Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

page: 49
101
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Actually, while I'm on that topic Mez -

I can show you proper, peer-reviewed studies like this one that determine there is a 97% consensus amongst ACTUAL climate scientists on man made global warming. Here's a different one that comes up with the exact same figure.

Plus those studies also find that, as the level of climate-specific expertise amongst scientists goes up, so does the consensus. This means that all the supposed "skepticism" and dissension amongst the ranks you're getting so excited about is actually coming from pseudo-experts and people who actually have no place in the debate to begin with.

And that idea is completely reinforced when you start posting stuff like the "32,000 scientists who disagree with man made global warming" petition. Do you know that by their standards of what constitutes a scientist (all you need is a B.Sc) --> that means I'm a scientist (yay!). Besides, you don't even actually need a B.Sc. to be on their petition, all you need to do is check a box that says you have a B.Sc.

Ah, the ole honor system. Probably explains why there are Spice Girls and characters from M*A*S*H on that 32,000 "scientist" list:
Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition

And yet you guys think it's perfectly credible to accuse all proper, peer-reviewed, mainstream science of being involved in some massive worldwide plot - and then use tinfoil nonsense like this as your proof, and expect to be taken seriously.


Likewise, you want to talk about integrity and hidden agendas - then take a closer look at your own heroes of scientific skepticism. You are posting a document from the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change". You know who started this fluff organization? A guy named Fred Singer. He is one of the most notorious corporate shill scientists in the game. The man is a legend.

His sourcewatch page has a long resume on all the work he's done on behalf of Tobacco and Oil companies. Dude's been pimping out his "professional scientific opinion" for decades that global warming isn't real, and that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

So yeah, good luck getting me to take the time to go through 100 memes this weasel has put out lol. I already listed ten in that other post that blatantly show how people like him aren't just wrong - they know exactly what they're doing - and they are pumping out these myths to FOOL people like you into taking up their cause for them. So if you can't see the writing on the wall after the first ten then there really is no point going on.

Meanwhile you want to convince people like me that the 97% of other climate experts are lying - then show us some proof that isn't just worthless conjecture coming from a source that has it's own agenda, and that itself is just lying.

Because that's all you've managed to do so far, and that's all any "skeptic" I've ever met has managed to do so far. But when they get shown that they are wrong and that they are the ones being lied to, 99% of them just don't have the balls to suck it up and admit it. Hence "skeptic" becomes denier. It's not a term we just throw around - you get to earn it




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.

Well.... there's me. I changed my mind. I used to be a climate denier, but then I learned that I was wrong. Apparently that's something most deniers cannot accept.
edit on 24/12/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)


Oh Snap C0bzz! I had no idea you were a "born again" warmist lol

I've always thought to myself - first denier I ever meet who actually has the strength to just admit they were wrong and get over it will earn my eternal respect - but I didn't know there was one already walking among us!

Big props to you, good sir. You are a pioneer



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Liberator
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I suppose we are talking about 2 things. Someone who is skeptical about global warming because they only have a cursory knowledge of the subject and have "heard" about climategate and that there is debate among scientists.

I have had discussions with people that said, "oh wow, I thought global warming was a hoax, but now that I see the evidence, I realize it is real!"

So yes, you are right.

However, I don't consider those people skeptics, I consider them to be rational people who have not yet taken a look at the evidence.

But yes, I should make a distinction between "skeptic" and "denier". Mez is what you call a DENIER.


Yeah, I mean once they get the title of denier, that's pretty much what labels them a lost cause.

I would also be interested in hearing how far gone C0bzz was into the abyss, because most "skeptics" I know that have turned back simply stop regurgitating all the denier rhetoric because they realize it makes them look foolish. After that they usually just don't talk about the subject AT ALL anymore though. I don't think I've ever seen one like C0bzz who not only turned back, but actually took up the good fight afterwards



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

The thing is MC, is that your posts are nothing but rhetoric, the difference is
that your rhetoric isn't useless, since it is backed by Science: With an agenda
Yes, that's right. My posts are nothing but rhetoric apparently. "Rhetoric" that just happens to be non-useless and backed by science, lol.

But of course it doesn't matter - because if you answer the questions with science, then that just means the science has an agenda now. Deniers always have a fallback option to make everything fit their deluded world view you see. Especially when that view gets obstructed by annoying things like "science".


That wasn't one of my posts you were refering to MC, you'll have to take that up with someone else.
The list by the way, like the last 3 words say, the post was just for fun but you and Libby really seem to be wound up by it. Great fun. As for having a go about his wife, he did put another thread on here all about it so how classy is that? I was just telling him what I and many others thought of him. He says he's out getting presents, probably buying them for himself 'cos he walked out on the important people in his life. Now GFY.
edit on 24/12/2010 by Mez353 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mez353
 


No, I know - not trying to dump that on you. Just saying that's the typical response I get when I make the effort to answer somebody's questions. It's never good enough, so what's the point lol. Anyway I'm off to deal with the only thing in this world I find crazier than climate deniers: my family.

Happy Festivus everybody!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I'm about to dig in to Mez's answer to my 2 questions (if I am awake enough) but wanted to address the wife thing...

I did post a thread on my crazy wife, so she is fair game, as is my f'ed up marriage. I married a psychopath, what can I say. But the fact remains that she reminds me of climate deniers in every sense. For one, she can NEVER be wrong. If I present FACTS that contradict what she is saying, she simply tells me that my facts are wrong.

Also, she says things and 5 minutes later she claims that she never said it (whatever "it" may be).

Finally, she tells me that I am the liar and that I am the reason we fight so much.

Deniers love to not only disagree with facts, but they love to accuse US of distorting facts. It's just nonsense, and frankly I'm not even sure why I'm continuing this discussion.

But I said I would respond to Mez's post so here we go (I'm looking forward to this....not).



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I'm sorry Mez, I just couldn't follow your logic so I can't reply to your answers.

You said that early in the 1900's the northwest passage opened up, when this is simply not true. It hasn't been open for thousands of years.

content.usatoday.com...

Bottom line, I am not going to convince you. I tried following what you were saying, but frankly your rants seemed to wander in and out of reality. Of course, it's possible that my IQ is just too low to grasp what you are talking about, but somehow I doubt that.

Let's agree to disagree here. I base my opinion on facts and you base yours on something pulled out of your ass, but nonetheless we both have our opinions and we aren't going to budge.

Have a great New Year and don't have any children.

Debate closed (on my end anyway).



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Liberator
I'm sorry Mez, I just couldn't follow your logic so I can't reply to your answers.

You said that early in the 1900's the northwest passage opened up, when this is simply not true. It hasn't been open for thousands of years.

content.usatoday.com...

Bottom line, I am not going to convince you. I tried following what you were saying, but frankly your rants seemed to wander in and out of reality. Of course, it's possible that my IQ is just too low to grasp what you are talking about, but somehow I doubt that.

Let's agree to disagree here. I base my opinion on facts and you base yours on something pulled out of your ass, but nonetheless we both have our opinions and we aren't going to budge.

Have a great New Year and don't have any children.

Debate closed (on my end anyway).


Complete cop out, you know you don't have a valid response.
en.wikipedia.org...
Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.

As for following logic, as always you read what you want and make of it what you will. I answered your questions and now you're trying to say you don't understand them. You are devious as well as bigotted.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Liberator
 

For one, she can NEVER be wrong. If I present FACTS that contradict what she is saying, she simply tells me that my facts are wrong.

I think if you had the courage to be honest with yourself you would admit that that is precisely what you are doing.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
M'eh, I suspect it's been a bit chilly lately around the globe and according to long range weather forecaster and climatologist Cliff Harris (along with Meteorologist Randy Mann) it's still going to be chilly for the next 20 or so years. So far the predictions look to be spot on...

www.longrangeweather.com...

www.longrangeweather.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_LiberatorGlobal warming is about to make us extinct and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.


Yes there is but its a long-shot. I'll explain.

You said you are an expert in UFOs and global warming. Well sir I am an expert in UFOs and mysticism. Part of that requires an intimate familiarity with the vast body of parapsychological evidence. Long story short, humanity has the potential to use collective psychic ability. Mind-over-matter on that scale would enable the survival of our species.

I don't know if your expertise on UFOs has made this clear to you or not, but they aren't "ET". The "ET hypothesis" is bunk. UFOs are mystical and psychical in nature, not biological and technological. In short, they are archetypes of the collective unconscious, they are us and we are them. "They" can help but we need to wake up and realize that they are more like living myths than like the exoteric simplistic man-on-the-street conception of "ET".
edit on 11-1-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The point people do not realize is that there is a difference in anthropogenic global warming (caused by human greenshouse gas emmisions) and global warming as part of natural climate change.

Currently global warming is occuring but the human contribution stands at approximately 5-10% which is miniscule compared to what is going on.

We can see the effects of it such as the greenland ice sheet melting away.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Global warming is plain fraud. Start here listen to this guy.

video.foxnews.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Possibly the best explanation for a case against man made global warming

Part 1
www.youtube.com...

Part 2
www.youtube.com...

Part 3
www.youtube.com...

Part 4
www.youtube.com...

Part 5
www.youtube.com...

Part 6
www.youtube.com...

Part 7
www.youtube.com...

Part 8
www.youtube.com...

Each clip is 10 min long. Very very informative if you ask me. They provide evidence that man made global warming is a insigificnat contributor to the current natural trend.

Most current Co2 production is from the earths ocean. There is evidence that as oceans warm up they release co2, and that co2 rises in response to temperature change. THis destroys al gore and his fakers.

The video also demonstrates that the sunspot cycle is reposible for a lot of cycles as well. So i Performed a search on one of the best sources of science (not wikipedia) there is a journal article published 1987 in Science:

www.sciencemag.org...


edit on 15-1-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Sometimes 'it's better to look back on things, since we now have some decades on from the initial scientific predictions, and more than a decade from the debate really coming into the public domain, arguably by the New York Times in 2000 from statements made by Dr James McCarthy,

"It was totally unexpected"


and Dr Malcolm C. McKenna,

"I don't know if anybody in history ever got to 90 degrees north to be greeted by water, not ice."

This was after their visit to the north pole and found open water, and being surprised by this. You can find their statements here,

www.john-daly.com...

From the late John L. Daly's website.

There is evidence there also to show that their statements were ridiculous.

These are 2000 links to the story of the Lempriere-Ross marks made in Tasmania, and Faulkand islands in the 1840's,


news.bbc.co.uk...

coastalcare.org...

You will see that the marks are simple indicators of mean sea levels of the time and are still appropriate today.

A simple device, and it seems the spin-doctors of extreme rising sea levels, of all persuasions forgot about them. As for the original remarks, you can see in the first link that the good old submariners were well used to seeing open waters, thin ice, waters being open and freezing over in no time and frozen seas, blah, blah, and that goes back to the 50's. I thought I should add this link from 2005 for clarity, it is in foreboding terms, and actually makes the claim that over the last 150 years the average yearly rise in sea level is 2mm so that equates to 300mm or 30cm, the LR mark is quoted as 30cm above current sea level...seems then like the sea level hasn't risen at all???

www.guardian.co.uk...



edit on 15-1-2011 by smurfy because: Add link.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Global warming.....isn't that the thing they admitted was a lie?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Viking9019
 


Cimate change does exist, It exists all the time ONGOING, people however have NOTHING to do with it. That has been proven. Increased co2 follows warming not the other way around.
edit on 23-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Liberator
 


Anything that is promoted by the elites is a scam. Yes, pollution is a serious problem, all you have to do is watch Gasland to know that. But it didn't have to be that way. It all could have been done without the massive chemical pollution. The same global leaders that are promoting a green depopulation made things this way.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Very interesting collation of Climategate emails at the link provided. OhhowI doenjoy the introduction about science.


www.lavoisier.com.au...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Liberator
 


Global warming and cooling are 100% natural.

The planet Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

Here on Earth we have an ice age about every 10,000 years.

We are due for another ice age in about 1,500 years.
We do not have the technology or the means to slow it down or stop it.
-------------
The global warming hysteria was never about climate change. It was always about
control over the general population and in some cases intimidation.

Most global warming is caused by normal solar wind, huge solar flares and
geothermal energy. The center of the Earth is really hot.


----------------
If you are terrified of global warming, then move to the moon.
It's very peaceful up there.





new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join