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: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It doesn't disappoint me at all actually. My position is that if there is actual evidence that we are having an effect on the climate then something should be done. But there is nothing so far that shows that we are having an effect. Not only that but I hope that all the raw-data is open to be scrutinized and stomped on by everybody that want too. Along with the methods and computer code. It should all be open and transparent so no questions are left unanswered.

It is science, and knowing how the climate works is essential in being able to terraform other planets. If we were to go try to terraform other planets right now we would all die because they wouldn't send them with enough CO2 in order to keep a continuous crop of plants going.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

My position is that if there is actual evidence that we are having an effect on the climate then something should be done. But there is nothing so far that shows that we are having an effect. Not only that but I hope that all the raw-data is open to be scrutinized and stomped on by everybody that want too. Along with the methods and computer code. It should all be open and transparent so no questions are left unanswered.

Some statements are so true they need to be repeated; the one I just quoted above qualifies as one of those.

There are those who would be happy if all the data were thrown out. I am glad you are not among them. The search is for the truth, not a specific result. now, if only we could just get all that data simply posted to a web address, all this worry over transparency and FOI acts would be moot.

And we could finally know, one way or another, which side was right.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Nobody said the e-mails were faked.... they could be legitimate. But all the claims saying that this proves everything is hoax and a fraud have been debunked".

You people read things like "hide the decline" and jump to conclusions that they are hiding "global cooling"..... that is FALSE, and DEBUNKED.

You people read e-mails that say "they had to pad the data while smoothing it" and you jump to conclusions and don't even consider the reasons for smoothing the data and how they effect the outcome.

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....

This happens in foreign exchange trading all the time, I know from personal experience, and you can test it yourself. You choose different types of graphs, some smoother than others, and you will get direct conflicts between two graphs. They both show the same exact data, one just has more data than others, and the trends look completely different.

When you are comparing two different charts, both that have been smoothed, side by side, and your point of comparing the charts is to see how they relate to each other... the errors in smoothing will show declines and inclines that are not accurate.


All of you are jumping to conclusions! It is ridiculous! The e-mails are being misinterpreted.



The e-mails do NOT over power the thousands and thousands of scientific studies done over the years.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



Look Dude... Most of us don't know if it is really a problem or not.... and WHY does it matter.... I mean really... CAP & TRADE (the BS solution) will do nothing except make the "chosen" rich and give the "chosen" unbridled power over everything in the "name" of the environment.

The CAP & TRADE is a FINANCIAL SCAM!!!

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.... the science is clear that ENRON's golden financial money maker will do NOTHING for CO2 levels but will make the Elite rich at our expense..

Enough said? Because all the hype is about getting the CAP & TRADE SCAM up and operational and screwing the public.... All the power and money it brings to all those who have worked so hard to screw the rest of us.

You want solutions for real? Here they are. Stop trying to justify the freeking CAP & TRADE scam with BS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you know what... these solutions ALSO make us energy independent (A national security issue) AND creates natural fertilizer (which would piss off Monsanto) So they are GOOD things to do anyway!

Thank You.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
This is what you don't understand. We are not going against MMGW because of (insert reason here__________) we are going against the theory of MMGW because the science doesn't add up.


Wow you could have fooled me!

So far it seems a good majority of people don't believe MMGW because of these stupid e-mails.

Also, they don't believe because they are too lazy to do anything about it. Like ride a bike, buy more efficient devices, invent more efficient devices, simplify tasks, and over all lower their carbon footprint.

Or, they don't believe because they hate the people who do believe it, or the "side" those people are on. I don't even have to say Al Gore twice. Heck maybe they even hate Stephen Hawking, because he warns about MMGW.

I don't know...... it could be a number of reasons...

The reason MMGW doesn't add up for you, is because it really isn't a simple addition problem. You have to take a lot of factors into account.

There are many great minds who "get it". I don't see why you people don't. Or maybe I do...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



And we could finally know, one way or another, which side was right.[/qoute]

If any side is actually right. There needs to be a lot more data to be able to actually determine anything. We need a lot bigger data set than just 160 years. Also we can't just throw the data out, but at the same time how can we verify that at the time the data was recorded was it correct? I doubt there are detailed records suitable for scientific analysis from 160 years ago.

I also would like to mention that I don't trust the MetOffice either seeing how close they were with the CRU. What really should be done is an independent analysis by parties that have nothing to gain that can be trusted to be neutral in the matter. Also things like Tree Ring Proxies and Sediment studies should be excluded because that data is unreliable.

Unfortunately the whole thing needs to be started over from scratch. Which is a real shame.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Actually, I never wished "all my opponents" would disappear, but only the ones that insult me and call me names.

No, you said, without provocation, that "people are evil and dumb," which is your justification for insulting everyone in your petulant and undereducated tirades. You have no respect for anyone who is capable of seeing through your Wikipedia-driven hysterics. Which is everyone.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I tore you a new one...

I haven't looked back there to see if anyone has tore me a new one, but I'm sure if anyone was back there, it would be you. That seems like your natural environment.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
F.Y.I. Wiki is not a "source"

Stop using it as a source, then.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Another source of man-made CO2: Deforestation

More Wikipedia sources.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I bet you feel humiliated now.

No more humiliated than I would feel watching a retarded child struggling to assemble scientific evidence.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Here is a NOAA source:
The global oceans are the largest natural reservoir for this excess carbon dioxide...and over the next millennium, is expected to absorb approximately 90% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

No comment necessary. Stop worrying about it, you ninny. The oceans handle it all.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You are just a troll who will deny all facts...

No, I almost always agree with facts when they're presented to me. Lies, exaggerations, dimwitted distortions, gullible half-truths, I'll argue every time.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Greenhouse gas = warmth. If Earth didn't have greenhouse gases, Earth would freeze up. So more greenhouse gases equals more warmth. The Earth relies on greenhouse gases to stay warm. Without them, everything would freeze up. Since humans are producing more and more greenhouse gases every year, it is only logical to conclude that the Earth will get warmer because of it. Do you see how simple that logic is?

I see how you consistently attempt to overlook the Sun as the ultimate source of warmth that has anything to do with life on this planet. But then, the half-baked MGW hoax is all about denying the Sun is the source of any climate change on Earth.

Which is incredibly idiotic.



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Since there is NOTHING that can absorb ALL the CO2, then the more and more we create is getting stuck in the atmosphere, causing more trapping of heat.

Hold on, you just said that the oceans are expected to absorb 90% of all atmospheric CO2 over the next thousand years.

And we're not creating more CO2 in a year than is produced by, say, a single active volcano in one day. What's your solution to volcanoes? Tax them?

LOL... Whatta maroon.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


I don't support Cap and Trade, nor am I trying to justify it. The Cap and Trade idea can crash and burn for all I care. I know there are crooks and liars who are trying to make money from it. I see that clear as day....

However, I do also see how taxing people for their emissions will get them to reduce emissions. It is just like fining people for parking violations, it will get them to at least try to stop violating parking laws.

I just hate when people say MMGW is a hoax just because people are trying to make money from Cap and Trade.

MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it. Not even I would agree if someone could prove CO2 doesn't trap heat and humans make more than Earth can absorb.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

The reason MMGW doesn't add up for you, is because it really isn't a simple addition problem. You have to take a lot of factors into account.

I think I can handle more than simple addition.

I held a straight 'A' average throughout school, taking every advanced math course that was offered. In college (engineering), I aced every single math and physics class, holding a 4.0 GPA overall while working one full time job and one part time job. I started my career out of high school as a lowly Draftsman, and by the time I was 30 I was head of the design department at a large fabrication plant. I owned my own design firm for ten years after that, a firm which was known as the most prestigious in the area, if I do say so myself. I have worked privately in electronics for over 30 years, not in repair, but in design and prototyping. I have the capability to create any electronic project from scratch, from initial idea to working model, at my home.

I do not normally talk about such things, but the continuous condescension from yourself and others in this vein is trying. I am well-educated and mathematically adept; yet there are plenty of minds on ATS whom I would be cautious about going up against.

You really should be careful about making judgments about others, especially those you do not know.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by infolurker
 


I don't support Cap and Trade, nor am I trying to justify it. The Cap and Trade idea can crash and burn for all I care. I know there are crooks and liars who are trying to make money from it. I see that clear as day....

However, I do also see how taxing people for their emissions will get them to reduce emissions. It is just like fining people for parking violations, it will get them to at least try to stop violating parking laws.

I just hate when people say MMGW is a hoax just because people are trying to make money from Cap and Trade.

MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it. Not even I would agree if someone could prove CO2 doesn't trap heat and humans make more than Earth can absorb.


I apologize for having assumed that you supported CAP & CON. I agree, I want "Real" alternative cheap clean energy (Like Algae Oil, Garbage Plasma, and biochar) because of both pollution and National Security (100% energy independence.) I fully believe we could harvest enough algae oil to meet and even exceed 100% of our needs and possibly even export in a few years. Garbage plasma takes care of our solid wastes by 99% thus saving Landfill space (The Japanese are actually digging up old landfills to use as fuel) and clean nuclear power to meet 100% of our electrical generation needs.

The primary thing standing in the way of progress IS the CAP & CON scam. Nothing will get done to solve pollution or CO2 as the "problem" is needed to "justify" the scam.

Spend a few minutes to check this out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Algae oil and garbage plasma are awesome technologies.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Trying to insult my intelligence is not a good way to get somebody to see your side of things. Also the only evidence you have of MMGW is what a supposed "expert" as told you. If you actually had the ability to be objective you would come to the same conclusions as the "deniers".

You are acting more like a religious zealot than anything. Also Billy Graham has said that Jesus is going to come back he is a "great-mind" as you put it so I guess I should believe him too.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it.

The "great" Stephen Hawkings hasn't actually done anything except sit in a wheelchair for most of his life and theorize about astrophysical subjects that we can never validate before our species becomes extinct or evolves into another species. Astrophysics is a monumental edifice of theory that cannot be validated.

In fact, the closer they are to Earth, the less accurate are the theories of astrophysicists (and scientists in general).

So what has Stephen Hawkings actually done to warrant our awe and reverence?

Hm. I think he appeared on an episode of Star Trek once.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Lol.






I won't even post my feelings.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, you said, without provocation, that "people are evil and dumb," which is your justification for insulting everyone in your petulant and undereducated tirades. You have no respect for anyone who is capable of seeing through your Wikipedia-driven hysterics. Which is everyone.


No I said people are evil and dumb and jump to conclusions in reference to why those scientists would quit their job after the release of the e-mails.

But thanks for showing me your lack or reading comprehension.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I haven't looked back there to see if anyone has tore me a new one, but I'm sure if anyone was back there, it would be you. That seems like your natural environment.


I guess it is normal for people to tear you a new one and you not feel it. You are probably used to it by now.

Who said the new one is in the back? I guess you used your subconscious thoughts to write that above quote. You should be careful next time, your subconscious thoughts can reveal your desires.




Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Stop using it as a source, then.


I don't use it as a source, I use it as a collection of sources.




Originally posted by Doc Velocity
More Wikipedia sources.


You have to be a fool to deny CO2 from deforestation because there are 1000's of sources that prove it. So now you are just being a troll.




Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No more humiliated than I would feel watching a retarded child struggling to assemble scientific evidence.


You would know how that feels because you have been trying to assemble scientific evidence this entire time.

Mean while, my original post includes all the science that is needed. I also linked to sources that you like (NOAA), which prove that global temperatures are rising, and so are CO2 levels.

they even explain how greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm, and that humans are making more greenhouse gases. Only a fool would deny the possibility of MMGW.





Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No comment necessary. Stop worrying about it, you ninny. The oceans handle it all.


...and you know this how? From a source in 2005? After I showed you evidence and reasons and sources that show the oceans ability to absorb CO2 is decreasing?

You know 90% is not "ALL"? 100% is all. So even if their prediction is true, which it isn't, we still have a problem.

You FAIL. AGAIN.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, I almost always agree with facts when they're presented to me. Lies, exaggerations, dimwitted distortions, gullible half-truths, I'll argue every time.


Then you must argue with yourself a lot.

Do you agree that man is making greenhouse gases?

Do you agree that greenhouse gases warm the Earth?

Do you agree that, right now, not all 100% of the greenhouse gases are being absorbed?




Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I see how you consistently attempt to overlook the Sun as the ultimate source of warmth that has anything to do with life on this planet. But then, the half-baked MGW hoax is all about denying the Sun is the source of any climate change on Earth.


WTF are you talking about. I have commented on this topic multiple times, even replied to you, saying that the Sun is one of the causes. Why would you ever say I overlooked it?

OH I know why, because you are a lying troll.

Even if the Sun was the cause of all recent warming, that still makes our greenhouse gases a threat, because it will ADD to the warming. DUH!



Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Hold on, you just said that the oceans are expected to absorb 90% of all atmospheric CO2 over the next thousand years.


I didn't say that, your source (NOAA) which you made me link to said that. It is a prediction, and not yet true. I have already posted lots of scientific reasons for the oceans to absorb LESS in the future. I already posted multiple sources for that too. However since you are troll, you don't really care, you will only pick out what supports your beliefs.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And we're not creating more CO2 in a year than is produced by, say, a single active volcano in one day. What's your solution to volcanoes? Tax them?


That is another lie that you and your followers believe.



hvo.wr.usgs.gov...



Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.


Deny Ignorance!


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
LOL... Whatta maroon.


Nice try at insulting me, yet again.

It's actually fun proving you wrong multiple times and watching you attempt to insulting me, and fail.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


What a wonderful way to belittle someone who has accomplished and overcome so much more than you and I could ever hope to.


In fact, the closer they are to Earth, the less accurate are the theories of astrophysicists (and scientists in general).


That's a very revealing statement!

AllisOne

I wouldn't get too heated about some of the responses in the thread. They aren't worried about finding the truth. Rather, they are fixated on the goal of discrediting anything proposed by someone who does not fall within their narrowly defined political views.

They will on one hand discredit science and experts in the field, and then on the other use the work of those same people to try and prove their point.

Let's also not forget that it's completely possible to be unaffected by cap and trade, it just requires work and responsibility. Interesting that those that extol hard work and individual responsibility would screech in terror when something comes along that might require them to practice what they preach, so to speak.

And I suppose it's fine for them to rail on the bailouts and how our children will be drowning in debt, but when companies that control the global energy supply are draining their wallets, corrupting their land, and ensuring a darker world for their kids in the here and now, it's all good and fine.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

So what has Stephen Hawkings actually done to warrant our awe and reverence?

— Doc Velocity


He has proven himself to be able to compute complex mathematical equations, and to comprehend complex ideas.

Not only that but he is a highly decorated physicist, and a professor. He has proven himself to be a capable and worthy thinker. Unlike you.

He has done more in a wheelchair than you will ever do in your life.

Now, unlike what the other member has claimed, I don't believe MMGW is real because someone else said it. I believe because I am also capable of complex thoughts, and I don't need graphs and data to understand and see what is obvious.

I know a lot about different wavelengths of light, and the Sun, which is why I have an image of the Sun as an avatar. I also know how that light travels throughout our universe, and how it acts with different matter. I know that CO2 lets through one wavelength, but not another. I can prove this at home with my vehicle, and a few different lights. I also know how easy it is for humans to effect the weather, I can make clouds if I want. I can see that there are millions of vehicles producing insane amounts of CO2, and there is no real place for that CO2 to go. It's going to stick around and trap light, which is heat.

It really isn't as complex as you all think it is. However since you all think it is so complex, it doesn't "add up" for you. You are over complicating it, which is humanities number one flaw with knowledge regarding this universe.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You know 90% is not "ALL"? 100% is all. So even if their prediction is true, which it isn't, we still have a problem.

You said that without greenhouse gases, the Earth would freeze... So, obviously, there must be some greenhouse gases left in the atmosphere. The oceans will absorb 90% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the next thousand years, the remaining 10% will maintain the equilibrium of Earth's climate.

You're contradicting yourself... Again.


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that man is making greenhouse gases?

Mankind has been making greenhouse gases for some 7 million years, just as every living thing on Earth produces greenhouse gases and has done so since life first appeared on this planet 3.5 billion years ago.


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that greenhouse gases warm the Earth?

No. The Sun warms the Earth. When the Sun increases its thermal output, the Earth (and all the other planets) warm up as well. There is evidence right now that other planets and moons in our solar system are warming up.

The planet Mars has an almost 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere, yet its warmest climate is about the same temperature as a deep freeze — around 0° Farenheit. Yet there was liquid water and probably Life on Mars a few billion years ago. So, we know Mars was receiving enough solar radiation to liquify water on its surface at one time. So why is a planet with near 100% CO2 atmosphere a sub-zero graveyard?

Interestingly, even Mars is showing slight signs of Global Warming near its poles, as are several of the large moons of Jupiter and Saturn, not to mention far-distant Neptune. Hmm. Is this due to manmade greenhouse gases, as well?

No. It's due to the Sun.


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that, right now, not all 100% of the greenhouse gases are being absorbed?

Obviously, not all greenhouse gases are being absorbed, or — as you yourself have attempted to articulate — the global temperature would plummet precipitously.

See, you're chasing your own tail with this condemnation of greenhouse gases, but you won't even consider that as the Sun increases its thermal output, CO2 gases are released on planet Earth. The Sun is the cause of the release of greenhouse gases... Warmer Sun, more CO2 gas. Cooler sun, less CO2 gas.

That doesn't work for your argument, however, because you need someone to blame and belittle.

— Doc Velocity






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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it.

The "great" Stephen Hawkings hasn't actually done anything except sit in a wheelchair for most of his life and theorize about astrophysical subjects that we can never validate before our species becomes extinct or evolves into another species. Astrophysics is a monumental edifice of theory that cannot be validated.

....

— Doc Velocity



I have yet to hear any testimony from Hawkings upon the issue at all, but I do know for a fact that Buzz Aldrin called it "garbage", and Jack Schmitt is a hardline skeptic. I have no clue about you folks, but I will take the word of an American Hero over that of some ramped up activist scientist with an agenda, anyday of the week.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
I have no clue about you folks, but I will take the word of an American Hero over that of some ramped up activist scientist with an agenda, anyday of the week.

Well, yeah, a "great scientist" who publicly makes anti-religion wisecracks through his voice synthesizer and who makes his liberal political bias no secret. I don't particularly respect Stephen Hawkings for anything, because he hasn't earned my respect. Show me something he's done for which I should respect him... Spewing a bunch of theory and formulae is not an accomplishment.

Virtually anybody can point up into the sky and make a generalized declaration — "Something will happen over there probably at some point in time!"



And if Hawkings endorses manmade climate change, that's the main reason not to respect him.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/5/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Right on Doc!




Wow. Nice thread topic, er ah? Talk about Desperation!


I don't need to name names, but the few of you defending this thread (the obvious) to support Global Goreing to the very end.

It shows through like a clear glass window; A little too Desperate.


Stop Lying! Your busted!:



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
[Stephen Hawkings] has done more in a wheelchair than you will ever do in your life.

Hmm. That's a wild conjecture, I'd say. Without a doubt, I've done more physical things than Stephen Hawkings ever has. Stephen Hawkings would pay me a million bucks just to inhabit my adventurous body for 15 minutes. LOL

He's a curiosity, to be sure — I mean, he's not even supposed to be alive at this point, which makes him a freak of nature on top of everything else.

I still don't see his qualifications for pronouncing on manmade global warming aside from his liberal political bias. He's not a climatologist, he's not a student of earth science or hydrology — he's basically just a liberal physicist who enjoys commenting on subjects outside of his field of expertise.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 12/5/2009 by Doc Velocity]




top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join