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.

 

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
People might think there is disagreement on climate change, but anyone with a little intelligence knows, and understands from experience and knowledge. The climate is indeed changing !...

The bigger question on the matter is if the climate change is man made.

The change belongs in a cycle of ever changing climate is an often heard argument, or that we can not have any influence on such a big system... A regular idea about the science and scientists is that they disagree on this matter is also going around...

Personally... I started out with disbelief. I was engulfed in all kinds of info that was in favor against a man made climate change. Then cap'n trade comes up... I tell you, at that time nothing could convince me man made climate change was not a hoax.

However...

I never stopped listening to both sides of the story, and I encountered more and more info, and it was even presented on a silver platter on occasion. I'd like to say thank you to those that were willing to patiently explain the science to me or present new info I could take in on this subject. So... Thank you !

I've come to a new conclusion... A conclusion that is the opposite of where I started out with....

There actually is a consensus among the scientific community and it says that the evidence supports a man made change...

They agree ...

Do not misunderstand me on this, I still think the money scam that surrounds this whole subject is a hoax.
It ripped away a lot of believability, and it still keeps us arguing about it ....

Another thing which is a nasty side effect is that another important subject has been totally overlooked because of the arguing. Pollution
For those interested I'll provide the link that finally got me convinced.

Climate change IS man made

Here you go : The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Please don't shut yourself of from factual evidence just because some try and take advantage of the situation.

Well... That's about it. I felt I needed to share my new view, as it's a major important subject.

I hope I made you think about it.

Be mindful of the future. Peace !

~ Sinter




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
it is nothing short of astonishing how long this non-debate has gone on...

more than twenty years have passed since the ipcc was founded

more than two decades of inaction since nasa's james hansen warned us

two decades more pollution in the air and water


tick-tock, citizens - time's running out and we keep hitting the snooze



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Inclusius
 


As a matter of fact... You're so right.

Another flaw or less admirable human quality.

You call it a non-debate. But... There is no way I would come all this way without others that were willing to explain.
There is so many material available that says the opposite, an uneducated person on the matter can only trust his or her gut feeling. It's a freaking shame.
edit on 11/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Inclusius
 


You continue to say there is no debate, yet here we are.
My advice for Warmists is to clean house and never let the pseudo-intellectuals set the agenda ever again. And get politics and money out of the scientific process. It makes for very bad science.

If Warmists truly cared about the environment, they'd be a lot smarter about persuading people and start off by being 100% honest and free of impropriety and ethical misconduct. There are a lot of environmental issues that deserve as much attention, yet these issues are not as lucrative and not in vogue. I'm sure you can smell the hypocrisy just as well as I, so let's stop pretending the debate is over.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Sorry, but this "global warming is caused by us and we're all gonna die if we dont buy brand new eco cars and save energy" is a load of tosh!!

Our current temperatures and perceived climate change is NOTHING out of the ordinary when compared to the last 5000 years! the warming is totally natural but the people who wanna make money will make you think otherwise.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


whats your thoughts on the idea of the entire solar system going through change?

including human DNA..?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


That's what my thoughts were to at first. I did mention this actually... Including the money scam.

Missed that part, did you ?

It's not about our ever changing climate. It is about the 50 years it happens in.

Personally I say carbon tax is a scam and electric cars pollute more then what we gain from them. They still use electricity and the battery production has a massive environmental impact.

Like I said. People taking advantage from this situation does not mean it is not happening.


reply to post by WHOS READY
 


Well actually it is one of the options I'll leave open. However... The galactic gas cloud we are in or almost inside of with our solar system could cause a warm up.

Read all about it here : Could the galactic dust cloud be the same as the Photon belt ? (True science meets fringe theories )

However... our scientific community. People like you and me, they agree that there is overwhelming evidence for our current situation to be man made.
Do you really want to take a chance on this ?

Don't let them steal your money though.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


And I wanna say thank you for actually taking the time to examine the evidence fairly and objectively


Instead of just picking a team and then only blindly looking at whatever supports one side of the story.

Incidentally here's a few more sources on the scientific consensus:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
Expert credibility in climate change
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Logical Science: The Consensus on Global Warming



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 
And I wanna say thank you for actually taking the time to examine the evidence fairly and objectively


Instead of just picking a team and then only blindly looking at whatever supports one side of the story.


First, let's take note that much of your "consensus," (as with your "two thumbs up" for your friend) is really nothing more than an us versus them attitude among scientists with similar motivations rather than similar, but independently-arrived at, conclusions.

Second, the "consensus" has more to do with the IPCC summary than scientific analysis. Almost all of Oreske's subjects were found to agree with the IPCC. NONE had conducted their own, independent analysis and reports.

And, recall just exactly what the IPCC said:
Human activity has resulted in increased GHG emissions,
The Earth has warmed over the last 50 years,
Therefore:"[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Hardly the "ringing endorsement" of AGW that many perceive it to be.

Even the OP's "source" later acknowledged (in her 2007 forced explanation to a WSJ debunking) that the "consensus" she found was largely in her own mind!

Thus, of the "928 articles abstracted" (note, she and her support team didn't actually READ them, only the abstracts), 20% "explicitly endorsed" the IPCC conclusion.
She and her TAs found 55% to have "implicitly endorsed" the IPCC.
Implicitly? How? Under what criteria?

"[ B]y engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate predicted changes (5 percent).

Strikingly, those papers that professed an interest in the "paleoclimate" (e.g., tree-ring and ice-core studies), or "measurement techniques" were NOT included in the "consensus.

I say "strikingly" because it is precisely the subjective paleoclimatology and questionable measurement and data interpretation that are the REAL bases of the "consensus" opinion that warming is real and recent.

So, Oreske's conclusion is really that of the 928 abstracts, only 20% actually explicitly endorsed the meager IPCC conclusion that MOST observed warming (using that pesky paleo stuff and funky measurement/data) is LIKELY (i.e. p > 50%) the result of (man-caused) GHGs.

I wouldn't gloat so much about "the scientific consensus," especially when the prince of Hadly/CRU, Phil Jones explicitly tells the BBC 6 years after Oreske's "revelation," that "the science is far from settled" and that he, personally, does not believe in a consensus.

Deny ignorance.

jw


edit on 27-11-2010 by jdub297 because: housekeeping



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Hi

As you might have noticed, I'm interested in this subject, but it's difficult for me to find data that isn't refuted.
Are you willing to share evidence you know of that suggest or proof climate change to be a natural event ?

Regards.

~ Sinter



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


You've first got to understand that the best the "consensus" can do is , "We do not know what else it can be, so it must be US."

I think part of the problems lies in an assumption people make that since we've got these HUGE, multi-billion-dollar institutions (e.g., Hadley/CRU, NASA, the UN, Stanford U., et c.) involved; then, they MUST be right.

That is pure hubris.

Oreske cautions in closing:

"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known.
...
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics."
www.sciencemag.org... Oreske, Science, 2003.

Scientific proof is experimentation and observation and examination of data. With climatology, even the data is highly disputed. Where everyone agrees that the Hadley/CRU data is no longer reliable, we've recently learned that the Chinese and even NASA data have problems.

Taking projections (that never agree with each other) based on questionable data as GOSPEL is foolhardy, at best, even if there is some sort of "consensus" among their creators/proprietors/consumers. And, you have to look at the motivations of these consumers: if what you want is junk, people will line up to sell you junk. I've faced many "junk science" merchants during my career; all of whom have had a ready market for their "product."

I didn't post a thread titled "The Scientific Consensus ... ," you did, sir. But, let's take a look at what the various "consumers" of the "consensus" opinion have done with their product, and what it's accomplished:

1990 Kyoto Accord: Japan CO2, up 10% (in a stagnant economy); EU CO2, up 40%; UK CO2, up 20%. All, during the imposition of strict carbon-trading markets that have enriched the traders in the $billions. (The US, a non-member, only increased CO2 5%, through less-radical market-driven adaptations).

The "consensus" assumed that 21st century CO2 in the industrialized nations would balloon at the expense of "developing" nations, including BRIC. However, beginning in 2007, industrialized CO2 has FALLEN, while that of the developing nations has skyrocketed! Why? Market forces; as opposed to regulation.

Net result: misguided, consensus-driven regulation has negative and unintended consequences, while market forces have immediate and predictable responses.

What has happened to the climate since Kyoto, or the recession? Does anyone agree that there's been a reduction or halt to AGW? No!

Thus far, the "consensus" has been the basis of wrong-headed approaches that have injured industries and economies while enriching its adoptees who can find a "program" or solution to impose on others.

Right now, the best the IPCC and the consensus can do is guess; and its been piss-poor guesswork with undesirable results. Phil Jones best sums-up the true basis of the AGW theory: (paraphrasing) "We don't know what else it might be, so it must be man."

That's not good enough for me, and it should not be the basis of draconian government-imposed solutions.

So, I don't know if there is irrefutable evidence for or against man as the cause. I do know, however, that as far back as 20 years ago, OTHER potential causes of "global warming" were seen, with prescience that should embarrass the AGW projectionists.

I also know that despite horrific damage that man HAS caused the environment (Chernobyl, Love Canal), the Earth has reclaimed her land as soon as we were gone. I do not believe we can have a lasting global effect upon the Earth.

(A couple of other potential causes:
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE)

edit on 27-11-2010 by jdub297 because: fix cites



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by jdub297
 


Hi

As you might have noticed, I'm interested in this subject, but it's difficult for me to find data that isn't refuted.
Are you willing to share evidence you know of that suggest or proof climate change to be a natural event ?

Regards.

~ Sinter


Bravo Sinter! I must tell you that I have been into this topic for quite some time and you are literally the FIRST skeptic that I have ever met who was able to objectively look at the evidence and form your own [informed] opinion.

I recently started the "Global warming is 10,000 times worst" thread which has 35 pages of replies. Believe it or not, I read ALL of them (well with a few exceptions) and noticed that although 98+ percent of the people on here say AGW is a hoax, not ONE of them could back up their opinions with facts. I mean literally NOT ONE.

They can't because they simply don't have facts on their side. Unfortunately the more you look into GW, the scarier it gets. I am at a point now where I believe we have less than a decade (perhaps less than 5 years) before the positive feedbacks kick in HARD and send us to a new (and highly unpleasant I might add) "hot state" a la James Locklove.

If you ever want to freak yourself out (and who doesn't LOL), watch a talk by Locklove or the "REALLY Inconvenient Truth" talk by Dan Miller.

Anyway, bravo again my friend for showing me that at least SOME skeptics may actually be rational people.

Great post!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
what id like to point out is what albert Einstien said would happen if they created and blew up the first atomic bombs in both ww1 and ww2.

he stated this

the long term after effects of this would be planet wide and it would bring about a raising of the earths climate .

all tho in the planets history there have been multiable climate changes from extream heat to the numerous ice ages .

heres a little something about the after effects of atom bomb

en.wikipedia.org...

[img]Quantized atomic vibrations Main article: Einstein solid Einstein continued his work on quantum mechanics in 1906, by explaining the specific heat anomaly in solids. This was the first application of quantum theory to a mechanical system. Since Planck's distribution for light oscillators had no problem with infinite specific heats, the same idea could be applied to solids to fix the specific heat problem there. Einstein showed in a simple model that the hypothesis that solid motion is quantized explains why the specific heat of a solid goes to zero at zero temperature.[citation needed] Einstein's model treats each atom as connected to a single spring. Instead of connecting all the atoms to each other, which leads to standing waves with all sorts of different frequencies, Einstein imagined that each atom was attached to a fixed point in space by a spring. This is not physically correct, but it still predicts that the specific heat is 3NkB, since the number of independent oscillations stays the same. Einstein then assumes that the motion in this model is quantized, according to the Planck law, so that each independent spring motion has energy which is an integer multiple of hf, where f is the frequency of oscillation. With this assumption, he applied Boltzmann's statistical method to calculate the average energy of the spring. The result was the same as the one that Planck had derived for light: for temperatures where kBT is much smaller than hf, the motion is frozen, and the specific heat goes to zero.[citation needed] So Einstein concluded that quantum mechanics would solve the main problem of classical physics, the specific heat anomaly. The particles of sound implied by this formulation are now called phonons. Because all of Einstein's springs have the same stiffness, they all freeze out at the same temperature, and this leads to a prediction that the specific heat should go to zero exponentially fast when the temperature is low. The solution to this problem is to solve for the independent normal modes individually, and to quantize those. Then each normal mode has a different frequency, and long wavelength vibration modes freeze out at colder temperatures than short wavelength ones. This was done by Peter Debye, and after this modification Einstein's quantization method reproduced quantitatively the behavior of the specific heats of solids at low temperatures.[c[/img]

if i recall correctly it was Einstien who mastered this first ...
edit on 27/12/10 by alysha.angel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
People might think there is disagreement on climate change, but anyone with a little intelligence knows, and understands from experience and knowledge. The climate is indeed changing !...

The bigger question on the matter is if the climate change is man made.

The change belongs in a cycle of ever changing climate is an often heard argument, or that we can not have any influence on such a big system... A regular idea about the science and scientists is that they disagree on this matter is also going around...

Personally... I started out with disbelief. I was engulfed in all kinds of info that was in favor against a man made climate change. Then cap'n trade comes up... I tell you, at that time nothing could convince me man made climate change was not a hoax.

However...

I never stopped listening to both sides of the story, and I encountered more and more info, and it was even presented on a silver platter on occasion. I'd like to say thank you to those that were willing to patiently explain the science to me or present new info I could take in on this subject. So... Thank you !

I've come to a new conclusion... A conclusion that is the opposite of where I started out with....

There actually is a consensus among the scientific community and it says that the evidence supports a man made change...

They agree ...


The concensus was on global warming.

Now we're all shivering from record cold weather, the same idiot brigade are trying to shift their claim from Global Warming to Global Climate Change.

What load of nonsense
edit on 27-12-2010 by sy.gunson because: spelling correction



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


And I wanna say thank you for actually taking the time to examine the evidence fairly and objectively


Instead of just picking a team and then only blindly looking at whatever supports one side of the story.

Incidentally here's a few more sources on the scientific consensus:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
Expert credibility in climate change
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Logical Science: The Consensus on Global Warming


Scientists have a whiff of money because of all the research funding available to those who sing the same song.

During the early 1990s ENRON made a healthy $20bn profit annually trading EPA credits between companies emitting Hydrogen Sulphide.

Then the Enron Foundation hit on a a new idea and started directly funding environmental scientists proposing an obscure theory that Carbon Dioxide emissions were linked to Climate Changes. The Nature Conservancy's Climate Change Project recieved $1.5m to investigate and promote it's CO2 emission theories. *

Al Gore's Clinton team was favoured by donations from the Enron Foundation before coming to office in 1993 and suddenly Gore was pushing for the Kyoto accords, which interestingly USA did not sign up for.

Overnight the world of ENRON had created the world's newest religion. It had all the hallmarks of a cult like religion

* Global Catastrophe

* A Saviour

* Prescription of actions for the faithful to take to avoid disaster

* An edict to convert Unbelievers to the faith

* An agenda to attack Unbelievers as heretics

* What all religions must have an unresolvable dilemma only quenched by blind faith

Julian Assange behind wikileaks, revealed a couple of years ago, over 500 emails between global climate scientists conspiring to conceal and falsely misrepresent results from ice cores drilled from the Greenland ice cap which contradicted their Global Warming theory.


YES BOYS AND GIRLS... CLIMATE SCIENCE IS THE NEW RELIGION

YOU NO LONGER NEED TO GO TO CHURCH

TO FEEL RIGHTEOUS AMONG MEN,

JUST DRIVE A TOYOTA PRIUS AND PAY YOUR EMISSION TAXES

* Sources Investigatemagazine.com edition for October 2005, Pages 63-66




top topics



 
9

log in

join