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.

 

‘Climate Scientists’ Release Profane Video Bashing Deniers

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

A group of people calling themselves climate scientists have just released a video bashing climate-change deniers. And by bashing I mean a profanity-laced rap that includes calling one detractor a “mother fu**er.” The video opens up with the following message: “In the media landscape there are climate change deniers and believers, but rarely are those speaking about climate change actual climate scientists.” Then it goes into the rap, which features the names and titles of the scientists, including professors and students:


TheBlaze

I don't think this has been posted here yet, so I figured I would, just to see what the reactions will be. Personally, I didn't find the video offensive but I'm not easily offended. It's not something a parent would want their children to see though; most parents, I think.

It's an interesting approach to the message of human impact on climate change but I think it misses the mark with an overtly political message instead of a purely scientific one. On the other hand, I did catch myself laughing during the song....

I'm not going to embed the video here because it does contain profanity and might be a TOS violation.

WARNING: Contains profanity and Graphic Language.

YouTube: I'm a Climate Scientist




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Thanks for posting that.

I watched it and wondered what the point was. I hope they do not think this video would bolster their credibility, cause I have no respect for anyone in that video now. So the only thing I can come up with as a good reason to make this video is to cuss at deniers?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I certainly don't find it offensive. Although it may not have the entire intended effect on people you can tell what they are trying to accomplish. Something somewhat controversial will make MSM (maybe) and it is more likely to take root with the younger generation.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


WOW! So thats what they are left to resort to. Do the anthropogenic climate change believers really not have a leg left to stand on. They have to fall back on insults and really bad rap? Incredible.

It's offensive, but not because of the language.
edit on 5/13/2011 by amaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Apophis can't get here fast enough.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Hmmm... my first thought is that it makes them seem weak, insecure and childish.

If their arguments were as strong as they say they are, if they were as secure in them as they say, and if they were mature enough to debate intelligently - would they have to resort to this?

It takes away from the entire climate change movement.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
this will never do them any good..i remember about some email scandal with regard to some climate scientists...the emails revealed that the data they were using was destroyed to push their case of global warming...turns out these scientists were paid to support a move to limit green house gas emissions..the global warming campaign took a hit after that..sorry if i got things wrong...just remembering..



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I already posted this under the much more appropriate title:
Meet the climate scientists trying to enslave you [WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE. No seriously!]

But I guess this one will get much more attention from the "guffah? how DARE they!!" crowd...

I think the video is hilarious. It was produced by an Australian TV show, and I'm sure they were the ones responsible for the content/lyrics much more than the actual scientists themselves, who probably went along with it just for ****s and giggles.

I also think it's totally unfair to attack them for putting out a political message rather than a scientific one.

So far ALL the scientists have done is produce scientific messages which NOBODY is listening to - because instead they're all opting for the sensationalized, alarmist (yeah - that's right), polemic, and most of all POLITICAL hyper-ranting of the deniers who produce nothing but lies, smears, fake scandals, and easily debunkable but constantly rehashed simpleton memes to perpetually derail this conversation into anything BUT a scientific one.


So kudos to these scientists for finally fighting back in the most absurd way possible.


I also love this video because it demystifies some of the BS image the denialists have tried to paint on all climate scientists - that they're supposed to be these stuffy pencil pushing robots who just tow the company line on behalf of the UN or Al Gore agenda or something. That's why I titled my thread the way I did.



Anyway so here you go - these are the people who have produced a 97 percent consensus on man made climate change. They're just real people like the rest of us is the most important message behind this video I think.

Meanwhile the skeptics are the ones who are constantly shown to be producing completely fabricated data about their numbers. Meanwhile the only real scientists on their side turn out to be funded by oil companies.

So it's really time people started paying attention to this and using their heads and thinking for themselves, instead of automatically buying into fake denier bull**** just because it supposedly goes against the mainstream, and therefore must be the truth.

It's like most conspiracy theorists these days who think they're so "awake" aren't at all - they're just a bunch of hipster sheep compared to the regular sheep.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by atsmem1980
this will never do them any good..i remember about some email scandal with regard to some climate scientists...the emails revealed that the data they were using was destroyed to push their case of global warming...turns out these scientists were paid to support a move to limit green house gas emissions..the global warming campaign took a hit after that..sorry if i got things wrong...just remembering..


That email "scandal" turned out to be completely FAKE.

The emails were blown completely out of context and proportion but they were peddled into the media by the very same people these scientists are CALLING OUT in this video.

Here - here's a bunch of links on the truth about this manufactoversy:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
The Fake Scandal of Climategate


Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again
Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing
Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick


"ClimateGate" Scientists Cleared Yet Again, Story Ignored by Media Yet Again
'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done


"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus

US deniers behind 'Climategate,' experts allege



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Hey sorry bud... I did search for the actual title of the video. I had a feeling it was Australian produced because "scientists" are from Universities there. On the surface I find it pretty funny too, I've watched it a few times now... the line about Copenhagen is a riot.

I have to agree with atsmem1980, Frogs and the rest, the video doesn't exactly lend credence to the message I think they're trying to get across.

For me, the jury is still out as to the full impact of human activity on the climate, I haven't exactly 'drunk the koolaid' but I don't have blinders on either.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Yeah no problem. I don't mind as long as it gets this video more attention and gets people hopefully actually having a sane constructive discussion about it rather than what usually happens (pointless intellectual pissing contests and one-ups-manship)

It's totally cool and commendable to be skeptical of course - but what I find people constantly doing is gravitating towards the stuff that sells itself as skeptical, when it's really nothing but propaganda.

By all means - explore both sides of the story and decide for yourself, but just make sure you hear from the scientists as much as the skeptics, and make sure you're just as skeptical of the skeptics as you are of the scientists



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
These climate scientist are either payed off or dumb as hell. I'm not buying it. Co2 is not the problem. Period. Climate change is certainly happening but it is far more complicated and to blame it on Co2 is just preposterous. And they are turning this into a profitable evil scam.
I mean Al Gore, Gates and the rest of these filthy rich corporates, you'd be a fool to even trust them.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 



You may be right but the fact that some are trying to take advantage of this and profit from the whole mess does not disprove the theory that Human activity impacting the climate in a negative way.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Bwahaha!

This is from an Australian show called Hungry Beast.

It's having a laugh.

Some people need to get over themselves.



edit on 29/6/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I hesitate to believe anything coming out of the "climate change" camp anymore. It is now basically a political issue that seeks to support massive government control and increased taxes. A tax by any other name is still a tax...and I can't afford to pay anymore.

edit on 6/29/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well that was mildly amusing.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
...........
So far ALL the scientists have done is produce scientific messages which NOBODY is listening to - because instead they're all opting for the sensationalized, alarmist (yeah - that's right), polemic, and most of all POLITICAL hyper-ranting of the deniers who produce nothing but lies, smears, fake scandals, and easily debunkable but constantly rehashed simpleton memes to perpetually derail this conversation into anything BUT a scientific one.


They are not getting the attention they want simply because people are catching up to their lies, and no matter how many times you, and your associates, claim that people are exagerating your lies, and your idols have not fabricated any data, we actually know the truth simply because EVEN YOUR IDOLS HAVE CONFESSED...


The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date wasgrey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobbys regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

online.wsj.com...


A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link


A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Here are the statements by Dr. John Christy who happens to be a Climatologist and was trying to warn people years ago as to what he wtinessed the IPCC policy makers" wanted to do to coerce all nations into accepting the Kyoto Protocol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
.............................

www.drroyspencer.com...

Dr. Roy Spencer has a PhD in Atmospheric science, which means he is a climatologist

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by mc_squared
So kudos to these scientists for finally fighting back in the most absurd way possible.
...
I also love this video because it demystifies some of the BS image the denialists have tried to paint on all climate scientists - that they're supposed to be these stuffy pencil pushing robots who just tow the company line on behalf of the UN or Al Gore agenda or something. That's why I titled my thread the way I did.


Right, of course you had to "kudos" these scientists, after all you have no real argument to stand on...



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Oh, and let's not forget the tactics that the main stream media, and the AGW believers have been using to try to bury the truth...




BTW, for the BILLIONTH TIME, NO ONE denies Climate Change... This is how stupid the argument of the AGW believers get, the climate changes ALL THE TIME, and yes we have been, and are still experiencing NATURAL Climate Change, not the lies told by the new curch of AGW believers...
edit on 29-6-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by amaster
 



Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


WOW! So thats what they are left to resort to. Do the anthropogenic climate change believers really not have a leg left to stand on. They have to fall back on insults and really bad rap? Incredible.

It's offensive, but not because of the language.
edit on 5/13/2011 by amaster because: (no reason given)



that's what the republicans felt when they tried to make it a tax issue. they even hired a anthro denier to do some research, show how test sites were cherry picked, and testify under oath in front of congress

funny thing happened

have you read prof muller's. testimony ?
edit on 29-6-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 



Originally posted by dadgad
These climate scientist are either payed off or dumb as hell. I'm not buying it. Co2 is not the problem. Period. Climate change is certainly happening but it is far more complicated and to blame it on Co2 is just preposterous. And they are turning this into a profitable evil scam.
I mean Al Gore, Gates and the rest of these filthy rich corporates, you'd be a fool to even trust them.



you're right. methane is a much more potent green house gas and is frequently left out of the discussion, and is seeping out of every landfill on the planet 24/7/365
edit on 29-6-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join