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.

 

MIT Climate Scientist: "Scientific Certainty ... Will Never Come."

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

www.nypost.com...

Emanuel's OpEd:
www.boston.com...

Even the high priest of the AGW faithful/evangelists, admits that their "god" is fallible:

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones' BBC interview:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Ooops.

What will the faithful do, now that the "scientific consensus" has self-destructed?

What will the AGW religion turn to for a foundation, other than the public's money and gullibility? Political capital is being spent faster than it can be recovered. Next thing you know, entire nations will drop out of the IPCC-sponsored agenda.

India abandons IPCC, sets up own panel

www.ibtimes.com...

There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.

(Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh)
India to create panel on climate

Science, not evangelism - India quits IPCC

Uh oh. Next, they'll tell us that AGW has NOT been proven responsible for more-ferocious storms, highlands ice melt, imminent Himalayan glacier disappearance, Amazon destruction, loss of African tillage, degradation of coral reefs; or, that the tree-ring and ground station data from Russia and China are unreliable.
www.ocregister.com...
An Overview of all the "gates" that came after "climategate"

Or that the IR4 isn't based on "peer-reviewed" research.

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 16-2-2010 by jdub297]




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
We are not certain at this point how gravity truely works...people are still trying to lock this one down.

We can however wait, on this subject matter, for the earth to be the planet Dune, then we can be reasonably sure that indeed the earth is warming.

Also, we will be able to eat those whom said we should do nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence because it was not locked down as a certainty yet...since clearly they will not be adding any value to the new desert world with their inept understanding of the scientific process.

I wonder how deep fried conservatives taste...ignorance can be sweet from what I hear, but it will probably go bad rather quickly.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
If there were scientific certainty there would be no need to agree to a consenus (on climate change or any other issue).



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia


i just don't get how they cold win the Nobel peace prize for poor research, lack of effort, it was sloppy and distasteful, Ive seen threads here on ATS that deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, this is trash, nothing they had put in this "census" was based on facts, just fears,
of course scientific certainty will never come, nothing is certain in this universe, it is always changing, always shifting, we cannot begin to think that we know anything, when really we all know nothing



[edit on 2/16/2010 by l neXus l]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
more likely the scientists have given up trying to convince people we need to change our ways. That is not saying they are wrong but is it more likely because of the recent attacks on their proffessional conduct etc , they probably thinking is this the thanks we get trying to warn people well if thats the case damn them to hell response? Its the attitude i have taken up and quite frankly I think most scientists are beginning to feel the same.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by loner007]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
more likely the scientists have given up trying to convince people we need to change our ways.
[edit on 16-2-2010 by loner007]


Actually, This is where I think science is being just stupid now...well, not science, but the people pushing for cap/trade and all this green nonsense (not that we shouldn't clean up our habits mind you, but for it to resolve the current issue..)

Everyone on earth can go downright hippy green and it will only delay the issue, Without a technological solution, we are going to be in for a bumpy ride. Its time to stop saying just by cutting down on our emissions, we will stop destablization...we now need to start working on air purifier technologys in a massive way. Listen to realist scientists whom state the same thing...
Yes, by putting all our efforts to deal with the issue into play, we may buy ourselves an extra 25-50 years, but thats not enough...it is science that identified this problem, and it is science that will (or will not) get us out of this problem....if your pool is through the roof acidic, you cant simply state cut down urinating in it by half...you need to treat the pool itself.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Everyone on earth can go downright hippy green and it will only delay the issue, Without a technological solution, we are going to be in for a bumpy ride. Its time to stop saying just by cutting down on our emissions, we will stop destablization...we now need to start working on air purifier technologys in a massive way. Listen to realist scientists whom state the same thing...


That's easy... we already have the technology to do it...

Solar powered water purification plants on a large enough scale put towards reclamation of desert environments into forests... and solar power for grid electricity.

Lighter cars, powered by electricity (Or hydrogen fuel cells) recharged by the solar grid.

We have had the technology to do this for quite some time... but good luck getting the petroleum monopoly (Read: Rockefeller Standard Oil) to ease up on their death grip on the planet.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
but good luck getting the petroleum monopoly (Read: Rockefeller Standard Oil) to ease up on their death grip on the planet.

-Edrick


Bingo. and now we know the true issue with climate destablisation...it will upset big oil.

I am actually amazed that the Sauds are able to keep blinders on soo many people in the US to completely ignore science to we can continue tossing coins into their golden coffers. Meh, oh well.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Bingo. and now we know the true issue with climate destablisation...it will upset big oil.


Not really.

I don't want it to seem that I support the AWG "Consensus"... because I don't.

I have no reason to believe that human activity has any statistically significant effect on the climate, as a whole.

Big Oil would not really care one bit if the Cap and Trade was passed... they would simply pass those "Taxes" onto their consumers in the form of rate hikes, so, no beef there.

Cap and trade is not an attempt to "Save" the climate... it is an attempt to extend the regulatory powers of government, and increase the globalization of government in the concentrated hands of the Elite Bankers and Mega Investors who run the show from behind the scenes.

The same people who own the oil trusts... also own the Cap and Trade corporations... they win either way....

Unless, that is.... we happen to harness a source of power that they cannot "Gain" from or Tax.

It's NOT Nuclear... the majority of the Uranium mines and enrichment facilities are all owned by these same people...

It's solar.


The technology to harness solar power has been available for centuries, and is gaining in efficiency and cost effectiveness every quarter.

They do not want solar, because they do not have a monopoly on the production of solar energy devices (Silicon wafer plants, Mirror and heat engine plants, etc) it is all essentially common knowledge.


I am actually amazed that the Sauds are able to keep blinders on soo many people in the US to completely ignore science to we can continue tossing coins into their golden coffers. Meh, oh well.


Like I said... they still win, either way.

It's called "Diversification", and the same shareholders of Oil money, are positioning themselves to profit from the regulation of Carbon.

It's a scam, a dodge, a hustle, a con job, a trick.


Regulating carbon has nothing to do with saving the environment.


If they are so concerned with saving the environment, why aren't they actually FIXING the problems that their industries create?

As opposed to finding new ways to squeeze the population of the earth for every penny that they can?

Why don't they spend their trillions of dollars to create massive solar farms in the barren deserts of the world?

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
HOW CONVENIENT hahaa lol

I dont have anything to say ...

but I aprove for everyone to start using more green, but I just dont want to see the people to pay for it ...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia


i just don't get how they cold win the Nobel peace prize for poor research, lack of effort, it was sloppy and distasteful, Ive seen threads here on ATS that deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, this is trash, nothing they had put in this "census" was based


When we realize that the IPCC and Nobel committee are political entities, then we can understand the process and (il)logic involved in their respective decisions.

jw



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


In other words, this guy just debunked any of those retarded claims that climate change is a "religion" constantly spouted off by skeptics.

Science is never certain. There's always some percentage of chance there.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I have no reason to believe that human activity has any statistically significant effect on the climate, as a whole.


That is precisely why the carbon extraction schemes do not work; they cannot be scaled up to ever have any significant impact.

As of today, every single atmospheric 'carbon scrubbing' or sequestration experiment has released more carbon than it has extracted.

Nature, (trees, rain, soil and ocean) is the most efficient "extractor" and no one seems to be able to come up with reasonable alternatives, although they gladly spend public funds to run down rabbit-trails that lead nowhere.

jw



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jdub297
 


In other words, this guy just debunked any of those retarded claims that climate change is a "religion" constantly spouted off by skeptics.

Science is never certain. There's always some percentage of chance there.


All religion, and most of science, is based on "faith."

"This guy" debunked nothing about the AGW religion. He is one of its biggest profits/prophets.

jw



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
If there were scientific certainty there would be no need to agree to a consenus (on climate change or any other issue).


Phil Jones implicitly acknowledges even the lack of consensus:


Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."


Jones' BBC interview:
www.news.bbc.co.uk...

jw



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by l neXus l

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia


i just don't get how they cold win the Nobel peace prize for poor research, lack of effort, it was sloppy and distasteful, Ive seen threads here on ATS that deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, this is trash, nothing they had put in this "census" was based on facts, just fears,
of course scientific certainty will never come, nothing is certain in this universe, it is always changing, always shifting, we cannot begin to think that we know anything, when really we all know nothing



[edit on 2/16/2010 by l neXus l]


Why because there was one error in over 1300 pages of painstakingly researched docuements - you sir hgave absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Essan
If there were scientific certainty there would be no need to agree to a consenus (on climate change or any other issue).


Phil Jones implicitly acknowledges even the lack of consensus:


Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."


Jones' BBC interview:
www.news.bbc.co.uk...

[mod edit - removed double posting]


Why dont you at least TRY and understand what is being said instead of remainig so willfully ignorant and embarrassing yourself with public outpourings of galactic stupidity !

Scientists can not be certain that the sun will come up tomorrow - however they have a 99% degree of certainty that it will - science points to a 90-95% certainty on AGW - in other words they are almost as certain about AGW as they are about the sun coming up tomorrow - how is that hard to understand ?

[edit on 16-2-2010 by audas]

[edit on 2/16/10 by GENERAL EYES]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The earth has gone through much larger climatic changes several times, WAYYY before humans had oil and cars and planes and trains and coal, industrialization etc. There have been several ice ages and warming periods-- all without the help of AGW.

It will also continue to do so, even if we were all tree hugging, prius driving snobby nosed green thinking beings.

AGW is just one very easy to see, prime example of why science should never be politicized.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   


Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make. Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."


Now was not their case being made with that data? Not that specific data, but all the climate data they could gather? Greenland was once green but the little ice age took care of that. No factories then unless the aliens had them hidden!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I remembered something that was said to have happened at the time the medival warm period began. Do you remember the tales of King arthur and his knights trying to heal the land from blight and famine that struck at the time arthur was said to be around . Well it turns out that an asteroid hit the earth around that time causing the world to go into a mini ice age
www.dailymail.co.uk...


Now whenever there is extreme cooling or warming the exact opposite will occur sometime later. This may explain why the medival period was warmer.....


[edit on 17-2-2010 by loner007]




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join