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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:08 AM
If you think a smugly narrated video that is essentially a smear campaign on 1 scientist proves man made global warming then I feel sorry for you.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:21 AM
I apologize if this has been offered somewhere in this topic, but I just got tired of reading the bickering back and forth to find it. So, here is a link to some very good information regarding the current "climate change" and how much effect human industrial activities have/or have not affected this change.


As long a Ozone Al and Maurice Strong are behind this billion dollar industry I just can't buy into it. The World Conservation Bank and Cap and Trade are the instruments designed to bring about the one world government through control of energy by a few power hungry aristocrats.

Cap and Trade, energy control, anti gun legislation, the Euro, the Patriot Act, one world economics, one world currency...Can we see a trend here?

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:37 AM
Dumb people make me want to smack their cheekbone with a hammer.

Thanks schmucks, but I am going to side with science verses rush limbaugh...since one side of the aisle has such a issue with science, I suggest you stop using all forms of science...unplug the computer, go back to caves, and stop driving cars.

The funniest thing is, these morons come to a conspiracy theory board and ignore the most obvious and transparent conspiracy of them all, brought on by corporations hopeing enough of the population remains superdumb and religious...why do they even bother coming here.

I have entertained the thought that the government, scientists, and a global conspiracy has erupted to fabricate evidence straight across the board...and that these corporations and right wing politicians being paid by corporations were the lone rebels speaking the truth against this mastermind plot...but then I realized just how extraordinarily complex and at the same time stupid that was and figured the easiest answer is the correct one. All the scientists from all walks of life, from private to governmental were telling the facts based on the...facts, and the corporations were just watching their bottom line.

silly apes are at it again.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:06 AM
is it Global warming? Perhaps. The truth is that due to the melting ice caps you have what is essentially fresh water floating on top of salt water which affects the currents which in turn has an effect in regards to storm development. So is a warming earth responsible for the far fetched temperatures? Yes. And to all of those who bring up the fact that part of the country have seen record-low temperatures, i'd like to say that here in southern cal, we've seen higher than average temperatures this winter. We're used to 50 something degree days and 30 something degree nights yet we've been having 60/day and 40ish/ nights. I think it's kind of self-centered if we just look at our climate and claim *global warming? hah, it's freezing so it's really global cooling" mainly because the world doesn't revolve around the north American continent. If i'm not mistaken, other countries have seen greater extremes in seasonal temperatures along with some abnormal seasonal temperatures, both patterns predicted by scientists that advocated that climate change would eventually be the result of global warming lest we did anything significant to try to prevent exacerbating the problem any further.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:09 AM
The day all those turkeys like AL Gore give up their personal jets and other huge carbon footprint activities I will bother to take a look at the possible problem. But until "they' believe it enough to actually act on it, why should I (pay).

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:47 AM
great thread just wanted to say a mate of mine put a song up on the net about the bulls##t at copenhagen

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

You don't need to fool all the scientists, just be in charge of most of the raw data they need to do their work.
Throw in flawed computer models with biased outcomes and there is your conspiracy,
Unless some climate scientists have been launching their own satelites into space that we havn't heard about.

Because I may disagree doesn't mean I want to hurt them, just help

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:09 AM
for all of the people on this thread that support the whole MMGW is real

I would like a simple answer to a simple question

here goes:

how does my 1992 Chevy Tahoe emitting "greenhouse gases"/c2O affect the atmosphere on Jupiter

as every planet in the solar system is warming and causing atmospheric changes, how would paying a cap and trade tax(as I cannot/will not buy the carbon credits) change the verifiable results

please advise

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:14 AM
32,000 scientists?

I wouldn't know but, IMO, there are far too many people willing to lend a 'science halo' to pure conjecture in this area. Climatology? Last time I looked we called it 'geography' and the universities could never be sure whether to award a BA (arts/humanities) or a BSc (science) to people who studied the subject.

I'm actually grateful to the guys at UEA CRU who finally revealed the whole thing as hocus pocus not far removed from the practice of alchemy.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:17 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
See?... this is the sort of crap that you people keep doing...you don't do any research on the subject and when you don't know something you claim it is not true, or you just deny it because it refutes your religious crap...

Ugh. I can't believe I'm getting sucked back into this...

Fine you're right - using certain proxy methods scientists can infer some information about past solar activity. I thought you were referring to proper TSI values, which have to be measured outside the Earth's atmosphere to get real, conclusive data.

But regardless maybe you should examine your own argument a little more carefully instead of just running straight to the tired "religious" rallying cry. It takes away from your credibility and just makes you look like the rest of these yahoos who have no idea what they're talking about. (And yeah I know I'm being a hypocrite because I made the same claim before - but it was only after all the deniers started bombarding this thread with "religion wah wah - smoke & mirrors" nonsense instead of God forbid trying to talk about the actual science.)

So speaking of which - on to your argument:

Judging by the way you already tried to cover your bases - I'm assuming that I don't need to point out to you that Usoskin, Solanki, Schussler paper you cited is part of the body of evidence the Max Planck Institute used to issue this press release:

Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming.


Now as you've already acknowledged, the "AGW zombies" claim this correlation stopped in the 70's - but I fail to see how your link contradicts that - I mean you quoted this part yourself:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

So in other words - yes solar irradiance was still increasing after the 70's - but the increase was too minor (~0.05% per decade) to account for the relatively massive increase we've experienced in global temperatures during that time. In case you want to hear it from NASA themselves be my guest:

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change


(and that 25% figure is being generous - I've seen many other studies that have it closer to 10%)

So what are your articles "refuting" exactly??

Look - if you want to talk about this like grown ups I'm more than willing, but quit it with the cocky childish banter about who you need to go easy on. You don't know anything about me or my background - and if you seriously think I just get my information from Al Gore's Kool-Aid you are going to end up getting very embarrassed in this debate.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by daddymax
as every planet in the solar system is warming and causing atmospheric changes, how would paying a cap and trade tax(as I cannot/will not buy the carbon credits) change the verifiable results

please advise

Got evidence for 'every planet' warming?

We observed a stellar occultation of the star U149 by Uranus from Lowell Observatory and the IRTF on Mauna Kea on November 6, 1998. The temperatures derived from isothermal fits to the Lowell lightcurves are 116.7 § 7.9 K for immersion, and 124.8 § 15.5 K for emersion. The secular increase in temperature seen during the period 1977–1983 has reversed. Furthermore, the rate of decrease (¸1.2 K/yr) cannot be explained solely by radiative cooling. Although the temperature structure of Uranus’ upper atmosphere may be related to seasonal effects (e.g., the subsolar latitude) or local conditions (e.g., diurnally averaged insolation), these observations suggest nonradiative influences on the temperature, such as adiabatic heating/cooling or thermal conduction.

Young (2001)

Or is the claim pulled from Uranus?

[edit on 12-1-2010 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How are we on the side of the globalists, when we are clearly opposing the globalist agenda?

Because you don't even understand who the real globalists are, or what their agenda is - the real powers that be already have you by the b*lls. They don't want anything to change because the system they have in place already works great for them in terms of exploiting you.

The environmentalists and the scientists and the leftist hippies are the ones trying to free you from this corrupt system - but you can't even see that because you can't get past all the "they want to tax us to death" bullsh--

I mean come on:


Are you kidding?? LOL

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:29 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

So in other words - yes solar irradiance was still increasing after the 70's - but the increase was too minor (~0.05% per decade) to account for the relatively massive increase we've experienced in global temperatures during that time. In case you want to hear it from NASA themselves be my guest:

Willson's claims depend on the fact that two satellites are used to produce the data. Depending on how the data is 'sewed' together depends whether there is a minor trend in the minima.

Others find no recent upwards trend at all. Indeed, downwards is the likely direction since the 1980s.

However, if you want a different perspective on solar activity over hundreds of years, look up Leif Svaalgard.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:30 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

muzzleflash - please note the difference between "forever" and "essentially forever. 100's of thousands of years is essentially forever compared to the meager timescale effect of volcanoes. And yeah I know they spew more than just CO2 - what do you think the haze effect I referred to was for? Also where did I ever claim you only need to study the last 150 years of climate data? I was merely pointing out the significance of the last 150 years which you seemed to try to dismiss as irrelevant or something.

Quit nit-picking my posts to try and build some sort of strawman argument.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by melatonin

Yeah I bottomed out at 10% because I was worried if I mentioned the downward estimates I'd get more misinterpreted articles thrown at me about "the Sun being the cause of global warming"

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:36 AM

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by mc_squared

You know it would be really nice if your posts consisted of something more than " NO UR WRONG!" and " UR BRAINWASHED LOL" " RIGHT WING SCHILLS!"

Are you serious?? How many links have I already left for you throughout this thread. What do you want me to do - write you a paper?

Try reading the thread.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:40 AM
You know. You people DO remember that we have rules about civility and decorum here? And that's not even looking at the inherent futile childish silliness of attempting to sway opinion via insult.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:43 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by mc_squared

I don't need educating. I have listened to experts telling me sea levels will rise for the past 40 years.

They havn't risen at all, so thats a lie.

Yeah you're right - you don't need educating.

Because you have already made up your mind.

And no matter how misinformed you may be you clearly don't need anyone bothering you with annoying things like facts or the truth.

Good luck in life bigyin.

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003).


Kind of depends where you measure it

Falling sea levels

But you've obviously decided your right and nobody else matters

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:47 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared
Yeah I bottomed out at 10% because I was worried if I mentioned the downward estimates I'd get more misinterpreted articles thrown at me about "the Sun being the cause of global warming"

Yeah, no worries. EU (and his previous incarnations) have been pushing that one Willson study, although questionable, for years.

It depends on which satellite reconstruction is used. The ACRIM reconstruction is what Willson uses. The PMOD is repeatedly shown to be more reliable and consistent with other data (and shows reduction in activity).

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale
Mike Lockwood1,2* and Claus Fröhlich3
+ Author Affiliations

1Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ, Hampshire, UK
2Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chilton OX11 0QX, Oxfordshire, UK
3Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Author and address for correspondence: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton OX11 0QX, Oxfordshire, UK (m.lockwood@rl.ac.uk)
We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using observations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the effects of the various time constants with which the Earth's climate system might react to solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two. The implications, and the relative merits, of the various TSI composite data series are discussed and independent tests reveal that the PMOD composite used in our previous paper is the most realistic. Use of the ACRIM composite, which shows a rise in TSI over recent decades, is shown to be inconsistent with most published evidence for solar influences on pre-industrial climate. The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.

ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996?

ACRIM-gap and total solar irradiance revisited: Is there a secular trend between 1986 and 1996?
N. A. Krivova

Max Planck Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

S. K. Solanki

Max Planck Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, South Korea

T. Wenzler

Max Planck Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

Hochschule für Technik Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

A gap in the total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements between ACRIM-1 and ACRIM-2 led to the ongoing debate on the presence or not of a secular trend between the minima preceding cycles 22 (in 1986) and 23 (1996). It was recently proposed to use the SATIRE model of solar irradiance variations to bridge this gap. When doing this, it is important to use the appropriate SATIRE-based reconstruction, which we do here, employing a reconstruction based on magnetograms. The accuracy of this model on months to years timescales is significantly higher than that of a model developed for long-term reconstructions used by the ACRIM team for such an analysis. The constructed ‘mixed’ ACRIM — SATIRE composite shows no increase in the TSI from 1986 to 1996, in contrast to the ACRIM TSI composite.

This paper by Solanki's group was a response to Scaffeta's recent paper who misused their SATIRE model to support the ACRIM data.

I'm waiting for the deniers here to start whining about Scafetta et al and their refusal to release data and code. Essentially this is being sought because some have failed to replicate their results:

Benestad, R.E., and G.A. Schmidt, 2009: Solar trends and global warming. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.

We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th Century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives non-robust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used in Scafetta & West [2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008] are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7±1% for the 20th Century, and is negligible for the warming since 1980.

But they say no.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:11 AM

Originally posted by melatonin

You keep conflating weather and climate, and also building strawmen. Climate projections aren't trying to tell us whether it will rain on the first wednesday in july 2100, but, say, how warm the earth could well be on average in the 2100s if x, y, and z.

Different kettle of fish.

And flawed and skewed "projections" tell us nothing about either one.

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.
Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.


The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Climate vs. weather doesn't really matter, if you're wrong to begin with.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).
For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Like Prof. Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.
But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.
'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’
Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’
He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.
The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?
Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

deny ignorance


[edit on 12-1-2010 by jdub297]

top topics
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in