The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:51 AM
Greetings ElectricUniverse,

Please don't take this personal, but you really shouldn't be posting things like this; you're contradicting the greatest Noble Peace Prize winner ever - the inventor of the Internet - Al Gore!

Look, ElectricUniverse (and, again, this is not personal), Al Gore determined that we have man-made global warming and that American people are solely to blame. It's real, and it's all our fault - you don't believe it, ask Cass Sunstein, ask obama's boss, Van Jones; ask Soros.

It isn't about Brazil's disassembly of the Amazon Jungle, no, of course not.
It isn't about China's pumping more pollutents in 1 day than we produce in 1 year,
It isn't about India's vast pollution production.

No, they're not to blame, ask Al Gore!

It's real, it's 100% man-made, and, above all, Americans are to blame, each and every one of us. We need to feel guilty, and we need to be punished, and Rahm Emmanuel will see to it. You need to thank obamamenijad, and you need to thank Al Gore (for his vast scientific discoveries) - if it weren't for Al Gore, we wouldn't even have the Internet to post this to.

May I respectfully recommend, ElectricUniverse, that you screen what you post, for political correctness; we are not supposed to question the word of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore. We're not supposed to question the word of the Dictator of the Congress - Van Jones.

We, the masses, are supposed to be obedient and unquestioning.


posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:54 AM

Originally posted by defcon5
Co2 ppm is increasing, and regardless of whether or not you want to believe that it is having an impact on the climate, it is in fact having an impact on the oceans:

I am sorry but all of that are only CLAIMS, and nothing more than CLAIMS...

Why weren't there mass extinctions in the oceans, or/and on land with higher concentration of CO2 than at present millions of years ago?....

The oceans have had to deal with higher concentrations of CO2 than at present and they were fine, and they are fine now too....

The main problem now are the "REAL TOXIC CHEMICALS", as well as the plastic being released into the oceans....which have NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2....

Originally posted by defcon5
Its ok though, listen to the oil and auto industry apologist who will tell you to buy that F-250 that guzzles a bazillion gallons of gas a year so you can go offroading, I mean let your grandkids worry about if there is any O2 left on the planet in their lifetimes or not…

Sorry but that is BS, it is nothing more than a red herring and the stupidest excuse people can make not to believe the FACTS.....

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

Right now atmospheric CO2 is at around 480 ppm.... yet we are to believe that "THE EARTH IS DYING" because of that?.....

It is a known fact that people who own greenhouses increase indoor atmospheric CO2 up to 1,500 ppm, and even more, but the higher the atmospheric CO2 concentration the more yields produced, and for those who know you only want to take care of the amount of yields you can take care of, and not waste produce....

Sorry but the FACTS say...

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.


That link is actually from Dr. Chris R. Scotese, Professor of Earth & Environmental Sciences....

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by ibiubu
So, the best accuracy of a temperature sensing device is +-1C.

i don't think that's true, manufacturers often claim higher accuracies. here's a link to a texas instraments sensor with a +- .5c range, here's a link claiming that you can get the +- value as low as .001 on PT100 probes.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by defcon5

Well either scientists from around the world including NOAA and Princeton Universities are all liars or you are wrong:

Well, in case you dind't know....

E-mail messages obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded its own climate findings were inferior to the CRU analysis. In one e-mail from 2007, when a USA Today reporter asked if NASAs data "was more accurate," NASAs Dr. Reto Ruedy responded with an emphatic no.

"NASAs temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," writes Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Indeed, NASAs record shows it fudged data and cherry-picked data sources.

Concerned about the validity of NASA's climate research data, Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers and inviting Bolden to testify to the Senate on the credibility of NASA's data.

"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told "We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible."

Particularly when NASA is admitting it isn't.

Barrasso and Vitter refer to a Feb. 27 study by former NASA physicist Edward Long. Long concluded that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore's favorite scientist, Dr. James Hansen, had been modifying data, "lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past."

I showed the above in the following thread.

Hansen in particular has been known to post as fact, and back ERRORS in data because it backs the AGW claim....and on more than one ocasion....

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again
Posted on November 17, 2008 by 84rules

Word is slowly getting out about the hoax of man-made global warming. As more legitimate and accurate scientific data gets out to the masses, the global alarmists are resorting to more and more propaganda, half-truths and sometimes outright lies.

Dr. James Hansen is one of those alarmists and his theories are is such a state of decline now that he is pushing bad data to shore up his ever failing reputation.

Christopher Booker at the London Telegraph has this story.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by pieman

Yes, i realize some of their claims, but you have to understand calibration. Every temperature sensing device has an offset at each temperature within it's range to calibrate the device with a hot chamber temperature device (run using a thermocouple). This offset is different at different temperatures, i.e. is not linear through the range. The plat-Rho TC's with accuracy of 0.001 state that this is only at 0C because of what I stated.

Technically, you can't actually "calibrate" a TC, so regardless of the best temperature sensing device, about +_1C is the best you get when you factor in the other variables in your experimental setup. This would be similar to the temperature monitoring station as a whole.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by ibiubu

Which reminds me that I must attend to my experimental setups and go to work.

I work in private industry, and thankfully have a job in this economy. But, I would have been fired for wasting $$$$ on research such as CO2 causing global warming.

I believe that the these scientists (like IPCC and NASA) succumbed to the easiest path in science. Money for nothing and credentials for free.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:28 AM
The whole thing makes me crazy. In general I go along with scientific consensus, but I'm not closed to the idea they can be wrong (we can see from history they have been, many, many times).

It seems we just can't win in either scenario.

If it's true we may end up ruining our planet.

If it's false we may end up curtailing technological advances by mistake by restricting industry, or charging people extra taxes that are not needed.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by harpsounds

The facts show that AGW is a scam, and a lie. From the hacked emails, to the facts which hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers AGW is nothing more than the Socialist Green Elites tyring to implement their One World Socialist GREEN Government "to combat Climate Change"...

Climate Changes CAN'T be fought....we can only adapt like humans, and every species have done for millions of years...

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
This is the only planet we have. I will never understand why we pollute our only nest.

But, the facts do point to climate change being cyclical.

The greed of world leaders defies comprehension. CO2 is not harmful to the enviroment and absolutely necessary for life on the planet. Trying to tax and control CO2 is trying to tax and control life on this planet.

High Altitude Aerosol spraying project fully activated in 1998.
Global temperature has been decreasing since 1998.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:28 AM
>The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, >natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and >ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are >the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you >have global warming — or global cooling.

Ridiculous! there's never been MORE cloud cover now with the explosion of
airline traffic and those ubiquitous "chemtrails" .

it's amazing that people believe the disinformation promulgated by the likes
of ExxonMobil... naturally the petroleum industry has every intention of downplaying GW, why wouldn't they? do you suppose they want carbon limits? Hell no!

even the most casual observer knows that the planet is literally "on fire".

between the 1 billion automobiles/trucks that run off of internal combustion engines, the thousands of coal powered power plants that run around the clock, the thousands of intenionally set forest fires that burn tens of thousands of acres of forest daily, to an estimated 10,000 coal mine fires in China and India that are burning uncontrollably, you actually believe this has NO effect on the planet?

that burning the planet's 600 million years of stored carbon in 200 years
can possibly have NO effect on the ecosystems?

that a PLANET that is on fire can somehow stay cool, or even more laughably, get colder?

can any of you anti-GW people actually give me a good reason why you
risk the planet's ecosystem to continue burning fossil fuels?

doesn't it make sense to switch to renewable energies?
even the petroleum instiitute agrees that the vast majority of the
planets oil will be gone by the end of the century!

we only have ONE earth, if we screw it up here, there's no alternative place we can go... shouldn't we at least, err on the side of caution?

fifty years from now, people will look back in utter amazement that the most obvious warnings of GW were ignored, and indeed laughed at.

the legacy that we leave our heirs is a polluted, burned out, dying world.

i sincerely hope that isn't what you really want

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by Adonsa

You're joking , right? This is some kind of weird sarcasm, right?
Because if it isn't....Man, I don't even know what to say. Have fun with that way of thinking. Wow!

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:47 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse


A bit like a smoker of 50 years who finally gets lung cancer, goes to hospital and the quacks discover "Hey you had that cancer coming all along, it wasn't the smokes afterall.." -- I bet they give him as many ciggies as he wants, now that it wasn't the ciggies that caused the problem...



As I've said before, global warming, man made or not, doesn't matter. Just because people say it's natural, does not mean we can simply thumb our nose at it and then put our hands back in our pockets...

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:56 AM
It's a fact that Co2 helps keep Earth warm. Without Co2, Earth would freeze.

This means an increase in Co2 has the possibility of warming Earth. It's the possibility we have to worry about.

Co2 and global temperatures ARE linked, no matter what anyone says. It doesn't even matter what the Co2 and temperature charts say.... there IS a link. Any non-link in data is caused by another factor.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by Adonsa

Wow, did you know that rising temperatures do to rises in Co2 was predicted and discovered 100+ years ago before cars were even mainstream, before Al Gore was even born?

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:22 AM

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

So by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere we will be going greener? Litterally?

In any case. I've always said that you can't predict the weather.
And CLIMATE is the weather on a global scale.

You can't realibly predict that in 10 years that we will be deep crap. When it can sometimes takes up to 800 years for 1 change here to affect something there.

Global Warming is real. But saying that we affect things is just a bit of a stretch.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by grey580
So by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere we will be going greener? Litterally?

No, totally incorrect.

Increases in CO2 will increase acidity in water and soil. Plants and animals and humans can NOT survive in highly acidic environments. That is why pH levels are so important in your blood, food, and water, and especially in fish tanks.

High acidity will kill all those plants, and they wont get a chance to absorb the CO2.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

My friend you and I know that the so call propaganda of the Climate change is linked to big interest and profit making going Green promoters.

It doesn't take much to see the deceptions behind the Cap and trade bill that will be shoved rammed up the butt of every tax payer in the nation.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I am 100% on board when it comes to co2 and global warming, but please, don't let this argument alone let one "rest on their laurels" so to speak when it comes to the corporate degradation of Spaceship Earth. (Thanks for everything Bucky)

Obvious flaws are built into a system to make it confusing and incomplete. This design is purposeful and induces a sense of learned helplessness in the majority of those who attempt to understand what cannot be understood.
This majority then gives up, so to speak, and even when given an opportunity to effectively change or escape from a situation, they will continue to choose to remain.

If something is SO apparent and full of flaws, and it is coming from TPTB, then believe me...

It is designed that way with a purpose.

And the purpose is to get us to surrender our God-given sovereignty.

Sure.... The free market carbon cap and trade casino was made to benefit the wealthy.
As all radical free market economies are set up to do the same thing.
Those "Chicago School" boys really know how to turn a population into serfs in a hurry, but this is all a rouse guys.

It is set up to take the attention away from the fact that a plethora of other by-products of human pop culture are trashing this planet, which in turn will trash the human population.
(Water pollution comes to mind first. Where's the big freak out over water pollution?)

Mother Earth will always win, she created us and when we go back to her, we will become what we were before we mattered. (I purposefully used the term mattered as verb in the past tense and not a noun)
Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

But until then, don't buy into the co2 diversion.
But DO buy into the idea of sustainability.

This idea could transform our entire economy and remove the power from the elite power players.

Please pay special attention to this next series of comments.

That was the idea of creating this country as a LOOSE UNION OF REPUBLICS in the first place. (That is why each state has a Capital. Originally the country of America had no capital city. The corporation called "The United States of America" found in the District of Columbia did not come into existence until the Organic Act of 1871)

With the creation of the 13th Amendment, each person was an autonomous creature unto themselves.
EVERYONE was sovereign under the GRACE OF GOD.
(I am not a Christian, but that was the foundation of our country)

If you really want to change things on this planet for the good of the population, then LEGALIZE HEMP.
NOT the kind that contains THC and is ILLEGAL (and tends to make people laugh and eat),

But the kind both grown and used by a MAJORITY of the world's population until 1933.

*ATTN MODS* this comment is not in any way, shape, or form promoting the use of an illegal drug, but it is promoting a natural plant material that was used to create the majority of the world's goods up until about 80 years ago.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by grey580
So by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere we will be going greener? Litterally?

No, totally incorrect.

Increases in CO2 will increase acidity in water and soil. Plants and animals and humans can NOT survive in highly acidic environments. That is why pH levels are so important in your blood, food, and water, and especially in fish tanks.

High acidity will kill all those plants, and they wont get a chance to absorb the CO2.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ALLis0NE]

Dude. Didn't someone just say, a few posts back, that green house gardners intentionally raise the CO2 levels in their gardens. And that plants actually grew better?

What you are saying counterdicts what's being done by those gardners.

The majority of food crops prefer a neutral or slightly acidic soil (pH 7). Some plants, however, prefer more acidic (e.g., potatoes, strawberries) or alkaline (e.g., brassicas) conditions.

According to this higher ph isn't a bad thing. In fact it would help food crops.

Sounds to me that an increase in CO2 will be beneficial to the planet.

Now man made pollution is a totally different story. And that is what we should be fighting. Not worrying about how much CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by pieman
i'm suspicious of this scientist spending his time talking about how "clouds have been over looked as a cause of climate change" rather than just presenting papers showing evidence to support his theory.

releasing a book before the paper that supports it? sell it before it's torn to shreds, perhaps?

That's exactly what this is. Spencer has a notoriously bad record amongst legitimate climate science and his work has been torn to shreds before:

He also has a nice rap sheet of associations with corporate-funded "think-tanks" that are of course only interested in protecting their money-making agendas rather than the actual truth.

For the cherry on top - this brave, rogue PhD who is speaking out against all the lying "mainstream" scientists also happens to be a creationist:

I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

And yeah how convenient - with global warming denial all the rage these days, he's using his skeptical stardom to sell a book from his blog. Yet on ATS this still shoots to the front page as proof that about 100,000 other scientists are all wrong or lying and global warming is "clearly" a scam. is evolution too I guess.

why is it that scientists who disagree with global warming spend so much time talking about how stupid their peers are and so little time presenting good evidence?

The way this thread is quickly dissolving into another "hey let's forgo denying ignorance and just make fun of Al Gore again!" circle jerk - I could ask the same question about many ATS members as well...

top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in