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

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I need a program that can take out the ignored from my non-logged browsing. Any ideas? Anyways, I see jdub (an ATS master of distortion) is also pushing the Fox/Daily Mail article:


Originally posted by melatonin
From the comparable thread in News...



Of course, the Daily Mail made up a lot stuff for this article, like this whopper about the NSIDC’s work:

...

As NSIDC Director wrote me, “This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail. We hope that this is simply a case of very lazy journalism and nothing more.”



In an interview today, [Latif] confirmed that he accepts the IPCC’s finding that most of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes — “definitely,” he said.

He remains puzzled and dismayed by articles like those in the Daily Mail...

...

Call Dr. Latif up and ask him if accepts the IPCC’s finding that, as he put it, most of the warming in the past century was very likely due to human causes. He had me reread the quotes attributed to him a number of times, asking twice, “those are direct quotes?” After I did, he said to me: “I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.”

Dinky-lin k

More misrepresentation and deception from the denial industry.

Enjoy.



Editor's note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.


I see Fox were good enough to fix one of their falsehoods. Just the Daily Mail to go for that one, and both for the Latif stuff.


As for the 2007 ice data - if you cherrypick. The long-term trend is down, dude. 2007 (much like the other favourite deniers cherrypick - 1998 temps) was an uber anomaly. I know that you both make noise and depend on statistical noise.

nsidc.org...

The best thing to do with noise is to tune it out. Now where do I find that software?




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

I mean come on:



Al GORE = BIG OIL


Are you kidding?? LOL


First of all, Al was the Vice President of the USA. (This makes him in bed with oil corporations by default.)

He flies private jets, favors taxing poor people for everything they eat drink or sleep on.

He consorts with the biggest globalists on Earth, including the oil industry.

The oil industry is playing 100% to his tune, by pushing the whole "green technology BS" all the while IM STILL driving a combustion engine car and the year is 2010?

Ok let us see here, Oil companies have a complete monopoly on "green energy techs" simply because they invested the largest sums of capital and they already had the tech laying around from 40 years ago.

By simply controlling green techs, this profits oil industries immensely. And this is why they are in cahoots with Al Gore to push people to panic states so they will blindly accept MORE TAXES.

Al Gore = Big Oil
100% Fact.

The fact that you actually think "Republicans are pro-oil" and "Liberals are anti-oil" has totally blinded you to reality.

Republicans and Democrats work together on this stuff, and are all pawns of the oil industry.

What did Stalin say?
"The best way to defeat opposition is to control it"

[edit on 12-1-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
On sea levels again have a wee read at this latest from Australia

Sea Levels

Some of the comments posted are worth a read as well.

Suffice to say there is plenty of evedence that the official theory is bunkum.

Sea levels have risen steadily since the beiginning of time. They continue to rise within those same rates. Man has no effect on nature.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Thankyou so much for sharing us that video, very informative and it goes to show just how devious 'they' have /are becoming.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I need a program that can take out the ignored from my non-logged browsing. Any ideas? Anyways, I see jdub (an ATS master of distortion) is also pushing the Fox/Daily Mail article:


Originally posted by melatonin
From the comparable thread in News...


Of course, the Daily Mail made up a lot stuff for this article, like this whopper about the NSIDC’s work



More misrepresentation and deception from the denial industry.

Enjoy.


There is no misrepresentation or distortion in the article I've provided.


Unlike the IPCC and other AGW believers and deceivers.

Is your reference similar to the "misrepresentation and deception" from the AGW faithful and the IPCC?


Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Oh no! AGW advocates and leeches profiting upon falsehoods and "quotes" that aren't really? Blasphemy, it is.


In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.
Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

www.newscientist.com...

Oops! Distorted, did we? Explioted did we? How much in grant money and gov't funding did THAT generate? Phil Jones et al must have been laughing all the way to the RBS.


Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."
The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".
The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.
The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.
Nonetheless, the IPCC report goes further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction is "very likely" – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent.
Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer," he says.
However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.
"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."
But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist.
"It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.


It would seem that your philosophy is an offshoot of the IPCC's: "Ignore that of which you disapprove, extol the deception."

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 12-1-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Could Climate Change deniers get even more retarded.

Now Al Gore is working for the oil companies.


Do you all even listen to yourselves?

REALLY.

Al Gore is working for the oil industry by getting people off of fossil fuels which consequently will lead to them having little to no money.

Yea that is something the oil companies sure want.

This thread proves without a shadow of a doubt just how bad right wing radio and media have not only perverted common sense but indelibly will lead to this worlds demise.

This video concretely shows how the 32,000 "leading scientists" against Global warming petition\movement is nothing but an engineered bs fallacy. A group that has been used as "Evidence" by deniers to show that the VAST majority of scientists are not somehow in agreement, when of course they are.

For Christ sakes I beg you to use your sense of reason.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1

Try research...

As early as 1950, according to Edward Jay Epstein's superb biography of Hammer (Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer, Random House, New York, 1996) he made Congressman Gore his partner in a profitable cattle-breeding business. Hammer needed political protection. J Edgar Hoover, even before he became head of the FBI, had been tracking him as a possible Soviet agent. For once Hoover was right, though that only became clear in 1996 when the Russian government released secret archives to Mr Epstein. In Congress Al Gore Sr helped to keep the FBI off Hammer's back.

Al Gore Jr, as freshman senator for Tennessee, inherited his father's connection with Hammer and Occidental. In 1981, Hammer was his guest at the inauguration of President Reagan, just as he had been the guest of his father at five previous presidential inaugurations. The link with Occidental was not broken by Hammer's death. As recently as 1996 the Vice President, according to reports, played an important role in the privatising of Elk Hills naval petroleum reserve in California, later bought by Occidental for $3.5bn.
Source: www.independent.co.uk...

Or try listening to someone who grew up hearing the Gore name and all their antics. Al Gore Sr.'s father was a tobacco farmer. Al Gore Sr. left the farm and got into bed heavily with Occidental. He made a fortune through kickbacks. That much is common knowledge around these parts, even by those who still support Al Gore.

Al Gore Jr. simply picked up where his father left off. He never worked in a tobacco farm. He may have walked around the thing and watched others work it, assuming he even got to within viewing distance of the fields. His father did at least work on the farm, until he left it for 'greener' pastures (pun intended).

If there is any family tied deeper to ME oil interests than the Bushes, it is the Gores.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
In response to the OP:

Do you really discredit people who work for companies you don't like because they worked for said company? Or is it only when said people disagree with you? I don't like WalMart; does that mean anyone who ever worked for WalMart is forever scarred and unable to present information?

Your video lost me the moment it tried to equate people who deny AGW with people who smoke. Get real. That is the worst type of evidence: biased, based on nothing more than coincidence, and setting unobtainable goals for one side and no goals for the other.

Reality: it does a body good.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well Well - it looks like even some of the rats who helped concoct the BS known as "anthropomorphic global warming" are jumping ship....UN scientists (who WERE on board with the Gore-ites) have just released findings that, in their words, global warming has "paused" and the Earth will now be in a COOLING trend for the next 10-20 years. Here's the link: www.dailymail.co.uk... ...Gee, I guess that means that all the human behavior that was causing the "warming" has stopped, huh? No? Then you mean its a naturally occurring phenomenon ?? Hmmm....isn't THAT interesting?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Your video lost me the moment it tried to equate people who deny AGW with people who smoke. Get real. That is the worst type of evidence: biased, based on nothing more than coincidence


Coincidence? Did you miss the part where Dr. Seitz - one of the heroes of the AGW Denier movement - also conducted $45 million dollars of Tobacco funded research to show that smoking is NOT harmful to your health?

It has nothing to do with making everyday AGW deniers look like "people who smoke". It has to do with showing direct parallels between the techniques employed by Big Tobacco and the AGW denial industry to spin something that really should be obvious common sense to anyone.

But yeah go ahead and try and tune it out as biased propaganda or whatever.

What about when the Oregon Institute sent out a package signed by Dr. Seitz trying to deceive other scientists into believing it was from the National Academy and that they had serious doubts about AGW? Is that just biased information too? What about the part where the list of 32,000 scientists opposing the AGW theory has names like Hawkeye Pierce and Ginger Spice on it? Coincidence??

Give me a break.

It's amazing how much flack we take on here everyday for apparently being the biased and the brainwashed ones - yet these absurd pieces of propaganda are where you guys get all your information from - and when someone points it out to you, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la and tell us we're the ones who need a reality check.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Al Gore Sr. left the farm and got into bed heavily with Occidental. He made a fortune through kickbacks. That much is common knowledge around these parts, even by those who still support Al Gore.


Yeah great - and Luke Skywalker's father was Darth Vader. So for anyone who hasn't seen the movie just save yourself the trouble because this clearly means Luke ultimately joined the dark side. The End.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

No, I didn't miss any of that.

What I missed was relevance. I caught all the links to tobacco funded research and unpopular ideas. Well, not all, I actually had to turn the thing off before I threw up.

The video does nothing more than confuse the scientific debate and the political debate. It establishes an impossible goal for those who debate AGW and no goal whatsoever for those who promote AGW. Until both sides are treated equally, this discussion is a moot subject.

There is more to science than denigrating the opposition. This is not a football game.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You know there are two kinds of conspiracy theories:

- The kind that have merit because they are based on a diligent but open-minded ability to question EVERYTHING (including your own argument), and then sort the truth out through objective, lucid critical thinking.

- And then there's the ultra paranoid, "everybody's out to get me!!!", tin-foil kind of crap that unfortunately rules the roost on this Fragile Earth board.

The second one is incredibly foolish for obvious reasons but it's also very dangerous because it allows people to become easily manipulated by those who exploit that inherent fear and mistrust.

Instead of questioning everything you begin to automatically accept whatever instantly challenges the supposed "system". Never mind the fact it's coming from Fox News or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other windbag industries who have made a living out of exploiting people's inability to think clearly during moments of outrage.

Those of us who believe in the reality of Global Warming are constantly labeled as the alarmists, while the deniers continue to scream out over-dramatic but purposely vague accusations of everyone being "taxed to DEATH".

The video in the OP shows the lengths the denial industry goes to play this card of hyperbole and grasping at straws, because in reality they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Every subsequent post in this thread has been a testament to that.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by mc_squared
The video does nothing more than confuse the scientific debate and the political debate.


This is exactly what the denial industry does. Everyone makes such a big deal about Al Gore not having a science background - well last time I checked neither does "Lord" Monckton.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

The video in the OP shows the lengths the denial industry goes to play this card of hyperbole and grasping at straws, because in reality they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Now I am a bit confused. The video in the OP goes to great lengths to discredit a man based his former occupations and observations.

But you do make a point. When one is closed-minded, one is easily deceived.

I suggest you go through my posting history on this forum before you start touting my lack of understanding. I do not dispute the warming trend we have recently experienced. I dispute the linearity of predictions by the IPCC and CRU

I do not dispute that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. I dispute that the levels have risen enough to account for the aforementioned temperature increase.

I do not dispute that Northern polar caps have diminished. I dispute that this diminishing is from air temperatures and suggest that the water is warming the caps through some other means, possibly undersea volcanic activity known to be occurring in the area.

I do not state that the leaked CRU emails are in themselves condemning of the organization. I state that the emails constituted a concern and that the subsequent closed quasi-investigation has rendered them a condemnation of the CRU and of the IPCC by association.

I do not state that local temperature spikes or dips are indicative of a reversal in global temperature rises. I do state that neither do warm spikes indicate the opposite, and that continued widespread anomalies could be indicative of global changes.

I do not state that scientists cannot be fraudulent as implied in the video. I do state that employment is not equal to fraud, and that what is an accepted practice for one side must also be an accepted practice for the other side of the debate.

I do not state that we should ignore pollution. I do state that CO2 is a natural, inert, and harmless component of the atmosphere, and that decreases in industrial production of such cannot be accomplished by anything short of burning less organic fuels. I also state that we do not have alternate energy productions in effect, nor do the restrictions being bandied about in political circles allow for future discoveries.

I do not state that continued global average temperature increase will not affect local weather in many ways, including some cooling in areas. I do state that by it's very nature, Global Warming will result in more warmer anomalies than colder anomalies.

Now, if you can show me quantitatively that 100 ppmv additional CO2 can account for the warming we have seen, and that there is a limit to how much increased plant growth corresponding to such increases can absorb, relevant to the present or reasonably anticipated CO2 levels, then I am all ears.

I just refuse to accept personal demonization as science.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

Neither Al gore nor Lord Monckton are scientists. They are politicians, and as long as they remain such, they are not subject to the criticisms of science. Al Gore, however, has made an implied claim to be a scientist through his fake-umentarty An Inconvenient Truth. That particular waste of film has been debunked many times over as containing glaring logistical, factual, and ommissive errors. Since he put it out, he is responsible for that production.

Lord Monckton is also responsible for his statements. I do not believe they have been debunked as thoroughly as Al Gore's position; however, I could be mistaken on this.

Please, can we keep the line between politics and science clear in this debate? Or is it your intention to mix the two until your arguments appear sound?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


You know there are two kinds of conspiracy theories:

- The kind that have merit because they are based on a diligent but open-minded ability to question EVERYTHING (including your own argument), and then sort the truth out through objective, lucid critical thinking.

- And then there's the ultra paranoid, "everybody's out to get me!!!", tin-foil kind of crap that unfortunately rules the roost on this Fragile Earth board.

The second one is incredibly foolish for obvious reasons but it's also very dangerous because it allows people to become easily manipulated by those who exploit that inherent fear and mistrust.


So that explains the AGW faithful's refusal to acknowledge that their data is skewed and manipulated, their "projections" hopel;essly off-target, and their "science" serving no greater purpose than to enrich those with grant and gov't funding for their "research" and "remedies."

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Look I've seen some of your posts and I know you are one of the more well-informed skeptics of AGW around here - you want to debate the actual science I'm all for it too.

Just it would be nice to do that somewhere quieter where a proper debate about AGW isn't drowned out by all the minions constantly piling onto the bandwagon to point out global warming is a scam because...umm...Mars is heating up...and well...taxes and stuff...

And as for the line between politics and science - this is a conspiracy theory site - and that's why I'm here: because my conspiracy theory is most of this denier info is just propaganda pushed out by the corporatist elites whose current establishment is threatened by the issue of taking action against AGW. (Although the smarter ones have already seen the writing on the wall and are now jumping on board to exploit it for profit rather than try to deny it).

But regardless the video in the OP supports this notion - which is why the Tobacco connection is very relevant and very important.

But of course this thread gets pretty much immediately derailed by more inane blabber about how cold it is outside or whatever...

So please understand I'm all for a healthy critical debate about the real issues surrounding AGW. But try and see some of my frustration when every time I participate in one of these I get told right away that I'm just a brainwashed zombie because "they used to call it Global Warming but now they call it climate change...blah blah blah". So if you're feeling patronized, I can completely identify.

The issue I'm getting at is that ATS' motto is Deny Ignorance, and regardless what your position or mine is on AGW - you have to at least acknowledge this place has become full of it since climategate.

PS yes: Lord Monckton's statements can be and have been thoroughly debunked - but that doesn't stop them from being accepted as gospel truth around here.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You mean kind of like when melatonin pointed out your information is skewed - and you just dismissed it with more or less the intellectual equivalent of a "I know you are but what am I"?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by mc_squared

Neither Al gore nor Lord Monckton are scientists. They are politicians, and as long as they remain such, they are not subject to the criticisms of science. Al Gore, however, has made an implied claim to be a scientist through his fake-umentarty An Inconvenient Truth. That particular waste of film has been debunked many times over as containing glaring logistical, factual, and ommissive errors. Since he put it out, he is responsible for that production.

Lord Monckton is also responsible for his statements. I do not believe they have been debunked as thoroughly as Al Gore's position; however, I could be mistaken on this.

Please, can we keep the line between politics and science clear in this debate? Or is it your intention to mix the two until your arguments appear sound?

TheRedneck


Al Gore never once claimed he was a scientist of any sort. You people made that delusion in your own heads.

Al is the spokesperson for the Global Group On Climate Change. That is all he has ever been since him leaving public service.

When you reference Al you are referring to the worlds top climatologists. He speaks for them. No different than the Presidents press secretary.

Lord Mockton isn't a scientist but is a paid shill for big energy. So when you stand by him you stand with Exxon Mobil and company.

I would rather stand by the thousands of the worlds scientists.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by AllexxisF1]





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join