can i tell you something?

Originally posted by Sover3igN
reply to post by pasiphae

 

I think you are just misunderstood.
I think you are an introvert.
I think you might want to read my intodcution to ATS.
I think you wouldnt want to reply for months after reading it.
I think I never did because of that.

wanna give me a link? (and i think you have me confused with someone else)

i seriously never thought my post would make it past a page of comments. i haven't read through the last couple of pages because i'm afraid it took a nasty turn and i don't want to be bummed out... again. (i read a couple of short comments within the last few and replied though)

Originally posted by pasiphae

i like you.

So AGAIN, great EVIDENCE that you are using there to corroborate your RELIGION...

Sorry but that's what it is.

The MAYORITY of the AGW camp can't really understand and much less debate the science behind Climate Change.

So, AGAIN, let's try to see if using the following fact the regular members of ATS who are ardent BELIEVERS in AGW can DEBATE instead of patting each other on the back for BELIEVING in the same RELIGION...

It is also funny and extremely ironic that many of the same people who are ardent BELIEVERS in the RELIGION that is AGW are maney of the same people who bash away at any person who dares being religious, and at religon in general, yet these people also BELIEVE in a claim that is nothing more than a RELIGION based on lies and deceipt...

...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Learn, and TRY to debate the above FACT which proves anthropogenic CO2, and even natural CO2 is not the cause of the warming CLAIMED by the AGW camp...

BTW, this debate is also for EVERY ONE of those people who "starred and flagged this thread" based on the wrong OPINIONS from an AGW BELIEVER...

Go ahead and start...

reply to post by Nathan-D

Your arrogant dogmatism is breathtaking Mc_squared. You give us no sources or explanations for these flat assertions that Joanne Nova is an oil-shill which you make as though they were established matters of fact when it is not. Do stop trying to slip your baseless propaganda under our radar like this, there’s a good chap.

And why don't you be a good chap and take your fingers out of your ears, not to mention your foot out of your mouth, and pay attention for once.

I ALREADY LINKED YOU in this thread to the last time I showed evidence of Joanne Nova's shady background. Meanwhile I just told you the information is available on her own website:

Joanne spent five years touring Australia with Shell Questacon Science Circus. For her first full time job, she managed the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve.

She spent 5 years indoctrinating teaching kids science on behalf of Shell.



So you think that's just some innocent coincidence?



Then tell me something - why is it I can find this same eerie connection for EVERY single climate "skeptic" out there?

I mean it: every. single. one.

Name a well-known skeptic and I bet you I can find something that either connects them directly to fossil fuel money in their bank account, or at the very least to some right-wing/libertarian poltical agenda, usually funded by the standard cast of plutocrats who have all their fortunes tied up in industries threatened by action against global warming.


You think I'm "flying under the radar" with this? I have demonstrated it in detail on ATS time and time again. The fact that YOU avoid this information because YOU are too afraid of what it might say is YOUR problem, not mine.


Here - remember this? That was one of our first conversations, where you were trying to link me to some denier twaddle on junkscience.com. I showed you then and there junkscience.com was a PR front run by Stephen Milloy, a proven shill who previously ran a similar front group on behalf of Philip Morris - their objective was to "question" the science on the health hazards of smoking.

You think there's no proof of this? There are legal documents with his name on them.


So stop kidding yourself about how I have no sources and these are just my dogmatic delusions.

The sources are embedded all over ATS:


I have shown how Pat Michaels flat out admits he is funded by the fossil fuel industry: Link.

I have shown how Richard Lindzen takes money to appear in propaganda videos and speak on behalf of Western Fuels Assocation (a coal industry lobby): Link 1. Link 2.

I have shown how Roy Spencer brags on his blog that he believes his role as a scientist is to act "like a legislator" and fight big government: Link.

I have shown how James Inhofe and Marc Morano suckle at the teet of the gas and oil industry. Link.

I have shown how the American Petroleum Institute creates fake grassroots "science" organizations who proudly list their objectives as derailing climate change into a "non-issue". Link.

I have shown how much ExxonMobil have a stake in all of this. Link.

As do the Koch Brothers. Link.


All of these and many more are all over the place here.

And yet you simply continue to turn a blind eye to ALL OF IT. You just dig deeper into your little bag of denier memes and tell yourself anything contrary is just magical warmist illusions. You burrow away in denial until you feel safe again that it's everybody else that's being scammed, everybody else that's being hoaxed, and it can't possibly be YOU that's been the gullible hypocrite fool all along.

So go ahead and live in la-la-(la-I-can't-hear-you)-land. The fact that you seriously just tried to claim I have no proof of my claims when I have shown you enough to start a separate ATS forum says everything about how far gone "skeptics" like you are in climate-denier-dementia.

reply to post by mc_squared

And why don't you be a good chap and take your fingers out of your ears, not to mention your foot out of your mouth, and pay attention for once

I hate to disappoint you but your fatuous presuppositions are wrong as usual. You are the one with the comprehension issues. You have asserted that Joanne Nova is being funded by Shell. To prove this sweeping assertion you linked us to her website that contained the statement that she toured with ‘Shell Questacon Science Circus’. Ha, ha, ha. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel this time, aren’t you? Touring with Shell Questacon Science Circus does not mean that she is being funded by Shell. That is pure self-delusion and it is completely irrational. You cannot just make up what someone else has done in your own mind and then assert it as fact without giving yourself a mental conflict with reality. But that is normal behavior for you climate-cult fanatics, isn’t it? No wonder you are all round the twist to varying degrees, depending on how big an influence the cult has had on your minds. You still have failed to present any evidence that Joanne Nova is receiving payments from Shell. Until you provide us with such evidence, no rationally-minded person is going to take your unsubstantiated word for it just on your say-so however much you want it to be true.

The malevolent insinuations of intellectually-dishonest accusers like you, mc_squared, reflect badly only upon your own characters. Your persistent misrepresentation of skeptics in such ways as this is insulting to us. Beyond its obvious intent to demean us, it is also an aggressive and unwarranted attempt on your part to impose a false identity of your arbitrary invention and choosing upon us regardless of our true natures and characters. Your consistent, persistent and relentless misrepresentation of us as ‘denialists’ is a cruel and deeply cynical form of the denialism that you decry because it denies the truth of who and what we really are. It constitutes a wilful and vicious attack upon our very beings and as such it is the action of criminally-minded psychopaths who do not care what hurt and damage they may cause to their fellow human beings in getting what they want. You are mentally sick people, mc_squared. Your gratuitous insulting of us is just one symptom of your intractable and ultimately self-destructive mental disease. I won’t bother addressing your other allegations, as I’m sure I would just be banging my head against the wall of your party-script.

Negative energy towards eachother is just as much pollution as crude oil emissions and general waste of the world. If not more so.

I dont believe the world is in any danger of being destroyed by us any more than we destroy ourselves. I believe the earth will remain long after we are gone and might even start all over again. A man by the name of Nikola Tesla had found the right amount of tuning within the earth to give us free energy and lots of other seemingly lost attributes (Ozone) but the powers that be didnt think a great deal of money would be involved so they took it down and now most of his work is being hidden for 'national security' (youre kidding yourself if you think its public)

He had already built schematics for the electric moter. Can you imagine were we'd be if just the tower remained and a couple more built. Pollution would be deminished exponentally. But those in BIG with the oil companies what would happen to them (Rockefeller) What would happen to the people if they knew they could get free ANYTHING. What would happen to Edison if his DC was proven to be sloppy and obsolete. Financially we pollute because we have no choice to. Unless we as a whole decide to do something, which looking around the world and this site....doesnt look very likely

reply to post by Whatifitdidhappen


What happened to Nikola Tesla was a combination of many things.

First of all, he ran out of MONEY, yes you need money, to be able to finish his Wardenclyffe Tower project..

Second of all, IF we were using his ideas on wireless transmition of energy/power you would STILL need to pay for electricity. You not only need to build many of such towers around the world, but you also need to maintain and repair all the equipment, and the towers themselves. You would need to pay engineers to keep the towers working properly, etc, etc. In summary, you would still be paying to use electricity and the amount of money needed would be more, not less than now. The reason why we would all be paying more now for electricity is in part because you would be using more power/energy, and also because of this the equipment will need more maintaining and servicing.


Third of all, because there is no solid conductor for his intercontinental wireless transmission of power/energy (of course that's why it is wireless) he would need more energy/power, as I mentioned above, to be able to do this which in turn would create a very strong magnetic field around the world which in turn would affect all animals that use the Earth's magnetic field for navigation and or migration.

All the problems we have been having with birds and other animals in recent years being disoriented, and dying because they couldn't find their way would have been 100 times worse if we were using Tesla's wireless transmition of power/energy.

Tesla did not foresee this, and didn't even think about it.

He was a genius, but even geniuses can be wrong from time to time.

Originally posted by mc_squared

And why don't you be a good chap and take your fingers out of your ears, not to mention your foot out of your mouth, and pay attention for once.

To what? Nathan and I have shown and proved that you are not only wrong, but go as far as lying just to promote your AGW religion...

Originally posted by mc_squared
I ALREADY LINKED YOU in this thread to the last time I showed evidence of Joanne Nova's shady background. Meanwhile I just told you the information is available [url=http://joannenova.com.au/about/]on her own website

WRONG, just because she used her knowledge to teach science through shell doesn't mean that she was paid to promote ideas contrary to Climate Science...

I am sure there are MANY workers of electrical companies, oil companies, and other industries in ATS... Does it mean that because they work for these companies they are "stooges of such companies"?... NO...

You have shown to know not how to make an argument yet again... You used a strawman and ad hominem attacked her instead of debating HER ARGUMENTS...

Originally posted by mc_squared
Then tell me something - why is it I can find this same eerie connection for EVERY single climate "skeptic" out there?

I mean it: every. single. one.

What a LOAD OF CRAP... You are just full of it and in the next post I will show a list of SOME of the many scientists who disagree with your RELIGION...

Originally posted by mc_squared
You think I'm "flying under the radar" with this? I have demonstrated it in detail on ATS time and time again. The fact that YOU avoid this information because YOU are too afraid of what it might say is YOUR problem, not mine.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you continuously use the claims of Mann, Jones, Trenberth, et al., the very same people who were caught SEVERAL times lying and using underhanded tactics and for that THERE IS REAL EVIDENCE...

Originally posted by mc_squared
So go ahead and live in la-la-(la-I-can't-hear-you)-land. The fact that you seriously just tried to claim I have no proof of my claims when I have shown you enough to start a separate ATS forum says everything about how far gone "skeptics"

The only one living in "la- la- la-( I-can't-hear-you) land is you...

You can't even debate the points at hand.

Let's actually see a SMALL list of the MANY scientists who disagree with AGW...

Trenberth's Retro Climate Claims

Trenberth is living in 2006 or 2007 America when the media used to believe uncritically the UN claims and never questioned the "man behind the curtain." The science is disintegrating so fast that even climate activists are now openly lamenting the entire man-made climate fear movement. See: Climate Activists Shock Admission: 'Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide' -- 'only responsible for about half of the problem' - Sept. 18, 2009

In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

It's time Trenberth got a badly needed reality check, which of course Climate Depot is only too happy to provide.

A small sampling of recent developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

The year 2009 saw a report from 35 international scientists directly countering the UN IPCC's scientific claims. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

For more complete analysis see: Science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse – August 26, 2009

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UNs claims and its scientific methods. (Presumably, these skeptical UN scientists did not get Trenberths memo on how to avoid being "poorly informed.")

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' - September 30, 2009 - 'We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority' - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 - Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” - declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: 'We're not scientifically there yet' - July 16, 2009

Trenberth's claim that the UN IPCC is an "very open" also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn't it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. 'Peer review' developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean's research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." McLean's study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

....................

www.climatedepot.com... hority-The-IPCC-has-spoken

Here we have even more statements from real scientists who doubt the AGW claims.

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Anyway, I am STILL waiting for the AGW BELIEVERS to DEBATE what NASA said in 2005 about pollution not being the cause of the warming, and that the largest warming has been in remote areas AWAY from large cities for the last 50 years or so...

Waiting....waiting...waiting...

There are a few of problems with discussions on climate change not just on ATS but also on most other internet sites.

1) There is an illogical assumption made by some that those who believe the science that says changes in CO2 levels affect climate, and that currently CO2 levels are changing due to human activity, also believe that only changes in CO2 level affect climate. Codswallop! Just because a bullet can now kill a man does not mean men do not also die of the same things that killed us before bullets were invented. Think about it. The science argument is that in addition to everything else, there is now an additional factor.

This is one of the biggest causes of argument. It's daft and very childish.

2) When climate change or AGW is referred to, what is invariably meant is carbon emission derived global warming - there are many other things that affect climate, some natural (cf above) and some anthropogenic. We never seem to talk about, for example, how deforestation in the Amazon affects rainfall in Texas - yet that is probably a more serious issue for many people than any temperature rise in the US resulting from raised CO2 levels.

3) Just because computer model predictions do not come true does not prove AGW is not happening. Just because climate model predictions do come true does not prove that AGW is happening.

Another daft and childish cause of argument!

4) Human activity can cause global cooling as well. It's not a one way street.

5) Whatever you read in the media is probably wrong or greatly simplified. Even politicians are told lies to children. It's easier. Because the truth is very very complicated. And most people (especially the media and politicians) want simple answers when simple answers do not exist.

6) Science never knows the final answer. Science is all about increasing our knowledge, finding new things and in the process disproving what we previously thought we knew. It's when scientists say the same today as they did 20, 30, 50 years ago that you need to get suspicious, not when they change their minds. Those who made a statement nased on our current knowledge 20 years ago were no more wrong nor lying than was an astronomy book from 20 years ago stating there are 9 planets in our solar system, with Pluto being the most distant from the Sun. Science finds new thigs every day. It' is always changing.

This too can lead to daft, childish arguments ....

7) Most climate scientists accept the basic premise that increases in CO2 are a) occurring b) caused by human activity and c) all else being equal will cause an increase in temp. That is the 'consensus'. But beyond that, most scientists disagree on details (cf above)

Note: "all else being equal" is important. Even if all the worse case AGW scenarios are correct, then all bets are off if Yelowstone erupts.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Aye, it's not warming in Alaska due to smog in LA

Though I think you've misread the piece and think that by pollution they mean CO2 and that CO2 warms up the place where it is emitted, and doesn't disperse through the atmosphere to have a long term global effect - like sulphur emissions do (though be interested in that case in why CO2 levels are rising in Antartica?)

Mind, on that issue, I found this quite funny:

less carbon emission slows snow melt

Apparently they think snow on an Himalayan pass has taken longer to melt this year than last, because there have been less cars travelling over it therefore less CO2 ......... You're not the only one confused!

Oh hey, and should I remind squared how his idols are being funded by green activists with a political agenda and even at least some, like Mann, are connected to Al Gore?...

Let's talk about "Realclimate.org"...

The Truth about RealClimate.org

RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.

RealClimate.org

Registrant Organization - Environmental Media Services
.....
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)


EMS's founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore's Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]

EMS officially served as the "scientific" branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America's dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]
...

www.populartechnology.net...

"Realclimate.org" is one of the sites that AGW religious believers like squared link to and excerpt from.

Let's actually see some of the other things the AGW religious pseudo-scientific fanatics, who call themselves scientists, have done to PUSH their agenda...

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Yes CO2 does disperse but this does not mean it should be warmer farther AWAY from the sources of CO2.

Think of a fire, where is it warmer, close to the fire, or farther away?

BTW, CO2 has been labeled a pollutant by the IPCC/UN, the EPA, and green groups. Even Hansen, a green activist and the director of NASA calls CO2 a pollutant.

BTW, Hansen who works for NASA, a company that emits LARGE AMOUNTS of CO2 should be an AGW skeptic no?... Instead he is an AGW believer and has been caught publishing wrong data to push for his green agenda...

No, you can't as I'm not listening.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


kinda seems like you see "global warming is a hoax" as YOUR religion. or maybe more like a cult you follow.

** edit to add that i find it very odd that because i liked someones comment that agrees with me that's PROOF that i'm a AGW is my religion. in fact, it's just science.

And about the Himalayas melting...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, be certain that the AGW believers will try to use any way to silence anyone, and everyone, including using the tactics their masters have used, and keep using to try to silence anyone who dares to post research that refutes AGW....



Some more damning evidence...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...

Yet more evidence is being found that Jones, one of the scammers and main proponents of the AGW lie has been using many ways, even illegal ways to hide information, and they have been giving fraudulent information just to keep AGW, which sorry to say the evidence shows has become nothing more than a religion based on lies, flawed assumptions and even fraud.

Originally posted by pasiphae
kinda seems like you see "global warming is a hoax" as YOUR religion. or maybe more like a cult you follow.

** edit to add that i find it very odd that because i liked someones comment that agrees with me that's PROOF that i'm a AGW is my religion. in fact, it's just science.

edit on 25-6-2012 by pasiphae because: (no reason given)

Explain to me this science you are talking about...

You are still not understanding how to make and intelligent and concise argument...

Anyway, there is also the fact that MANY scientists have had to leave the IPCC, and other world governments jobs because AGW/Climate Change has become politicized.

One example of the scientists who ahve had to leave is the following.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
.............

www.tsaugust.org...

Like him there have been several "real scientists" who have been saying the same thing, and not policy makers, or environmentalists which are trying to pass as Climate Change experts...