Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scientist admits global warming scam, and resigns

page: 2
101
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
yea your right on the money. Big oil is probably paying people to lie. think about it if you make billions off of free natural dead bio you would try to influence and pay any lo life to admit to a lie.




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tracer7
 


Where I can read the full letter/article?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The CO2 coming out of my truck when I turn it on is not a scam.

The CO2 coming out of all vehicles, coal plants, factories, etc., is not a scam.

The rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere is not a scam.

The effect that the gases in our atmosphere have on Earth's temperature and climate are not a scam.

Increasing the gases in our atmosphere will increase the effects those gases have on the atmosphere, and that is not a scam.

Paying scientists off, and spreading propaganda to make people deny the truth... now that is a scam.
edit on 18-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
well, this was already covered here in ATS, and this guy is not really a climate specialist

this is from OCT 9 ... today OCT 18


Once again the denial community props up a 'scientist' to prove other scientists wrong. I guess we only believe scientists who say its 'a scam', but ignore the ones who say it isnt.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
pay me a bunch of money and i'll say its a scam, too.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 0ne10
 


Except most governments are not interested in cutting down pollution, they are primarily(only?) interested in taxing CO2 which is NOT a primary pollutant. What happened to carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, dumping raw sewage into waterways, burying nuclear waste into mountains, using depleted uranium for military purposes, etc..?

Face it, it was a scam and they got caught red handed!



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


If governments were not at least a little concerned about pollution, then why do they have restrictions on the output of car exhausts? Why do they force you to get smog checks? Why does the EPA force car manufacturers to put catalytic converters on their vehicles to reduce carbon monoxide levels?

I do agree people do just want money. But to say nobody is interested in reducing pollution is a lie.
edit on 18-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by 0ne10
 


Except most governments are not interested in cutting down pollution, they are primarily(only?) interested in taxing CO2 which is NOT a primary pollutant. What happened to carbon monoxide, sulfer dioxide, dumping raw sewage into waterways, burying nuclear waste into mountains, using depleted uranium for military purposes, etc..?

Face it, it was a scam and they got caught red handed!


That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tracer7
 


climate is changing, man is polluting the environment isn´t this a fact?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
See, this will make people think we aren't really destroying the environment. But the truth is, global warming was a good hypothesis, but then it was used to cover up the real truth. That NIBIRU is causing "global warming".



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
CO2 which is NOT a primary pollutant.


I wanted to also comment on this...

The problem is not exactly that CO2 is a pollutant (even though it is a toxic chemical, and is a problem). But when talking about climate change, the problem is that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a proven science and was discovered in 1824. You can not deny the greenhouse effect because I can show you several experiments and examples you can do at home. Also, you can calculate the temperature of the Earth if it didn't have an atmosphere, and we know the temperature is warmer on Earth because it has an atmosphere, and the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.

edit on 18-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: added info



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mc_squared


So this shouldn't matter anyway - because if there really is no "scientific consensus" on global warming, who cares what the council says - Hal's petition is what really matters, right?


So let's go ask those 47,000 or so scientists that had an opportunity to sign it:

Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition

Yes that's right - out of 47,000 possible respondents: a whopping 206 of them put their name to this crucial document. And as the link above points out - this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

Because to be fair - I see in his resignation letter Hal implies that the 200 signatures were just acquired to meet some bare minimum requirement to bring the proposal before council, because it was "not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list". This is kind of an odd thing to complain about considering earlier in the letter he complains about getting reprimanded for already having access to and emailing some portion of that membership list, but whatever - moving on...



Oh yea and all 47,000 were climate experts and into this thing neck deep.

And the APS member list he is complaining that not only did he get reprimanded for using some part of the list that hes denied a total list. Bunch of control freeks want to squelch all dissent. Its certain that his partial list was not given to him by request but were part of some other list with known members.

And he didnt do bad with that list getting what 200 signatures. Wonder how big that list was. He certainly feels that if he had the whole list that he could show large type dissent. Are you certain that all 47,000 got to look at this or just those on the short list?

They're not squelching his dissent actually. He can believe whatever he wants, but HE TRIED to reverse APS' position on global warming and failed.

Don't try to change it up, please...



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.


How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Faiol
 


But he is...........Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)






And nowhere on this list of credentials do I see climatologist, geochemist or geologist. Learn the full story about this guy before you start jumping to any conclusions and waving your "science is fraud" flags.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.


How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.


IF you questioning the reality of climate change, ten you are indeed questioning the science. merely questioning the motive does little to address any issues with the hard numbers.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tracer7
 


I think that "global warming" phenomena MAY be a scam...

HOWEVER

It is absolutely clear that we NEED to find cleaner, cheaper, energy. What Oil does to the environment is terrible.
Same same other toxins being dumped throughout the world. Industrial waste.
They might not destroy the planet as a habitual place, but it will make it a very dry and lifeless planet, with less trees, less animals, and more birth disease.

I like seeing trees. I like seeing animals. I like seeing clean water. I like seeing living land. I like seeing life.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by justadood
That's not climate change. That's carbon credits. They are not the same thing. not at all.

climate change is documented and real. You can prop up random 'scientists' all you want, it only makes you ignoring the majority of them that much more obvious.

do me a favor, if your going to deny science, dont try and use science to prove your denial.


How can they prove global warming, followed by climate change, to exist if the methods the panel used were dubious at best? It should be obvious I am not attacking science, I am attacking the motives behind the methodology.


IF you questioning the reality of climate change, ten you are indeed questioning the science. merely questioning the motive does little to address any issues with the hard numbers.


Science by itself does not lie but people cherry-picking data to support THEIR hypothesis usually leads to distorted conclusions of what is or is not true. I have no idea if the earth is warming up or not and I am not obliged to believe "them" if I smell foul-play along the way.

The earth warming up(if indeed it is) could be due more to natural factors than man-made factors. I will be the first to admit we are not taking care of our planet but big corporations do more damage to the enviroment than any single reckfull person can.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I thought that Mr Al Gore was the one who started pushing this global warming stuff around. So much so that he even got a Nobel prize for it. Talk about people who nominate these people. They don't know any better either.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Science by itself does not lie but people cherry-picking data to support THEIR hypothesis usually leads to distorted conclusions of what is or is not true. I have no idea if the earth is warming up or not and I am not obliged to believe "them" if I smell foul-play along the way.


I agree. That is EXACTLY what I see the denier camp doing. they cherry pick data to prove their pre-determined position.


The earth warming up(if indeed it is) could be due more to natural factors than man-made factors. I will be the first to admit we are not taking care of our planet but big corporations do more damage to the enviroment than any single reckfull person can.


that is an interesting theory. why dont you get thousands of world-renowned scientists to agree with it? Then it will be more than your own opinion.
edit on 18-10-2010 by justadood because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brothers
I thought that Mr Al Gore was the one who started pushing this global warming stuff around. So much so that he even got a Nobel prize for it. Talk about people who nominate these people. They don't know any better either.


well, if that's what you think, then you are only illustrating your ignorance on the topic. Al gore didn't 'invent' climate change. He merely brought it to the public consciousness. Try doing a little research to base your opinion on.





new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join