Anderson Cooper 360 "Climategate" Debate

Anderson Cooper 360 "Climategate" Debate

videocafe.crooksandliars.com

Nontroversy feeds on empty, twisted brains. In this case, a general unfamiliarity with the language of scientific banter allows the "climategate" nontroversy to overwhelm the consensus on global warming. That consensus is built on literally hundreds of thousands of studies at this point; and indeed, the stolen emails contain a wealth of proof that temperatures are rising. Yet the media stovepipe magnifies, even invents, discrepancies and minimizes evidence, even as the ice melts.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"Consensus" is the key word here. Nontroversy always aims to distort or destroy consensus. Birther sites and ACORN fantasies exist for the sole purpose of undermining the democratic consensus of last November's election; and insofar as they have convinced a majority of Republicans, they have succeeded.

So don't tell me that nontroversy doesn't matter. It really, really matters. We need to understand its biological processes.

videocafe.crooksandliars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes, because we all know that performing "Neat Tricks" with data sets, and "Redefining Peer Review" in order to shut-out debate, are all in fact harmless aspects of misunderstood "Scientific banter".

Just how STUPID do these excusers of fraud think that the American people (As well as the general public by-in-large) truly are?

I love Anderson Cooper. I know how many of you hate him, but on the off chance that he's reading this...

I support you and I love you.

And, as a token for every thread on this issue...

Climate Change is real, and honestly ignoring it is giving yourself a reason to be lazy and not care about your impact on the environment. If you believe honestly that you have no negative impact on the environment, feel free to say it to my face and have a realistic conversation about why you feel that you don't need to change your consumption of resources.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Environment does not equal climate. I don't think you will find one person that disagrees with you that we are having a negative impact on the environment, but we have nothing to do with the way the climate changes.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Actually pollution can have some pretty significant effects on climate, in both the long run and in the short term. Climate includes rainfall.

Are you saying that acid rain due to human pollution does not exist, either?

Because that's just funny.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Well that is in fact the whole debate isn't it? And the evidence shows at this time that its more than likely that we are in fact having an influence over our climate.

You're right in that climate in the main is much larger than us as a species and that the earth does have a homeostatic system that reacts very slowly. However the argument here is over what we are seeing in a very short period of time. As in other biological systems, we are quite capable of "fouling our own nest." Ultimately we will be hurting ourselves - the earth is going to be here long after we're extinct.

Isn't it better to try to find out what we might be doing and try to do something about it? Perhaps our solutions at the moment are more misinformed, knee-jerk reactions than helpful but hopefully as time goes on we will learn more about our world.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by mrsoul2009]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by mrsoul2009]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by mrsoul2009]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Again that is the environment not the Climate. Climate is the long term trend of weather patterns. Acid rain has nothing to do with Climate but does have everything to do with the environment. In fact the nature of the atmosphere and the phenomenon of acid rain is a good example of how the Climate and Atmosphere is a self regulating system.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Precipitation. I disagree. If one area that is highly polluted has a strong trend of acid rain which has affected the environment, that is a change in the climate of that region.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Climate changes....it's happened all throughout the history of the planet. I agree 100% that we consume too much, waste too much, and do not live in balance with nature and we need to. BUT...I am not convinced that WE have had as big an influence on the climate as we have been led to believe. I don't think we're helping the environment either. I have a gut feeling it's mostly about money and power.

Not up for a debate as I Rarely get back to this site.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Not so much. Precipitation is just one element to it. It is the long term trends that make up the Climate, day to day and year to year it is weather patterns.

Now since you brought up Acid Rain, I would like to point out that Volcanoes produce SO2, take Mt. St. Helens a byproduct of that was naturally occurring acid rain. Now take all the devistating natural disasters that have happened the past. Pompeii for instance, or large meteor impacts, such as the one that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs.

Our climate has always bounced backed, which is very good observation that the climate is a self regulating system. Which will naturally cleanse it self. The thing about these natural disasters is that it put all kinds of gases and chemicals in the air, CO2 just being one of many.

The earths atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5x1018) kg. The volume of the earths atmosphere is About 51,006,560,000,000 cubic kilometers (m^3)
Found using the surface area of the earth and multiplied by 100km (the Karman Line). So when you look at the sheer volume of earths atmosphere compared to how much we emit and taking into account the past events in the earth that have been theorized to have even caused a mass extinction event. Then take into account the high levels of CO2 present during the dinosaur era with the proof that the animals were huge along with plant life matching them. There is absolutely no basis in the theory of MMGW.

This is also for a few other reasons. The first main one that debunks the whole theory is the fact that CO2 lags temperature change, that is a fact. Second we don't have a large enough accurate data set to even being to test the hypothesis. Third we have no idea how the climate works, the only thing the "scientist" have gone off of is "when we put CO2 forcing in the models we made it gets the temperature" which tells me that they have not programmed the models properly and are lacking relevant information. Fourth, there are experiments called the CLOUD 9 experiment that will help determine if clouds produce a negative or positive experiment. The Previous CLOUDS 3 experiment has shown signs that clouds are a negative Feedback system. The current models have clouds acting as a positive feedback.

Plus lots more things. Also past observations of climate trends show that we are no warmer today than we have been in the past. Therefore there is no evidence of MMGW.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Precipitation. I disagree. If one area that is highly polluted has a strong trend of acid rain which has affected the environment, that is a change in the climate of that region.

I believe the point which "Hastobemoretolife" is attempting to convey, is that "Acid Rain" is a localized issue. This means that it can be handled in a fairly simplified and well established manner, whereas the Global Climate by-in-large is a massively complex and wide ranging system composed of thousands if not millions of localized patterns and micro-systems (Even though the main drivers are themselves massive).

I agree wholeheartedly that "Acid Rain" is one of the few true issues which we need to, and CAN in fact bring forth a solution towards. "Climate Change" however is an incorrect term to begin with, as the Climate ALWAYS changes, whereas MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming)/AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming (The same thing) ) is the actual issue being debated right now at Copenhagen. "Climate Change" simply sounds fancier as a catchphrase, and it began with an attempt by politicians to cover their tracks when they discovered that the warming had ceased by around the year 2000 AD.

Science is always ongoing in nature, and I am 100% for continuing Climate studies. The issue with the AGW theory as it stands however, is that many of the current observations have completely contradicted the projected models. Therefore common sense will dictate that we must investigate why this happened, and we need to work very hard to re-understand the original theory. Until those who still believe in AGW are willing to admit that much though, there will never be a cessation to all of this alarmist and activist filled void of bickering politicians, and subsequently manipulated science.

The bottom line, is that I am simply saying that you and others concerned with AGW should be willing to push for the other side of the debate to be heard in as strong and fervent a manner. I myself, having worked closely with the subject for years, have come across so much data and information which runs contrary to the as of now established AGW theory, that I cannot help the frustration which arises everytime I hear someone in the MSM state either something which I have opposing evidence towards, or state something which I actually know is an outright lie. I lack the voice that these individuals have, and therefore I am left shouting into the dark (Aside from possibly here on ATS, and some other forums). Now take the extremely hardworking scientists who I happen to know, and imagine how magnified such feelings are when emanating from them, especially after they spent much (if not most) of their lives trudging the world in their gathering of this data? I dare say that they absolutely deserve to be heard loud and clear, and most certainly so when they know full well of certain falsehood claims which continue to be propagated in the MSM.

I, along with many of them, completely care about the environment and the many ecosystems which compose it, but taking money away from good and well founded causes (Such as fighting AIDS, Cancer, any number of diseases, taking care of our National Security, etc.) in order to support drastic measures for an ill-proven theory, simply goes beyond logic and fairness. There is no doubt that AIDS kills people, nor that Cancer tears families apart. There is no doubt that we have major Security concerns with Terrorism, along with certain foreign States. These are certainties. AGW however is very uncertain, and it is FULL of speculation at this point. Thus, funding research for AGW is perfectly fine, but passing policy and placing major burdens upon the shoulders of people due to it, is a complete abuse of trust and power.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009


"Consensus" is the key word here. Nontroversy always aims to distort or destroy consensus. Birther sites and ACORN fantasies exist for the sole purpose of undermining the democratic consensus of last November's election; and insofar as they have convinced a majority of Republicans, they have succeeded.

So don't tell me that nontroversy doesn't matter. It really, really matters. We need to understand its biological processes.

videocafe.crooksandliars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Obama has never produced valid proof of citizenship. FACT! Acorn tried to help a prostitute import underage girls. FACT!

When faced with facts, it is only an insane person that denies that the sky is in fact blue.