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.


Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:25 AM
reply to post by K-Raz

If you think all this is about global "warming" you are pretty much disqualified from this discussion

Oh, deary me! Does this mean I can't post any more? Oh, my...

This is ATS, my friend. No one disqualifies anyone from participation (except the owners of course). You do not get to pick your opponents here, like the IPCC or the CRU does.

This is not about climate change, warming temperatures, or anything of the sort. It is about power and money. That much is clear. Carbon dioxide and cries over changing climates are simply tools used to obtain that money and power.

The initial complaint made by the IPCC, Gore, Hansen, et al was termed 'Global Warming'. Somewhere in the middle of the discussion an attempt was made to change the name to 'Climate Change'. That is not something I will accept. I will therefore continue to call the fiasco concerning carbon dioxide 'Global Warming'.

The next time someone wants to make up a doomsday scenario, I respectfully suggest they at least get the name right before they start.


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:31 AM
Ohhh, so no warming at all, huh? I guess no warming is needed for melting polar ice caps...just look at how much the ice in Greenland diminished over the last 10 years!!

Also, make sure you check your sources! Dear Professor Carter is part of a right-wing group in Australia. Here's an interesting fact about him:

He is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.

Yeah, I'm sure he's totally unbiased

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.

Source: LINK

But yeah, I'm sure it's a good idea to continue burning as much fossil fuel as we can, after all, it doesn't harm the environment. Plus, it makes money for the oil companies...and after all, that's what we really want, right? RIGHT???

This latest disinformation campaign by the oil companies makes me sick!

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:39 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Wel, disrupting wind patterns would be optimal - all the energy we expell ends up as "weather" - let's get that back imo. And yes, i'm pro-nuclear - coal burning plants emit more radioactivity.

From reading your posts, i think you've already seen "who killed the electric car" - it's on googlevids if not.

Hydrogen is a big a scam as cap and trade imo - Why not use the elextricity directly instead of changing it into one of the most annoying substances? lesser eneergy density than gas, hard to store, etc....

The reason they changed it from "global warming" to climate change is, that it doesn't work like that - it might get a tad bit warmer on average, but some places get colder, some get more precipitation (like here), and other places like australia gets droughts. No one will ever care until it hits them where it hurts mosts - their wallet - sad but true

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by K-Raz

Wel, disrupting wind patterns would be optimal - all the energy we expell ends up as "weather" - let's get that back imo. And yes, i'm pro-nuclear - coal burning plants emit more radioactivity.

At this point in time, we do not know what effects wind farms will have on the prevailing wind patterns. My judgment tells me to expect that any present effect is minimal, but that at some unknown level it could become substantial.

Despite us 'getting the energy back', the weather patterns would be disrupted if we breach that point. Again, I do not believe we are at or even near that point now.

From reading your posts, i think you've already seen "who killed the electric car" - it's on googlevids if not.

Yes, I have seen it. It seems to miss a few points about the efficiency of electric cars, but I have no doubt their viability is extremely compromised by TPTB.

The oil companies have as voracious an appetite for money as does the IPCC.

Hydrogen is a big a scam as cap and trade imo - Why not use the elextricity directly instead of changing it into one of the most annoying substances? lesser eneergy density than gas, hard to store, etc....

There are possibilities for hydrogen, if we could find a way to economically produce it. Barring that, I agree.

But that means we have no chemical fuels left that do not produce carbon dioxide. We have no mobile energy source that can touch chemical fuels in energy density.

The reason they changed it from "global warming" to climate change is, that it doesn't work like that - it might get a tad bit warmer on average, but some places get colder, some get more precipitation (like here), and other places like australia gets droughts.

I suppose that could be one view. I, however, see it as a political move to hedge against any possibility that the data were to be proved wrong.

That would be like me stating that "an earthquake will hit New York in 2010" and then later saying "An earthquake or a storm will hit New York in 2010".

No one will ever care until it hits them where it hurts mosts - their wallet - sad but true

Believe it or not, there are plenty of us who do care, without our wallet hurting as the primary cause. I do not wish to see devastation. I simply do not believe the questionable 'science', the extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof, the doomsday scenarios based on a concealed computer program, or the political propaganda that fuels this debate.

I believe facts and numbers... cold, hard, exact facts and numbers. And those are sadly missing from the supporters of AGW in my observations.


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

After reading that, my respect of you grew.

One thing i would like you to consider - the idea of us changing wind patterns is as futile as us changing the climate - Double edged sword.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:08 AM
Also - biodiesel. I ran my old golf II on pure veggie oil - ethanol is a huge scam as well - During the summer time, my "gas" was free, living right next to a fast food joint, got all the oil i needed, just filtered it.

They're working on algae that contains upto 50% of their weight in oils, just feeding of wastewater.

Diesel > petrol

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:11 AM
The best way to judge and document temperature changes is not the thermometer, it is the habitat zone of flora and fauna. All living species expand their habitat by occupying areas and multiplying to an extent that temperatures are allowing them( plus food chain etc,.). If northern species of pine trees or spruces are retreating and giving way to more southern sub-polar species, it is a sign of temperature increase. If polar foxes are retreating more and more back to north, it means their natural habitat is being destroyed by the chain reaction of disapperance of their natural food supply.
Also in my country, it is raining today, and my parents nor grandparents can`t rememeber in their lifetime when it would have been raining in december. We have had these kind of warm winters in last decade, warming up more and more. More and more southern plants are slowly creeping in our country by simply surviving the warm winters.
Besides, those who claim that earth has warmed before in many periods, whether cretaceous or mesosoic, simply ignore the fact, that earth has never warmed so quickly,like 1 degree a century, it usually took thousands of years. besides, those who blame solar cycles, ignore a fact, if it was a solar cycle, the other 8 planets( and the poor Pluto as well) would show signs of comparable temperature increase, which ...doesn`t happen. And don`t tell me the bull of lack of atmosphere that would trap the heat, other planets have even denser atmospheres of sulphur etc.
Just ask a Texan if it is there `a heat as usual`. Greenland loses at least 400 cubic kilometres of ice every year, yet you are trying to convince me that it is just a conspiracy. Better browse through the history of Barents sea, and when was the last time it didn`t freeze in winter....

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:13 AM

I think burning oil is, at this point in time, our only viable option. Care to show me another energy source that can replace it?

Greater dependence on electricity, generated by Nuclear.


Hydrogen fuels generated by Nuclear.

Of course, this is still decades away. However we need to get away from fossil fuels and in the long term, nuclear is the only thing that can realistically help.

[edit on 11/12/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Yabby
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Instead of making grand generalisations about the lies etc contained in the leaked emails, why don't you be specific or like so many of the deniers are you just going to flail about with broad unsubstantiated allegations?

That does it.

these quotes have been posted a hundred times by now, i'll only re-use a post to prove the point, anyone who is willing to look through the climategate mess on this forum can verify every passage in question, you can d/l the originally leaked file through my signature and there's a searchable website containing all these mailes (for now, at least)

from by IgnoranceIsntBliss

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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!

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

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

now on to my personal commentary: anyone who's reading this thread or any other on the subject even half awake KNOWS what you are up to, deconstructive criticism and inane repetition of the same drivel ('show me the quotes and please clutter all these long threads form me because i'm too technophobic and ignorant to press ctrl-c, so people reading this in the future will have to wade through hundreds of pages of bickering, baiting, and AGW supporting PR') which has been posted before, my link to another thread is obvious proof of this fact.

let me make it clearer for you giggling AGW loving, we-are-the-majority-and-always-right party members: No-One cares what you believe, your 'input' is a nuisance and a disturbance, but you are fighting an uphill battle, because eventually, you'll all have to contend with the reality of your own bigotted ignorance and no amount of stonewalling and deliberate deception will help you in this regard. i know you'll likely soon be found in another thread, asking for quotes, feigning ignorance as usual and accusing everybody else of making things up (all in your head and such), but now that this post has been written, i'll be able to re-use it with relative ease and efficiency.

tell everyone who wishes to believe there's nothing in the leaked mails or in the code what s/he wants to hear. do that and they will only brand themselves. do you have any idea how many people have read these mails already? who do you think will prevail on the long run? the ardent AGW supporter who's in reality always going to resort to lying whenever the dogma is threatened, which won't go completely unnoticed to say the least, or people who have tangible evidence at hand and can play it cool until these doomsday prophecies all fail, one by one? sure, it will cost us all a lot, but in the end, AGW will be an epic failure and people will demand answers and consequences.

just shifting goalposts (warming, change, severe weather,etc) and claiming IP rights to avoid FOI requests won't work then and you know it. just keep digging, bigger hole, more fun....

[edit on 2009.12.11 by Long Lance]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:30 AM
Whadaya know - ANOTHER prediction fulfilled, the Gore-ites have now attacked everything I said they would....just call me "Nostra-Zodiac" from now on! You know what I love about the Gore-ites, they CONSTANTLY use Greenland as their barometer of the Fiction that is Manmade Global Warming...."Oh my God, we're causing the ice in Greenland to melt"....I love that because they can't understand WHY its called GREENland, its called GREEN-LAND because when the Vikings named it, there was no ice there! They planted crops in this new "GREEN land" and established settlements there....hmmmm...does that mean that 800 years ago there were nasty right wing Republican Corporate CEO's driving around in SUV's and taking private jets to go visit their Aunties in their winter homes in the Bahamas? No, it was because of natural cycles of warming and cooling.
I also love, when faced with Dr. Ron Paul's petition before the US Congress that was signed by more than 30,000 scientists saying that this Man made Warming idea is a load of bollocks, that they try to insinuate that ALL of these folks are being paid by Big oil or Monsanto....they don't bother to understand that some of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party are those same Gore-ite on this thread I think even claimed he/she read the list of names on that petition - which I don't buy for a second. I love them most because when faced with hacked emails that blatantly state the fraud, they still try and debate you...laughable. Here's the truth for all you Gore-ites - you are all slaves to the multi-national corporations that are behind this scam - INCLUDING the corporations that you rail against in all your let's have a little common sense here - we're gonna play a little game, for the next 2 minutes we're all gonna forget what side of this debate we're on, okay? Now here comes the common sense part - in Mr. Gore's movie, the Greatest Threat to the survival of the human race is Man made Global Warming - threatening our very existence as a species because of our emissions linked to "fossil fuels" if that were REALLY the case, and you (being Mr. Gore) KNEW that for sure..would you STILL be traveling around in convoys of SUV's and jetting all over the precious Earth in your Private jets? Or would you KNOW that this behaviour would continue to add to the problem, helping to take us over that all important "tipping point" of no return? No - you're smart - you wouldn't, because its just that important - mankind's existence is at stake here. Why does he still do that? He does that because he KNOWS that its just not that big a deal to do it. His "Carbon Footprint" is larger than everyone on this thread, probably everyone on every thread on this site....Do humans pollute the environment? Yes, because the large corporations who produce the goods and services we require give us no other options. Has this caused Global Warming? No - but they want you to think so, because they (in a world where the financial markets and real estate are stale) need a new vista of profits....and voila - a new Carbon Credit trade market...boy, get in on the ground floor of this one and yopu make Rockefeller-type BILLIONS. Do you think that the possibility of BILLIONS is enough to make people lie? make them cheat? Hmmm...remember, common sense now. YOU and I are being lied to - in the name of profits...Cheers! I await the barrage of outraged Gore-ites, I hope I shocked them enough to make the Kool-aid shoot out their noses....

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Yabby
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

That's right. And the cranks and shills like Bob Carter cannot deny the undeniable existence of global warming. He is in the tiny minority here - 95-99% of the worlds experts all agree. AGW is here and we need to deal with it.

I have worked closely with individuals in the field, and as a matter of fact my neighbor (and friend) is one of the many government funded Climatologists currently engaged with the issue (As he has been for decades now). The bottom line is that there is no such number as "95-99%" of anyone who agrees upon anything on this Planet, and certainly not so with regard to AGW. Numbers such as that are downright exaggerations at best, and they hold no sway, except over alarmist prone individuals and activists.

As for those who still sit on the AGW Believers' side of the fence, there are generally three categories represented within such a grouping:

-Those who are completely for open debate and data-exchange, and who keep their minds focused on the data at hand, rather than the sensationalism.


-Those who remain too deeply entrenched in a fervent faith of sorts, that mankind is at fault for much of the Planet's ills, and we must take drastic actions no matter the cost, otherwise we willl all perish.

-Then you have the Politicians who are nothing more than Power and Money Hungry, so they use cherry-picked "Science" as an election platform from which to stand "High-and-Mighty" upon.

The FIRST grouping of the three listed, are the only people which have any credibility whatsoever within this entire issue, while the latter two will never listen to the facts, no matter how blatantly they happen to be smacked in the face by such.

You are wrong. The majority of the experts, the over whelming majority of the experts are in agreeance. Global warming is real and we are major contributors to it. In fact these experts are that far ahead of the deniers that they are now working on plans to minimise the damage.
For them it is a case of yep, case closed, its real its here and we are contributing. Now what the hell are we going to do about it?

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by K-Raz

the idea of us changing wind patterns is as futile as us changing the climate - Double edged sword.

You did not read a post by me wherein I stated mankind cannot change the climate. We do already, just as every other species of flora or fauna does. The only thing I state is that present or even near future levels of carbon dioxide are not going to cause a climate catastrophe. The numbers simply do not add up. The 'science' is at best sketchy, and at worst political fraud.

As someone who for many years drove a truck OTR, I know a good bit about biodiesel. Technically what you were using is not 'biodiesel'. Biodiesel in the sense that is commonly used is a blend of part vegetable oil (corn oil in the USA) and part refined diesel fuel. The filtered cooking oil you mention is primarily used by small local fgleets who actually have a dedicated tanker that picks up used cooking oil from local restaurants and filters it for use in their trucks. A truck typically requires some modification to be able to burn recycled cooking oil, primarily in the fuel system. The slightly thicker oil tends to 'gum up' the standard fuel system after a while. The engine burns it just fine, though.

The original diesel engine was designed to run not on refined diesel fuel, but on peanut oil, after all.

While recycled cooking oil works great in niche situations (like yours), there is simply nowhere enough to power the massive fleet of trucks that cross the nation. Using corn oil to blend biodiesel is not a good idea, because it is inefficient and reduces the amount of corn available for food. I have heard, but not verified personally, that other crops, such as sugar cane, are much more efficient for biodiesel, however.

As an aside, I used biodiesel whenever possible to fuel.

Thank you for the kind words, but I must say I did not post to earn any person's respect. I value that respect, but I value truth more. I posted to express the facts as I know them. You will find that dismissing others on the basis of a misunderstood comment serves no purpose other than to alienate oneself. I have agreed on issues at one time or another with almost every poster on ATS. There is no black and white, only shades of gray when one moves the slightest bit away from those hard cold exact facts I strive for.


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Yabby
Thats Met as in Royal Meteorological Organisation.
Whats more they are forecasting 2010 to be the hottest year ever.
Give it up deniers and get with the program for our planets sake.

Seeing how the MET's Hadley Centre directly correlated research with the CRU (Which has now been called into serious ethical questions in regards to their data's integrity, as well as their ulterior agenda), I would not place a whole lot of faith in them right about now.

Check this out for some insight as well:

Scientist "Pressured" To Defend Climate Research

Sorry to say you are wrong again but keep trying...
Firstly, the CRU's data integrity is not in question with the stealing of the emails. You think it is? Let me see just ONE example, from you, of how the CRU cooked the books. I will be waiting...
The MET uses the raw climate data that all climate organisations use and the simple fact is the numbers are pretty clear - the warming over the last decade is at record levels. Can you dispute this with FACTS?

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:42 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Yabby

No links? Awww, that's not very nice. Let me help you out:


This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.

Let me get this straight: carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for Global Warming. The USA produces the bulk of carbon dioxide. The USA must limit carbon dioxide production, or anything the rest of the world does is meaningless. Yet the USA is cooler than the rest of the world? Really?

It sounds like you just disproved the link between carbon dioxide levels and warming temperatures. Bravo!


I hope for your sake you are being ironic...
Otherwise someone with more patience than me may have to explain how the word global in global warming means, well, global! (Here's a tip global CO2 goes up, global temps go up. Capiche?)

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by Long Lance

Nice rant, tell me, do you keep guns in the back shed...?
As for your VERY selective quoting of the CRU emails what you fail to grasp is the word context. If you werent being dishonest you would have printed the complete email chains on all the emails you have posted. What they very clearly show is the normal back and forth, the normal banter that people have in email conversations. Nothing devious, nothing dishonest, just normal to-ing and fro-ing.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:05 AM
Why not have all the people that believe in mmgw through co2 give up absolutly everything, they stop using there cars stop going to work, hell maybe even stop breathing because just by breathing you are feeding the big scary co2 monster.

Then when that happens all the rest of us you are not convinced can carry on our merry way knowing these people gave up everything to save the planet for us.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

Greater dependence on electricity, generated by Nuclear.

Nuclear energy is the only possible method to produce electricity without relying on fossil fuels at present. As you correctly point out, anything that reduces dependence on foreign oil is a good thing.

On the other hand, you also correctly state that increased reliance on nuclear generation is decades away. In the meantime, we have no alternative but to rely on some fossil fuel for electrical production, and that means continuing to create carbon dioxide. I have high hopes for the wave technology as well, but it faces a similar if not longer time frame to implement.

Electrical energy for transportation is besieged with problems. Firstly, there is the problem of energy density. Electrical energy is simply inherently weaker than chemical energy, by orders of magnitude. While for someone living in a city setting a hybrid or even an electric vehicle may be advantageous, that barely makes a scratch in the transportation industry. No electric vehicle exists or has been seriously presented that can haul 80,000 pounds of vehicle/freight up mountain grades on a regular basis. some people live too far from commerce centers to effectively make use of present electric transportation technology. In short, a Prius may be great for cruising the shopping district, but it's not going to haul a load of lumber from 20 miles away. Sometimes you just need a full-size pickup.

That doesn't include farm equipment, which is primarily diesel-fueled. That
in itself is another large segment of transportation fuels that electricity is simply not able to effectively replace.

And one must also remember that our present worldwide use of electricity (based on 2004 figures) is almost 16 trillion kilowatt-hours already. Source

Batteries, absolutely necessary in transportation, are toxic and in themselves more environmentally harmful than burning fossil fuels. It seems to be a physical law that the more effective a battery is at storing and rapidly discharging electricity, the more harmful it is.

So while I agree with your position in principle, I am also pragmatic enough to realize that realization is at least 'decades away' and nuclear is still not a 100% solution. We must continue to live through those decades and betyond.


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:23 AM
the climate change that will take place is now pass the point of no return. why? too much money, and people don't care enough about the future. after all, when the going gets tough, none of us here now will be around.
so...if the wealthy don't care about what world they leave their grandchildren, and they have the money and the power to make changes, why does anybody think that there will be any significant progress in this area.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by jimmyx]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by Yabby

I hope for your sake you are being ironic...

Somewhat; somewhat not.

I do understand what 'global' means. I realize that due to the chaotic nature of weather (otherwise known collectively as climate), even if the earth should be warming, not all areas will warm at the same temperature, and some could possibly see cooling fluctuations.

On the other hand, if carbon dioxide were the culprit, would that not tend to cause the areas of most warmth to be the same areas where the carbon dioxide existed in greater concentrations? Or are we exporting carbon dioxide to keep it from building up in our part of the atmosphere?

But more to your point: the data you show uses the same data as the GISS, which comes from the CRU and the IPCC. We do have emails that at the very least indicate a possible fraudulent attempt to skew said data. Therefore, I will for the time being dismiss any 'evidence' made on the basis of that data until it is shown that the data integrity is sound. To do otherwise is scientifically dishonest.

Your data does not show a continuing warming either. It is well-known that 1998 was the highest year on record according to the CRU's own suspect data. 2009 appears to have edged it out by only a small fraction of a degree at best, making the two essentially tied for the record spot. Thus, especially since the years in between are lower, the period from 1998 to 2009 shows no significant warming trend. The alarm is over an expectation of future warming. Nothing I saw in looking up the MET data showed me anything that refutes my position on future trends: we have been on the upswing of a rough sine wave and are now peaking at the top of that sine wave.


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:20 AM
The most intelligent article that I have read to date on this subject: ed.html

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in