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.

 

The Church of AGW: Book of Revelations

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The Revelation of the IPCC, which UN gave unto them, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass...

In their own words, The International Panel on Climate Change begin:


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.


The Lord our Savior IPCC, ascending to sit at the right hand side of UN after being brutally crucified upon a cross of email leaks was resurrected, thus dying for the sins of Climate Change Denialists and resurrected so that all may accept into their heart as their personal Savior the IPCC. Now, comfortably seated at the right hand side of UN, the Lord IPCC judges climatology papers far and wide determining which shall be published in the journals of Heaven, and which papers shall be cast into that Lake of Fire down, down, down, in the pits of Hell.

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change has spoken and all the various denominations of true believers have allied themselves for the coming Apocalypse and all of spoken the same prophecy:


The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”


It is we who are the sinners and it is we who are expected to humble ourselves and kneel at the foot of the IPCC for they:

Are Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And even if the IPCC that echoes the "consensus" with their prophesies of looming, glooming Armageddon are wrong...what about the children?


The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.


Even though Climate Change is:


a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.


The Prophets of the New Testament of Our Lord and Savior the IPCC use the term:


In this sense, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming


Climate change is often used to be understood as human induced climate change because it is important that the laity of the Church of Latter Day Scientists, those great unwashed peasant classes who are ignorant to the mystical incantations of the priest class scientist sect should simply accept that climate change means the bad climate prophesied by the Prophets of IPCC the sins of humanity.

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?


Abstract

This is the first of a series of three biennial reviews of research on the subject of climate change. This review is concerned with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): its origins and mandate; its disciplinary and geographical expertise; its governance and organisational learning; consensus and its representation of uncertainty; and its wider impact and influence on knowledge production, public discourse and policy development. The research that has been conducted on the IPCC as an institution has come mostly from science and technology studies scholars and a small number critical social scientists. The IPCC’s influence on the construction, mobilisation and consumption of climate change knowledge is considerable. The review therefore ends by encouraging geographers of science to turn their research and scholarship to understanding the roles played by the IPCC, and equivalent institutional processes of climate change knowledge assessment, in the contemporary world.


This simple report is compiled by Mike Hulme and one of his students, Martin Mahoney of the University of East Anglia. Hulme is a regular contributor to the IPCC, but is also the author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change


Why We Disagree About Climate Change is an exploration on how the idea of climate change has taken such a dominant position in modern politics and why it is so contested. In the book, the author looks at the differing views from various disciplines, including natural science, economics, ethics, social psychology and politics, to try to explain why people disagree about climate change. Rather than being a problem to be solved, the book argues that climate change is an idea which reveals different individual and collective beliefs, values and attitudes about ways of living in the world.


Continued...




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
On March 15th of this year, 2012, the Luxemborgian daily newspaper Tageblatt published an interview with German meteorologist Wolfgan Thune:


Grönland - ohne Eis als Folge der Klimaerwärmung. Diese Meldung wurde dieser Tage in den Medien verbreitet. Was soll man davon halten?

Translation:

Greenland - excluding ice due to climate warming. This message was disseminated in the media these days. What are we to make of it?

Thune - "Nichts! Theoretisch kann man sich alles Mögliche ausdenken, dies in Formeln kleiden und berechnen, dass in exakt 1.900 Jahren der Weltuntergang eintreten wird. Dann würde die Menschheit um das Schauspiel „eisfreies Grönland“ in 2.000 Jahren betrogen sein. Das Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung erinnert mich an das griechische „Orakel von Delphi“, aber auch an die „Offenbarung des Johannes“, die Vision der Apokalypse mit ihren prophetischen Bildfolgen. Im Jahre 1033 sollte schon einmal die Welt untergehen und der Weltklimarat prophezeite noch 2007 den Klimakollaps für 2020. Mit ihren Supercomputern machen die Klimaforscher uns glauben, sie hätten die „Sieben Siegel“ geöffnet und damit den „verborgenen Geschichtsplan Gottes“ enthüllt. Alle charakteristischen Merkmale der Apokalypse, ob aus der Glaskugel gelesen oder mit dem Computer berechnet, findet man heute unter dem Namen „Science Fiction“ wieder."

Translation:

Nothing! Theoretically, you can think up anything, dress it up in formulae and calculate that the end of the world will occur in exactly 1900 years. In 2000 years, when it comes to an ice-free Greenland, man will have been defrauded. The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research reminds me of the Greek ‘Oracle of Delphi’, or the ‘Book of Revelation’, the vision of the apocalypse with its prophetic picture sequences . The world was supposed to end already back in 1033 and the IPCC prophesied in 2007 a climate collapse for 2020. With their super computers the climate scientists would have us believe that they have opened up the ‘Seven Seals’ and revealed ‘God’s Plan’.”


They have opened up the Seven Seals and revealed God's Plan. Why then do the sinners - "The Climate Change Denialists" - rant and rail against the sacred word of the IPCC?

Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem


“The claim of man-made global warming represents the descent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone.” Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 12 January 2004.

Climate change is a fundamental problem involving basic science including physics. There is much research still to be done before we get to a position of sufficient certainty about all the aspects of climate change that are required by society to plan for the future. Predictions of future climate change, based on numerical global climate models, are the critical outputs of climate science. Whilst much has been written about the details of the predictions themselves, scepticism about the prediction models is rife and this is why this paper is devoted to de-mystifying the prediction methodology. Consequently this paper focuses on the scientific basis of climate change prediction. As for all problems in science, uncertainty and its quantification are a fundamental part of the scientific process and thus they will figure largely in this paper. There is little doubt that a lack of knowledge about how climate change is predicted and the associated uncertainties are amongst the main reasons for ill-informed comment on climate change.


(Emphasis added)

Before returning to this papers effort to inform the ill-informed on climate change it is worth while to also consider the information provided in this article published by Nature international weekly journal of science: The real holes in climate science


A fuller reading of the e-mails from CRU in Norwich, UK, does show a sobering amount of rude behaviour and verbal faux pas, but nothing that challenges the scientific consensus of climate change. Still, the incident provides a good opportunity to point out that — as in any active field of inquiry — there are some major gaps in the understanding of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate climate science.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Considerable effort has been devoted to using proxy information, such as from tree rings, to estimate change over the past 1000 years or so and the climate appears to have been noticeably lacking in significant variations.


~From Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem ~


Climate scientists are worried in particular about tree-ring data from a few northern sites. By examining temperature measurements from nearby, researchers know that tree growth at these locations tracked atmospheric temperatures for much of the twentieth century and then diverged from the actual temperatures during recent decades. It may be that when temperatures exceed a certain threshold, tree growth responds differently. The 'divergence' issue also made an appearance in the CRU affair. In the most frequently quoted of the CRU e-mails, the former director of the centre, Phil Jones, mentioned a 'trick' — namely using actual observations of late-twentieth-century temperatures instead of tree ring data — to 'hide the decline' in the response of trees to the warming temperatures."


~From The real holes in climate science~


The human input of aerosols to the atmosphere reflects back incoming solar radiation and may make clouds more reflective – it is thought this has acted to partially offset the amount of global warming (sometimes called global dimming). The fact that the amount of cloud is altered, in principle, by temperature shows that there is the possibility of feedbacks in the climate system. Other feedbacks include: (i) the greenhouse gases) such as water vapour, carbon melting of sea-ice leading to reduced albedo and further warming, and (ii) higher temperatures leading to more atmospheric water vapour and an enhanced greenhouse effect. It is the ability of humans to alter the greenhouse effect that shows that the term "anthropogenic climate change" is a meaningful concept.


~From Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem ~


Atmospheric aerosols — airborne liquid or solid particles — are a source of great uncertainty in climate science. Despite decades of intense research, scientists must still resort to using huge error bars when assessing how particles such as sulphates, black carbon, sea salt and dust affect temperature and rainfall. Overall, it is thought that aerosols cool climate by blocking sunlight, but the estimates of this effect vary by an order of magnitude, with the top end exceeding the warming power of all the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by humans. One of the biggest problems is lack of data. "We don't know what's in the air," says Schmidt. "This means a major uncertainty over key processes driving past and future climate."


~From The real holes in climate science~


If there is a human induced climate modification then present day climate variations are a mixture of natural and anthropogenic contributions. The detection of climate change relies on measurements of recent past climate variations and the attribution of climate variations to anthropogenic sources attempts to find the contributions to observed or predicted change from these sources. Given that we have only one climate system to measure, it is extremely difficult to be definitive about attribution although this can be done using statistical and modelling approaches. The problem with attribution being that a natural trend can exist over certain time periods, even without human modifications, as part of a longer term natural oscillation. It is particularly popular to ask such questions as "is the recent severe weather event caused by global warming?" and extremely difficult to answer them definitively.


~From Climate Change Prediction: A challenging scientific problem ~

Because the IPCC is undoubtedly a panel of government funded scientists, in the name of science, it was inevitable that The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) would arise:


Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Mike Hulme (2009), a professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2009 a book that contained admissions of uncertainty rarely voiced by insiders of the climate change research community. Hulme wrote, ―the three questions examined above—What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous?— represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.

Hulme also admitted "Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions of future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow such changes in climate." On the subject of the IPCC's credibility he admitted "it is governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists


~From: Climate Change Reconsidered - The 2011 Interim Report by the NIPCC~

I have read many threads in this site in regards to anthropogenic climate change, and read many posts by many members declaring that the debate over human induced climate change is over, and what these members mean specifically is that the verdict is out and Our Lord and Savior the IPCC has condemned humanity for their sins of contributing to global warming. However, as the NIPCC pointed out, Roger Harrabin, an environmental analyst for the BBC, asked several written questions to Philip D. Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. One of those questions asked by Harrabin and answered by Jones was:


When asked "When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do the mean - and what don't they mean?" Jones replied, "It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists believe this. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.


Since the University of East Anglia "climategate" scandal broke, those religious zealots of AGW have tirelessly bemoaned how the sinning "climate change denialists" have used this scandal inappropriately and unscientifically, but the reality is that this email scandal revealed certain things that forced the IPCC to retract claims about the Amazon Rain Forest, African crop harvests, Himalayan glaciers, trends in disaster losses, and flooding in Bangladesh to name just a few retractions. The religious zealots of AGW will downplay this scandal much like the Catholics will downplay their own treachery during the Crusades.

I live in Los Angeles and in this sprawling land of a thousand suburbs, filled with more than 9 million people, smog is a serious issue. There are days when the smog is so bad it is recommended people stay indoors so as not to breathe the poisonous outside air. That smog is no doubt caused by humans. Anthropogenic contributions to climate must be taken seriously but the uncertainties that pervade climate science must be given equal seriousness. What I have found to be inexcusable and alarming are that the alarmists, those squawking chicken little's, will conspire to shout down any reasoned discussion on climate change and insist that they cannot offer up any science themselves because the issue is "far too complex".

Regardless of how complex climate change is, and how much humanity has contributed to the predicted changes, it is not so complex that critical thinkers cannot reasonably break down this science and understand it in simple ways that could easily understood by a ten year old. It is not enough to pay a tithe to priest class science sect and humbly shrug our shoulders and whisper that the IPCC works in mysterious ways. It is essential, regardless where our own bias leans, that we all who would enter this debate, speak to the science of it and work towards reasonably interpreting the uncertainties and what that means in terms of anthropogenic crimes against nature.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well sir, I like your style and presentation. That's a lot to take in but the point your making is clear.Another bunch of jokers with an agenda.Yet my understanding is that what we are experiencing is not just a global phenomena,but is happening to all the planets in our solar system.They are all warming above what we know as "normal ".They say not one word about that.If these guy are the top of the top, they should have heard about that.Its obvious what their doing. Earth politics as usual.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Well said my friend. Not only do you have a way with words; you have a way with presentation. I'm not the best informed on this topic, so I'll leave you with this...

You didn't go through all this trouble to get a few stars, and a few flags. You have a conviction which you feel is important not just to ATS, but to all of us. Sometimes we have to dig through the rubble to find the truth, and your shovel must be worn out on this one. Bravo Jean Paul!

This is a perfect example of the material which we used to find on ATS. It is my sincere hope that we never lose you, for you are truly an inspiration to aspiring writers and truth seekers.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
With a few small silver iodide flares and one aircraft we can seed clouds to make them rain, and effect the local weather.

With a few large ionizers, we can make ions attract dust, rise with hot air, condense moisture into clouds, and make it rain in the middle of a desert, effectively changing the local weather.

However, you climate change deniers doubt that the billions of cars, trucks, trains, aircraft, factories, generators, and other objects and processes that produce extremely large amounts of greenhouse gases every minute of every hour of every day of every year, all over the entire planet, at the same time, couldn't cause our atmosphere to retain more heat, and increase global temperatures, effectively changing the global climate...

edit on 31-7-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 





However, you climate change deniers doubt that the billions of cars, trucks, trains, aircraft, factories, generators, and other objects and processes that produce extremely large amounts of greenhouse gases every minute of every hour of every day of every year, all over the entire planet, at the same time, couldn't cause our atmosphere to retain more heat, and increase global temperatures, effectively changing the global climate...


The problem with you anthropogenic climate change advocates is that you clearly cannot be bothered to read all that is presented to you. Had you, you would have understood my own personal ambivalence regarding the undeniable climate change we are facing. This is how bad you AGW advocates get. Even someone willing to admit they don't know one way or another what the cause of the recent climate changes are is absurdly labeled "you climate change deniers". This language has nothing to do with science.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


My reply wasn't pointed at you and your doubts, and your ASSumption that I didn't read your topic just displays your ignorance and hypocrisy.

My reply was to deniers who can't understand that simple facts of science who will surely be crying about climate change being a hoax in this topic in the near future.

Anyone with even basic scientific knowledge can see that pumping tons and tons of greenhouse gases unnaturally into the atmosphere will change the atmosphere's conditions and in turn change the climate.

The only doubts left are the ones raised by greedy political figures who use real disasters for political gain, and have hidden agendas. That doesn't make the disaster any less real.
edit on 31-7-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 





My reply was to deniers who can't understand that simple facts of science who will surely be crying about climate change being a hoax in this topic in the near future.


You're jumping the gun. It would have been more prudent to wait for those you're "replying" to to actually make a post before "replying" to them.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
you are clearly not trying to win over anyone who believes the majority of climate scientists are right. your antagonistic title made me irritated before even attempting to read your standard talking points. right off the bat you are insulting and rude. why would i want to engage in any sort of civil discussion or read what you have to say when you clearly aim to insult anyone who doesn't agree?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
you are clearly not trying to win over anyone who believes the majority of climate scientists are right. your antagonistic title made me irritated before even attempting to read your standard talking points. right off the bat you are insulting and rude. why would i want to engage in any sort of civil discussion or read what you have to say when you clearly aim to insult anyone who doesn't agree?


Why would you want to make a post announcing you couldn't be bothered to read the posts because your emotions got the better of you?

The title hints at my argument, and the posts offer up evidence to support my argument, and that argument is that, in regards to climate change, science has been supplanted by religious zealotry and your knee jerk reaction to a title tends to support my argument as well. Amen.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Mike Hulme (2009), a professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2009 a book that contained admissions of uncertainty rarely voiced by insiders of the climate change research community. Hulme wrote, ―the three questions examined above—What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous?— represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.



Jean Paul Zodeaux, you raise the standards again, a rock solid argument and funny as heck too

Well done. F+S+S+S+S


wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I don't know enough about the subject to make a decision one way or another. The problem is when vested interests get involved with the process, it makes it a lot more difficult for the layman to get a real understanding of the issues.

On the one side we vested interests in the carbon tax camp whose interest it is to push the man made global warming argument. On the other side you have the powerful energy companies whose interest it is to keep exploiting the earths natural resources. So you have two very powerful sides trying to influence the debate on the issue.

I do believe we humans are having a an impact on our environment. One only needs to see the Islands of waste plastic in the sea for evidence. But then climate change is also a natural process that we have been through before.

In all honesty it does not matter if man is causing warming or not. There is no really intention to do anything about moving away from fossil fuels, especially in our current economic climate. Drill baby drill, burn baby burn. China is building a coal power stations at the rate of 2 a week. No one really cares.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jkeyes
 


Global warming is a lie.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 





In all honesty it does not matter if man is causing warming or not. There is no really intention to do anything about moving away from fossil fuels, especially in our current economic climate. Drill baby drill, burn baby burn. China is building a coal power stations at the rate of 2 a week. No one really cares.


I think that many "skeptics" are coming from the very perspective you just offered. On the one hand we have climatologists insisting that we've exceeded the tipping point and there is nothing we can do but learn to live with global warming, and on the hand we have governments insisting they must tax the crap out of people to do something about this global warming climatologists are insisting nothing can be done about. In the meantime, government uses its awesome machinery of the state to protect, and further the aims of the oil industry. An industry that has spent countless billions preventing alternative energy technologies from seeing the light of day.

Government funded scientists writing studies that facilitate the tax and spend nature of government is suspicious in and of itself. Couple that with these government funded scientist willingly admitting to all of the uncertainties while government insists that one thing is certain...taxes...makes for a truly dubious agenda.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 





Garbage in garbage out, then apply statistical tricks and bias and then repeat the lie ad nauseum. The pseudo religious aspect is appropriate given the end of world disaster claims repeatedly peddled by these frauds.


It is the combination of the end of the world prognostications (as if these are scientists in sack cloth spreading ashes) and their zealous castigation of the non-believers that strikes me as wholly religious. Christians will insist that there is an end times coming and that there is nothing we can do about it except pray, and the IPCC insists that there is an end times coming and that there is nothing we can do about it except tithe.

Thanks for sharing that study, Harry.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Wolfgang Thüne is not a person to be trusted. He made his doctor in a phd-mill, published in an extreme-right-wing publishing house and a notorious climate-change-denier.

Trust on him. Go on.

But don't expect me to trust him or the results in your text based on his opinions.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Wolfgang Thüne is not a person to be trusted. He made his doctor in a phd-mill, published in an extreme-right-wing publishing house and a notorious climate-change-denier.

Trust on him. Go on.

But don't expect me to trust him or the results in your text based on his opinions.


Ad hominem attacks are not a part of scientific method. Attacking some meteorologist instead of his argument is not science.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by senselessness
 


Hey dude, since you're such a believer, why don't you lead by example and stop driving? In fact, why don't you get off the computer? You should go voluntarily hand over your share of those taxes to stop global warming in its tracks. I vote for you to be the modern example of a negative carbon footprinter.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join