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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

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......


My point exactly, neither you nor any of us know for certain that AGW is hoax, but it sure looks like the scientists screwed the dog and made it look like more than it is for political and/or financial gain. Or do you believe in the Cult of AGW because the sloth-like ManBearPig promoting, and supposedly Stephen Hawking believing, this tripe? Al Gore simply appears to be a liar and a fool, but at least a well spoken one, he can read his lines like a good extra large parrot. Stephen Hawking, well, it wouldn't take much to reprogram his chair interface to say he had buggered Mickey Mouse or slept with Tiger Woods' wife. Is that all you really have now?

BTW, I really like the way you glossed over the simple fact that polar caps are receding on other planets. Hmmm, that must be AGW because of what? Light reflecting off earth because of global warming. That's a lot of energetic photons traveling 140+ million miles, we must look like the Sun from Mars.

Climate change is real, it speeds up and slows down due to MAJOR influences. We're just "bugs" here and nothing compared to, as someone said, the emissions from a volcano.

Don't you get it? The scientists screwed up their own credibility because of politics. They cooked the books to pretend that "we" cooked the planet when it may just be the Sun. A rational person doesn't believe in so called facts that come attached with self interest and agenda.

Now what happens if we go into a depressed solar cycle that drops temperature globally, will that be AGC even if the Sun is the cause. I bet it would be. All fanatics and zealots, religious or otherwise, cannot differentiate their mantra and programmed view of the world from reality. They become a unique kind of manic sociopath that is always in a state of denial and that everyone's opposing beliefs are wrong. And I will re-iterate, I believe their is climate change occurring, I just don't believe the primary motivator is caused by humans.

Cheers - Dave

PS. I got bored and thought I would come back...LOL

[edit on 12/5.2009 by bobs_uruncle]




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You failed again, and once again showed that you don't know basic English.

Not only have I been writing for longer than you have been alive, but I have been writing professionally (in English) for many prestigious universities, professors, and government agencies, including the FBI, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...to name but a few.

My grasp of English is not in question here.

Your credibility, which is floating almost entirely upon incomplete and half-baked and manipulated data, is what is in question here.

— Doc Velocity






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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Oh I can see it now, 911 happened to show how the climate can be manipulated by the lack of air traffic - great.



Well that settles it, it was an inside job.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Allisone,

Here are some questions you can answer yourself to divine the truth;

Is there a political reason to promote AGW?
Is there a financial reason to promote AGW?
Is the stock market already geared up to trade carbon points?
Did the IPCC scientists suppress or deny outside peer review?
Did the IPCC scientists blacklist other scientists with opposing findings?
Did the IPCC scientists ridicule other scientists with opposing findings?
Were IPCC scientists actively hostile to scientists with opposing findings?
Was the original IPCC temp database deliberately destroyed by IPCC scientists?
Have IPCC scientists tried to obfuscate critical AGW issues?
Did IPCC scientists try to manipulate scientific publications to remove or not print opposing findings?
Did IPCC or other scientists break the law regarding the FOIA?
Were the temperature formulas manipulated to generate desirable outcomes?
Does a government, local CFR or other UN related entity pay for the IPCC?
In the solar system are other planets heating or cooling in parallel?

Remember that he who pays the piper, chooses the tune. BTW, have you read the UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty, I have and have read it in detail. Just look at section 38 items a, b and c, those are the mandates. They are written with a lot of legal leeway, but the intent is quite clear.

From what I know, having read in the emails, analyzed the programming code, examined documents on the UN sites, examined documents from Goldman Sachs my answer to every single question is YES. How much are AGW opposing findings, seen or NOT SEEN in the mainstream media? How much is the Sun (or maybe we are traveling through a nebula too close to resolve) causing the problem, it's all up for rational debate. But to say unequivocally, knowing what we know of this mess coined "Climategate," that climate changes are ALL man-made is IMHO obscenely juvenile and betrays the mindset of a pubescent religious zealot.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but it can never be a lie...

In the Governments Socialist Republik of Kanadakistan (Canada) the Harper traitor, knowing all the facts of this debacle is still going to Copenhagen. Knowing (and Harper was probably instrumental) that the letters from brainwashed and politically manipulated children seeing or learning selective pro-AGW lessons, asking Harper to sign the treaty, came through assignment instructions to high school students it seems from the boards of education and his own ministers. I have spoken with many students and asked the question concerning this assignment in multiple schools and they were all asked or told to write the letter asking Harper to sign the treaty.

The deceit, ignorance and obscenity of this act alone is just the insulting icing on the proverbial cake. To me, it looks like mental and emotional child abuse by our government, who would have thunk it, considering all the other crap they do? This Climategate affair runs very deep and I seriously hope our politicians that support the Copenhagen Treaty or any treaty that removes autonomous control from countries are charged with treason.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/5.2009 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 



1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

843161829
I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ...I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have

1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

938018124
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this (cooling trend) was a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show

938018124
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

1255523796
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!

1120593115
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

1051190249
I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

1089318616
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,


Him only covering 2 actual quotes from the emails is what the CRU crew refer to as "Cherry Picking". And we don't have to be scientists to be able to understand what a lot of this stuff means, meanwhile scientists are showing us more and more into the gritty everyday.

His videos were pretty balanced untilt that last one, throwing derogetory words against CRU critics. But declaring that 'debunking' 2 phrases debunks all of the emails is way off, as even the explainations only show more into the flaws of the data (although he doesnt frame it as such).

And so far the rest of his videos have mainly only debunked each side of the argument, showing a little into what we dont know. He would have plenty more to go for us to even see his conclusion, but if hes going to go on a crusade to re-credit the unscientists we might guess where hes going with it...

[edit on 5-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Produce and create are basically the same thing.

Umm....

No.

What we have here is failure to communicate.
(I say this as your battered body rolls metaphorically into the ditch)

We know that production and creation, within the parameters of our discussion, are two entirely different things.

I could play these semantic games all night long; however, I'm also posting on several other message boards tonight, so I'm not going to break a sweat and waste my time on this OP's hate rants.

See ya! Wooden wanna be ya!


— Doc Velocity




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



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


thesaurus.reference.com...

seriously, you've been writing for universities and you still don't know English?

produce or create are the same thing.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


When I said create, I meant produce. The only one arguing semantics is you AND you are going so far off topic that you are just trolling.

Do you realize how dumb you sound right now for arguing about how much energy you and I wasted discussing your lack or knowledge and utter ignornace of the topic?

You keep going off topic and forcing me to go with, you are a troll, plain and simple. GO AWAY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Funny how you feebly attempt to say that Al Gore's information and that of these scientists is correct when the truth about the whole matter is they have been "fudging" the numbers to gain support for Al Gore's bullpucky opinion on global warming.

The thing about global warming that seems to get overlooked by the main stream media is that all of our planets are heating up and its not due to CO2, on the contrary, there is a more important explanation of why its happening. Most folks are in denial about it and most folks don't care either.

All I can say is that Al Gore and his followers have been BUSTED !!!!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I think both sides have a great deal to gain from falsifying data for the sake of winning the argument.

Pro-Warming would get the national budget in its favor, with money being used to research new ways to use energy, limiting oil companies until they would be completely illegal.

Non-Warming side would see oil companies eventually with no restrictions to digging, as well as the national budget being leaned in favor of oil companies. If we're not causing global warming, there would be no need to research other alternatives and oil would be king.



either way, someone is going to get rich.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Evisscerator
 


I never once said Al Gore is correct.

Actually, I post a video that starts of saying that Al Gore is not a scientist so nothing he says will be used to support GW. Only science would be used...

I never endorsed or even supported Al Gore, and Al Gore can burn in hell for all I care....

So, that pretty much throws your post out of the water. I don't need Al Gore, or any scientist for that matter to tell me that MMGW is real.

Just because all the planets are warming up because of solar activity, doesn't mean humans are not producing excess greenhouse gases which could increase Earth's warming.

We have to deal with both solar forces and greenhouse gases forces.

Thinking that because all the other planets may be warming, so GW is false, is not science. That is a false conclusion.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Here's my problem. I'm a layperson. I don't understand the science behind theories of global warming and climate change, let alone the evidence in support of either "camp."

All I know is that I've seen just as many leaked memos, secret intelligence reports, etc. that suggest that man-made global warming is being covered up and downplayed as I have things like these hacked emails that suggest it's being fabricated. So which is true? How am I to know?

As a skeptic, I can't jump to either conclusion without absolute, irrefutable proof. Unfortunately, since I don't understand the science, I can't have my need for proof satisfied unless I place my faith in experts on one side or the other of this debate, both of which have repeatedly demonstrated their bias in my opinion.

That's why for the time being I am steadfastly remaining open-minded to both possibilities, and maintaining the stance that regardless of whether climate change is being caused primarily by us or not, it is still something we are going to have to deal with as a species and a society, one way or another.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


A politician silencing a scientist doesnt even compute when scientists are trying to silence other scientists. That is unscience, kind of like Bush


You dont need to be a scientist to understand the meaning of the emails I posted in my last post just up the page there^



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Absolutely. But what conclusion to draw from that is another matter entirely, and without proof and a greater understanding of the science, I can't (and won't) draw one.

Regardless, it's sad that science is being used for any agenda, irrespective of which one it is.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I don't need Al Gore, or any scientist for that matter to tell me that MMGW is real.

Thinking that because all the other planets may be warming, so GW is false, is not science. That is a false conclusion.


Then how do you know (what)??

You're 'off the hook', and you dodged my post with impossible email quotes.

"GW is not false". Right now we're in a cooling trend, so I guess GC isnt either?

So do please comment on the emails I just posted up there^



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Question Does it really matter what they are hiding/lying about, tree-trunks or nay, aren't scientists that intentionally hide data dishonest and mis-practicing science?

Answer: IF they were truly able to do what scientists should do - which is present and try explain meaning of data - they will present ALL data they collect, and explain why certain data is erroneous - that is how SCIENCE works - you should show all your data - and if any is anomalous you state it and why, - and it is the job of the scientific community at large to decide whether or not the reasoning is logical or flawed in any way.

It's madness to say - forget the hammer - let's just brush it under the carpet. GEE MAN!! So it's okay because it's a tree trunk data that is being hidden?? (hah!) Justifying that certain data is 'unimportant' is dangerous, and not scientific - any scientists knows they *should* include it in their research, otherwise it can only be partial - that's not science - thats a dictate.

The fact that disinformation agents on this site, specifically ignore the fact of the matter . Science isn't science when it intentionally hides data from the analysis and peer review process - is not only dishonest - it's NOT SCIENCE.

Worse still, it shows intellectual inability to describe the process, which means most importantly of all it MUST BE OUT in the community for further analyses/debunking.

Negligence has probably been committed, somewhere IMO.

The only thing that is left for disinformation agents on this site to do now, is to ignore my statements, and attack my personal credibility.

Go ahead!!! Here's a doosie for you -

IS CLIMATE CHANGE INFORMATION ALL PUBLIC? Then how can it actually be scientific in the first place? Oh, yeah! that's right! It NEVER has been.

Abductee.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Allisone,

Here are some questions you can answer yourself to divine the truth;

Is there a political reason to promote AGW?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Is there a financial reason to promote AGW?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Is the stock market already geared up to trade carbon points?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Did the IPCC scientists suppress or deny outside peer review?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Did the IPCC scientists blacklist other scientists with opposing findings?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Did the IPCC scientists ridicule other scientists with opposing findings?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Were IPCC scientists actively hostile to scientists with opposing findings?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Was the original IPCC temp database deliberately destroyed by IPCC scientists?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Have IPCC scientists tried to obfuscate critical AGW issues?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Did IPCC scientists try to manipulate scientific publications to remove or not print opposing findings?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Did IPCC or other scientists break the law regarding the FOIA?


Not sure.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Were the temperature formulas manipulated to generate desirable outcomes?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Does a government, local CFR or other UN related entity pay for the IPCC?


Probably.


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
In the solar system are other planets heating or cooling in parallel?


Probably. But what does all that have to do with greenhouse gases collecting in our atmosphere in abundance?


Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Remember that he who pays the piper, chooses the tune. BTW, have you read the UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty, I have and have read it in detail. Just look at section 38 items a, b and c, those are the mandates. They are written with a lot of legal leeway, but the intent is quite clear.

From what I know, having read in the emails, analyzed the programming code, examined documents on the UN sites, examined documents from Goldman Sachs my answer to every single question is YES. How much are AGW opposing findings, seen or NOT SEEN in the mainstream media? How much is the Sun (or maybe we are traveling through a nebula too close to resolve) causing the problem, it's all up for rational debate. But to say unequivocally, knowing what we know of this mess coined "Climategate," that climate changes are ALL man-made is IMHO obscenely juvenile and betrays the mindset of a pubescent religious zealot.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but it can never be a lie...

In the Governments Socialist Republik of Kanadakistan (Canada) the Harper traitor, knowing all the facts of this debacle is still going to Copenhagen. Knowing (and Harper was probably instrumental) that the letters from brainwashed and politically manipulated children seeing or learning selective pro-AGW lessons, asking Harper to sign the treaty, came through assignment instructions to high school students it seems from the boards of education and his own ministers. I have spoken with many students and asked the question concerning this assignment in multiple schools and they were all asked or told to write the letter asking Harper to sign the treaty.

The deceit, ignorance and obscenity of this act alone is just the insulting icing on the proverbial cake. To me, it looks like mental and emotional child abuse by our government, who would have thunk it, considering all the other crap they do? This Climategate affair runs very deep and I seriously hope our politicians that support the Copenhagen Treaty or any treaty that removes autonomous control from countries are charged with treason.

Cheers - Dave



Your problem is you are letting a bunch of people decide for you. You see all this drama happening, and you can only conclude from that drama that something is false, or someone is lying, or there is some conspiracy. Then you jump to conclusions and instantly deny everything that has ever been said about global warming.

Why are you ignoring the pure facts about our massive amounts of CO2 that are being created, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I don't see how anything you have ever said has anything to do with the physical reality of CO2, everything you said is about politics surrounding it.

Global warming was predicted when humans still used horses and carriages (see the video in my op). It is still as valid then, as it is now. It was a scientific theory that has been supported continuously by known facts.

You can do the math yourself. Calculate the amount of barrels of oil that are turned into gas and burned each year. Then calculate how many pounds of CO2 come from each burnt gallon of gas. You will find that humans create more CO2 than the Earth can absorb. So where does that extra CO2 go? It stays in the air, and collects heat. That's it....

We produce more and more CO2 each year. We make more cars, we make more power plants, we have more humans and waste more resources. The amount of CO2 is increasing, and the Earth's ability to absorb CO2 is not.

This means global warming is inevitable. It is not only real, but is inevitable.... unless we do something. Maybe wont be a real problem for another 100 years, but it will be a problem.

It could be a huge problem if it changes climate around farms, and prevents them from growing food. That has already happening. If it is the Sun then, we probably can't do much about it, but we have many reason to believe it is CO2, so we need to do something about it.

Get Google Earth, and zoom in on California. Zoom in on all the cars, and start counting. It's disgusting. There are more cars than there are people. They drive and sit in traffic for hours every day.... Something has to be done about it.

Denying MMGW is like denying one of your farts in a closed space next to your friends.

]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I may have to say HOAX onto you again

I am the keeper of the sacred word HOAX. Hoooaaax.

I will say hoax upon you, if you do not appease us.


Or may I say NEEEE on to you.




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
seriously, you've been writing for universities and you still don't know English?

Where do you get that? Like, zip, out of thin air? I still gave you a star.


Originally posted by piddles
produce or create are the same thing.

Hmm. No. Not even. Like, how do you get there? Within the context of the discussion, produce is a verb, and create is a verb. Wait... hold on... what am I doing here, slipping into a semantic squabble at five in the morning?

No, I'm not starting off my Saturday on a sour note.

The OP is toast, the thread's run its predictable course, and look... There's the sunrise! On crisp fallen snow...

COFFEE

— Doc Velocity



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Then how do you know (what)??


I am technically a scientist. I do scientific experiments, and used the scientific process. I know from my own conclusions, not other peoples conclusions. It seems ATS is stuck on what other people say, and they don't do their own logical thinking process.

Ive explained many times in this thread why I know MMGW is a real threat to humans.

It's simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (fact). Humans are creating more CO2 than Earth can absorb (fact). That conclusion means we have extra CO2 in the atmosphere that can absorb heat.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're 'off the hook', and you dodged my post with impossible email quotes.


That is because I have no clue in what context those quote are from. Neither do you... You can't just pull out a bunch of random e-mails that have juice words in them and automatically conclude what they are really talking about. You think you can but you can't.

There are many legitimate reasons to manipulate data. I'm not going to be a lemming and follow the general conclusion that you and others have already made.

How would you like if I went to another topic you replied on, took some of your posts out of context and tried to fabricate a whole conspiracy around them? It would suck because I could twist your words around to mean something it didn't mean, even though you said it, and use those words.

OUT OF CONTEXT...I'm sure you know what that is.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"GW is not false". Right now we're in a cooling trend, so I guess GC isnt either?


Like stated in the video I posted in the original post that many of you didn't watch.

You CANT go outside and feel the weather and conclude if global warming or cooling is real or false. It's all about the science.

The science right now tells us that CO2 levels are rising and not stopping, because they have nowhere to go. Earth is a big bubble and we are filling it up with poison.

Global cooling is not happening because we are continuously increasing greenhouse gases. I already posts a link saying "cooling trend does not refute global warming". Please read the thread.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join