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.

 

can i tell you something?

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



oh please..Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in 2005. He objected to the poor science and politics behind the IPCC hurricane claims that AGW will increase the number of hurricanes.It is true more more research needs to be done before that can be claimed. However it is not the frequency it is the intensity of the hurricanes that will increase due to AGW ie hurricanes of 3 and above hitting land Thats all .......link

as for the himalayans...link and your cut and paste clearly shows that Dr Murari La alone was responsible not the IPCC




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007

oh please..Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in 2005.
...


Landsea objected to the fact that the IPCC has become politicized, and there have been several REAL scientists who have come forward to say the same thing...



Originally posted by minor007
as for the himalayans...link and your cut and paste clearly shows that Dr Murari La alone was responsible not the IPCC


The Himalayas melting was one of the MANY claims used by the IPCC to PUSH for their green agenda...

But then again the IPCC, as well as the GREEN activists who believe in AGW have also made up other lies.... such as "the polar bears are in danger and dying"...


Australian TV Exposes Stranded Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?

Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).

It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:

They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:

You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

How delicious. Think this kind of broadcast would ever happen in America?


newsbusters.org...


But keep laughing, it is not helping dispel your ignorance...



And AGAIN, you haven't anwsered properly...

Want to TRY again?...


edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Here is AGAIN, a small sample of scientists, some who even worked for the IPCC, who disagree with the AGW claim, and who like Landsea have had to leave, or complain about the IPCC POLITICIZING AGW/Climate Change...



...
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



edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
And ANOTHER small list of scientists who disagree with the IPCC...


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...

Want to REPHRASE your point, and actually present an intelligent argument ON YOUR OWN WORDS?...



edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
BTW, just to show how WRONG the people at the "Skeptical Science" BLOG are... Let's see one of their many WRONG arguments...

What the people at the BLOG skeptical science claim about the Sun being part of the problem with the warming is the following...

They CLAIM the science says the following...



Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
...
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions


Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
...

www.skepticalscience.com...

What the REAL science says is...


doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.07.012


Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China

Hai Xua, b, , , , Yetang Hongb, Qinghua Linb, Yongxuan Zhub, Bing Hongb and Hongbo Jiangb

aState Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Fenghui South Road, High-tech Zone, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, PO Box 710075, China

bState Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, 550002, China


Received 28 October 2004; revised 17 July 2005; accepted 19 July 2005. Available online 22 August 2005.

Abstract
During the past 6000 years, the temperature variation trend inferred from δ18O of peat cellulose in a peat core from Hongyuan (eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, southwestern China) is similar to the atmospheric 14C concentration trend and the modeled solar output trend. The general trend of Hongyuan δ18O during the past millennium also coincides well with the atmospheric 14C concentration trend, the 10Be concentration trend in an ice core from the South Pole, the reconstructed total solar irradiance trend, as well as the modeled solar output trend. In addition, temperature events also correspond well to solar perturbations during the past 6000 years. Therefore, the driving force of Holocene temperature variations should be properly ascribed to solar activity. The spectrum analysis further illustrates that quasi-100-yr fluctuation of solar activity was probably responsible for temperature variations in northeast Qinghai–Tibet plateau during the past 6000 years.

Keywords: Peat; Oxygen isotopic composition; Temperature; Solar activity; Qinghai–Tibet plateau; China


www.sciencedirect.com

(continued)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


OMG you hippocrit YOu claim that the IPCC is politicised and now you present evidence from an institute that is very politicised as China is the most polluting country in the world.

edit on 26-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Let's see some of the argumentcoming from "Skeptical Science BLOG"...


Skeptic Argument vs What the Science Says
1 "Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
...


Wow...really? so humans are more powerful than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, and the entire galaxy?... Some people would call this having a "God-complex"...


Let's continue...


2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions


NOT...


Some more REAL science that disagrees witht he claims from the "Skeptical Science BLOG"...


NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Mar. 20, 2003

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
...............
In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.

NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission.

Reference
Willson, R.C., and A.V. Mordvinov 2003. Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, no. 5, 1199, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

That research study only covered 24 years, from 1978, until 2002, but we also know that the strengh of the Solar magnetic storms had been increasing until around the end of 2005-2006, and after this the Sun's activity dropped to a crawl and we saw a global temperature drop right after the Sun's activity began to slow down.

Other research has shown that the Sun's activity had been increasing for decades until at least the end of the 1970s, and putting these facts together we know the Sun was the mayor cause for Climate Change on Earth.

Even if we look at the data from the Sun itself we find the following FACTS...

Was the Sun's activity only increasing during the 24 year of research, from 1978-2002 mentioned above and only until the end of the research in 2002?... No...


Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.





www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

The increase in Solar magnetic storms do tells us that the Sun's activity had been increasing until at least the end of 2005-2006, which is the CONTRARY to what you and your idols claim...

Let's continue... Let's see what other LIES "skeptical science" is trying to sell... I guess they must have learnt from Mann, Jones, et al...


"It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.


According to whom?... History has shown us that first of all if the Earth would really continue to warm it would be beneficial, not negative to health, agriculture and the environment...

BTW, the claim that higher atmospheric CO2 levels are bad for the environment is also a LIE...


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%.

www.planetnatural.com...


"It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.


Compared to what?... According to the GLOBAL record the Medieval Warm period and Roman Warm Periods were WARMER than now yet these were times when humans thrived. Also during the Medieval and Roman Warm periods atmospheric CO2 levels were LOWER than now yet it was warmer than now, so there is another source MORE powerful than mankind that causes warming...


5 "There is no consensus" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.


Are we really going over this again?...



6 "Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.


The models that are unreliable are those that claim that the warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 because they don't take in consideration many natural factors that do affect the climate yet the anthropogenists claim it is all because of anthropogenic CO2 when there is no evidence for this...

EVERYTHING that website claims is nothing but LIES built upon LIES.

If I were to respond to every lie they make I would be here all night.

Abrupt Climate Changes have happened MANY times, and many have occurred a lot faster than the one we had been experiencing.


Originally published in Science Express on 19 June 2008
Science 1 August 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 680 - 684
DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years
Jørgen Peder Steffensen,1* Katrine K. Andersen,1 Matthias Bigler,1,2 Henrik B. Clausen,1 Dorthe Dahl-Jensen,1 Hubertus Fischer,2,3 Kumiko Goto-Azuma,4 Margareta Hansson,5 Sigfús J. Johnsen,1 Jean Jouzel,6 Valérie Masson-Delmotte,6 Trevor Popp,7 Sune O. Rasmussen,1 Regine Röthlisberger,2,8 Urs Ruth,3 Bernhard Stauffer,2 Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen,1 Árn E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir,9 Anders Svensson,1 James W. C. White7

The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes. The onsets of both abrupt Greenland warmings were slightly preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, reflecting the wetting of Asian deserts. A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.

www.sciencemag.org...

The global record SHOWS CLEARLY that the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were WARMER than now, yet the NATURAL Climate Change deniers aka the AGW believers want to deny what hundreds, upon hundreds of research done over several decades actually say...

edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


OMG you hippocrit YOu claim that the IPCC is politicised and now you present evidence from an institute that is very politicised as China is the most polluting country in the world.

edit on 26-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)


What in the world are you talking about?...

Please do tell us what link I gave is "politicized by China"...


BTW, it is spelled "hypocrite"...

edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


you think chinese science is unbiased? All information is controlled and China dont believe man is causing the AGW and most of their scientists think its a scam and that it is a US conspiracy And you keep claiming that the medieval period was warmer. Well obviously you havent read the links i provided showing that the medival period was local but not a global event as other places like NW america Central Eurasia and the Pacific didnt have any warming they had a cooler period cooler than our current temps.

And here is a LINK to the advanced section of the solar acitivity from the same place you happen to disagree with.

The younger drayas climate shift was down to an asteriod strike hitting N America wiping out all the mega fauna and the Clovis people
edit on 26-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Anyway, "minor007" is not going to anwser because I caught him AGAIN in more of his lies and shown his "IGNORANCE"...

He probably thought that the "ca" abbreviation at the end of the "globalresearch.ca" website means that it comes from China, when in fact this is a LEFTWING website from Montreal CANADA...


BTW, that website is showing the statements from those scientists because it is very anti-globalization, and they are right, AGW/Climate Change is being used to push for the One World Government agenda...

I swear it... the lies and BS the AGW FANATIC BELIEVERS have to come up with...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Dont hit your head on the way out ....



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
...
And here is a LINK to the advanced section of the solar acitivity from the same place you happen to disagree with.


Did you fail to read the excerpt and evidence I showed from Wilson, appart from the other evidence? Wilson happens to be the principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments.

In case you don't know what ACRIM is, it is the satellite that the "Skeptical Sience BLOG" is posting OLD information from....



Originally posted by minor007
The younger drayas climate shift was down to an asteriod strike hitting N America wiping out all the mega fauna and the Clovis people


What the hell does the Youger DRYAS has to do with what is being discussed or with the Medieval and Roman Warm Period?...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Dont hit your head on the way out ....


more of your magical evidence to show how ignorant you are?...

Oh boy, i can't stop laughing...


As I said, how do you like them apples now?...

If you had INQUIRED about the topic without any insults I would have responded to you in kind, but you decided to TRY to be a smart ass...



edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I just call it what it is: Pollution.

Pollution effects the planet.

To say otherwise is delusional.

M.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
I just call it what it is: Pollution.

Pollution effects the planet.

To say otherwise is delusional.

M.


WRONG... despite the claims by the AGW religious fanatics, the EPA, the UN/IPCC etc CO2 is NOT a pollutant...

BTW, didn't you know that the EPA also TRIED to label water vapor as a pollutant"?...

They didn't because water vapor is 99.99% NATURAL...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


They burn crap (Fossil fuels etc) to generate that 'steam,' which means they pollute when they do it.
Don't fool yourself into thinking it is just clean air, it is not, it has all the crap from burning the fuel in it too.
But go ahead and be delusional if you want, I can't stop you.

M.

edit on 26-6-2012 by Moshpet because: clarity & spelling.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


cut and pasting only things you want to see....


Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

YOU missed out this part.......

and read this ACRIM VS PMOD

As for the Magnetic storms they do not affect climate change however they will affect satellites.
you said


ccording to whom?... History has shown us that first of all if the Earth would really continue to warm it would be beneficial, not negative to health, agriculture and the environment...

That is the most stupidiest thing i have heard yet.

AS for the CO2 and plant growth.....



n the climate change debate, it appears to be agreed by everyone that excess CO2 will at least have the direct benefit of increasing photosynthesis, and subsequently growth rate and yield, in virtually any plant species: A common remark is that industrial greenhouse owners will raise CO2 levels far higher than normal in order to increase the yield of their crops, so therefore increasing atmospheric levels should show similar benefits. Unfortunately, a review of the literature shows that this belief is a drastic oversimplification of a topic of study that has rapidly evolved in recent years.

link

Dont you ever read the stuff you are posting?????????



The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core


Again with the medieval period...ARe you seriously blind. The link i provided clearly shows 2 graphs one for the medival and one for the present day. It shows the medival period was not warmer.
edit on 26-6-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


They burn crap (Fossil fuels etc) to generate that 'steam,' which means they pollute when they do it.
Don't fool yourself into thinking it is just clean air, it is not, it has all the crap from burning the fuel in it too.
But go ahead and be delusional if you want, I can't stop you.

M.


We are talking about CO2... CO2 is NEEDED by ALL LIFE ON PLANET EARTH...

In case you didn't know YOU, and every animal and plant on this planet are CARBON BASED...

CO2 is what ALL PLANTS, TREES and all green biomass on this planet need to feed themselves...

In fact currently atmospheric CO2 levels are LOWER than they should be...

How about you INFORM yourself just a little before you start making claims that we don't need gases like CO2?...

This is the problem with the MAYORITY of the AGW religious believers. NONE of you have informed yourselves in this topic, yet you jumped in the AGW bandwagon because "it sounds good, and makes you feel good to think you can control nature"...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


cut and pasting only things you want to see....


And you missed the part, WHICH I PUT ON CAPS FOR A REASON YET YOU STILL MISSED IT that said...


...
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
...


And in case you didn't get it yet, the trend was sustained for many decades since the early 1900...


YOU missed out this part.......

WOW, posting again from Skeptical Science BLOG, after CLEARLY proving they are WRONG?...


Originally posted by minor007
As for the Magnetic storms they do not affect climate change however they will affect satellites.
you said


Of course you don't know anything about the sun... In case you didn't know ALL activity on the Sun is linked... when one factor, such as an increase in magnetic storms, increases it means every factor in the Sun is increasing... From irradiance, to sunspots...


Originally posted by minor007
That is the most stupidiest thing i have heard yet.


Really?... So you think it is stupid that with warmer climate all life on the planet flourishes?... Then you are the stupid one...

You didn't know that during cooling events life on Earth takes a toll?... Perhaps you haven't lived in a place that gets cold, and snows, but during winters most trees, and plants go into a type of hybernation, and they don't produce ANY FOOD...

You can't plant harvests, or collect most harvests in winter which means ALL ANIMALS AND HUMANS DON'T HAVE AS MUCH FOOD... Now imagine if winter lasted for hundreds or thousands of years... Do you understand now how warming periods are benefitial to nature and all animals?... Or do you need me to spoonfeed you the facts even in more detail?...




Originally posted by minor007
AS for the CO2 and plant growth.....


Aaaaah, so posting AGAIN from Skeptical Science BLOG a CLAIM in which they only say "how plants use CO2 is more complicated than they say", without posting ANY EVIDENCE as to what this "complication" is all about is proof?...


That is not evidence, that's a excuse without posting any facts...




Originally posted by minor007

Dont you ever read the stuff you are posting?????????



The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core



Well, I guess we must include a lack of reading comprehension to your flaws... Want to TRY to read the above again and understand in what context they are talking about the "Younger Dryas event"?...


Originally posted by minor007
Again with the medieval period...ARe you seriously blind. The link i provided clearly shows 2 graphs one for the medival and one for the present day. It shows the medival period was not warmer.


Graphs which are directly related with the Hockey Stick graph which has been showns TIME AND AGAIN to be WRONG...

Did you miss EVERY GRAPH I actually gave?... There are hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the Roman and Medieval Warm PEriods were WARMER than the present...

It is not going to fit in here but I will REPOST again the facts...

What the record shows us the temps that have occurred in East Asia.



The Sargasso Sea Temps.



Alaska/north America.



For those that don't know CWP = Current Warm Period, MWP = Medieval Warm Period, RWP = Roman Warm Period.

What the real temperatures in Europe say contrary to the Hockey Stick lie, and Mann, Jones et al lies..




edit on 26-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join