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.


Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:38 PM
Two more facts.

CO2's ability to absorb infrared (heat) energy is non-linear. In other words, you don't get twice as much temperature effect if you have twice as much CO2. Of the current level of 388 ppm of CO2, scientists have determined that half of the total impact on global temperatures from CO2 comes from the first 20 ppm. CO2 is estimated to account for 2-3 degrees C increase in average temperatures ie. if there was NO CO2 at all, average temperatures would be 2-3 degrees cooler. In order to double that effect to 4-6 degrees, CO2 levels would have to climb to 50,000 ppm.

Water vapor is 100 times more efficient at holding heat energy than CO2.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:39 PM
climate change is not something by the MEN, its something NATURAL




thats a fact

but we dont know whats up with the climate, since all these guys have some $$ behind

so, both sides you just cant believe ... so, let it be!

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

The part where the mean temperature of the earth is increasing. That's not a scam.

The part where CO_2 is a green house gas. That's not a scam, either.

The part where hydrocarbon fuels are releasing more CO_2 into the atmosphere. That's not a scam, either.

What all this means for mmgw, I don't know. I, like most of the people on this site, will not pretend to be a climatologist.

As far as carbon credits go, I think they are more or less a good idea, because fossil fuels are a finite resource, and carbon credits serve as a monetary incentive for energy companies to put money into researching alternatives to fossil fuels. (In other words, it makes thing like wind/solar a profitable alternative to things like oil/gas.)

Uhm, actually, recent research shows that the planet is doing a pretty fair job of regulating the atmospheric carbon. I kind of think that the MMGW is all a big scam. The reason regulations and fees are punched through the system so quickly is because the people in charge know that too, and know that they can only sell snake oil for so long.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

Initially I saw Gore's powerpoint movie and believed him after all would he really make stuff up? This was of course when I was younger and naive. After a little researching and writing a couple of papers on the topic in college I changed my view.
Does the climate change? of course, after all the South pole used to be a jungle and the Sahara used to be under water. The fact that scientists think we can stop it from changing is crazy, its like trying to stop the sun from coming up tomorrow - its gonna happen regardless of what you do.

Are humans causing global warming? or in other words would global warming be happening if there were no humans on the planet? Yes it would still be occurring ex Mars is experiencing global warming.

Is the green house effect real? yes to an extent, Co2 along with many other gases cause sun light to be trapped yada yada yada. I have two major problems with the focus on Co2.
1st Co2 is abundant, we breath it out, volcano spew it, etc. and plants eat it up more Co2 means bigger plants that create more oxygen.

Humans breath out between 1.362 x 10^9 and 2.168 x 10^9 Tons of Co2/year
Thats alot of Co2, think how much could be saved if we simply nuked china or india or both.

Co2 is only one type of greenhouse gas, Methane is much worse.
1 ton of methane is 10 times as bad as 1 ton of Co2. where does methane come from? The number one source is animals specifically cows, do you eat meat? Al Gore does.
Methane is so bad greenpeace has stated they would rather have you drive a Hummer and be a vegetarian, than drive a Prius and eat meat. Shouldnt all of you believers be attacking cattle farmers and McDonalds'? OR do you think that the idea of Americans giving up that tasty slice of heaven that hamburgers are a little too difficult?

So no I dont think humans are causing global warming/cooling/climate change. the impact of human Co2 creation is not even a minor factor. look at the IPCC projections on what cutting Co2 would save the earth as far as temp. goes. I dont remember exactly but it was so little that it actually made me laugh.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by Marid Audran

Expect science daily to be accused of being a right-wing oil company blog or something or other.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:57 PM
double post

[edit on 11/1/10 by Dermo]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Dermo
being demonized for not trusting the story completely) but I obviously know about Climate change & our impact on nature but the point I push is that 90% of the crap surrounding "Manmade Global Warming" is blown out of proportion to serve political, corporate and globalized agenda needs.

So you admit 10% of it is true? Yet you deny it 100%?

Where did I say I denied it? Especially where did I say I denied it 100%?

This is what people like me have to contend with lol.. you just made that up from almost nothing.. Why?

Have you ever thought that the real scam might be to convince you that man made warming is a scam? Capitalists would love that.

Look.. I completely understand what you are saying but Iv had an interest in this for years and I am 100% dedicated to lowering my pollution footprint & live in the EU which is the greenest industrialized economy & probably always be. Im a complete advocate going green and am actually acting on it as opposed to just talking.

BUT I can spot propaganda, conditioning and marketing from ten miles away. I know when Im being manipulated or when people/media are trying to manipulate me because I have an interest in the psychology behind the actual manipulation.

The facts only go so far with "Global warming".. the rest is speculation based in a major way on more speculation which is bias as a result of several reasons. I have an interest in this and have researched for a couple of years the businesses, investors and advisors behind the Manmade Global Warming industry.

Thats why I call it a crock of crap..

[edit on 11/1/10 by Dermo]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:57 PM
as many others have said, skeptic scientists aren't skeptical about the act of global climate change. they're skeptical of the presumption that man has significant influence on it.

here's yet some more contradictory opinions.

Google Video Link

on thing that i notice time and time again is that the warmists, who always describe themselves as open-minded, never like to listen to opposite views.

personally, i hope they'll realize they were wrong after the proposed measures to combat global warm.. climate change are imposed

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:59 PM
Climate change happens. We are a hurdling orb revolving around a burning star.

Only the morons will be petrified about it, and in turn empty their pockets toward this junk.

I turned the video off as soon as it said "Global Warming Denial"

I'm also an easter bunny denier.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:07 PM
There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Please provide us with the "Science" that Prooves Global Warming is a Man Made Phenominon.

It cannot be done

So here are some real SCIENTIFIC FACTS :

1) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout HUMAN HISTORY is less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

3)The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends

4)sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

5) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

6) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

7)The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

8) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

9) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

10)Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

11)In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

12) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

13) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.


There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Why, w/o Scientific Proof, not based on a "Theory", would anyone want to control the world to reduce global temperatures by .003 degrees in 20 yrs?


Those pushing Global Warming are either driven by Fiscal, or Political influences, or are the most hysterical Chicken Littles to ever come to the surface.

Remember, this is the same group of Scientists that brought us the Ice Age in the 70's & the Worlds Oceans would be DEAD by the year 2000 in the 1980's.

It is time that the Global Warming crowd find a new Vehicle to drive the One World Government. This one has definately stalled, and has been exposed as the Edsel it is and always was.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:08 PM
no one ever denied that cap and trade was crap here. Not only that, but a cold week in texas does not mean there is a horrible swing going on. the climate swings to one side and the earth decides to correct massively on the other side. Expect a scorcher this summer because it is bound to be one hell of a doozy

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:14 PM
You know what,

the bastards can say whatever they want about whatever, as long as they don't get my money in the process.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Dermo
Where did I say I denied it? Especially where did I say I denied it 100%?

Maybe you didn't but that seems to be the opinion of the deniers in general, no?

I only hear either it's all our fault or none of our fault.

Just trying to inject some alternative way of looking at the argument, sry I used your comment to do this, don't take it so personally.

You all seem to get very emotional about this subject and people arguing from an emotional viewpoint are usually not very rational.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by grey580
IMO I dont' think we know enough about climate change to give a definitive answer that, man is 100% the cause of the heating up of the planet.

No one is saying man is 100% to blame. Why do people take such extreme positions, black or white, we're 100% to blame or 0% to blame.

How about we're 10% to blame as admitted by Dermo? Isn't that enough? Shouldn't we do something to stop our 10% contribution instead of keep screaming it's not our fault?

I'm not screaming it's not our fault. I'm saying we shouldn't be passing legislation that affects the planet and puts billions of dollars in someones pocket.

You're not reading my posts. We should be practicing conservation. I don't disagree there.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Climate change happens. We are a hurdling orb revolving around a burning star.

Only the morons will be petrified about it, and in turn empty their pockets toward this junk.

I turned the video off as soon as it said "Global Warming Denial"

I'm also an easter bunny denier.

This is 2010. There is a new question this year.
"Are you a Global Warming Hoax denier?"
Jesse Ventura found the real truth here.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Eurisko2012]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
You all seem to get very emotional about this subject and people arguing from an emotional viewpoint are usually not very rational.

Do you have some image in your mind that I was sitting in my chair crying my eyes out whilst writing that reply? Or completely flipping out while I was eating my sandwich because someone on the Internetz asked me a question?

I simply explained myself clearly... If you are reading it as emotionally charged.. then you are the one under the influence of emotion. [Insert happy emotion smiley here]

If you are talking about other posters.. then try not replying to one whom you are not talking about.. that usually works pretty well.

Did you ever hear the phrase "Generalizations are the ammunition of the feeble minded".. because you just generalized everyone who doesn't agree 100% on this issue with you as having specific boxed opinions and are excessively emotional in regards their arguments. [insert happy emotion smiley here]

And obviously there was no point whatsoever in explaining as I did seeing as you have simply disregarded all my very valid points..

Are you going to label "All" of us "Deniers" as "Sarcastic" after reading this post?
[insert happy emotion smiley here.. not too happy though.. wouldn't want to be viewed as getting too emotional now would we]

Hope I didn't go too far with the grin..

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:38 PM
Nine words is all it takes to sum this heinous conspiracy to rob and control people globally:


Scientists are predominantly funded by the government through various research funding councils. The researchers have to 'sing their tune' to get funding and money! Therefore most research we see are controlled by the establishment.

Scientist face the following dilemma:

1) I must say that I believe in man-made global warming and show how my research can contribute to such a hypothesis and I am certain to get funding.

2) I will speak the truth, I will publish a paper on how man has a negligible effect on global climate change but I will not get future funding. If I manage to publish a paper my career is finished. I will have no money and no university will employ me. I will end up picking rubbish off the floor for a living.

Most pick option 1 because most people are cowards that got bullied in school and have no spirit left in them.

The same applies to other research areas too!

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:41 PM
When reading what the OP had to say I genuinly thought the video could put a spanner in the works and make me think man made global warming is real. After watching it Im very disappointed now, what a poor argument

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Got this letter in my inbox at work this morning, gotta love those guys that work in sub stations. I do appologise, as I dont have a "link" as such, but if I find the original I will post.

Truth about coal powered power genration
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.
This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs
to be educated about Australia's Coal driven power houses. Terry is now retired and is in
excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit),
published by the local press.
Written By Terence Cardwell
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon
dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous
Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using
Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling
towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of
course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of
renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at
the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal
Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they
clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The
boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the
economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is
virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are
99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate
massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than
10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total
generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power
stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are
VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the
reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the
coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees
that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one
problem---It doesn't exist.
Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a
small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a
continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only
generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are
located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum
capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they
certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and
only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power
Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes
they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their
high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring
forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would
require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are
two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they
cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of
replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic
mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the
extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The
difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made
perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is
following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last
50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon
dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large
packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to
reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided
by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th
of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2
emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing
installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some
smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of
NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350
MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any
information you may require.
1,204 Words.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by guidanceofthe third kind

Sorry, you're wrong. The Earth doesn't 'decide' anything. While it's true that it's quite often cooler than normal in one place at the same time as it's warmer than normal somewhere else around the globe, that proves nothing either way because it's average global temperatures that are being measured. And when China has had it's coldest winter in 100 years and the UK has been so cold for so long that people's lives are now at stake and it's snowed in the middle east and in Miami Florida and just recently it was colder in the NE US than in both north and south poles, that's not just a local aberation in temperature, it's a worldwide cooling trend. The hottest year on record for the whole planet was 11 years ago (1998). If the warming trend was still in force, we should have had a new record high year since then. Average temperatures have dropped starting in 2007 which was when sunspot activity started to decline. There is a clear and almost perfect correlation between sunspot activty and global temperatures. When it comes to Global warming, think globally, not locally.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in