It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
What does it really take to convince people that they have been had!?
Some facts would be a good start as opposed to hot air. As for all your scientists that oppose global warming. I studied with them and I now work with them. I know some that sit on the fence, but the general consensus is that the climate change is anthropogenic in nature...
Housing does account for some of the energy use and yes it is important to increase energy efficiency in the home. But the biggest usage is industry and that is not going to change until we get our heads around the fact that capitalism and environmental sustainability do not mix.
Originally posted by ladykenzie
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies
evidently you are not a scientist. That is how sciences endorses itself. It is the process of peer review.
Right, it is the process of peer review, obviously.
I think you misunderstood though.
JohhnyBGood's point was that they counted every person who reviewed any part of it as an AGW believer, even though a large number of those actually did not endorse the theory; in fact, many of them vehemently disagreed.
The numbers were manipulated and falsely represented.
This report is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists.
At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included statements like:
None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.
No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the observed climate changes to man-made causes.
Professor Seitz concluded:
I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
I readily verify that the description of the course of events in 1996 is correct but wishes also to draw the attention to another initiative taken by Professor Seitz in April 1998 in the form of a Petition that was circulated widely across the US with the aim to prevent the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Climatologists are merely presenting the data. "Cap and Trade" as you call it, is something that some political groups in the USA are suggesting based on what has been done in Europe.
Cap and Trade is Not GREAT in my opinion -- but it has reduced pollution in Europe.
Personally, I'd like to see the Koch brothers spend 3 months in a public stockade, then, bereft of money and power, dropped in Darfur with a cup and a spoon. I'd like to see this country become more Socialist -- and not be embarrassed about it, because it worked after FDR.
I could imagine a new economic system, where, instead of giving BANKS new money for their deposits -- we just give every citizen and certain Stipend, and let the FREE Market coax the money out of them for growth. We end our current patent system, and use something like Wikipedia to track all new inventions and copyright, and then we would give those people NEW MONEY, based on how often some company used their ideas -- because ALL NEW growth is probably based on new ideas -- not on repeating the old ones.
Originally posted by shadowland8
^ Disinfo agents at their finest once again. It's always so interesting that these pro GW people start to get very angry and...erratic in situations where they realise that they're cornered and the info against them is strong. Very predictable. Always happens, they try and vilify and just get into this fit of rage. Nice try, but you won't stop us. Soon the truth will be shown to all.
.................Of course this conclusion is hardly surprising given that, as we have previously reported, the so called “independent” investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell – a vehement supporter of the notion of anthropogenic global warming.
While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh. The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. For the climategate inquiry,
Russell constructed a panel of “experts” that share exactly the same views, clearly contradicting the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”. Russell has called for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the CRU scientists.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I dont get it. These aren't all the GW scientist. How does this make global warming false?
Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming
5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'
The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.
Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.
2.What percentage is human?
3.What percentage is something else?
4.Can we do anything to stop/change it?
6.What would work if we wanted to?
the debate is over. The scientific community doesn't debate the existence of AGW anymore since the 70's/80's. You're a damn fool if you think there is any scientific doubt.