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.

 

Editor-In-Chief Resigns, Blows Gaping Hole In Climate Denier Alarmism

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
A few weeks ago there were a number of threads posted on ATS prematurely announcing the 738974175th "final nail in the coffin" of anthropogenic global warming.

Here are some of them:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism: (Fragile Earth)
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism (General Conspiracies)
New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth


Now, if you actually read through these threads you will see a handful of truly skeptical ATS members noticed serious flaws in the information available, some of which include:

- The initial article was written in Forbes by an attorney named James Taylor, an advocate of "free-market environmentalism" (ha!) and a managing editor at The Heartland Institute - a notoriously biased political think tank funded by the Oil industry.

- The article was incredibly polemic and full of hyperbole. It used the word "alarmist" 15 times in 8 paragraphs. It also grossly misrepresented the implications of the study it was citing.

- It claimed that this now meant previous climate models were wrong, but all this "new data" it sourced wasn't explicitly based on new satellite data - it was really based on another model, one engineered by a well-known global warming skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer.

Spencer is considered extremely politically biased in the climate science community. He just published a book about free-market economics, and on his website described his role in science as follows:


I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

Source

- After Spencer's paper was published - it was HUGELY criticized by the rest of the climate science community. His model was pointed out as deeply "flawed", "unrealistic", and blatantly cooked in such a way as to get the results he wanted while not making any actual physical sense.


The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.

Source


You can read more about the various criticisms here:

No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer
Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold


But a number of so-called skeptics still maintained that everything held up because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and was therefore validated by the very standards set by the "warmists".

Fair enough.

But first off - take note this paper was published in a Journal called Remote Sensing, which I've heard is a fine source of information on the applications of remote sensing technologies, but hardly relevant to the modelling of complex climate processes.

Nonetheless it was published and peer-reviewed.


And then this happened:

Science Stunner: Editor of Journal that Published Flawed Denier Bunk Apologizes, Resigns, Slams Spencer for Exaggerations

The Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, published his own rebuttal/apology for allowing this stuff to pass through the paper's peer-review process. You can read it for yourselves here.


Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.



...
So why am I starting a new thread about this, instead of posting on the old one? Because of what Wagner has to say here:


With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few.


This is the thing - these false stories always get waaaaaaay more attention than they deserve. BS, sensationalist headlines get everyone all riled up, and then when the actual truth comes out later it gets barely noticed. The same thing happened with the climategate so-called scandal:

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

Likewise on ATS - the initial over-hyped headline gets all the flags, while the full story gets buried away on page 12.

So quite frankly this new development is worthy of it's own attention for the simple sake of denying ignorance. Having said that though I'm sure the deeper scandal here is probably much more boring, or even challenging, to most people - so it'll likely just get ignored anyway.

But to those who consider themselves true climate skeptics and have actually managed to read till the very end of this post (I wonder if there will even be one) - I'll just say what I always say (cont'd below)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
By all means BE skeptical - this is a very important part of the whole scientific process, so it is commended and encouraged. But don't be a hypocrite and only be skeptical of one side, while giving a free pass to anyone else who simply declares themselves a skeptic on the other.

The climate debate is FULL of posers like this who manipulate the discussion and brainwash weak-minded people by touting themselves as skeptics, or as "balance" to a one-sided debate, when really they are nothing but biased, propaganda-spewing ideologues themselves.

They really are quite EASY to identify too when they are attached to organizations like the Heartland Institute, or they appear on FOX News, or they publish their findings in unrelated journals or Financial magazines, or they brag that their job in science is to "legislate" and minimize government. They are also really easy to spot when all they seem to do is talk about Al Gore instead of the science - or make all sorts of loudmouth sensationalist claims about everything, and then immediately call the kettle black:



So I preach this not as some desperate warmist pleading with people to agree with me, just as a loyal member of ATS who believes critical thinking - not automatically subscribing to the loudest headlines - is the key to denying ignorance.

If you're going to be a skeptic then be a REAL skeptic, that's all. Don't just be an unwitting devil's advocate, and an even more unwitting oil industry puppet as a result.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I am still waiting for the global ice age they were raising the alarm about.
Another Ice Age?
Monday, June 24, 1974



Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.


Oh well I guess this confirms man made global warming and climate change Armageddon.

LoL the climate changers shout carbon like the Bible thumpers shout Armageddon
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to Expose Global Warming Fraud
By Noel Sheppard | March 04, 2008 | 11:22
News Busters Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias
www.newsbusters.org...



How delicious. Of course, for those that are interested, Nobel Laureate Gore was invited to speak at this conference -- was even offered his normal fee to attend! -- but refused. As reported Monday by Anthony Watts, one of the conference speakers (emphasis added): I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined. I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago. They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University. Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue, it would seem this would be a perfect place for Mr. Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt to bridge the crevasse.


Look at all those Idiots!
www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


Notice how Columbia University is at the center back then and now. And wrong both times!
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
How many scientists resigned when it was discovered that they manipulated, distorted, and manipulated data to justify Global Warming?

I bet they are still at their old tricks.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Well thanks for ignoring my advice on being a true skeptic and just regurgitating more cherry-picked misleading talking points instead.

Here is a detailed rebuttal to your "they were all predicting an ice age in the 70's" meme:

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

Here is a great video on it:





Here is a video talking about global warming from 1958:




Here is a paper from 1896 predicting more CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to global warming:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


So thanks for playing.

Deny Ignorance (or just keep trolling, you know - whatever floats your boat)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


Do you ever say anything else other than your same-old repetitive one liner posts about the scientists lying, manipulating data blah blah blah?

Are you a bot?

My OP was specifically aimed at explaining how people become ignorant brainwashed cattle like that.


I love how I do a post about the difference between real skeptics and climate denier robots and immediately out come the robots to show everyone exactly what I was talking about.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Global ice age and global warming data coming from the same organization ( Columbia U) at two different periods in Time making claims in direct conflict of each other. . . .

You don't see a problem with that?
BULL S and you know it!

And I read your entire post and replied to make sure people were exposed to the so called cherry picking articles.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
George W Bush
Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


LoL I watched your video about global warming in the 50's and it is direct conflict, again, with what came out later



the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

So how would they know back in 1958 when they didn't in 1975?

Flip
Flop
Which way do you want it?
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


The answer to your question is simple - naturally we are headed to an ice-age. But this process takes thousands and thousands of years.

The reason we are getting warmer instead is because that warming is anthropogenic.


The "they said in the 70's we're heading for an ice age" meme is just more evidence that current warming is indeed man made.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


The answer to your question is simple - naturally we are headed to an ice-age. But this process takes thousands and thousands of years.

The reason we are getting warmer instead is because that warming is anthropogenic.


The "they said in the 70's we're heading for an ice age" meme is just more evidence that current warming is indeed man made.






the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"



So how would they know back in 1958 when they didn't in 1975?

Flip
Flop
Which way do you want it?

I am serious here. Why are you giving them credit when they already said they have no F'ing clue what they were talking about?

You need to be more critical of your sources.
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Read the links I gave you. There are all sorts of complicated factors involved like aerosols that muddled the issue back in the day. But the overall consensus has simply grown and grown since then to the point that somewhere around 97-98 percent of climate scientists agree about it today.

As for your link about John Coleman suing Al Gore - that was just more media grandstanding. There never was a lawsuit. The 32,000 scientists thing is total bunk:



Notice a trend yet?


Also your logic is pretty amazing.

- In 1896, scientists predicted global warming. Since then it's gotten noticeably warmer.

- In 1958, scientists predicted global warming. Since then it's gotten noticeably warmer.

- In the 1970's a few scientists predicted global cooling. Since then it's gotten noticeably warmer.


So because the ones predicting cooling were wrong, that means that warming is a myth?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Feel free to rebut arguments, but the personal attacks really need to stop. This is the problem with the global warming alarmists, they get their panties into such a wad that they can't rationally discuss the subject without resorting to name-calling and it just makes them look like a bunch of emotional crybabies. I try to read both sides of the argument and remain objective, but when the alarmists engage in that stuff it's hard to take them seriously.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Hot

Cold

Hot

Cold

Which is it?

good to know they were raising the ALARM on global warming all the way back in 1896 when we had such detailed and accurate understanding of climate change. But then came 1975 and we forgot everything over at Columbia University and raised the ALARM about global ice ages. Then they, Columbia U, come out and say they truly have no idea with current data.

You have to be kidding right. . . .

At best they (or rather you) are practicing pseudo-science.
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The global warming debate is entirely irrelevant considering what is being done to the planet's ecology. If global warming is a reality, then it is just an obvious sign of what we already know, that humans are systematically destroying the ecology of planet earth. If global warming is not a reality, then the fact remains that humans are systematically destroying the ecology of planet earth. Regardless of the debate, there is no disputing the fact that every ecosystem on the planet is in moderate or severe decline. No honest scientist will dispute this.

Global warming, therefore, is not the problem. It is a symptom. The actual problem is the ever increasing and unchecked extraction, exploitation, and waste of every resource available.

Yes, stopping this process will destroy the "economy" as it is currently. Yes, stopping this process will likely require a reduction in human population and a return to some type of equilibrium with the ecological systems on earth. There is only one reason human population has reached this level, and it is due only to our resource use system, which is based upon infinite growth, an exponential function.

You can not have infinite growth within a finite space. If you attempt to argue against this truth, you are insane, dumb, or both. The obvious, but typically overlooked fact about this is that eventually, one way or another, it all has to end.

Who gives s**t if the ice caps have melted when all rivers, lakes, and oceans are polluted and depleted? Who gives a s**t if its 120 degrees most of the time if all plains are scorched, all forests clearcut, and all mountains flattened? Global warming or no, it does not really matter when there is nothing left but dead soil and toxic waters. And if you don't think we are working real hard for that, just go to China and walk around in their industrial areas, if they will even let you in.

Why have the so-called "elite" chosen global warming as a flash point? Because you can't act on it. There is not s**t you can do about it on a personal level. Its a distraction, and you are all falling for it. You sit here bitching back and forth about global warming, doing nothing, while just down the street a factory is spewing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals in your local river, and you don't even know about it, nor do most people even care, because its much easier to sit around and debate a meaningless subject, achieving nothing. Meanwhile, the people who have distracted you with global warming are continuing their rampant destruction of all ecosystems and all biodiversity.

End: rant.
edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


Okay

you first

:p

I only saw mainland China from the Beijing airport and it looked. . . well I would love to tell you but the landscape was actually covered in smog/
edit on 2-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Covered in smog! That's another reason the global warming debate is meaningless. Thanks! Who cares about global warming when you are breathing cancer causing air! Good one.

Me first? What are you talking about?


edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrchusGhule
The global warming debate is entirely irrelevant considering what is being done to the planet's ecology.

Why have the so-called "elite" chosen global warming as a flash point? Because you can't act on it. There is not s**t you can do about it on a personal level. Its a distraction, and you are all falling for it. You sit here bitching back and forth about global warming, doing nothing, while just down the street a factory is spewing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals in your local river, and you don't even know about it, nor do most people even care, because its much easier to sit around and debate a meaningless subject, achieving nothing. Meanwhile, the people who have distracted you with global warming are continuing their rampant destruction of all ecosystems and all biodiversity.


Fortunately, if we leave her alone, Nature will reclaim and repair what we've screwed-up. Look at Love Canal, Bhopal, Chernobyl. When we abandoned these places, the Earth began almost at once to heal and recover.

Why spend so much time and so many resources arguing over how to divide $100billion/year among countries who couldn't care less about our AGW obsession?


The world should take the view of the 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. Former Vice-Presidents should leave their private jets in the hanger and let the grown ups do their work. The UN should look at the question of whether or not, if anthropogenic global warming is a certainty, if there is anything that can or should be done. Thomas Friedman raised the question in one of his books if the money used to try and re-alter the earth’s climate could not be better used to fight disease, hunger and poverty.

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

jw
edit on 3-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I find it extremely ironic that people like you continue to claim there has not been any nail in the coffin to bury the AGW hoax, when in fact there has been, several times...

I also find ironic that you like to bash and blame scientists that refute the AGW hoax in one way or another, and as proof against what these scientists have to say you give the evidence provided for example by "RealClimate.org"... A website where Mann, Jones, et al are directors of, and a site which is known to have received web hosting and support from for example EMS...


Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues".[1] EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gores 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate,[2] and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregation service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications (where they shared the same office space and personnel),[3][4] "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5] which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues.

As of December 31, 2005, Environmental Media Services ceased to function as an independent organization and merged with Science Communication Network.

en.wikipedia.org...

I find it extremely laughable that Mann, Jones, et al are being cleaned up of the mess they made by many of the same people who are in favor of using Climate Change as an excuse to implement a global government to combat Climate Change...

These are the same people who instead of wanting to investigate what the emails said, they wanted to go after whoever leaked the emails... I wonder why...

So again, you are trying to refute this, and everything else by posting evidence from the same people who have been witholding facts, posted false data, and false reports, and in general have wanted, and continue to want to stop any research which refutes the AGW lie...


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



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I was reading a story on this yesterday. Great thread and i liked your insight


Sadly the biggest thing holding us back is human greed. We humans are like Children and basically we don’t want our sweets taken away no matter how much we are told they will harm us. So we invent lies, get angry, throw insults, anything to hold onto our precious sweats.

The oil company’s and corporate giants (Some of the most greedy people on the planet) have done an amazing job, when you think about it... they have convinced many people that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by greedy Nazi greenies who want nothing but your money... Where as they (the corporates) are simply looking out for your freedoms lol



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Did I fail to mention that if the Climate gate ordeal was not for real why is it that CRU engaged Outside Organisation to media manage Climategate?


Of Climategate, constabularies and Copenhagen: an “elusive line in the sand”


August 27, 2011 by hro001 2 Comments

Sorry folks … another detour. Bishop Hill has received that which the University of East Anglia (UEA)’s Vice Chancellor, Edward Acton (the designated “qualified person”) deems not to be exempt according to his interpretation invocation of the rules and regulations pertaining to Freedom of Information requests.

This particular request was pursuant to the recently discovered engagement of the services of Neil Wallis and his colleagues at the PR firm, The Outside Organization (OO) by UEA – at some point – in the aftermath of Climategate.

The first item in the correspondence that was disclosed is dated Feb. 6, 2010 from Neil Wallis. It is an advance copy of one of two “Poor Phil” articles that appeared in The Sunday Times on Feb. 7.

The Times seems to like to do things in two’s. Here’s the headline of the advance copy:

The leak was bad. Then came the death threats

I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones

According to the Music World article in which Wallis’ involvement was disclosed:


“They came to us and said, ‘We have a huge problem – we are being completely knocked apart in the press,’” says (OO’s) Sam Bowen. “They needed someone with heavyweight contacts who could come in and sort things out, and next week there was a front-page story telling it from their side.”

So, if this Feb. 6 E-mail represents the first of OO’s efforts on behalf of UEA – and assuming Sam Bowen was quoted correctly – this would seem to indicate that it took UEA from Nov. 20, 2009 until the end of January 2010 before they realized that they were “being completely knocked apart in the press.” Either that or OO was being very misleading and unprofessional in Sept. 2010, when they used an illustration from a Dec. 1 2009 article to demonstrate the bad press mess in which UEA were mired before the OO team, lead by Wallis, came to their rescue!
...

hro001.wordpress.com...

Did I also fail to mention that Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis were arrested?...

www.thefirstpost.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
...
Where as they (the corporates) are simply looking out for your freedoms lol



Wow, who would have thought?... The old claim that anyone who refutes AGW, which has NOTHING to do with Climate Change, is being paid by corporations to claim so...


The ignorance some people spew...

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



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join