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 Science You Won't Hear About: Convincing evidence global warming caused by cosmic rays,sun

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by PuterMan
 
You're a pathological liar, and I will refrain from reading any further comments from you.

Shame on you!


how sad for you to be so misinformed or deluded to result in slander/libel and false accusations..


Some days I'm ashamed to be a member of this community.


Given that the site's mottoios, "Deny Ignorance," you should be.


The amount of rubbish on this topic is incredible.


To which your "contributions" do not cease.


I see illogical bull# nonstop in these posts.

Undoubtedly as you spell-check and review your own.


Fitting everyone in one square mile, are you people out of your freaking minds?


Actually, quite reasonable. Do the math. Be generous. Give each person a square yard if closeness makes you uncomfortable. I've pointed this out as well; 6 billion people will fit nicely within a 200 mile square area with room to spare.

We are not as significant as you think.

Deny ignorance
jw
edit on 30-8-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 



You're a pathological liar, and I will refrain from reading any further comments from you.


Really it's all you can do.


These people have no interest in truth or denying ignorance - they simply want to stroke their own egos.

jdub here for example is just another willfully delusional Republi-drone who only hears what he wants to, and simply ignores anything factual that disproves his routinely misinformed posts.

I have repeatedly caught him misrepresenting his own claims, to which he NEVER has a satisfactory rebuttal - he'll simply move the goal posts and toss up more delusional diversion, or disappear from the conversation altogether and then slither back here posting new nonsense when he thinks the coast is clear again.

See for example the exchange starting here for unequivocal proof.



Meanwhile as for this thread - all you need to do to debunk it is go to to the source.

Jasper Kirkby was the lead author of this most recent CERN study that, according to jdub:


provides coinvincing evidence, contrary to the CW and the MSM hype, that the sun and cosmic rays have a strong impact upon the process of cloud formation, and hence, the heating and cooling of the Earth.



Meanwhile here is what Jasper Kirkby himself says about this supposedly conclusive evidence:


At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step


Source

And if you read the two sentences above that one you'll see all this experiment did was in fact reproduce results that -


enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds.


In fact this "very important first step" confirms nothing that wasn't already acknowledged by the IPCC themselves, who wrote about it back in 2007:


The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms


The source for that statement is the last IPCC report - but you know - according to jdub the IPCC are in cahoots with the mainstream media to cover all this up!



But that's what happens when you get all of your science information from editorials on the financial post instead of from the scientists themselves:

You become a brainwashed dolt manipulated by the whims of the unqualified dolt writing the article. And then you make a hypocritical fool of yourself by taking to the internet to use it as evidence of how others are supposedly being brainwashed by the media lol.

Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


At least someone in this thread has integrity of character, and the insight to see what's really going on.

Jdub keeps on with the, x Amt can live within x square miles rubbish. I can't even begin to point out how moronic this statement is. What about sanitation? What about acquiring resources? What about governing so many people in such a small area? What about the natural rise in tension that comes with increased population density? What about the fact that once humans enter an ecosystem, most species are wiped out within a thousand years? what about the fact that WE DEPEND on the ecosystems for OUR OWN survival?

SO MANY factors not considered.




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


They really seem to have a lot of trouble thinking beyond the most superficial, one-dimensional levels. This is why they are easy prey for the denial industry that deliberately feeds them the most watered-down, over-simplified, cherry-picked memes - knowing they will swallow them up in one bite.

I also noticed a bunch of comments pertaining to how nobody in the global warming crowd factors in the Sun. This is such an asinine ignorant statement that can be debunked in 5 seconds just by looking up the literature.

For example someone said the IPCC ignored the Sun altogether in the beginning. All you have to do is go to the first IPCC report available here and look at section 2.3.1 Solar Radiation.

But it doesn't matter - they only hear whatever they want to hear, which is exactly why they're called climate deniers.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Very interesting...

www.theglobeandmail.com...
edit on 31-8-2011 by EmilyP30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Also... what is up with the odd numbers in regards to the Arctic? For example, the Arctic holds 13% of the world's oil and there are 11 drills in certain areas in the Arctic? Also, why so many 11's in this article?

www.guardian.co.uk...

Lastly, what does everybody make of the Russian/Exxon deal that was just signed?

I have always firmly believed that the world leaders are purposely melting the ice caps so that they can drill in the Arctic. Obama recently allowed Shell to start drilling there and now Exxon??? There response is that "since the ice caps are melting, we can go ahead and drill there now." Hmmm... maybe somebody is "making" that happen and blaming it on us.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 



These people have no interest in truth or denying ignorance - they simply want to stroke their own egos.

jdub here for example is just another willfully delusional Republi-drone who only hears what he wants to, and simply ignores anything factual that disproves his routinely misinformed posts.


Personal attacks reveal only the inadequacy of your religious fervor to support the hoax that AGW is and always has been.


Watching A Green Fiction Unravel

This new finding of 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes from an experiment that's been ongoing since 2009 is, if we may paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal. Which is exactly why the mainstream media, with so much invested in global warming hysteria, is letting last week's announcement from CERN pass like a brief summer shower, ignoring it.

Even CERN's own director general, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, is trying to avoid the meaning of the findings.

He told Germany's Die Welt Online that he's "asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."
...
How long the Al Gores, James Hansens, Rolf-Dieter Heuers, (mc_squareds) and other defenders of the indefensible can hang on to their fable isn't altogether clear. With the help of an eager media, they have spun a nearly believable tale of fright and insulated themselves well from the skeptics.

But their days are few. Truth keeps getting in the way of their indoctrination effort.

And it's not just the CERN research creating a problem for them. They also need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch this year compared to 2010.

Under the rules of climate change, sea levels, due to melting ice and water that expands as it warms, should be increasing in a way that we're all supposed to believe is a threat. But NASA scientists say that El Nino and La Nina, weather cycles in the Pacific Ocean, have caused sea levels to fall.

While United Nations estimates are much more conservative, the certainty of rising sea levels is still an article of faith among global warming believers.

So the news out of NASA, coupled with the CERN experiment, has got to be discouraging for the global warming believers.

That is as it should be.

The promoters of the faith had a long run. They've been feted and joined by the media, and conned a good piece of the public into believing their claims of inevitable disaster. They've made wild amounts of money and increased their realm of influence.

But now it's time for reality to intervene. For sound thinking to overcome shallow thought and trendy pursuit. To rely on observable facts. To move beyond the oppressive reign of junk science.

www.investors.com...

The whitewash will not last forever. Even the author and his boss acknowlkedge that CERN has pretty much censored the findings by explicitly denying their right to interpret them, leaving it to others.

What a brilliant strategy: gag the researchers, then denigrate those who are willing and able to spread and interpret their results!

Complain all you want that only certain publications are willing to print truth and facts, as opposed to the MSM/Green/mc_squared hype and ad hominem. At least I've got the ability to find them and post them to counter the unending doomsday crap spewing from the likes of the AGW faithful.

deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 



Jdub keeps on with the, x Amt can live within x square miles rubbish. I can't even begin to point out how moronic this statement is. What about sanitation? What about acquiring resources? What about governing so many people in such a small area? What about the natural rise in tension that comes with increased population density? SO MANY factors not considered.


Only a moron would actually try to rationalize/analyze actually moving the Earth's population to a given finite space.
The example provided was to show that our entire biomass is insignificant, in a global perspective.

Insects, krill and bacteria have more biomass than homo sapiens. They have had a longer presence and greater influence than Man ever has or will.

Your narrow-minded focus on logisitcs betrays your narrow-minded approach to the climate.


What about the fact that once humans enter an ecosystem, most species are wiped out within a thousand years? what about the fact that WE DEPEND on the ecosystems for OUR OWN survival?


Considering that the entire Earth is an "ecosystem" into which humans have entered, then your proposition implies that over the last million years, we've essentially rendered the Earth devoid of life. You neglect to consider that Nature is continually producing thousands of new species despite our "intrusion."

Foolhardy appeals to ignorants do not render your theories realistic, believable or even worth consideration.
Re-consider your faulty assumptions.

deny ignorants

jw




edit on 31-8-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 



For example someone said the IPCC ignored the Sun altogether in the beginning. All you have to do is go to the first IPCC report available here and look at section 2.3.1 Solar Radiation.


When the IPCC considered radiative forcing in the referenced report, they had already adopted the GHG, policy altering agenda, and minimized solar effects to the point of irelevance:


Changes in climate forcing over the last century due to greenhouse gas increases are likely to have been much greater than that due to solar radiation.

The radiative forcing associated with the Milankovitch Effect can be given for particular latitudes and months to
illustrate that the rate of change of forcing is small compared to radiative forcing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Further the … solar change (which is an upper limit) is small compared with greenhouse forcing and even if such a change occurred over the next few decades, it would be swamped by the enhanced greenhouse effect.

www.ipcc.ch...

Funny thing, though, that even in their de-minimis approach, they acknowledged what CERN has confirmed; that cloud formation (due to solar influence) could likely be the controlling factor in global warming:

The planetary albedo will also change if the properties of clouds are changed, for instance, if additional cloud condensation nuclei are provided by natural or man-made changes in aerosol concentrations.


And as if they weren't clear enough where their priorities lie, they made it explicitly clear in the summation:


Although all of the above factors will be considered in this section, the emphasis will be very strongly on the greenhouse gases, as they are likely to change radiative forcing over the next few decades by more than any other factor, natural or anthropogenic.


Garbage in, garbage out.

jw


edit on 31-8-2011 by jdub297 because: quote



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



CERN has confirmed; that cloud formation (due to solar influence) could likely be the controlling factor in global warming:


So let's get this straight - I just debunked your thread by going straight to the source of the study you're citing. The lead author said in his own words, out of his own mouth - here let me quote it in big shiny letters for you so you can see it through your blinders:


it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate




This is further confirmed by reading the study itself. From the abstract:


We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.


(For those that don't know - the boundary layer is where this effect is supposed to be occurring most prominently, because that's where convective clouds are formed, between 0-2km in the sky)


So you're trying to use this study to make the case that there's "convincing evidence" that cosmic rays control climate - even though the study itself pretty much says the exact OPPOSITE.


So now that this has been pointed out to you - you tell us that's because we can't trust the original source itself - instead we have to trust the interpretations of that source made by the scientific experts at the financial post and "investors.com"?


This is not a personal attack - this is a simple fact:

If you actually believe that you are absolutely demented. The end.

Go add some more tinfoil to your hat.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by jdub297
 

So let's get this straight - I just debunked your thread by going straight to the source of the study you're citing. The lead author said in his own words:

it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate


The study report, and Kirkby himself, have been censored by the CERN administrators who will not permit interpretation of the study by the authors, so and disturb their government-financed endeavors:


Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years ... because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters.

CERN ... decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and ... his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them..”

The version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

opinion.financialpost.com...

If you'd bothered to read the linked article, you'd see that Kirkby et al have ventured off the CW path after more than 10 years of struggle, to take "an important first step." Given that the research has been stifled and the opinions muffled, no one (except AGW acolytes and doomsayers) expects the initial results of a long-delayed experiment to be the final proof of the theory. Given that additional follow-up research has already begun, and larger apparatus designed, there is no doubt that the scientists involved find sufficient support for the hypothesis to continue with the next "steps."

Sorry that it tromps on your smug self-satisfaction in your myths and fear-mongering, but real science moves forward.


CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.


Just how did the publisher, Naturepresent these findings?

Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays
The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

www.nature.com...
Even without interpreting the results (as he was instructed), Kirkby sets out the nature of the experiment and the implications of the results:

"People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of ... particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten.


So you're trying to use this study to make the case that there's "convincing evidence" that cosmic rays control climate

No, I’m presenting the analyses of others who haven’t been muzzled and who aren’t afraid to buck the MSM and the AGW advocacy entourage.
These include other respected scientists who haven’t had the opportunity to participate in the CLOUD experiment, nut who have carried out their own research independent of the IPCC.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings ... . "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, physicist at Technical University of Denmark.

"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile, overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, at University of Leeds, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the IPCC. But, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".

www.nature.com...
Of course, for those for whom “the science is settled,” anyone questioning CW and the tenets of the AGW faith, should be banned from publishing their studies.
Why oppose questioning science?
If anyone has blinders on, it is the diminishing AGW faithful find true science doesn’t support their fervor and redistribution.

Go add more tinfoil to your hat.


Tinfoil hats are for the the credulous “sky is falling” AGW faithful.

Deny ignorance
jw
edit on 1-9-2011 by jdub297 because: cite



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Like I said - demented.


You don't have the slightest idea what that study actually says. And now that you've been caught hoisted by your own petard, your backpedalling is just (edit)

Moderator edit: this thread is becoming uncivil. Discuss the issues and not your opinion of each other.



Like I already showed you, all this new study showed was exactly what everyone already agreed on anyway - and what the IPCC themselves wrote about back in 2007 - that cosmic rays induce some level of microscopic nucleation.

This is not at all groundbreaking news, and it is a far, FAR cry from providing a convincing link to cloud formation - since the study itself points out the level of nucleation was totally insufficient for that.



Furthermore even if it did provide a convincing link - here's what you, and every other denier as usual conveniently ignore while declaring yet another premature nail in the coffin for AGW:

The fact that Cosmic Rays don't correlate AT ALL with recent changes in climate.






...
So I have no in interest debating this with you, because I really am convinced you are so badly bitten by the denier bug that it's an honest-to-god clinical form of dementia. I mean that. I seriously feel sorry for you, but there is no use in even trying to help someone so unhinged from reality.


Again - this is the claim you made in the OP, in your own words.


After more than 10-years of struggle against the political elite, scientists at CERN have been able to publish the results of an experiment that provides coinvincing evidence, contrary to the CW and the MSM hype, that the sun and cosmic rays have a strong impact upon the process of cloud formation, and hence, the heating and cooling of the Earth.




None of these things are true about this study, and all anyone has to do to see that is read it for themselves.


Now you're trying to distance yourself from your own words, yet still clinging to this delusion by making the claim that we can't actually trust the study itself - we have to instead trust how some scientifically illiterate op-ed reporter, writing in "The Financial Post" of all places, interprets it for us?
edit on 3-9-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
...


So here's the thing folks - this is the entire Global Warming Denial conspiracy in a nutshell.

I already wrote about it in detail on ATS two years ago in this thread:
You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.




Our entire economic system is a scam. The free market was hijacked a long time ago by corporations, banksters and various plutocrats - who all got themselves very rich by exploiting an economy built on things like oil addiction, reckless and unnecessary overconsumption, unsustainable fractional-reserve-style economic growth with our resources, etc.

Yet the very first principle of switching to a low-carbon economy means we have to drastically cut back on all these things and make them sustainable now, and OBVIOUSLY these crooks have a massive problem with that.

This isn't rocket science.



So, wow though, what a huge surprise that essentially all the so-called "skeptical" ATTACKS against global warming and climate science come from these sources. i.e. Right wing "free-market" think tanks like the Heartland Institute, and all the media fluffers that champion these corrupt agendas.



So just look at jdubs sources on this:

- The Financial Post?
- investors.com?

He also linked to two threads in the OP that were based on an extremely biased (and thoroughly discredited) op-ed article from Forbes.

Similarly you will constantly find the same sort of misinformation flowing in from other extremely dubious, agenda-driven fountains of misinformation like FOX News and the Wall Street Journal.

So that's right everyone - if you want the scientific truth about global warming - go down to Wall Street!



That's why anyone who isn't completely blinded by their ideology like jdub should be able to read between the lines and see EXACTLY what's going on here. All you have to do to debunk this stuff is go to the source. But climate deniers like the OP claim we can't trust the source, because the source (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) is politically biased. So to get the *real* story we have to instead trust how some sensationalist bullsh**ing stooge reporter for some right wing think tank interprets that source for us...
- because that's not politically biased at all!



Honestly jdub - I really don't even care what you want to believe on global warming.

Moderator edit: this thread is becoming uncivil. Discuss the issues and not your opinion of each other.



edit on 3-9-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





CLOUD
 has
 found 
that
 sulphuric 
acid
 and
 water
 vapour
 can
 nucleate
 without
 the
 need
 for 
additional
 vapours.
 This 
result
 leaves
 open
 the 
possibility
 that 
cosmic 
rays
 could 
also 
influence
 cloud formation.
 However, 
it
 is
 premature
 to
 conclude
 that 
cosmic
 rays
 have
 a
 significant 
influence 
on 
climate
 until
 the 
additional
 nucleating
 vapours
 have 
been 
identified,
 their
 ion 
enhancement
 measured,
 and 
the 
ultimate
 effects
 on
 clouds
 have
 been
 confirmed.

^ CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation, CERN
en.wikipedia.org...


So.. they have a theory that cloud formation can be influenced by Cosmic Rays. I am glad they are trying to gain deeper understanding in cloud formation.

Comparatively, it is like one person studying the formation of steam over a boiling pot of water, discovering an atmospheric influence on how thick the steam is, and a bunch of yahoos run in saying that is what is causing the water to boil.

[head/desk]

Are you that easily taken in?

But there is nothing in this one, as yet unproven theory that negates the millions of studies that affirm AGW. Actually, it hardly has anything to do with AGW at all.

A panicked grasping at straws at this point is all the big banking and big petroleum guys have left.

Moderator edit: this thread is becoming uncivil. Discuss the issues and not your opinion of each other.



edit on 3-9-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
Our entire economic system is a scam. The free market was hijacked a long time ago by corporations, banksters and various plutocrats - who all got themselves very rich by exploiting an economy built on things like oil addiction, reckless and unnecessary overconsumption, unsustainable fractional-reserve-style economic growth with our resources, etc.

Yet the very first principle of switching to a low-carbon economy means we have to drastically cut back on all these things and make them sustainable now, and OBVIOUSLY these crooks have a massive problem with that.

This isn't rocket science.


At least you can be counted on to come around and show your true colors, after the ad hominem attacks, churlish name-calling and childish tantrums.

Your faith-based AGW "science" is coming apart in little pieces as the CERN author Kirkby noted, in a series of "first steps" that have been blocked, hindered, ignored and chided because they do not follow the "settled science."

Face it, the best that the IPCC, CRU, and other "leaders" of the religion can offer is the hubris-laden insitence that since they don't know what is causing the climate to change, "it must be us." They practically ignore real, measured data; preferring instead to use "proxies" that can be manipulated and massaged to fit their models and already-drawn conclusions.

Never mind that their "predictions" of vanished polar ice, extinct glaciers, rising oceans, the end of snow in the UK, and massive migrations have been proven false over and again.

These interfere with the true agenda of Western de-industrialization and massive wealth redistribution.

Consider if the entire "developed" Western hemisphere eliminated all CO2 emissions tomorrow and left all fossil fuels in the ground. How would that affect or deter China, Southeast Asia, Brazil, India, Russia and Africa, the next largest emitters of CO2 and other GHGs?

IT WOULD ENCOURAGE "DEVELOPING" NATIONS' INCREASED USE OF "DIRTY" FOSSIL FUELS.

Of course, people like mc_squared who push the AGW agenda and "green jobs" want the price of energy to rise so we'll use less. If the environmental lobby wants Americans to be poorer, you ought to come clean about that.
You don't just misunderstand economics and misrepresent the "settled science" myth of climate change. You have lapsed into an an almost religious, pre-economic, pre-industrial mentality.

Please identify and explain how any of the Western government-supported "man-made climate change" advocates or their policies have improved our global climate over the last 25 years?

We've seen carbon trading programs collapse after making insiders rich.
We've seen increased costs of living and decreased productivity.
We've seen lost production capacity and diminishing replacement of capacity.
We've seen failed "investments" in "green" technology, lost or never-created jobs, and increased dependency upon foreing suppliers; all at a cost of hundreds of billions of US dollars.
All this time we've seen CO2 and GHGs continue to rise; yet polar ice still exists, as do glaiciers; temperatures stabilized and sea level stopped rising.

Oh, and billions of dollars of "green investments" have vanished with no positive effect, other than to increase employment in China.

Hansen (a book-selling fear-monger), Jones (government leach and CRU fraudster), Pachauri (self-dealing bureaucrat engineer and denier of science) are among the "leaders" of this cabal, whose hypocrisy becomes increasingly undeniable with every new revelation of falsification, exaggeration and obfuscation.

I do not care whether you personally attack me as demented, misguided or free-market driven. Religious zealots such as yourself have done worse to non-believers.

What you cannot un-do are the failed predictions, faulty models, false assumptions and massaged data that are the hallmark of the AGW pseudo-science. They are piling up more quickly than you or the MSM can spin them, or try to assassinate the messengers who bring them to light.

When I type "deny ignorsance" it is as a reminder that not everything we are told by TPTB is to be accepted at face value, and that we should look beyond the popular and the conventional wisdom to better understand ourselves and our universe.

If there are any "sheeple" on ATS, they are the ones who recoil from questions and laugh at skeptics as demented, and worse.

How sad for you. I am certain it is frustrating to no end.
Unfortunately for the AGW sheep, the "science" is far from settled.

"Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
...
Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old. "
Roger Waters, 1977

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 


But there is nothing in this one, as yet unproven theory that negates the millions of studies that affirm AGW. Actually, it hardly has anything to do with AGW at all.

Millions? So sheer volume of "me-too" pandering outwieghs qualty analysis of innovative theories?
Pathetic.

A panicked grasping at straws at this point is all the big banking and big petroleum guys have left. So why are you pandering to them? Fear, or are you working with them?

Big banking like the "green" redistributionist Soros; or big oil, like green jobs billionaire (look up Solyndra $535MM federal subsidy) George Kaiser? Who's pandering to whom?
Perhaps a more rational approach could be considered, but that would require you to abdicate your faith in AGW.

“We Don’t Know” is better than “Global Warming” “Global Cooling” or “They are Wrong”

In 1974, articles began appearing, like this one in the New York Times, that say that climate change could threaten global food production. Another New York Times article from May 21, 1975 says that the scientific community was concerned about climate change. It says that many thought that the earth was getting colder and we were heading toward another ice age. But, in an interesting side note, it also mentioned that some scientists felt like man made pollution would hold off another ice age. It then goes on to say that just about everyone agrees that global cooling was inevitable and even cited cooling northern hemispheric temperatures since 1950 that had shortened Britain’s growing season.

“We Don’t Know” is better than “Global Warming” “Global Cooling” or “They are Wrong”
Misplaced reliance upon bad science is bad enough, but religious adherence is even worse. How does it hurt scientific inquiry to point out new avenues and studies that call into question what even the staunchest AGW advocates now admit is NOT "settled science?"

“There seem little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus with regard to either the magnitude or rapidity of the transition.”
This quote if from a January 19, 1975 article in the New York Times. The Times is quoting a National Academy of Sciences report.
...
I would focus on another quote from the article which says: “A far greater understanding of these changes is required than we now possess.”
While the article talks about the prospects of possible increasing global temperatures due to man’s activities, it also says that northern hemisphere temperatures rose steadily from the 1880′s to the 1940′s but then fell consistently from the 1940′s to the mid 1970′s. Huh? We’ve been led to believe that temperatures have been steadily increasing all through the 20th century.

When AGW believers attack critics of their faith, they betray their inability to accept that true scientific analusis requires skepticism of even the most "settled" science.

Russian scientists confirm that UK scientists manipulated climate data to fit their opinions. Some people say that all of this new evidence proves that the whole Global Warming scare is all wrong. But, that is not necessarily true. Peter Gwynne, who authored the famous Global Cooling article in the April 28 1975 Newsweek issue says that his story was not wrong in the journalistic sense. He reported accuratetly what was being reported. The difference is that scientists in the 1970′s were looking at the situation with an open mind. They suspected that man’s activities were altering the climate but were unsure of just how it was happening. They let the facts lead them to reach conclusions. NASA explains that they use the term Climate Change instead of Global Warming because the latter term is suggestive of a terminal conclusion instead of merely an alteration of the climate.
...
The world should take the view of scientists in the 1970′s that more understanding was required. The truth is, we just don’t know for sure what is going on. We have no idea if the proposals at the Copenhagen Summit would change the environment one bit. We have no idea what the truth is regarding anthropogenic global warming because so many politicians, political world bodies, people who have a monetary stake in the process and countries who stand to gain politically have gotten involved. Everyone should step aside.

symonsez.wordpress.com...
Some consider rational thought preferable to blind faith in Conventioanl Wisdom.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I note all denialist talking points mention 'belief' and 'faith' in AGW as if it were 'faith based'. That is an old and well known debate tactic. Perhaps your talking points denial machine needs to understand that most people recognize this tactic for what it is.
The tobacco companies PR machine used the same language in denying that tobacco caused cancer in the last big corporate anti-science drive.

Sorry, AGW theory is not a religion, it is a science. Just like the tobacco/cancer connection studies were. It is currently a theory that approximately 98% of the worlds scientists have signed on to. And like Tobacco/Cancer denialists - people who are supporting climate change denial are going to be responsible for the mass deaths of other human beings. So be prepared for that mentally and spiritually. It is on your shoulders Jdub.

Yes, there are millions of studies that have been done on AGW since the 1970's by scientists worldwide. All of them come to the same inescapable conclusion. Except for the ones sponsored by Coal and Petroleum interests, of course.

One of those sets of data and modeling studies published in 1998 by the IPCC caused me to move myself and family to a part of the US less likely to suffer disastrous weather effects- and after this year- I am damn glad I did, and so are they.
It's been lovely here - while most of the rest of the US has been in Hell.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I'm really bored of this conversation so can't even be bothered any more, but one thing I couldn't resist is this:

You say I'm resorting to ad-hominem attacks by calling you demented, but see - the thing about "ad-hominem" is it's supposed to be completely unjustified and unrelated to the conversation. Yet when you make statements like this:


Never mind that their "predictions" of vanished polar ice, extinct glaciers, rising oceans, the end of snow in the UK, and massive migrations have been proven false over and again.


It's exactly why my claim is valid and right on-topic. Because statements like this are so out of touch with reality they're completely D-mented with a capital D.

These predictions have been proven false huh? Because why - did you get this one from The Financial Post too? If anything they've been proven false because they've all underestimated the problem.


Polar Ice is melting faster than expected:

Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted


Glaciers are melting faster than expected:

Melting of glaciers 'speeds up'


In case you don't understand how melting works - this means sea-level rise is now even worse than expected:

Sea level rise may exceed worst expectations


Migrations are happening MUCH faster than before:

Species migrating north at ‘two and three times faster’ than reported



But of course you're apparently unaware of these things because you live in the Forbes/Financial Post/FOX News denier bubble where none of these things are happening, and anyone who says they are happening is just lying to "scare" you blah blah blah.


So this is exactly why you're clueless about the reality of the situation to the point it's infringing on dementia.

It's all the BS media sources you've already shown in this thread that you clearly rely on to interpret the science for you - or make up completely fake and unproven scandals to brainwash you - that's what's making you demented.

You're the one caught in the trap of bull# media spin. You're the one getting all the lies spoonfed to you, while all the real science simply speaks for itself:


Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are "exaggerated" and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions. This paper offers an initial test of the competing expectations, making use of the tendency for science to be self-correcting, over time. Rather than relying in any way on the IPCC process, the paper draws evidence about emerging science from four newspapers that have been found in past work to be biased against reporting IPCC findings, consistently reporting instead that scientific findings are "in dispute." The analysis considers two time periods - one during the time when the papers were found to be overstating challenges to then-prevailing scientific consensus, and the other focusing on 2008, after the IPCC and former Vice-President Gore shared the Nobel Prize for their work on climate disruption, and before opinion polls showed the U.S. public to be growing more skeptical toward climate science once again. During both periods, new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss "both sides" of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate "other side" is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.


That's direct from a peer-reviewed paper - which you know, I'm sure is once again just lying because they all make money from Al Gore, yaddi yadda whatever.

So please - go run to one of your denier blogs now so you can get them to interpret this data for you, feed you some more dementia-pills, and quiet down all that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance that must be ringing in your head.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
One more time, folks...

Moderator edit: this thread is becoming uncivil. Discuss the issues and not your opinion of each other.



Kapish?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
While that info gives us something to think about, we have to realize the earth has actually been cooling over the past ten years. Plenty of evidence global warming is a fraud.




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join