It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by babybunnies

yes i can remember this, i was at school at this time and we where all a flutter about how much fun it was going to be, ah the folly's of youth

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by RUSSO
Why are they chasing Julian Assange?

Can not be because he is dismantling this cartel/mafia that many world's governments are.

Of course we're conspirators nuts.

How much time still left of free internet?

Enjoy it while you can, because i think next generation will not.

i agree with this but i would like to point out that given the man made global warming hoax has been busted the ptb would be giving nothing away by including any damaging material in the wikileaks at this point - they could be sweetening the honey pot

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:24 AM
reply to post by RUSSO

Just show how this effects climate science.
Your link is about a political agreement that the US wants to manipulate.
Yet, you claim that AGW is a hoax.

Just show were in the cables it states that global warming is a hoax and scientists have been manipulated.
It is that simple.
That is your claim, so put up or shut up.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

You shut up, global warming hoaxer.

edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

it´s all for nothing, let him be. People who can actually read (just like you) noticed his mistake within 10 seconds after reading the article he linked. And people with some background knowledge also realized quickly how he is putting different things together to create the illusion of "something".

it is called Cognitive dissonance happens to all of us.

The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by RUSSO

Just show how this effects climate science.
Your link is about a political agreement that the US wants to manipulate.
Yet, you claim that AGW is a hoax.

Just show were in the cables it states that global warming is a hoax and scientists have been manipulated.
It is that simple.
That is your claim, so put up or shut up.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by shr4n

Just doing my best for ATS.
Deny Ignorance.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by atlasastro

A global trend in rising oceans, from melting Ice, is what makes people think it is related to global warming.

Just curious. I can see how this would apply to glaciers but how does it apply to sea ice?

Do you also happen to know what the proportion of the water in the glaciers in the world is as a percentage of the oceans? Just wondering what the effect would be in the case of total melt.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

I guess it's only the ice that melts from the land mass that raises sea levels, the glaciers in the sea already influence the sea level as a solid.

edit on 4-12-2010 by digitalf because: removed a double word

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by atlasastro

Yeh, To you ignorance is indeed a bless.

Just two words for you.


Al Gore = TERRORIST!!!!
edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

These are just a few Glaciers, volume and potential sea level rise if they were to all go.
It is worth noting Puterman, that the IPCC have used incorrect estimates relating to sea rise in their reports. In some reports that account for sections of Antarctica growing, and the speeds of ice retreats to be slower.
They are wrong, Antarctica is not growing, and the Ice is in fact retreating faster than thought.
These are backed by observations mate, independent of the IPCC.

Anyway, here are the sizes and potential effects.
"Geographic region: Greenland
Percent: 10.82
Volume: 2,600,000 km3
Percent: 7.9
Maximum sea level rise potential: 6.5 m
Area: 1,736,095 km2"

Geographic region: Antarctica
Percent: 84.64
Volume: 30,109,800 km3
Percent: 91.49
Maximum sea level rise potential: 73.44 m
Area: 13,586,400 km2"

Yes, that says 73 meters.
Interesting link above regarding glacier retreat and sea level rise.

It is worth noting that the volume of the Ice aids in its size and rate of melt, this also aid in reflecting sunlight back out rather than it being absorbed by oceans or land mass or the atmosphere, so we also lose that effect too, which is also true for sea ice.
So as they both retreat, melting rates will increase, as will local temperatures in those regions. The arctic sea ice retreat is a perfect example of this happening. Retreating sea ice has allowed the ocean to absorb sunlight which warms the region which fuels further sea ice loss, and the process continues.

Regardless of the debate involving cause, these melts that are observed around the globe will have a real and undeniable effect on the planet.

The above example are just two glaciers.
Currently, nearly all glaciers around the world are retreating.

Make of it what you will.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by atlasastro

Sun Responsible for Global Warming

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.”

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,” the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.”

You Make of it what you will.

edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by RUSSO

You are now blaming the Sun for GW when you OP claims it is a hoax and was created by the USA.
Thanks bro.

Don't change the subject you Liar.
reply to post by RUSSO

Your OP link is about a political agreement that the US wants to manipulate.
Yet, you claim that AGW is a hoax.

Just show were in the cables it states that global warming is a hoax and scientists have been manipulated.
It is that simple.
That is your claim, so put up or shut up.

Put up
Shut up.

You can't do it, because you have created a lie, on purpose and You know it.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:35 PM
My theory isn't very scientific, but it's plausible. Here it is: Global warming is real, but it is NOT caused by humans. It is caused by the simple fact that the sun, being a star many millions of times the size of Earth, has a very large gravitational pull. The Earth is very, very gradually getting closer to the sun every year. Don't expect me to cite a source, as I have no solid scientific source (perhaps someone else can find one), but think about it. Wouldn't the sun's gravity eventually reel the Earth in over millions of years? Especially if there have been any recent changes in the sun (i.e. it got heavier, therefore now has more gravity), this is at least logically plausible. It is also plausible that if a scientist were to run the numbers and simulations to figure this out, the government would quickly discredit and silence him whlie making up their own excuse for it "so as not to cause mass panic."
Note that this is just a theory, and may not be true at all.

Whether global warming truly exists or not, the fact that the government has done essentially nothing based on their claims when they undoubtedly had the means to eliminate the use of fossil fuels altogether exposes the lie for what it is. There is actually a law on the books that states that you cannot patent a working free energy device of ANY kind, and I have heard more than one story of people who have created them suddenly disappearing or being told by men in black to cease and desist and having their research confiscated.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

Sorry, but I asked the OP to point out where in the source article linked to the wikileaks cables, does it state that AGW is a hoax.
It was a simple question relating to a specific source that was used to make a specific statement.
That is where my answer best lies.

My point was to demonstrate to you that government policy designed to influence economics is going to inherently influence the culture of scientific service.

I guess I should apply this to your post and your reference to information systems. I am going to thank you in advance for allowing me to show that the denial of global warming, and the opinion that it is a hoax, can be found within key "nodes" that statistically speaking present an over-representation of doubt and skepticism in relation to the spectrum of the debate

Skepticism is the scientific default. Inconclusive data cannot be used to justify a conclusion that draws anything other than "inconclusive."

To reference the node based systems, major nodes have accepted the notion of global warming (the impending crisis - climate change is a given, the climate has been changing for time eternal - to expect it to stop is naivete to the extreme) while many individuals have not accepted it and taken a skeptical stance. This is akin to a virus infecting major cities and population centers but not affecting more isolated regions. Or the inverse - a virus being treated and 'eliminated' from most major populations, but continuing to have small outbreaks in those areas from time to time due to transmissions from more isolated regions that have not received the vaccine.

In either case - "global warming" is the positive that must be proven.

Lets apply the AGW debate to your analogy.

I like my analogy better, and it is far more relevant. You are confusing two different, but related systems. There are communication/information systems that simply relay concepts and ideas. Then there are actual research/data systems, like universities. The two sit on a gray area where a university acts as a credential for communication/information/distribution.

I understand that.
AGW is not limited to a single source.

The sources of data are confined to a few sources. Measurements of sea levels are largely done by satellite and the methods used for finding averages are highly controversial. Ultimately - it all falls back on the physical measurements done at harbors to calibrate the formulas. The deal with that, however, is a complete lack of consistency in reporting and quality control standards. The data must be filtered before it can even begin to be used to draw any kind of conclusion - and you introduce bias the moment you do that. It also does not help that the "average" difference between any given year is well within the margin of error for the set of data.

Temperature records fall into the same catch-22 where the two sets of data from satellites and ground stations appear to collaborate, but in reality, the satellite data is derived from formulas inherently designed to give a similar result to the recorded data. Again - problems arise in consistency of reporting, accuracy of instruments, and local issues. Temperatures in a city are going to be much warmer on the average than areas just half a mile outside of the city - thereby creating a huge problem in the recorded statistics.

What it all amounts to is the recorded averages tend to rise and fall well within the margin of error for the data - which makes drawing conclusions from it irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.

Here's some interesting reading:

As pointed out by Ross Gelbspan in The Washington Post four weeks ago, some of these scientists, myself included, enjoy industry research support. (In my case, 84 percent of my university research is funded by taxpayers.) His figures show an average of 835,000 per year to a few people. The U.S. government spends $2.1 billion per year on global change research and it's hard to believe so much would be spent on researchers who would say "no problem." Accepting Gelbspan's contention that there are 2,000 climate scientists (there are actually about 60 PhDs in climatology in the entire United States), that's a cool million dollars per scientist, every year.

So, even as long as ten years ago - that's a very small group of people. Not a single source - but even all of these climate researchers didn't agree back then.

The argument is simple and was summerised by another member MC_Squared, whom I will quote:
It can be broken down to a number of straightforward things:

Nothing involving a system as massive as the climate is simple. Chaotic systems behave in ways that are nearly impossible to predict and extraordinarily difficult to model without direct experimentation. We simply do not have the capacity to experiment on a system of this scale, and all of the models and predictions are subject to the problem of limited understanding of the factors involved. It is theorized that life created much of the known compounds on the planet - even down to the mineral composition of many rocks and geological formations - something completely unprecedented when the Earth was nothing more than a ball of rock-on-fire and gas.

But I'll play along.

1. The Greenhouse Effect is real.

Yes, it was not that great of a movie.

The problem with the Greenhouse Effect is the inherent problem with small-scale closed-system studies on macroscopic open systems. Demonstrating any kind of causal relationship between various gas concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperature has not been accomplished outside of data-sets consisting only of data within a 50 year time-span.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So is water. It's even worse. And this is where our models break down. As global temperatures increase, the saturation point increases considerably which allows for more water to evaporate and be contained within the atmosphere. However, this will also lead to more cloud formation and precipitation - which work to reflect and attenuate sunlight. So, will more water make it warmer or act as a fail-safe? There is no real way of knowing unless we try it.

3. Emissions are increasing.

Yes, they have increased a total of less than 1% of the total carbon emissions (including natural) over the past twenty years. Presuming our methods of estimating all of the carbon activity on the planet are accurate enough to be considered worth the effort of writing a paper about it.

4. Anthropogenic Global Warming was predicted over 100 years ago based on the 3 above principles.


I predict it will start getting warmer again in another hundred years or so due to a close-call with a gamma-ray burst. Therefor, in a hundred years, if temperatures start rising, it is because of the gamma ray burst that I predicted.

5. That prediction is coming true.

I'm sure mine will, as well. At some point close to the hundred year mark, temperatures will be warmer than they were the previous year on the average.

You're drawing a correlation where there is none. The current warming cycle was also predicted due to solar factors and cycles.

World War II saw a severely sharp rise in man-made CO2 emissions for several years leading up to and following. Rather than heating up - the world cooled.

Ice-cores show that CO2 lags temperature increases by well over 800 years where there is a correlation to be had at all.

The sun changes on cycles of 11, 22, 80, and 180 years, and even more. When the sun is more active it is warmer, and there are more sunspots and solar flares. When the sun is warmer, the earth is warmer. Though the changes in brightness or irradiance during the 11-year cycles are small (0.1 percent), when the sun is more active there is more ultraviolet radiation (6 to 8 percent for UV up to a factor of two for extremely short wavelength UV and X-rays; Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2004)(3) and there tends to be a stronger solar wind and more geomagnetic storms. Increased UV has been shown to produce warming in the high and middle atmosphere (that leads to surface warming), especially in low and mid latitudes. This is has been shown through observational measurements by Labitzke(4) over the past 50 years and replicated in NASA models by Shindell(5).

Increased solar wind and geomagnetic activity has been shown by Svensmark(6) and others to lead to a reduction in cosmic rays reaching the ground. Cosmic rays have a cloud-enhancing property and their reduction during active solar periods leads to a reduction in low clouds, up to a few percent. Low clouds reflect solar radiation, leading to cooling. Decreased low cloudiness means more sunshine and warmer surface temperatures. Shaviv (7) found the cosmic ray and irradiance factors could account for up to 77 percent of the warming since 1900, and found the strong correlation extended back 500 million years

Don't let science get in the way of your dogma, though.

You cannot reduce the entire debate down to one organization.

Actually, you can. The IPCC reports are the most heavily cited and centralized source for climate research and conclusions. Most of the research into and out of global climate change come out of the IPCC or are funded by it.

I encourage you to read the IPCC reports - to sum it up - everything from floods to your headache are caused by global warming, and it's critical we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere post-haste.

But let's take a look at what the scientists that sit on the IPCC actually think:

In the end, 54 of the IPCC-ers completed the survey, including such alarmist big-wigs as the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley. Trenberth and several other survey participants are lead authors of the IPCC report.

The survey results are quite illuminating about the much-touted “consensus.”

The responses to the survey’s first four questions were predictable -- 83% to 90% of the respondents favored the view that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driving global climate to unprecedentedly warmer temperatures and that limiting manmade CO2 emissions would reduce such climate change.

The responses to the last two questions, however, raise questions about the consensus’ credibility.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius -- twice the level of warming occurring during the 20th century -- is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others, or too difficult to assess.

Only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

But if there’s no agreement on whether a target climate even exists, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming?

Don’t forget that many scientists don’t participate in the IPCC because they perceive it as biased. The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter, for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.” There’s also the Petition Project, where 19,000 scientists have endorsed a statement questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism.

The whole idea of a consensus in science is dubious. As economist John Kay recently wrote in an op-ed entitled “Science is the pursuit of truth, not consensus” (Financial Times, Oct. 9), “Statements about the world derive their value from the facts and arguments that support them, not from the status and qualifications of the people who assert them.”

- .pdf and list of questions asked with responses

Answer this for me then if Universities are in on it.

The problem is not exactly the universities. You don't read their actual research data. You read what someone compiles and extrapolates out of that data. Even I do - we hardly ever look at the full set of collected data and read the opinion of the scientists who composed the paper; we simply read the headline that picks and chooses what data from a university paper to display to us.

Example - the IPCC. You hardly ever come into contact with news articles about specific research papers that would so pique your interest as to look at the actual data presented and the discussion of that data. You usually end up reading headlines that spawn from IPCC reports and initiatives.

Here's something worth noting, here:

Part 2 - Number of Reviewers and Comments
A total of 308 reviewers2 commented on chapters of Second Order Revision (SOR), i.e. the
penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than 3 chapters and just 5 on all 11
chapters (table 2 and figure 1).
At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further
71 (23%) on two. This would be fine if they were experts and provided numerous detailed
comments but 53 of these 214 reviewers (25%) made fewer than 5 comments and 28 of them
made fewer than 3. This raises the question of why they bothered to review any chapters and the
question of whether they examined other chapters but had nothing to say.

As noted above, the chapters of the Second Order Revision were subjected to attention by
different numbers of reviewers. One hundred reviewers examined chapter 2, which dealt with
changes to the atmosphere, but just 34 examined chapter 4, which discussed changes to snow, ice
and frozen ground.(table 3)

Reviewers commented on the chapter as a whole and then on each paragraph of the draft in
question. Most reviewers' comments fall into one of the following categories
- praise
- correction of typographic errors (spelling and punctuation)
- correction of grammatical errors
- suggested improvements (words or phrases)
- requests for clarifications, for more precise wording or for definitions
- corrections of references or suggestions of additional references,
- other corrections or clarifications (e.g. "Not all volcanic eruptions are climate-relevant.")

Forget any illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all chapters of the report and
providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. The true picture is closer to 65 reviewers for
any one chapter, with about half of those not commenting on any other chapter and one quarter
commenting on just one other. On top of that, about half of those reviewing this chapter made
very few comments.

You're looking at the single largest climate research symposium being virtually unregulated in the reports it releases.

The problem goes back to what I said earlier about science being a service. Universities get money for researching climate change. There are two inherent problems, here. First - you don't want to tell a paying customer what they don't want to hear. If someone walks into a restaurant and orders some weird combination of food that you find absolutely sick and repulsive - you don't tell them what they don't want to hear. You tell them to have a nice day and please come back.

The other problem is inherent to climatology, itself. Climate research was virtually unheard of outside of meteorology thirty years ago. About all people cared about with regards to climate research was how accurately one could predict the weather. Now, however, with the Climate Crisis - a service provider has the ability to create demand for its services. Their publications can create a state of alarm and/or concern that creates returning customers. Kind of like how the fortune teller will gaze into the crystal ball, give you vague warnings of bad things to come, and you keep coming back for advice on how to survive in a world full of certain doom.

That's not to say that all research into the climate is subject to this form of corruption - but it is a factor that must be kept in mind - particularly concerning that a lot of research is done by grads and undergrads but screened/groomed by department heads at universities - who don't want to see their department evaporate from a lack of demand for it.

Then simply show a connection between the money and fraudulent work being published.
Should be simple.

It's pretty simple. Billions in government spending are going toward subsidizing industry changes and new markets that didn't exist prior to the climate scare. Laws being written threaten to choke out all companies that cannot afford to make the shifts in industry processes mandated by the government in the name of protecting the climate.

New markets are where the financial gains lay. The booming businesses are the first of their kind - they build the block before even walking around it. This demand for "clean energy" and various "environmentally conscious" products is being driven by the alarm over climate change. Not that these are an inherently bad thing - like any business, they will have lobbyists and others will offer stocks that various people across the world will invest in. Anyone with stocks or connections to these businesses has a lot to gain through the climate alarm.

We see in the case of the IPCC - headed by politicians and a few scientists that write the report (and only a few seating members actually review and critique the comments of the thousands of scientists across the planet involved in climate studies) and it is the one-stop-shop of climate research cited by governments and text books as documented fact.

To say there is a "conspiracy to control the masses" is a bit more credit than is due. There is, however, a lot to be gained from these interests perpetuating the alarmist state over the climate - and very little peer review done on the largest and most cited climate change report there is. The content of those reports is mostly decided by a small base of people - very few of which are scientists.

The whole is a little greater than the sum of its parts, here.

We have been getting records from different countries from a number of methods that support the theory of AGW. Not only satellites.

(site has been referenced earlier)

The IPCC acknowledges no problems with the global data bases, stating urbanization has a negligible effect on global changes, and ignoring dozens of peer review papers that show urban contamination is significant (in diverse areas including China, central Europe, and even Barrow, Alaska). During the 20th century, the population of the world increased four-fold, from 1.5 billion to 6 billion. More and more areas are urbanized. Airports, once rural, find cities growing around them.

The report ignores the fact that total global stations decreased by 66 percent after 1990, and there was a ten-fold increase in months with no reported data from the remaining stations, mainly in the former Soviet Union and Africa. They also ignore the issue that the majority of world stations may not meet World Meteorological Organization standards for siting instruments, a problem that has also been widely documented in peer review journals. They ignore the half-dozen peer review papers suggesting that these problems could well account for 50 percent or more of the warming shown for the world data bases.

It is just not possible to obtain a representative sample of the earth's surface as the beginning of
an attempt to discover average temperature. So what do they do? They take the measurements
made by meteorological stations and get an average from them. But these are nearly all near
cities and do not include most of the earth's surface. Such an average is worthless, and there is
no way it can be "corrected".

If you want a "global average" you must surely start with a "local average", but no actual
measurement of a local average temperature has ever been made; or at least published. What
do they use, then? They try to claim that they can show a sequence from 1850, so they are
forced to use the only measurements of temperature have been made since that time, and for
that matter, up to the present day in most places.
This involves only one temperature measurement a day, from a maximum and minimum
thermometer. So the only measurements you have are a daily maximum and a daily minimum
with an unrepresentative sample. It is assumed that the mean of these quantities represents
some sort of average. This was once believed in 1850; but not today. Modern statistics does not
recognise such an "average", which can depart from a genuine average by large and unknown
amounts, incapable of being calculated. A recent comparison I made for some New Zealand
weather stations (Gray 2007) shows that the error can be as large as 2.6ºC, much larger than
the claimed effects of greenhouse warming.

I encourage you to educate yourself further (read the rest of this paper) and deny ignorance. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to tell you that you have to think the way I do to not be arrogant - or even come to the same conclusion - but you're obviously not aware of the criticisms against the current global warming insanity.

We also monitor glaciers, the poles, the ocean temperatures, trends in local weather giving us a global perspective, the incidence of disease in relation to warmer climate, cycles in seasons( spring getting earlier and earlier), plant and animal ranges shifting due to climate change, droughts and fires growing and increasing due to temperature.

You've mentioned a lot - and I can deliver - but I won't excerpt anything, just list responses to your topic - this post is getting hideously huge.

Glaciers/Ice melt:

There is -no- evidence of substantial melting of the ice-sheets on a global scale. Period.

Ocean temperature?

Your local weather comment is addressed by the above paper.

Incidence of disease? ... There are so many factors in that, it's not even worth debating over.

Changes in seasons? Really? Where's the meat and potatoes to that one? Seasons are marked by a number of things - not just temperature. The cycles of plants are more heavily influenced by solar radiation than they are by temperature. Lately, trees have been budding earlier (probably a bad thing, as it's still cold enough to kill the buds if it frosts) and dropping leaves later (so we're raking leaves for thanksgiving instead of halloween).

Plant and animal ranges? Again - a lot more to that than temperature. The department of conservation has more to do with, for example, deer populations than temperature does - they issue licenses and tags for hunting. When they issue too few, populations end up being controlled by cars on the highway and animal control authorities hauling them out of people's back yards.

Droughts and fires? Well - again, if you have an increase in solar radiation - you might have some of these. Isolating man as an influence is pretty difficult... though there are a lot of people on the planet and urbanization is forcing them out of their natural habitat - forcing them to roast marshmallows in territory they would normally never venture to.

So simply show fraudulent work being funded by these groups.


Yes, I have read many, many scientists say we should be concerned. That is what reasonable and responsible people normally do.

And yet most say the data is inconclusive and/or does not support the assertion that there is an impending crisis of any kind. The conclusion merely comments on the importance temperature has in the stability of the analyzed system as a service to their customer.

Incorrect. The IPCC reports are perfect example of the kind of changes that are predictions related to impact.

Except they have no data to support their conclusions. In fact, most of the data - even from their own sources - contradicts their conclusion.

So far the data is showing that many, many, many, many, many, many scientists are correct.

You've apparently not done your homework - as demonstrated above.

The datat supports the observation in relation to human emissions of CO2. Physics supports the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas. Data and observations show that warming is happening as a trend.

Satellites have been measuring the temperature since the late 70s. When compared to the average temperature records reported by weather stations around the globe, the satellite temperature records stand in disagreement with the ground records beginning in the 90s and do not observe a similar warming trend. Before the satellite records were released and included in major climate-change studies, they were 'reconciled' through entirely unprecedented and baseless 'corrections.'

You can take any set of data and 'reconcile' it with any other set of data given enough artistic freedom. You invalidate the data in doing so - but it looks good on paper.

This is backed up in my sources above. It's my turn to talk, the excerpt box can take a break.

False, the ice caps have not grown. This is a blatant lie.

*Snicker* Like a lamb to the slaughter. Already covered, I just had to highlight this for laughs.

A global trend in rising oceans, from melting Ice, is what makes people think it is related to global warming.

This is the problem - the proof is in the pudding.

If you have any substantial increase in the amount of water in the ocean - then you would see regions near the equator rise exponentially by comparison to other areas of the globe. It would, also, not be an isolated event. Some little backwater island starts sinking because of rising ocean levels, and the Panama Canal should be the first to know something is amiss.

Instead - there's no real support for any substantial increase or decrease in ocean levels. Satellites have only recently been able to monitor levels within the sub-millimeter range as of late, and methods involving average wave height and factoring in seasonal events (storm activity, for example - tidal effects of various gravitational bodies, etc) are unable to be used to demonstrate any kind of radical change at this point in time. We would need to use satellite data over the next decade and compare it to data (using the same averaging methods) from recent times to draw any kind of conclusions about whether or not there is a trend in the data.

You can't take harbor measurements and compare them to satellite measurements and make a conclusion based off of such small differences between the two data sets. Only after you have compiled enough data over time using a new method can you begin to identify trends.

Fair point. Lets apply your fears of the above being true to AGW.
This sums it up.

The problem is that we have people planning to spend billions of dollars on radical measures, such as large carbon-scrubbing industries. You also have businesses being arbitrarily restricted, entire industries being told how to operate by people with no understanding of the industry.

Alarmist states and extreme government and social reactions are -never- a good thing. I'm all for "Green" stuff. I'm not going to buy it until it becomes cost-effective to do so - but I'm all for efficient use of resources. I'm a perfectionist and anything at or below unity is too wasteful in my book, and we can do better (yes, I realize this would mean 'something from nothing' - and whether it's possible or not, it's my goal to one day show thermodynamics who is who).

Your whole post was an exercise in the proliferation of dogma.
Your stance against science reminds me of those fundamentalists supporting creationism theory or Islamic fundamentalists that deny the Holocaust ever happened and that is was manufactured by Zionists.

And, yet, the climate change alarmist state has been orchestrated and perpetuated by relatively few scientific and economic interests despite criticism from the scientific community at large.

This all boils down to who has something to gain versus who does not. These scientists have nothing to gain from denouncing the alarmist state. However, by making it an urgent and impending crisis, it has become a method of engineering responses from society at large. In the 80s - the world was going to freeze. Governments even passed rationing laws on natural gas to ensure there would be enough to help us survive the almost certainly approaching ice age. Now we are going to burn up and be able to fish from the Appalachian Mountains if we don't reduce CO2 emissions to impractically low levels.

In both cases politicians and certain industry interests gained at the expense of the average person. Gas rationing was used by larger companies to choke out smaller companies and to prevent start-up interest. Now, we have entirely new industries benefiting from a massive demand for incredibly premature technology and solutions. Most of these "green" solutions will be entirely obsolete or in need of complete replacement within the next ten years (well before they have "paid for themselves") and will end up being another scandalous subject akin to Enron.

Don't worry - you never stood a chance. I can retain most of what I read upon the first read. I read an average of three or four large research papers of various subjects per week. You only stand a chance when I'm new to the subject - I'll overtake your knowledge and mastery within a week (I can read substantially more than the average). Doesn't matter how many years you have. If I find a similarly experienced person to talk to, I'll also absorb as many 'trade secrets' as possible.

Yes, that's me boasting - I like to do it from time to time, particularly when meeting someone who is assured of himself more than I am assured of myself. Ever see the show "The Pretender" - I'm fairly close to that guy. What I don't already know, I can learn in a frighteningly short amount of time. Though I'm not nearly as bad ass as he is.

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by atlasastro

My point was to demonstrate to you that government policy designed to influence economics is going to inherently influence the culture of scientific service.

I understood your point, but it is irrelevant and totally unrelated to the question I asked.

The easiest response to your post is to go back to the factor that motivated your original reply.

The answer to your question best lies in an understanding of system networks and the underlying mathematical principles.

Sorry, but I asked the OP to point out where in the source article linked to the wikileaks cables, does it state that AGW is a hoax.
It was a simple question relating to a specific source that was used to make a specific statement.
That is where my answer best lies.

And I have that answer, the OP cannot show that and nor can you because it simply does not say that.
Thank you for corresponding, but it seems irrelevant and merely hyperbole aimed at blowing your own trumpet.
Blow away mate.

For someone who reads a lot, you just can't answer a simple question, can you?
How do my chances stand now.

edit on 5/12/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by atlasastro

Thank you very much for that information. It was getting confusing with may different figures. A long time ago I bought a house at 101 m above sea level just in case

As you say irrespective of what may or may not cause a total melt, the figure is interesting.

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

I just bought an apartment, top floor, on hill.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in