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.


Breaking: Lead Global Warming Scientist James Hansen Arrested!!!111

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Justoneman
MC you did not answer me last time about all this rubbish your proporting when I called you out!

You are crazy.

I not only answered your questions THOROUGHLY, I challenged YOU to give me a link on where YOUR BS information is coming from, and I PROMISED I would show you IT was directly connected to big oil and dirty political agendas.

You then gave me two links from Marc Morano and James Inhofe, which made delivering on my promise a total breeze!

You had absolutely NO response to any of this, other than to predictably flip the f--- out and start screaming some irrational jibberish about how I'm trying "dazzle you with brilliance" and "baffle you with BS" lol.

And now you have the audacity to show up on my thread and start telling people how I'm full of it and you're against big oil??

This is exactly why people like you get labelled climate deniers, and exactly the sort of person I was mocking in my OP. You're in total delusional self-denial over the actual evidence, and there is absolutely no way to get through to someone like you.

It's like trying to debate evolution with a creationist. Your ego is so intertwined with your totally shoddy pre-disposed beliefs, and anything that challenges them clearly makes everything you hold onto start falling apart, so the more factual it is - the more you just reject it and cower in ignorance, because you CLEARLY can't handle it.

The way you reacted like some child who just found out there's no Santa Claus before when I answered your questions was proof enough - and now here you are doing the exact same thing again.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:10 PM
You know - to everyone on this thread who was impressed with my impression of the insane ramblings of a climate denier, but relieved to know it was just satire - have a look at the links I left in the above post, in regards to the questions justoneman claims I "failed to answer".

There you can see what the real deal looks like. It's damn scary.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Justoneman

So actually - you know what?

You want to claim what I showed you was BS - then go ahead and PROVE IT.

I'm calling YOU out on your delusional BS. You were bragging before about how you "get paid to be a scientist" (whatever the hell that means), yet when I showed you step by step mathematical proof that demonstrates the power of greenhouse effect, you apparently couldn't even make heads or tails out of some basic algebra.

You are just another full-of-yourself internet poser who fancies themselves smarter than the scientific establishment, and I'm really sick of listening to you phonies try to constantly hijack this vitally important discussion with utter brainwashed nonsense just so you can stroke your own deluded ego.


Show me where the math is wrong on what I showed you. Show me where anything I wrote in those posts is false.

So far you haven't even tried, and I'll bet anyone on here $50 that you can't. You are just going to move the goal posts or change the subject now. Either that or you're going to run away with your tail between your legs, and then be right back on some other thread delusionally claiming nobody can answer your questions.


You people are honestly insane.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:24 PM
That was so convoluted and thick with Orwellian doublethink it took me a minute to sort it out.
You know, I don't mind people speaking their minds or expressing their religious beliefs, but when those ideas and beliefs become a threat to my liberties we have a problem.

I'm just glad I don't have to look at your annoying avatar anymore, MC.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by PacificBlue
Why do we need to choose sides anyway? What happened to common sense? Anyone who looks at those photos and reads the information should realize this is not good for anyone.


It's not rocket science to know why switching to clean renewable energy is a good idea, no matter what your beliefs might be about man made global warming.

But that's also why I post so much about it here - because this is a conspiracy forum. And I'm trying to show people how much fossil fuel companies have conspired to confuse this issue so bad that people are being convinced to make judgements that go completely against simple common sense.

It's downright frightening to see how brainwashed people have become - to denounce science, to denounce the environment, to turn their backs on logic and reason in favour of anger and ignorance.

In my opinion this is the biggest conspiracy on ATS - and yet it's probably the one that gets the most ignored.
edit on 31-8-2011 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Smack
I'm just glad I don't have to look at your annoying avatar anymore, MC.

I have never bothered having an avatar in my 3+ years on ATS, but ok sure, whatever...

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by C0bzz

Great post!

It's so nice to see more and more people are waking up to the climate change fraud. Did you see the hat James Hansen was wearing when he got arrested? It didn't even match his jacket!

You would think with all the money he makes supporting the global warming agenda he could get himself a stylist or something. Al Gore needs to lose some weight too man, that dude is faaaat lol.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

apologies then. I mistook you for some other Al Gore cheerleader.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

The Global Warming Faker? We were talking about him back in 2008 & 2009 when they were passing up falsified data on Global Warming.

Why does James Hansen still have a job? Not once, but twice he has been caught fixing the data in order to further his own radical anti-capitalist agenda. He should at least have his doctoral degree revoked.

This embarrassment came amid NASA also having to correct its data since the year 2000, which has been used to support many of the global warming alarmists’ “money claims”, such as Al Gore’s line that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past decade.

I really like this part:

In addition, as the Telegraph article goes on to say, this is not the first time Hansen has been caught fixing the climate data!

Anthony Watts caught NASA fixing the data by placing thermometers “… in Arizona parking lots, overhanging black asphalt pads, near cell towers and hot-air blowing air conditioner exhausts or next to trash burn barrels, … setting one just away from a chimney directly above a Weber barbecue grill …”

Regardless, as a result of all of the controversy a clearly not amused National Climatic Data Center suddenly pulled the actual locations of the temperature measuring stations from publicly available resources!

We now know that this is false and that NASA has corrected the record to reflect that the warmest year in the U.S. was 1934, 4 of the 10 warmest here occurred in the 1930s, 3 during the 1990s, and one each in the 1920s, 1950s and this decade. That this claim has now been debunked, like most every other statement of substance in Mr. Gore’s movie.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:47 AM
Carbon Tax !
So they can shhh on the planet
and get away with it.
as long as some one gets some money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared

LOL no worries
Just making a statement on how I happen to know certain people will react to this news - the kind that take whatever FOX News says as the gospel truth

Riiight, and we have to take news from "ThinkProgress" as the gospel of truth?...

You are talking about the same Hansen who has published wrong data in order to further his claims.

BTW, that fish that Hansen is holding, where is the proof that it is a consequence of Tar sands?

There are companies dumping chemicals into rivers and lakes that could be the cause of that tumor.

Don't try to sensationalize your religion, and yes Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing more than a religion, more so for the likes of you.

BTW, don't go off a tangent, like you always do and start claiming that people like me like to side with oil companies, or with other big companies because that is not true. I would rather we stop REAL chemicals from being spilled in rivers, lakes and the oceans, than side with your idols who want to sequester atmospheric CO2 and claim CO2 is evil.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared
Sure it recklessly destroys the environment and pollutes our rivers, but it creates JOBS people!!

Yes, jobs are important...especially when you won't have a planet to stand on.

Oh how I hope you are joking...

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:08 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared

It's not rocket science to know why switching to clean renewable energy is a good idea, no matter what your beliefs might be about man made global warming.

Riiight, you mean renewable energy like the following?...

Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?

Plans for the grid feed-in tariff suggest we live in southern California. And at £8.6bn, this is a pricey conceit with little benefit

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didnt know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.

The people who sell solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and micro wind turbines in the UK insist they represent a good investment. The arguments I have had with them have been long and bitter. But the debate has now been brought to an end with the publication of the government's table of tariffs: the rewards people will receive for installing different kinds of generators. The government wants everyone to get the same rate of return. So while the electricity you might generate from large wind turbines and hydro plants will earn you 4.5p per kilowatt hour, mini wind turbines get 34p, and solar panels 41p. In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.
A week ago the German government decided to reduce sharply the tariff it pays for solar PV, on the grounds that it is a waste of money. Just as the Germans have begun to abandon their monumental mistake, we are about to repeat it.

Buying a solar panel is now the best investment a householder can make. The tariffs will deliver a return of between 5% and 8% a year, which is both index linked (making a nominal return of between 7% and 10%) and tax-free. The payback is guaranteed for 25 years. If you own a house and can afford the investment, youd be crazy not to cash in. If you dont and cant, you must sit and watch your money being used to pay for someone elses fashion accessory.

What this means is that the people with the money to pay for photovoltaic panels will get paid, but they will get paid by the customers in the UK who can't pay for photovoltaic panels because electric companies will increase their fees to pay those customers with the solar panels.

edit on 1-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Riiight, you mean renewable energy like the following?...

I find it highly ironic that as evidence against renewable energy you use an article by George Monbiot who is very much pro-renewable and also eats AGW deniers for breakfast. His point is that action against climate change is not about precipitating the maximum roll-out of renewables possible, but rather action should be taken to reduce environmental impacts as fast as possible.

Before taking this discussion any further, we should ask ourselves what our aim is. Is it to stop climate breakdown, or is it to engineer the maximum roll-out of renewable power? Sometimes it seems to me that greens are putting renewables first, climate change second. We have no obligation to support the renewables industry – or any other industry – against its competitors. Our obligation is to persuade policy makers to bring down emissions and reduce other environmental impacts as quickly and effectively as possible. The moment we start saying we won’t accept one technology under any circumstances, or we must use another technology whether it’s appropriate or not is the moment at which we make that aim harder to achieve.

We have plenty of ambient energy, but it’s not to be found on people’s roofs. The only renewables policy that makes sense is to build big installations where the energy is – which means high ground, estuaries or the open sea – and deliver it by wire to where people live. But the government’s scheme sloshes money into places where resources are poor and economies of scale impossible.

Like most environmentalists, I want renewables to replace fossil fuel, but I realise we make the task even harder if they are also to replace nuclear power.

Mott MacDonald, an engineering consultancy group in the UK did an extremely lengthy study on the overall levelized cost of electricity from various energy sources. Onshore large scale wind was found to have a levelized cost of electricity not much higher than coal and combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). Run-of-river hydro was hydro was cheaper. Various forms of combined heat and power cogeneration from biomass were found to be cheaper. Nuclear while not renewable, was found to be slightly more costly than CCGT however with scales from building multiple units, it was found to have a similar cost as CCGT and coal. If cheap financing was provided it could be cheaper than fossil fuels. All of this does not count external costs which, even if carbon costs are excluded, massively inflate the true cost of fossil fuels.

PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor
NOAK - n'th of a kind
CCGT - Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
CHP - Combined Heat and Power
IGCC - Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequestration
ASC - Advanced Super Critical
GT- Gas Turbine
OCGT - Open Cycle Gas Turbine

(You will have to subtract the carbon cost)

I don't know why solar gets so much attention, given how useless it is. Just because solar is expensive does not mean everything else is. James Hansen has similar views - we should not waste time on greenwash "solutions" like enormous subsidies to solar:

Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid

Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.


Many well-meaning people proceed under the illusion that ‘soft’ renewable energies [3] will replace fossil fuels if the government tries harder and provides more subsidies. Meanwhile, governments speak greenwash while allowing pursuit of fossil fuels with increasingly destructive technologies (hydrofracking, mountaintop removal, longwall mining, drilling in the deepest ocean, the Arctic and other pristine environments) and development of unconventional fossil fuels [4].
It will be a tragedy if environmentalists allow the illusion of ‘soft’ energies to postpone demand for real solution of the energy, climate and national security problems. Solar power is just a small part of the solution. Subsidies yielding even its present tiny contribution may be unsustainable.


As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs from air and water pollution, and climate change impacts on current and future generations.

edit on 1/9/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/9/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 01:04 AM

Originally posted by C0bzz

I find it highly ironic that as evidence against renewable energy you use an article by George Monbiot who is very much pro-renewable and also eats AGW deniers for breakfast. His point is that action against climate change is not about precipitating the maximum roll-out of renewables possible, but rather action should be taken to reduce environmental impacts as fast as possible.

I doubt he eats anyone with lies, and deception. Where is the "undeniable proof" he claims exists? And why is it that even the IPCC, and the AGW religious followers such as Mann, Jones, et al had to publish false data, lies, and cover research as well as try to stop any scientist who dares think differently than them?...

Why did Mann, alongside many other AGW religious scientists tred to bury the Medieval Warm Period, and similar periods when there are, and have been hundreds of research that support the fact these events occurred, and were warmer than present?...

If there was any "undeniable proof to AGW" Mann, Jones, Hansen et al would have shown it by now, but instead they rely on false data, lies, and deception, as well as trying to stop any scientist from publishing research that shows AGW is a hoax.

If there truly was a feasible renewable energy, I would be all for it, as long as the results do not include taking much needed energy to millions of people.

Not only that, but basically part of what people like Hansen want is to sequester atmospheric CO2, which will stunt the grow and harvests worldwide, and in turn will cause more starvation.

I am all for holding companies responsible for their actions, and they should take all the precautions needed to have no incidents that will cause disasters.

However the main premise of the AGW religious followers is to get rid of atmospheric CO2, which will cause more damage than everything mankind has done to the Earth.

Plants, and all green biomass on Earth NEEDS atmospheric CO2, and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than the present levels are, and will be BENEFICIAL to all green biomass on Earth, to all animals and even to humans.

Average atmospheric CO2 on Earth right now is about 380ppm-390ppm meanwhile the optimum levels are about 1,200ppm - 1,500ppm, and some research suggest higher levels are even better for all green biomass and animals, including humans on Earth.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

What has been happening to plant life on Earth with increased levels of atmospheric CO2?...

Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.

Carbon dioxide enrichment involves increasing the concentrations of CO2 to 4-5 times the normal atmospheric levels, to between 1200-1500 ppm in an enclosed space. Enrichment has been shown to promote faster growth, higher yields, and stronger, healthier plants. Levels higher than 2000 ppm have been shown to retard plant growth. Low levels of CO2 (below 200) have been show to halt vigorous growth, even when all other conditions are ideal. Because of this, any enclosed space requires replenishment of the internal CO2 as it is used by plants, either from ventilation or from CO2 supplementation.

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

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

IMHO ElectricUniverse, you have it all right. MC is trying to muddy the waters with diatribes on tangents which further prove my point about his baffle them with BS attempt. You nor I can avoid the lies and continue an honest debate with people who would listen to this nonsense. But MC would have us do so, case closed. This debate is over logically. It is time for the losers to move on.

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by mc_squared


Love it... although you do realise that there are those not intelligent enough to see beyond your sarcasm/satire?!?

Probably sitting at their desk nodding and whooping... "you tell those commie b'stards mc_squared"

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in