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.

 

Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by herbii
 



Obviously you don't understand what is being discussed. First of all there is a difference between the claims of the AGW proponents that "mankind is at fault" and the fact that Climate Change is ALWAYS happening and sorry to tell you there is more data, and facts that show Climate Change is natural than the CLAIMS from the AGW proponents which depend mainly on rigged GCMs (Global Circulation Models)

There has been a lot of cooling periods even during the warming of the 20th century.

There is also the fact, despite the lies from the AGW proponents, that their models have been proven wrong, and flawed time and again, and they have had to change their predictions many times to try to keep up with their hoax, because nature hasn't been playing along with them.

Even in the 21st century there have been cooling episodes, such as what occurred starting around 2006, right after the Sun's activity started to slow down to a crawl.

These episodes of cooling is why the hoaxers, which include Mann, Jones, et al say they can't understand why there hasn't been more warming. Alongside the fact that it hasn't warmed as they claimed it would.

The claims of the AGW proponents are based on flawed computer models which do not take into account all natural factors that affect the climate.

But then the AGW proponents come back with a response claiming the radiative forcing of CO2 has been proven to be a fact since Arrhenius. But what these people fail to tell you is that Arrhenius was wrong.

Arrhenius claimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temperatures up to 6 C, and since Arrhenius the levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased almost to 100 yet there have been no increase in temperatures to 2.5-3 C like he claimed it would.

That's without counting the fact that since water vapor is a worse ghg than CO2, and since it exists in higher levels, then if Arrhenius was right temperatures would have increased to almost 20 C by now.... Yet we know that temperatures have gotten NOWHERE to those levels.

The temperature increase which we really have seen since Arrhenius has occurred because of WATER VAPOR, and not because of atmospheric CO2.

Another thing Arrhenius said was that the increase in atmospheric CO2 would make Earth GREENER, and it would allow for more productive harvests which could be used to feed the people of the world. In this last claim he was right, but now the AGW proponents want to sequester atmospheric CO2 from the atmosphere which will cause a worse environmental problem than all the oil spills, and other activities of mankind which have caused environmental problems put together.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer. I make no judgment on the data at this time. I will not condemn nor condone any of the scientists involved due to the leaked emails until such has been investigated. This is one point where I will not argue with you nor support you at this time. We will know when the investigation is finished how severe the damage is.


There is one problem with that. The UK has been one of the countries pushing for Climate Change action without delay, and they have also been pushing for a One World Government to "combat Climate Change", and the whole AGW claim gives them the excuse to do this.

I doubt there will be any unbiased investigation. There have been several peer reviewed research papers that show that GCMs are flawed, and are not reliable yet the UK, alongside other governments, is basing their decision on these flawed computer models.




Originally posted by TheRedneck

To jump to conclusions over these leaks is to become the same as you claim the CRU scientists are. I am looking for the truth. If it is hidden in these emails, fine. If it is not hidden in these emails, that's fine too. For now, I will not participate in the fray.

An indictment is far from a guilty verdict. So far, we have an indictment. Just an indictment.

TheRedneck


Governments in the Popenhagen meeting dismissed the leaked emails before there was any investigation done.

The resulting investigation is not going to be unbiased.

BTW, I am also looking for the truth. It is a known fact that the Medieval Warm, and the Roman Warm periods, among many others, were much warmer and were global in nature yet the IPCC policymakers, the UK, and other countries, who have an agenda to push for, have been using the rigged data from Mann which does not show the Medieval, nor the end of the Roman Warm periods as the excuse to implement more global taxes, and to implement their One World Government.

You actually think they are going to change their agenda because of any leaked emails?... No... They are going to either keep dismissing the emails, or come up with a biased investigation and claim "there is nothing to see" like they have done.

We already have had Senators in the U.S., like the moron Barbar Boxer, claim the emails really show nothing and instead she wants to prosecute whoever leaked the emails... as an example to anyone else who dares defy the plans these people have.




[edit on 13-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I doubt there will be any unbiased investigation.

As do I, if the truth be known. But until it is proven that there will be no unbiased investigation, I will not stoop to the levels of those whom I speak against here.

As far as I am concerned, Barbara Boxer has stated her position plainly, and I no longer will believe anything she says (of course, that is no change from my present position on her.
). I presently consider Copenhagen a total fraud and anything stated there as completely unreliable for the same reason. As of yet, the CRU and IPCC have a chance to not be in the same boat. I hope they take that chance.

They may not, of course. But they do have that chance. It will mean the difference between arguing my position against theirs and of completely ignoring anything they say, in the same way I ignore warnings that 'Batboy' is visiting with Elvis on the fourth planet in the Alpha Centauri star system to plan the invasion of Earth.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions. FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported" Big Tobacco contributions.


I can speak about this one but not about others. If the rest are anywhere near as well researched as this one, they are all absolute crap.

Gore's vow to not accept tobacco contributions was SEVERAL YEARS after his sisters death and after his speech to the industry you quote. His family had been involved in tobacco growing for generations and he has never denied that.

He has acknowledged that it took him SEVEN years after his sister's death to overcome the 'numbness barrier' and cut his ties with tobacco altogether. He was clearly close to his sister and deeply affected by her death. He has NEVER claimed that he cut his ties at the time of her death in 1984 or his speech in 1988.

Any insinuation that his 'pledge' predated that 1988 speech is uninformed, stupid, and just plain wrong.

If the rest of your anti-Gore diatribe is as well supported as this one, it exposes your general distaste for proper research and personal responsibility.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
that is the point we should really focus on. it's always portrayed as a done deal, the earth is warming, it's been proven, period. full stop. if you asked questions you were labelled a denier, so having someone with authority claim there really was no warming in the last decade. that's interesting, imho - and puts sensationalist claims in perspective.


But the earth is warming in the long-term. Again, go back and read Trenberth's email. The issue which Trenberth thinks is a travesty is not being able to adequately account for the short-term natural variations.

Two different issues.



1120593115.txt from July, 5th 2005
...
This is partly why I've sent you the rest of this email. IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences....


can we infer that they'd like to see it happen, but currently do not?


No, what he is saying is that is some crazy way to do absolutely nothing and just see this as one big experiment (the biggest ever) with a sample of one (the earth) and test the science to its fullest extent is quite tempting, lol. Of course, to do so would lead to real-world consequences - but we'd learn a lot more about the science and many could say 'told ya so!'. It's the mad scientist approach: mwhuahahaha!

I've said the same many times myself, and I'm prepared to go either way (act or don't). A weak conflict between harsh empiricism and the potential disastrous real-world consequences. We only have a single sample and I wouldn't bet against the physics, though.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

Sidenote: I have an uncle

My father was the same way.

So I know full well of which you speak. And I believe you can understand my personal point of view on this subject.


Your father sounds like someone I would have liked alot.
I sometimes think...with suburban sprawl, less farms, manufacturing moving overseas, the US moving toward a "service" economy, cars that have onboard computer systems to diagnose them etc...that we don't just have a "brain drain" in this country, but a serious erosion of "mechanical aptitude" and "hands-on" problem solving skills.

It used to be a "right of passage" for teenagers to own a "beater" as their first car and by neccesity spend time getting their hands greasy.
I am begining to think that shop class should be a mandatory course. Mechanical aptitude is an important way of real world thinking...not just for those going into the trades.


Thank you for the tip! Now, since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, do you have any idea where I can get an averaged albedo value for the Earth?

TheRedneck


Albedo...




Albedos of typical materials in visible light range from up to 90% for fresh snow, to about 4% for charcoal, one of the darkest substances. Deeply shadowed cavities can achieve an effective albedo approaching the zero of a blackbody. When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, while desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4.[6] The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%.[7] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.

Great link here with associated formulas
en.wikipedia.org...

The average earth albedo number of 30%...
Primary source used in Wikipedia is from 2001...so 9 years less population increase, CO2, and asphalt, deforestation etc. But still a century of industrialization, so slightly biased to your favor, but a fair number to use in my estimation.

Here is the original source fro the 30% from 2001...non IPCC

www.agu.org...


Our data imply an average terrestrial albedo of 0.297±0.005, which agrees with that from simulations based upon both changing snow and ice cover and satellite‐derived cloud cover (0.296±0.002).





The Earth's surface albedo is regularly estimated via Earth observation satellite sensors such as NASA's MODIS instruments onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites. As the total amount of reflected radiation cannot be directly measured by satellite, a mathematical model of the BRDF is used to translate a sample set of satellite reflectance measurements into estimates of directional-hemispherical reflectance and bi-hemispherical reflectance. (e. g., [8].)

Also here is a useful link to the MODIS sattelite that monitors earths Albedo...

en.wikipedia.org...


* It should be noted that it would take me a great deal of time to come up to speed on the math involved in your model. I can do it...but the neccessary math is not in my mental toolbox at present, but rather on my bookshelf. What I am capable of doing is researching to try and provide you with the neccessary (unbias) formula's to help you build your model.

Otherwise...I "think" that a decent approximation of a climate model will demonstrate the deletrius effect of the current level of increase (beyond the norm) of CO2, but am currently at the mercy of someone who disagrees with me to demonstrate it


So what I propose is that you build the engine with the thoroughness, honesty and pride you seem to have inherited...

I hunt down parts when you need them (excluding parts originating from the IPCC...since like your father, you generally reserve mechanical faith for those things that are built with your own hands...or at the very least have been examined down to their core components)

....we both leave our pre-conceptions out of the shop

...and when finished lets see what happens when you turn the key?

Maybe it will do what you think...maybe it will do what I think...but lets get the engine up and running first.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11

...that we don't just have a "brain drain" in this country, but a serious erosion of "mechanical aptitude" and "hands-on" problem solving skills.

I have bemoaned this many times. My son has expressed a desire for a more hands-on career himself and I am actively encouraging him to pursue the life of a craftsman. I'm very proud of his choice.


It used to be a "right of passage" for teenagers to own a "beater" as their first car and by neccesity spend time getting their hands greasy.

Mine was a 1967 Volkswagen Beetle that barely made the trip home. When we stopped in the driveway, my Dad handed me the key and said, "This is your car. If it needs gas, you put gas in it. If it needs tires, you put tires on it. If it needs fixing, you fix it." I learned more from tearing into that old clunker than he could ever have taught me otherwise.

As a matter of fact, it was that old car that propelled me into electronics. A control box for the turn signals went out and I couldn't afford a new one. So I cut it open and saw things I didn't understand. That was unacceptable to me, so I have spent the remainder of my life learning and applying electronic theory. All thanks to a $25 electronic flasher box on a worn-out Beetle.



Here is the original source fro the 30% from 2001...non IPCC

Thank you again! The average albedo value was one of the things that was seriously hindering me. Now I should be able to construct a rough statistical model based on attenuation factors and verify the radiative forcing equations you provided earlier. The heat is not 'trapped' as much as it is 'slowed' in its escape form the planet, and the amount of gas involved at the various frequencies would contribute to the slowing effect (probability of cycling through different quantities of molecules on the way out).

30% sounds about right. I was estimating 25% from nothing more than a rough guess.


So what I propose is that you build the engine with the thoroughness, honesty and pride you seem to have inherited...

I hunt down parts when you need them (excluding parts originating from the IPCC...since like your father, you generally reserve mechanical faith for those things that are built with your own hands...or at the very least have been examined down to their core components)

....we both leave our pre-conceptions out of the shop

...and when finished lets see what happens when you turn the key?

Proposal accepted.

I spent yesterday setting up a template for an actual website to house the amount of information that a thorough researching of the climate would entail. I believe that a thread would simply be too unwieldy to be able to be understood (it is obvious some mathematics and geometry courses will need to be included, for example). I would be more than happy to consult with you on this as a project.

I titled my thread "Let's finish this!" for a reason. Once and for all, there needs to be an open, honest, unbiased investigation into whether or not the claims by the IPCC/CRU hold water. You are right in your assessment of me: I will not accept things blindly. I want to see where the numbers come from and why they are saying what they say. So let's turn that key. If the numbers show there is cause for alarm, I will accept it. If they show there is no cause for alarm, I will of course accept that as well. Numbers do not lie, and it is in the spirit of ATS to find the truth.

Expect a u2u from me shortly.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by maybereal11

You open minded?....
... You are closed minded like the rest of the AGW proponents.


Hmmm ... All AGW proponents = Close Minded...

Yep that logic sounds "open minded" to me...Damn scientific too.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You dismiss hundreds of "peer reviewed research" and thousands of scientists who disagree with your RELIGION...


I think I missed the link supporting your claim. I have seen people claim the above...but have yet to see any sources that hold up to scrutiny. Often such claims circle back to the "Oregon Petition" which has been independently and objectively shown to be a fraud in every concievable way...right down to folks like "Ginger Spice" being found on the petition.

Let me know if you would like sources and data concerning that petition and I will tear it to pieces for you. All the facts are there, even the 'creators" of the petition have admitted to it's illigitimacy.

I'll be interested in what you turn up to back up the claim...
hundreds of "peer reviewed research" and thousands of scientists
Maybe check out what "peer reviewed" means also...just to save some embarrasment.


Yes, AGW has become a RELIGION and a POLITICAL TOOL...


Yes...that is what YOU are saying it is, so for certain folks of a given view I am sure religion and politics have a great deal to do with it.



But what do people like you do?.. you dismiss the science that refutes your RELIGION because you want to claim "the science is settled"...


Science is never settled, never will be, but it is not "wrong" because it is not absolutely complete. A silly bit of rhetoric.

Mankind understood that fire equalled heat...that water could turn to ice... long before we understood the why. We still don't know "why" aspirin works, but we understand the "how" very well.

To claim that unless science is "complete" it is without value...just inane, but please keep up with that rhetoric...it gives me a smile every time I read it.

You should stop trusting those "boogie men"/scientists and throw out the computer you are typing on...stop driving your car...maybe try the amish lifestyle, though I suspect you might be challenged by some of the spiritual tenants.



People like you claim that those scientists who were part of the IPCC and have told us about the truth are just "pissed off ex-employees", or just dismiss them entirely because it is convinient...


I have claimed neither...still don't know what you are talking about.



People like you claim "the scientists who disagree are all being paid to disagree" or some other silly excuse, ...


Most I have examined, yes.
When a "scientist" who claims that big energy companies are not responsible for any envirornmental impact...
happens to be employed by that company...
and does not specialize in the field he is speaking about...
and his claims fly in the face of the majority of independant scientists...
and he is getting big money for those opinions...
then there are leaked memo's from big energy discussing recruiting, TRAINING (LOL) and paying those "scientists" to express specific views that AGW doesn't exist...

well, having strong reservations about those authors......that is NOT silly
That is not even science. That is "smoking is good for you" all over again.

I have gone as far as to exclude IPCC data in my contributions/discussion with Redneck despite my personal trust of that data...Why exclude it then in discussions?...because science doesn't care if you are thousands of scientists or just Redneck...it doesn't care...it holds true for us all...Math is math and light is light...ad infintium....

There is a propagandist theme of looking for the 5% inherent uncertaintity in the established climate science and trying to inflate it in the public perception as a "divided scientific community".

This is not a culture war, this is not a political battle...the universe which science examines does not care...Science does not have a "left-wing" Liberal bias.

I won't be responding to you again.

I don't think you really care about any science or facts on either side of the debate, (you are about religion and politics as you projected) and thus are a waste of my time in a scientific discussion.

Otherwise ...cite sources ...cite science...vet your authors/scientists...

Come with science and BACK IT UP, otherwise I care about your "opinion" and political leanings about as much as gravity does.

Take care. Best wishes...whatever, I am not interested.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





I can speak about this one but not about others. If the rest are anywhere near as well researched as this one, they are all absolute crap.

Well, I suppose that ATS members are to just take YOUR words for the REAL FACTS. You don't cite any source, but you expect us to disbelieve the source that I cited, merely because you said it. Have you ever read the rules of ATS, regarding the posting of supposed "facts"? They do require a source, other than your vivid imagination.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





Well, I suppose that ATS members are to just take YOUR words for the REAL FACTS. You don't cite any source, but you expect us to disbelieve the source that I cited, merely because you said it. Have you ever read the rules of ATS, regarding the posting of supposed "facts"? They do require a source, other than your vivid imagination.


You are quite right. I should have provided a reference. My apologies. I was writing from memory.

Here is one such reference: Gore Forced to Make Hard Choices on Tobacco that demonstrates I was wrong - SIX years not seven.


Six years after Vice President Al Gore's older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. And it took several years after Nancy Gore Hunger's death for Mr. Gore and his parents to stop growing tobacco on their own farms in Carthage, Tenn.
...
''I knelt by her bed and held her hand,'' Mr. Gore said. ''And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath.'' He added later, ''And that is why until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.''

Mr. Gore said today that he ''felt a numbness'' after his sister's death that made it hard to translate her illness into personal and policy decisions. ''It takes time to fully absorb the most important lessons in life,'' he told reporters at a luncheon today.
...
Mr. Gore's relationship with the tobacco industry has always been complicated, since his native Tennessee is the third-largest tobacco-growing state. According to Common Cause, Mr. Gore accepted $16,690 from tobacco industry political action committees from 1980 to 1990, when he stopped accepting them.


So, the documented time line is

  1. 1984 sister dies...
  2. 1988 gives speach citing personal history with Tobacco industry...
  3. 1990 breaks ties with Tobacco industry.


Where is the hypocrisy in the 1988 speech? Only in the way his critics, like you, distort the facts (actually, in this case anyway, outright lie about the facts) to invent arguments that don't actually exist.

The man is human and does have flaws. You don't need to lie about him if you disagree with him, just disagree with him honestly.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Hmmm ... All AGW proponents = Close Minded...

Yep that logic sounds "open minded" to me...Damn scientific too.


Well, let's see... All you people have been claiming "the science is settled", and "all scientists are unanimous and agree with us" and you all become suddenly blind when you are shown any peer reviewed research paper that refutes your religion.... So are you all close minded?... Sure you are...



Originally posted by maybereal11
I think I missed the link supporting your claim. I have seen people claim the above...but have yet to see any sources that hold up to scrutiny. Often such claims circle back to the "Oregon Petition" which has been independently and objectively shown to be a fraud in every concievable way...right down to folks like "Ginger Spice" being found on the petition.


This is what I am talking about, you people suddenly become blinded after you are shown evidence that refute your religion.

I have posted several threads with evidence refuting your religion, and so have several other members.

As for what scientists disagree with your claims?... We have had also several threads in the past regarding this, and even links to the scientists that have been fired, and or lost funding because they dared to doubt AGW....

But like always, the tactics used by the religious AGW like yourself is to "deny, deny, deny" and if that doesn't work? deny some more until people become tired of your BS.



Originally posted by maybereal11
Let me know if you would like sources and data concerning that petition and I will tear it to pieces for you. All the facts are there, even the 'creators" of the petition have admitted to it's illigitimacy.


Let me know if you would like me to tear to pieces the lies from your camp that "thousands of scientists were part of the IPCC" claim, or that "all scientists in the scientific groups you people keep claiming agree with you don't doubt AGW.... I will show you at least two of those scientific groups, including the largest scientific group in the world having hundreds of scientists writting against the editor in chief who decided to spout the AGW scam...



Originally posted by maybereal11
I'll be interested in what you turn up to back up the claim...


Already done that several times, all you have to do is search on the threads I have made....



Originally posted by maybereal11

Maybe check out what "peer reviewed" means also...just to save some embarrasment.


I know what it means, as I have posted several threads with such research, and how many have you posted?..... that's right a big fat 0.... and please don't tell me that a link to the NYT, or some other leftist website spouting the AGW claim is proof..... There I saved you some embarrasment...



Originally posted by maybereal11
Yes...that is what YOU are saying it is, so for certain folks of a given view I am sure religion and politics have a great deal to do with it.


When you are basing your opinion on flawed computer models, and you dismiss the hundreds of peer reviewed research that refute your claims, that is called "an opinion based on faith alone" which = religion.... and don't tell me the AGW claims are not being used as a political tool.... Now you just embarrassed yourself...



Originally posted by maybereal11
Science is never settled, never will be, but it is not "wrong" because it is not absolutely complete. A silly bit of rhetoric.


Well, you better tell that to Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al.... and to the policy makers and the politicians who are claiming "the science is settled"...

As for the wrong part...it is wrong when your opinion is based merely on Global Circulation Models, aka flawed computer models which do not take into account every natural factor that affects the climate...

Not to mention that your people have gone as far as claim "the Sun doesn't cause warming" or " CO2 is more important than any other natural factor that affects the climate" or some other silly claim.




Originally posted by maybereal11
To claim that unless science is "complete" it is without value...just inane, but please keep up with that rhetoric...it gives me a smile every time I read it.


Could you please point to where I said that?... Add now to the rhetoric used by your camp puting words in people's mouth, which you all are very good at.



Originally posted by maybereal11
You should stop trusting those "boogie men"/scientists and throw out the computer you are typing on...stop driving your car...maybe try the amish lifestyle, though I suspect you might be challenged by some of the spiritual tenants.


I am not the one advocating the AGW claims, and the rhetoric that 'we must do something now" you should be the one doing all of the above. It suits you well.



Originally posted by maybereal11
I have claimed neither...still don't know what you are talking about.


I said "people like you" as the AGW proponents, and don't sit there now and claim your people don't do this... As an example we have Melatonin, among others who have done this, dismissing every scientist who doesn't agree with him, calling them kooks, or as "being paid off to refute the AGW" or similar other rhetorical nonsense. for the most part your people do this.



Originally posted by maybereal11
Most I have examined, yes.
When a "scientist" who claims that big energy companies are not responsible for any envirornmental impact...
happens to be employed by that company...
and does not specialize in the field he is speaking about...
and his claims fly in the face of the majority of independant scientists...
and he is getting big money for those opinions...
then there are leaked memo's from big energy discussing recruiting, TRAINING (LOL) and paying those "scientists" to express specific views that AGW doesn't exist...


Let's follow your train of thought...

So, what you are saying is that every environmentalist, and scientist who agrees with the AGW claim, which is receiving funding from rich environmentalists, from environmentalist groups, etc, ALL who are paying these scientists for their opinions shows that the AGW scientists are just advocating the AGW scam for the money right?...

Is that what I am reading you just posted?...


BTW, Mann et al, who are part of "realclimate.org" have been shown to have links to Al Gore, and have received funding from "green environmental groups"...

So you just put your entire cabal of AGW scientists in their coffins. Thank you, thank you very much. *applauds maybereal11*



Originally posted by maybereal11
There is a propagandist theme of looking for the 5% inherent uncertaintity in the established climate science and trying to inflate it in the public perception as a "divided scientific community".


No...there is a propagandist theme claiming there is a 90% -95% certainty, when in the past similar claims have been made about 90% -95% certainty and they were wrong...



Originally posted by maybereal11
This is not a culture war, this is not a political battle...the universe which science examines does not care...Science does not have a "left-wing" Liberal bias.


These days it does, as most of the people siding with you are left-wing", and this debate is used as a political tool to further certain groups, and people's agenda


Originally posted by maybereal11
I won't be responding to you again.


Oh nooo... I don't want to lose you... You don't love me no more?...


Originally posted by maybereal11
I don't think you really care about any science or facts on either side of the debate, (you are about religion and politics as you projected) and thus are a waste of my time in a scientific discussion.


I actually do more than you ever will... Again how many threads have you started, and how many have been about evidence backing your AGW claims?....


Originally posted by maybereal11
Otherwise ...cite sources ...cite science...vet your authors/scientists...
Come with science and BACK IT UP, otherwise I care about your "opinion" and political leanings about as much as gravity does.


Maybe I should spell it for you... Check the threads I have posted... I have done this several times....

BTW, I just checked your threads and even though you have been a member for two years EVERY ONE of your threads is about POLITICS.... hummm.....




Originally posted by maybereal11
Take care. Best wishes...whatever, I am not interested.


Oh wow, now you really hurt my feelings...


[edited for errors and to clarify comments]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!" FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication at all and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know anything about his dog's "arthritis".


Well documented gaffe.

He was relying on info from a Democratic study and inadvisedly personalized it. Both his mother and dog were on Lodine, but Gore did not know how the dosages compared or if they used brand name or generic equivalent.

Due to the gaffe, his real message got obscured: many drugs with applications for both humans and animals cost much less per dose for an animal than for humans. This is fact.

Reference: Media Research Center CyberAlert for 19 September 2000

[edit on 14/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join the Peace Corps. FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already over 100 members.


Gore was something like 11 years old at the time, so what is that, maybe 7th grade?. His sister worked in the same building as the original Peace Corps office.

From Peace Corps Writers: A Closer Look



...The culprit for saying that Nancy (along with Sally) were the first “volunteers” was no other than the granddaddy of all Peace Corps myth and overstatements, R. Sargent Shriver. In his recruiting (and other) speeches — and I attended a lot of them — he would say that the “first volunteers were Nancy Gore and Sally Bowles who walked into our temporary offices and said ‘what can we do?’” Then Sarge would boast about Chester Bowles and Senator Gore. Sarge never insinuated that either were overseas Volunteers, as there were none at the beginning. But Sarge used Nancy and Sally as examples because he wanted the Peace Corps (here and overseas) to be full of famous, interesting people. Sally and Nancy were a signal to American youth that even the children of famous people were excited about the Peace Corps.

I am also sure that Sally and Nancy worked quite a while without getting paid. I recall their talking about just starting to work without any pay. If I had the impression that his sister was volunteering for the Peace Corps, well, I’m sure Al did as well.


It took me all of 2 minutes to research the context of these last two personal attacks on Gore. Like I said, if they are all as carefully researched as the tobacco slur, they are all crap. The Lodine one was mostly accurate, but hardly damning. This Peace Corps one is just the adoring 'baby' brother taking a respected elder's hyperbole at face value. How is that in any way damning to Gore's environment message?

I have no personal need to continue, I am not Gore's personal champion. Nor do the attacks have anything to do with the thread, being merely ad hominum attacks.

I have better things to do. I have to go play croquet now.


See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

[edit on 14/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Myth #11 The evidence shows ....

Fact #11 Those who claim "the evidence shows ..." haven't released their data or their computer models, so no one can check them for errors.

Fact #12 What do you want the data to say? I can program a computer model to make any data say that. So, I don't trust any computer model that I am not allowed to verify.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Where is the hypocrisy in the 1988 speech? Only in the way his critics, like you, distort the facts (actually, in this case anyway, outright lie about the facts) to invent arguments that don't actually exist.


You keep addressing these lies of Al Gore as if I made them up. I did not. They are from the source that I cited.
BTW, as far as Al Gore's exaggerations, no less than a British Court has ruled the following:


British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 





You keep addressing these lies of Al Gore as if I made them up. I did not. They are from the source that I cited.


In no way am I implying that you made them up. I am asserting that you are parroting them without critical thought because they validate your personal animosity against Al Gore and your anti-science agenda in general.

I am merely pointing out that blindly copying someone else's words with out checking them out yourself does not enhance your claim as one who thinks for yourself. Especially when the parroted text is an ad hominum attack on a person not an argument about the science.



BTW, as far as Al Gore's exaggerations, no less than a British Court has ruled the following:


From Media ignore British judge's conclusion that An Inconvenient Truth is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"


Reporting on a recent ruling by a British judge about the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), featuring former Vice President Al Gore, numerous media outlets -- including the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, CNN, and Fox News -- routinely reported that the judge found that the film contained nine "errors" without mentioning that he also stated in the ruling that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." The judge also said he had "no doubt" that the defendant's expert was "right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "

On the October 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed there was a "British study that said [there were] nine major flaws in Al Gore's theory." In fact, the High Court ruling was not a "study," and the ruling did not find any "major flaws in Al Gore's theory" that humans have significantly contributed to global warming. In addition to Kilmeade's claim, numerous media outlets reported that the judge found nine errors in the film but ignored the judge's finding that An Inconvenient Truth is "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."


(my bolding to highlight the part of the finding left out by anti-science agitators)

I remember several documentaries when I was in school that had various disclaimers attached to them that had to be included in the lesson plan. I have no problems with that concept, it is neither novel nor damning.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 




Myth #11 The evidence shows ....

Fact #11 Those who claim "the evidence shows ..." haven't released their data or their computer models, so no one can check them for errors.

Fact #12 What do you want the data to say? I can program a computer model to make any data say that. So, I don't trust any computer model that I am not allowed to verify.




The record's stuck...The record's stuck...The record's stuck...The record's stuck...

For the umpteenth time: Links to all the data and models you could want are right here. These sources have been online and openly available for years.

Just because you haven't looked for it and only believe what you are told by pathologic anti-science agitators, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Are you competent to verify any of the models listed in the link? Go for your life, report back. Prove that they are unbelievable and you will be famous and get to appear live on Glenn Beck, I bet you.

And again, the ONLY data that has not been released is the data that is OWNED by the various National Meteorological Services that think they can make money off it and refuse to let the CRU release it to anyone other than 'qualified' academics. The CRU is trying to get permission to release this data too. If you want to help, contact your country's Meteorological Services and tell them so. Whinging about it on ATS is not going to get it released any sooner.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





In no way am I implying that you made them up. I am asserting that you are parroting them without critical thought because they validate your personal animosity against Al Gore and your anti-science agenda in general.

Again, you are making assumptions. First of all, if you look at the OP, NOWHERE did I give my opinion. I put the paper up for comment and debate and that is what the members and you, are debating. No paper ever gets it right or wrong 100% of the time. There are almost always facts beyond debate, and items that turn out to be non-factual. That is the entire purpose of ATS- to debate items that are not accepted by 100% of the people. If this were purely a news site, then your point would be valid. This is a FORUM where debate is encouraged.

Furthermore, Al Gore is a legitimate target, which whether you like it or not, since HE propelled himself into the discussion as a politician, NOT a scientist with any background in Climatology.
As recent as YESTERDAY, Al Gore again was found to lie about a supposed "fact" that he claimed:



The former Vice-President has been caught spewing climate propaganda again. This time claiming “fresh” climate models show that the northern polar ice cap could (75% chance) completely melt in as little as five years.

Gore described the new projections as shocking, but perhaps the biggest shock came to the scientist Gore credited with the research. Timesonline reports:

The climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

To recap, Gore’s “fresh” news was several years old. The data was not so much data as it was a visit with a scientist; and most importantly the polar ice caps are not going to melt in five years.


www.freerepublic.com...

Again, I believe as most people that there is climate change occurring. What I am NOT convinced of, is whether mankind is a major factor in that change. Furthermore, assuming that there is global warming, or global cooling, how do we know:

1.) Which is better, if either?

2.) Can mankind do anything to stop that change?

3.) If the answer to #2 is yes, are we sure that we have the answers to counteract it?

4.) What if the answer to #3 is yes. Are we sure we won't "over-correct" and head too far in the opposite direction?

Don't you agree that we should have the answers to all of the above, before we act?
Furthermore, will carbon taxes stop global warming? No, they will just shift the wealth around.
You cannot deny that prior to Al Gore's entry into the GW issue, his net worth was $2 million. It is now in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and his investments stand to gain even more if our "cap and trade" bill passes.
I would say that is a conflict of interest, in the least.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Question to ponder for those of you who say the writer of this article should be discredited because of his being (or at some point in the past being funded by oil companies) and that he is "rejected by his homeland".

Aren't people like David Icke, Alex Jones, G. Edward Griffin, and Jordan Maxwell rejected by their respective homelands as well?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The Global Warming is happening , but not mostly because of Carbon. Sun's heat is increasing which is making our planet warmer as well. It doesn't mean that the GW is false , or something like that. It's mostly happening because of sun.




top topics



 
86
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join