It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How AGW (Climate Change) Has Become A Diversion Game

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:51 PM
In the wake of the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, there have been a great number of threads about not just the information in the leaks, but also about the proposed phenomenon of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change itself. Time and again, I have read threads that have dissolved into partisan bickering and accusations, many of which are groundless, most of which are completely irrelevant.

The science of the theory is simple; raw temperature data is hard data, and the influence of environmental factors are a measurable phenomenon. The first step in getting the theory off of the ground is comparing this data and looking for correlations and changes. Don't argue about who funded the research; raw data for this sort of thing comes from the same source, no matter who funded it. Get the raw data for yourself. Find your own sources; compare sources to verify their data. Read about the locations of key measuring stations. Compare the data sets yourself. Corrupt scientists and industry funding become irrelevant.

Step two of the theory regards the effects of various greenhouse gases. Sadly, most of the highly touted "research" here involves computer models. Computer models are not science; they are useful tools to test theories, to see if you should continue looking for real-world data that reflects your model, but they are not science. Computer models spit out data based on the data entered into them and how they are programmed to process that data. Seeing as how we do not understand every aspect of our planet from top to bottom, no model can be considered accurate. We can theorize effects of various elements on the atmosphere, but, in doing so, we cannot possibly achieve a calculation that can encompass all effects and interactions, at this time.

At this point, there is little left to turn to. Models from those who support a particular point of view, whatever it may be, give the result they desire, because they enter the information they desire. Those of us with the skills and know-how can research the composition of the atmosphere, and with these, make our own calculations about the effects of various environmental pressures on our climate, but until we understand how all these known pressures interact (which science currently does not,) and until we know that there are no other environmental pressure that we DON'T know about, we cannot make compete calculations, relevant models, or even conduct experiments to support EITHER perspective on the matter.

In the end, all the rhetoric, the accusations, the pleas to save the earth, to save the animals, to save us from taxes, whatever the pleas might be, come back to the same core data set. Does the raw data support a warming trend that is exceptional in the history of the earth? Are there differences between our time period and other times in the planet's history that we know were deviations from the norm?

I think, personally, that it is telling that the UEA threw out the raw data after making "adjustments," and that they corresponded concerning means to manipulate the data sets they did use. In science, raw data is king, because raw data is the bare facts, laid before us to understand, if we can find the means to do. Their treatment of raw data says it all.

So next time you engage in a discussion of this subject, think about the facts, the raw data. Analyze it and know it for your own sake, and if you must argue, you can then argue the facts, and not the rhetoric.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:27 PM
Here's a fact for you. Less than 1/2% of all the greenhouse effect comes from human activity.


Global warming is a cyclical phenomenon. TPTB just want another excuse to steal your money.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Im well aware of that. And thanks for providing that. I just was taking the approach, as the OP, to let others choose and verify their own sources, rather than trying to come across as picking sides...trying to challenge people to think and learn on their own. And you are helping with that


posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:44 PM
I have to say, it says something about people that I got an Applause for this thread...but only one reply. Most of all, I think maybe people just LIKE the diversion game. It's like a sport...pick a team, be a homer for them, and hate the other guys. A very dangerous thing to do, when it could affect not just our lives and the health of this planet, but that of generations to come.

top topics

log in