word:

en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess we can just discredit it right? Since it is from Wiki.


Also they were talking about 50% of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, they were not talking about other sources of CO2.

Here is another source:
www.whoi.edu...


To date, about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions have dissolved into the ocean.


So now I have three sources claiming the same thing, and you have only one source claiming something totally different.



Originally posted by Doc Velocity
It's best to stick to the reputable information sources, those without a political axe to grind.

In my case, I cited the NOAA, which has in fact been accused of being pro-climate-change-theory, but which still maintains the oceans are sucking up 50% of the manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. I'll stick with the NOAA.

— Doc Velocity


So you are a hypocrite. You tell me to stick with sources that don't have a political axe to grind, then you go and use a source that you claim is pro-climate-change-theory.


The only reason you like that source is because you don't know how to read, and you think it supports your claim.

Well, then I guess I can post more info from NOAA..

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.


Read it.... NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. That is because there is nothing to debate about, it is a FACT.



Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.


Oh man, wow... you lose.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
You have to laugh at all this. It's like trying to convince a devout believer to change religions. I was just watching TV for a sec, to see what tripe was on the MSM and sure as clockwork, Canada's puppet politicians are going to Copenhagen to sign this thing and ratify it in a year. The MSM is keeping the majority of the dissension off the air concerning Climategate and this nicely packaged public fraud. I think I am going to have to get out of the past "business" and go into an even dirtier one of politics.

So peoples, get your Vaseline and bend over like good little sheople! You will see your cost of living go up between 25% and 100% in about a year. Looks like 2010 might be the year of assimilation.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
Haha, way to destroy any credibility you might have had.

So how do you want to get rid of these people? Nuclear war? Engineered bio-weapons?

How about a climate catastrophe?


Credibility? He came here and called me a "religious fanatic" only a few posts in. So what if I wished he was removed from the planet because of that. It has nothing to do with credibility.

How about we get rid of those people by letting natural selection take care of them.

The "animals" higher up on the food chain can make them believe something, and then they will react according to that something which will lead to their removal. Something along the lines of what is happening now.

He believes he is inconsequential, so be it. He will be inconsequential.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
You have to laugh at all this. It's like trying to convince a devout believer to change religions. I was just watching TV for a sec, to see what tripe was on the MSM and sure as clockwork, Canada's puppet politicians are going to Copenhagen to sign this thing and ratify it in a year. The MSM is keeping the majority of the dissension off the air concerning Climategate and this nicely packaged public fraud. I think I am going to have to get out of the past "business" and go into an even dirtier one of politics.

So peoples, get your Vaseline and bend over like good little sheople! You will see your cost of living go up between 25% and 100% in about a year. Looks like 2010 might be the year of assimilation.

Cheers - Dave


You realise that given perspective that is a rather entertaining thing to say. And consider this: if global warming is real, what value will money have when everything starts dieing?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


You are exactly like the type of guy that screamed "The Earth is FLAT!", even though there was lots of scientific data suggesting it was a sphere.

Just like now, you are screaming "MMGW is FAKE", even though there is lots of scientific data suggesting it is REAL.

You are just another lemming, following everyone else behind these hacked e-mails. Go ahead jump on the bandwagon.

You probably think the "PTB" created MMGW just to enslave you, right? You are totally convinced that someone on "your side" hacked these e-mails that go against the "PTB", right?

What if it was backwards. What if the "PTB" own all the oil companies and power plants and they would be hit the hardest by these so called MMGW taxes, so they release those "hacked" e-mails knowing the truth behind them would be twisted and misinterpreted causing the MMGW skeptics to eat it up and spread their ignorance.

Go ahead, enjoy your poisoned air.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

A little late to the party, but I made it. Ain't you just overjoyed?


First off, let me say I have not read the entire thread yet; I fully plan on doing so however. Secondly, no, I did not watch the videos. That's an hour of my time that I prefer not to waste. The last time I watched and debunked a series of videos like that (Great series debunking GW-denial pseudo-science), I observed how in trying to debunk the 'debunkers', the speaker debunked carbon-dioxide based Global Warming as well. There was nary a response to my post. Surprise!

What I wish to discuss right now is an obvious error which I hope someone before me was able to see and address: graphical smoothing. You, ALLisONE, stated:

The e-mails are describing "smoothing" issues in data. There are many reasons they "smooth" the graphs, why don't you read up on them. When you "smooth" graphs a lot of inconsistencies show up.

Think about it... say you have a graph with the exact amount of people that visited ATS every day over a month. To make the graph easier to read they "smooth" the graph and instead of showing every day, they show every few days. Well this will show "ups" and "downs" in the graph that aren't actually there....

Now, I ask you sir, if the graphs can so easily be made to show things that "are not really there", exactly why have we been besieged with all these graphs from various sources that allegedly 'prove' the effects of carbon dioxide levels that have been claimed?

There is an inherent difference between 'padding' and 'smoothing'. 'Padding is the addition or subtraction of data in order to emphasize a trend. It is possible to actually create a trend by padding. Whether or not this was done is not the point of this post; it is only a rebuttal as to your explanation.

'Smoothing' a graph is completely different. What you are describing is not a method to bring out new fluctuations, but an attempt to remove any insignificant fluctuations; hence the name 'smoothing'. An example: let us say that the daily visitors for ATS went something like this:

178, 206, 145, 327, 169, 201, 78, 144, 189. 175, 192, 311

Now this would create a graph with plenty of those 'ups and downs' you mention. By adding those days visitors together in groups of 3, we get the following:

529, 697, 411, 678

In the first graph, we have a maximum difference between the minimum and maximum of 247, with a minimum value of 78, or only 31.58% of the maximum deviation. In the second set, we have a difference of 286, but with a minimum value of 411, 143.7% of the maximum deviation. The result is that the graph will appear smoother and thus short-lived trends will be less obvious and long term trends will be more obvious.

Notice that in that example of 'smoothing', I did absolutely no 'padding'. All I did was add the numbers together. Even if I had averaged the data in order to maintain a daily value, it would have not been 'padding'. I still would not have added to or subtracted from any of the data.

'Smoothing and 'padding' are entirely different operations... and smoothing reduces deviation; it does not increase it. I hope I find more honest statements from you as I continue reading.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Really do you have a source that proves Columbia University, as a whole, is pro-climate-change-theory?

Columbia University is its own proof of its political bias.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I can just do what you do and discredit every source you put forward. But I'm not pathetic enough to match your actions.

No, but you are pathetic enough to wish all your ideological opponents would just disappear, rather than dealing logically and objectively with them. Look, manmade climate change is the opinion of a minority — you've never had the majority of Earth's populace (who you consider evil and dumb) behind you on the global warming hoax, and it infuriates you.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
...you know your stupid post you made from the NOAA? Well that exact quote is found in Wiki word for word

I wouldn't know that because I don't refer to Wikipedia. That's the poor man's source of information (but mostly misinformation).



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Also they were talking about 50% of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, they were not talking about other sources of CO2.

Oh... Other sources such as breathing? LOL... Your manmade global warming myth is all about the burning of fossil fuels. Could you please list the other sources of manmade CO2 emission that are befouling the atmosphere? Aside from breathing, that is? Are you going to cite cigarette smoke, because if you are, you're going to come out of this looking like a bigger fool than you already are.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
So now I have three sources claiming the same thing, and you have only one source claiming something totally different.

No, you have 2 liberal university opinions and 1 Wikipedia reference. Show us a reliable source, such as the NOAA or the EPA, making such watered-down claims.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Read it.... NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. That is because there is nothing to debate about, it is a FACT.

I've never said that humans don't produce greenhouse gases. That is a fact.

You, however, cannot prove that manmade greenhouse gases are causing climate-change. You, as a self-professed scientifically-minded person, are not relying on science at all, but upon the opinions of sources who have to manipulate their data.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.

Oh man, wow... you lose.

And yet the Earth has, in fact, been in a cooling trend for the last 10 years. The science that you invariably misquote tells us that global warming has been "put on hold" and will remain "on hold" throughout most of the coming decade.

No warming. Cooling for the last 10 years and for several years to come.

Oops, man. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself an education.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 



What if it was backwards. What if the "PTB" own all the oil companies and power plants and they would be hit the hardest by these so called MMGW taxes, so they release those "hacked" e-mails knowing the truth behind them would be twisted and misinterpreted causing the MMGW skeptics to eat it up and spread their ignorance.

Go ahead, enjoy your poisoned air.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


Too bad the oil companies and utility companies wont feel the sting of the climate tax whatsoever. They will pass the buck down to the consumer who will pick up the tab in higher priced energy sources.

What is your solution to all this? I can't tell if you really believe all the garbage you are spewing about MMGW, or if you are just another troll posting disinfo on these forums.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You are exactly like the type of guy that screamed "The Earth is FLAT!", even though there was lots of scientific data suggesting it was a sphere.

And you, my friend, are exactly like Chicken Little, who screamed "THE SKY IS FALLING" when tapped on the head by a falling acorn.

LOL


— Doc Velocity



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join