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.

 

Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
There is a significant difference between "Opposing action on climate change" and opposing the fairy tale of *ANTHROPOGENIC* climate change that the political arm of the global bankers are trying to shove down our throats.

The climate on earth changes... this is true, this has always been true.

To believe that we can predict this is ludicrous.

To believe that we can identify ONE FACTOR IN A BILLION that is solely responsible is madness.



I think climate change is generally accepted as multifactorial - and that human activities are considered simply to be accelerating a natural trend.




To believe that TAXING Carbon Dioxide is an acceptable strategy is utterly fallacious, and downright insulting.



Aye. There's the rub.




Since when did "Saving the Environment" and "Helping the Global Bankers institute a worldwide tax" become synonymous?



...and another rub.


The climate obviously is changing - one need only check out the melting polar ice caps to find the proof.

Quite likely, modern industry is accelerating the changes. But whether human activities affect climate or not - industry is damaging the planet, human health, animals and the environment - all at our own peril - so there are numerous reasons to pull it all in check. If we can slow climate change, it's a bonus imo.

...I also think people are manipulated to polarize this issue and prevent productive forward movement - which helps the Bankers get to step in front and center with their "solution" a worldwide tax...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



I think climate change is generally accepted as multifactorial - and that human activities are considered simply to be accelerating a natural trend.


Yes, much like farting out the back of a moving vehicle adds to your velocity.


The climate obviously is changing - one need only check out the melting polar ice caps to find the proof.


The icecaps melt every summer, and freeze again every winter. this is a well known event.


Quite likely, modern industry is accelerating the changes.


Point of fact, we do not know enough about this multivariate system known as the "Climate" to actually say that definitively.


But whether human activities affect climate or not - industry is damaging the planet, human health, animals and the environment - all at our own peril - so there are numerous reasons to pull it all in check.


Yes, I am all for reducing humanities rate of resource usage to within manageable levels.

But the only methods and means ever offered by government institutions are card shuffle games designed to make some rich, and all the others poorer.

They never suggest reducing the production of the numerous plastic widgets that are for all intents and purposes, uselss... that clog up landfills, and poison the waters...

Oh, no... they make too much money manufacturing cheap little knickknacks with third world slave labor to ever stop... Much more reasonable to hoard all the worlds wealth while continuing the buisiness practices that are the entire problem...

SO LOGICAL!!!!

/sarcasm


The government is NEVER going to solve this problem, because the CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.

And the Corporations OWN the government.

Anything offered by the government as a solution has only one agenda... to take more money from the populous, and give it to the already obscenely wealthy.


...I also think people are manipulated to polarize this issue and prevent productive forward movement - which helps the Bankers get to step in front and center with their "solution" a worldwide tax...


Yeah, this is known as the Hegelian Dialectic.

en.wikipedia.org...

OR, referred to by David Icke as "Problem, Reaction, Solution"

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I could not make heads or tails of the "global warming debate" until I saw who was really behind the issue.


"Cutting down on carbon emissions," as it turns out, means limiting carbon emissions for everyone except the most massive industrial polluters who have enough money to buy the "carbon credits" to allow them to continue polluting.


The whole "global warming" nonsense is a scam. It's a scam to destroy independent industries, to consolidate power to the wealthiest industries, and on top of that to make an assload of money for people like Maurice Strong. And oh yeah, to consolidate additional power to global banking cartels, who according to the agreements drafted up on Copenhagen, would be responsible for oversight of these industries. Ummmm No.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Exactly...

The text of the Copenhagen treaty states that the "Carbon Taxes" would be paid to the IMF and World Bank.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by soficrow
 



The climate obviously is changing - one need only check out the melting polar ice caps to find the proof.


The icecaps melt every summer, and freeze again every winter. this is a well known event.




Some glaciers are retreating quite rapidly. Check this out:

Extreme Ice







Quite likely, modern industry is accelerating the changes.


Point of fact, we do not know enough about this multivariate system known as the "Climate" to actually say that definitively.


Which is why I did not.





But whether human activities affect climate or not - industry is damaging the planet, human health, animals and the environment - all at our own peril - so there are numerous reasons to pull it all in check.


Yes, I am all for reducing humanities rate of resource usage to within manageable levels.
...
The government is NEVER going to solve this problem, because the CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.

And the Corporations OWN the government.

Anything offered by the government as a solution has only one agenda... to take more money from the populous, and give it to the already obscenely wealthy.



I agree.

But I think people need to take back the government. ....We certainly can't take the corporations. Although we COULD demand that their status as "persons" be rescinded.



...What alternatives do YOU see? AynRandian anarchy? ...I do kind of like the idea, but don't really see how it can happen without the creation of a whole new bunch of bullies, reality and nature being what it is...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
We already know the Earth warms up and cools off naturally, in cycles.

What do you think the "Ice Age" was about? It was the other end of the cycle.



Now excuse me if I step too far into left field here but there may be an unexpected reason for this: our solar system is really a binary system, meaning we have 2 stars revolving around one another over long periods of time, and the 2nd star is a brown dwarf that emits heat energy but not visible very much light, and approaching from the South hemisphere where we don't have as many telescopes anyway.

There is actually plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest this. For example, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were all discovered because their orbits all indicate gravitational influence from a much larger body farther out. Neptune was found while trying to find why there were perturbations in Uranus' orbit, and Pluto while trying to find the reason for perturbations in Neptune's orbit. But Pluto, being smaller than our own Moon, doesn't satisfy the perturbations of Neptune's orbit. And there is other evidence but at this point it's still just a theory obviously.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Good Lord. The "Global Warming / Climate change" Hype has and is being pushed to implement "The Carbon Credit Scam". Both elements from the Left and the Right have been pushing it... Also both elements from the Right and YES THE LEFT are exposing it for what it is.

Here... from the FAR LEFT. They actually tell the freeking truth about the whole scam. Well worth the first 5 minutes.

links.org.au...

And just for fun.... Die hard activist fail.. I imagine a bunch of die hard GW activists are replicating this right now.. LOL
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 17-2-2010 by infolurker]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Beancounter72
 


I am truly sorry for what I am about to do but it must be done.

NOBODY EVERY SAID THAT CO2 WAS THE ONLY FACTOR IN CLIMATE CHANGE!

If it snows in my town for the next week; that would not disprove CO2's effect in climate change!

If the global temperatures go down for the next 50 years that does not disprove CO2's effect in climate change!

There are climate changes that we do not know the reason for which happened hundreds of years ago. There are climate changes that are happening today that we do not reason for.

What we do know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it can cause a moderate temperature change. We also know that CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially and will continue to do so as third world nations industrialize.

We will never be able to fully know the science behind climate change if we just dismiss factors in the equation due to political reasons!

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Styki]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation


Climate scientists are losing ground because of there own disinformation.

In any research field a scientist must be able to prove there theory.
any scientist in that or related fields are going to tear into any mistakes. fake date, bad theories.

Calling every scientist that find problems with the theories "deniers" only causes other scientist to take a second look at the date to find other mistakes.

Any scientist with a ego to believe only there theories are right and prefect is cruising for a ego bruising.

With Climate change there are so many fields of science involved from Climatologist to geologist looking a palo sedamentry layers to prove or disprove.

Ice Cores, Seabed Layers, Tree Rings, ECT. ECT. ECT.
Any scientist have to fit there theories into all these fields to be even close to proving there theory

If it don't fit you can't convince.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by ANNED]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
How many of you have a formal (tertiary and above) science education?

Thats what I thought.

Good reason why I rarely bother to read these threads.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 



NOBODY EVERY SAID THAT CO2 WAS THE ONLY FACTOR IN CLIMATE CHANGE!


Then why is carbon dioxide the only thing that they are attempting to regulate?


If it snows in my town for the next week; that would not disprove CO2's effect in climate change!


True...


If the global temperatures go down for the next 50 years that does not disprove CO2's effect in climate change!


False.


The position of the AGW crowd is that the "Greenhouse Gas" of carbon dioxide will cause an increase in global temperatures.

If the global temperatures DECREASE, that will pretty much DISPROVE the effects of Carbon Dioxide on the climate.

In addition to this, Manmade CO2 has never been proven to have an actual effect on the climate.


What we do know is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it can cause a moderate temperature change.


In laboratory controlled settings, yes... this is true.

However, the real world is far from a laboratory setting.

Secondly, the largest "Greenhouse Gas" by *FAR* is water vapor.

It collects MORE of the em spectrum than CO2, AND is more prevalent in the atmosphere.

Thirdly, the Carbon cycle is a well understood phenomenon, in which plants use carbon to BUILD THEMSELVES!

IT's called a carbon sink... look it up.

More co2 = bigger plants that grow faster... This is a BIOLOGICAL FACT.


We also know that CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially and will continue to do so as third world nations industrialize.


Way... way... *WAY* FALSE.

Exponentially?

Really?

You just pulled that out of your [snip]

www.freewebs.com...

Carbon levels have been bouncing between 170 and 320 parts per million for the past HALF A MILLION YEARS.

It is currently at 360 parts per million

Exponential growth does not mean, what you think it means.


We will never be able to fully know the science behind climate change if we just dismiss factors in the equation due to political reasons!


Exactly... so stop doing it already.


So far, no climate change proponent has ever proven that co2 has any statistically significant effect on the global temperature.

PERIOD.


-Edrick



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I could not make heads or tails of the "global warming debate" until I saw who was really behind the issue.


"Cutting down on carbon emissions," as it turns out, means limiting carbon emissions for everyone except the most massive industrial polluters who have enough money to buy the "carbon credits" to allow them to continue polluting.


The whole "global warming" nonsense is a scam. It's a scam to destroy independent industries, to consolidate power to the wealthiest industries, and on top of that to make an assload of money for people like Maurice Strong. And oh yeah, to consolidate additional power to global banking cartels, who according to the agreements drafted up on Copenhagen, would be responsible for oversight of these industries. Ummmm No.



Well done. You have found the truth.

Jesse Ventura also found it on Conspiracy Theory.
--Maurice Strong --



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by cushycrux
 


Good Lord. The "Global Warming / Climate change" Hype has and is being pushed to implement "The Carbon Credit Scam". ...

Here... from the FAR LEFT. They actually tell the freeking truth about the whole scam. Well worth the first 5 minutes.

links.org.au...




Key quote, from your source:




...distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis.




So - your source acknowledges that there is a "climate crisis" - but says "Cap and Trade" is not the 'solution.'

...There are 2 questions here:

1. Is there a real climate crisis? (I say yes.)

2. Will the (carbon) "Cap and Trade" scheme solve the problem? (I say no.)


.....I agree that the "Cap and Trade" scheme is just another way to make the rich richer. A non-solution to a real problem. But methinks it's a mistake to deny the problem just because the proposed 'solution' is a scam.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
as there is no way to post the British met. office global temperature chart from 'my pictures' in my PC, please Google for it or take my word that it shows average global temperatures have dropped slightly since the year 2,000, 3 'cool' summers in a row in the UK, damn wet winters too! as for that damn CO2, %0.004 of the total atmosphere! just how can so little heat so much? as one of my sons said, Mars atmosphere is %75 CO2, so why isn't mars flaming hot now???



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
...please Google for it or take my word that it shows average global temperatures have dropped slightly since the year 2,000,



True, the weather affecting land masses is and has been erratic, unpredictable, wild and extreme - as is to be expected with climate change.

But check out what's happening to the ice and glaciers at the poles, in the Arctic and Antarctica:

Extreme Ice

More cool photos here




as for that damn CO2, %0.004 of the total atmosphere! just how can so little heat so much? as one of my sons said, Mars atmosphere is %75 CO2, so why isn't mars flaming hot now???


Hmmm. Maybe the interaction between water vapor and CO2? Plus with methane, other factors? Maybe there's a formula for the particular atmospheric balance we've enjoyed?

...As in, muck with the formula, you upset the atmosphere and muck with the climate?

PS. Mars IS flaming hot in the daytime, bloody cold at night, I believe - like any desert.




ed to add PS





[edit on 18-2-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
as there is no way to post the British met. office global temperature chart from 'my pictures' in my PC, please Google for it or take my word that it shows average global temperatures have dropped slightly since the year 2,000, 3 'cool' summers in a row in the UK, damn wet winters too! as for that damn CO2, %0.004 of the total atmosphere! just how can so little heat so much? as one of my sons said, Mars atmosphere is %75 CO2, so why isn't mars flaming hot now???


UK....but UK is maybe 2% of earth surface - and as you know, especially northern Europe will cool extremely down from global warming....

btw. -> And sure it's no co2, o3 is 5 times more worst the co2, but they wouldn't drop the meat business...

But what will we do if the things get far extremer? 5 Meters of snow or 300 km/h Storms? Will we then begin do "something"? And what can this "something" be? Just wait, see and die can't be the solution, right?

How can you take mars as example, the atmosphere on mars is so thin, there is no "Greenhouse" effect. And the Thing with "%0.004 co2" isn't well thought, because we added %0.000001 ozone to the atmosphere with FCKW and have now a continent-sized Hole in the southern Hemisphere...




[edit on 18-2-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Isn't it funny that when "deniers" have something to say, it's disinfo, but when climatologists make something up, it's a mistake.

Proponents of AGW have been sowing disinfo for many years, smearing, ridiculing and ignoring anyone who has evidence against AGW.

Let's take a look at Jim Hansen

He also happens to be a very good friend of al gore, and owns shares in his carbon credit company - I guess that's the payoff for all those years of tirelessly working on gore's behalf and falsifying data on at least 3 occasions that we know of.
But of course, that was just a "mistake"

I don't need to go into the leaked emails - a quick search will give anyone the info they need, including the emails where they detailed smear campaigns and advocated violence against "deniers"

Then we have the famous Mann "hockey stick" which has been used to beat "deniers" with, only for it to turn out to be a load of old codswallop.

We have CO2 monitoring stations placed downwind of active volcanoes (the better to show increases) the urban heat island effect ignored, the closure of monitoring stations in siberia, the placement of other monitoring stations near AC vents, or in places with a high albedo effect.

Then these people wonder why people are no longer buying into their bullplop?

Let me be clear here, I have been a member of greenpeace for many years, I live a relatively frugal lifestyle with the minimum of appliances and no car. I believe passionately in conservation of energy, renewable energy, clean tech and stopping pollution.

But that's not what this is about - this is about control, taxation and rich people getting richer.
It really is that simple...

[edit on 18/2/2010 by budski]



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


How can people take mars as an example?

The same way that AGW proponents can point to the "runaway greenhouse effect" on venus as an example, despite the fact that this would always have occurred on venus because of the make up of its atmoshpere and the fact it's a LOT closer to the sun, and that it's atmosphere is mostly CO2, with no CO2 sinks, no plant life etc etc

yet still, in the early days of the AGW propaganda, it was held up as what would happen to earth



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Let me be clear here, I have been a member of greenpeace for many years, I live a relatively frugal lifestyle with the minimum of appliances and no car. I believe passionately in conservation of energy, renewable energy, clean tech and stopping pollution.





Good for you.




But that's not what this is about - this is about control, taxation and rich people getting richer.
It really is that simple...



I don't think so. I think 2 questions are being mushed together, quite inappropriately:

1. Is the climate changing? (Yep.)

2. Is the "Cap and Trade" plan the right solution? (Nope.)


So yeah, as per usual, a real problem is being played opportunistically to make the rich richer. Doesn't change the fact that there is a real underlying problem - just means the proposed solution is a scam.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by cushycrux
 


How can people take mars as an example?

The same way that AGW proponents can point to the "runaway greenhouse effect" on venus as an example, despite the fact that this would always have occurred on venus because of the make up of its atmoshpere and the fact it's a LOT closer to the sun, and that it's atmosphere is mostly CO2, with no CO2 sinks, no plant life etc etc

yet still, in the early days of the AGW propaganda, it was held up as what would happen to earth




"AGW propaganda".....why do you discuss, if you your Position is clear?
We need don't need another War-Thread about this issue. Do you have Answers what we can do? .. Except flaming?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join