Al Gore Gives Us About 90 More Years

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

WE don't have to pay.

The polluters have to pay.

Boy - are people misinformed about this issue.


WRONG... I have already shown you what is happening with the carbon credits, and the scams that are occurring.

AGAIN, what you don't seem to know is that in many places, like in Europe, there has been a carbon tax put on the REGULAR PEOPLE.

BTW, when governments put a tax on companies, who do you think pay for that tax increase?... It trickles down to YOU...and the rest of the REGULAR PEOPLE...

The European environmental tax reform was put in effect in 2004...

Please, don't claim other people are misinformed when it is obvious that you are the one misinformed...




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



A Global and Environmental Imperative


The fact of this planetary crisis can no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial.

For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic:

increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.



The science of weather prediction is still far from exact.

But the science of Earth systems – which enables us to understand the drivers of climate change – is well advanced indeed.

If the predictions from this science hold true, the combined effect – of greenhouse gas emissions and the compounding reverberations from positive feedback in our world’s oceans, land and air – will be the deaths of not just millions but of billions of people, and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.
edit on 13-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Wow... Do you know ANYTHING about atmospheric science?...

What websites, and links like the ones you have given don't tell you is the fact that WATER VAPOR is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 will ever be.

Not only is water vapor 10 times more of a potent ghg than CO2 molecule, by molecule, but it exists in far larger volumes than atmospheric CO2.


...
As a greenhouse gas, water vapor is 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide and its increase is a key factor in the rising global temperatures appearing in the models.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

As it is water vapor exists on Earth an average 1% as a trace gas, but as it gets to the Ecuator the volume of water vapor increases up to 4% as a trace gas, meanwhile atmospheric CO2 exists around 0.0036% by volume on Earth's atmosphere...

You see, the warmer the atmosphere gets, the more water vapor it can hold, so what happens NATURALLY, since 99.999% of water vapor emissions are natural, is that as a natural factor causes the Earth to warm, such as the Sun, then as the Earth's atmosphere, and oceans get warner the atmosphere can hold higher volunes of water vapor, and this causes a feedback effect.

In fact, the atmospheric layer on Earth where all surface weather/climate occurs is called the Troposphere. There is some weather that does occur in higher layers of the atmosphere, but the layer that influences surface temperatures, which includes temperatures in the oceans and land, is the Troposphere.

The Troposphere goes from the surface up to about 11 miles above Earth's surface.



In the Troposphere WATER VAPOR accounts for about 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 account for about 2%-5%, depending of whom you ask. Although the AGW camp have changed these figures in recent years to try to give more weight to their religion, the fact is that these figures above are the actual guesstimates.


Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...


edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The Truth About Global Warming - Science & Distortion


Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 -- July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.





Climate science denial is driven by special interest groups.
We will not know when we've reached the tipping point until 50 years later.
People buy fire insurance for less of a risk than global warming presents

"Our behavior in the next generation could precondition a sustainability issue for a millennium or 10, based upon the convenience of one species for one generation."



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by...

National Science Foundation

NASA

The American Geophysical Union

American Geo-sciences Institute






Climate and Global Change




The Biosphere Affects Climate



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant


A Global and Environmental Imperative
...


Really?... And that's the website where you want to get facts? a website trying to sell NUCLEAR energy to people?...


That guy is so wrong is not even funny... The fact is that BILLIONS of people will die if governments impose the atmospheric CO2 sequestration that many governments are saying, and trying to impose.

CO2 is actually PLANT FOOD, and the levels of atmospheric CO2 that exist on Earth now is still LOW compared to ancient times when there were forests all over Earth and atmospheric CO2 content was up to 15 times higher than it is now.


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...

What this means is that with CO2 atmospheric levels at around 1,200ppm -1,500ppm most green biomass on the planet would GROW MORE, GROW STRONGER, and PRODUCE MORE YIELDS, as in MORE FOOD...

Not only that, but it is a known fact that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present all green biomass makes BETTER USE OF WATER, which means all green biomass use LESS WATER, leaving MORE WATER for humans and animals...


Benefits to Plants

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content. These CO2-induced improvements typically lead to the development of more extensive and active root systems, enabling plants to more thoroughly explore larger volumes of soil in search of the things they need. Consequently, even in soils lacking sufficient water and nutrients for good growth at today's CO2 concentrations, plants exposed to the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels expected in the future generally show remarkable increases in vegetative productivity, which should enable them to successfully colonize low-rainfall areas that are presently too dry to support more than isolated patches of desert vegetation.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also enable plants to better withstand the growth-retarding effects of various environmental stresses, including soil salinity, air pollution, high and low air temperatures, and air-borne and soil-borne plant pathogens. In fact, atmospheric CO2 enrichment can actually mean the difference between life and death for vegetation growing in extremely stressful circumstances. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that Earth's natural and managed ecosystems have already benefited immensely from the increase in atmospheric CO2 that has accompanied the progression of the Industrial Revolution; and they will further prosper from future CO2 increases.
...

www.plantsneedco2.org...


BTW, if you are inside your house, as probably most of you are, and you have either your AC or heater on the levels of atmospheric CO2 that you are breathing now are about 1,000ppm, or more.... Yet ARE ANY OF YOU DEAD?.... Are your pets inside your house dead?... What about your plants inside your house?...


Yet we are being told that by Earth having 380-390 ppm WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! OH NO, RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!!


edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Wait for it...wait for it... wait for it...


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...
edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...



...
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.

...

Link
edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I have to say,

Nice reply and a definite star from me.

I always wonder why do people seem to think that we need to pay for anything.

Why can't we just start being more efficient without all of the carbon credits and taxes?

There is no reason to think that we must pay to fix this. If we cut back a little at a time mother nature will balance it all out.

This right there tells me it is all a scam, just to make certain people more rich, because after all, " someone has to pay for it".


Money, money, money, that is all the global warming " climate change" do-gooders trying to pass laws want. Just money, a new scheme for new fools at a new time.

That is my opinion.
edit on 13-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling, sorry



WE don't have to pay.

The polluters have to pay.

Boy - are people misinformed about this issue.


I feel that you are the one that is misinformed, or shall I say naive to believe that the companies will not pass the "polluting fees" down to the consumer.

After all history of the corporation has proved it will.

We will pay. The polluter will still male record profits and the consumer gets poorer by the purchase.

That is fact. Look at who gets to pay for all of the utility improvements. We see utility prices rise every other year for " improvements".

Don't kid yourself into believing the "polluter" will take sole responsibility for their actions.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
So, if there are so many scientists, including a mayority of IPCC scientists who disagree with the alarmism espoused by many governments, and SOME scientists which have sold their soul for more funding, what is the reason for all of these governments trying to sell to us the Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM?... Apart from making billions from taxing people to death?...

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)



Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN (UNESCO is a branch of the UN in case you didn't know). It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL SOCIALIST/FASCIST GOVERNMENT derived from CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...
edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


They had "scientists" testify before Congress there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.


You don't get that what you are digging up is industry driven pseudo science.

The video link I posted above explains why.... but I think you know why.

Are you saying you know more than NASA?

I think, no I know you are part of the disinformation

mentioned in the clip above from the worlds leading climate expert,

under many Presidents including both Bushes.

I think I trust those sources rather than your from EXXON thanks though.
I don't know why I am even still discussing.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The Truth About Global Warming - Science & Distortion


Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 -- July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.





Climate science denial is driven by special interest groups.
We will not know when we've reached the tipping point until 50 years later.
People buy fire insurance for less of a risk than global warming presents

"Our behavior in the next generation could precondition a sustainability issue for a millennium or 10, based upon the convenience of one species for one generation."



Did you check out this guys credentials?

Did you see the film. Maybe after you do it will all make sense to you.

Save you a lot of useless writing, pasting and copying so we can get "past' it. I'll just post it again.
People need to watch it and connect the dots - even if you won't.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



These sources are so much more credible, respected and more reliable than yours.

What does the UN know? They get their information from these sources. UN Scientist? Is that like a Panamanian Plastic Surgeon?

National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, and NASA, the American Geophysical Union and the American Geo-sciences Institute

Here you go, educate yourself, if you aren't really working FOR the Electric Company Agenda. LOL


Climate and Global Change



The Biosphere Affects Climate



edit on 13-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

They had "scientists" testify before Congress there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.


LOL what the hell does that have to do with anything?... I might as well respond that you are a denialist of real science like the holocaust denialists who claim Hitler didn't cause any holocaust... I guess I won the argument huh?...




Originally posted by newcovenant
You don't get that what you are digging up is industry driven pseudo science.


BS... The pseudo-science comes from your camp. Why don't you actually show us which part of what I have written is wrong?...


Originally posted by newcovenant
Are you saying you know more than NASA?


Wait, NASA? or HANSEN?... Which?... Because HANSEN is the director of NASA and is a known AGW lunatic who has even published erroneous information simply because it went along with his BELIEF...

Are you talking about the REAL SCIENTISTS in NASA who have been trying to inform the people of the truth such as...


...
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...

Let's read that again...


... it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.


Are you talking about these NASA scientists?...




Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models

Posted on April 10, 2012by Anthony Watts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASAs Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
...

Link

Or are you going to stand with Hansen and Schmidt instead of the other scientists? including lead researcher for ACRIM Wilson?...



Originally posted by newcovenant
I think, no I know you are part of the disinformation

mentioned in the clip above from the worlds leading climate expert,

under many Presidents including both Bushes.


Wow, so because one man who served under several Presidents, and who has a vested interest you want to claim that thousands of scientists are wrong, and your few are right?...



Originally posted by newcovenant
I think I trust those sources rather than your from EXXON thanks though.
I don't know why I am even still discussing.


So ClimateDepot is a website from EXXON?...


Really, I wonder what sort of argument the man you gave a link to, who served under Bush and Obama, told them about the disaster at the Gulf of Mexico... We would have to guess it wasn't in favor for the environment since BP got away with only a slap in the wrist...
edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

These sources are so much more credible, respected and more reliable than yours.

What does the UN know? They get their information from these sources. UN Scientist? Is that like a Panamanian Plastic Surgeon?
..


So what NASA scientists, and other scientists have to say are less credible than a website named "windows"...


Like always, you won't stand down in face of facts...

If there was any truth to your RELIGION, then your idols and masters wouldn't need to do this...


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 wasgrey 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...

Whose work are you going to present? Mann's? The hypocrite who created the farse that is the Hockey Stick graph and which has been repudiated and it's not even used any more even by the IPCC?...

What about "RealClimate.org" where Mann, and some other LIARS are directors of and who are linked to Al Gore, and whose registrant organization is none other than Environmental Media Services?...


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.
...

heartland.org...

Please go ahead and tell me whose work are you going to present?... The University of East Anglia which had "deleted all their climate data" claming to get more space when in fact this act made possible that no one could check to see if their numbers were correct?...

Whose work huh? Jones, et al who have been caught red handed in their lies, and Jones himself contemplated suicide because he was caught in the lies?...


The scientist at the center of the "Climate-gate" e-mail scandal has revealed that he was so traumatized by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.

Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself "several times."

He acknowledged similarities to Dr. David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had "sexed up" evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

In e-mails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change.
...

www.foxnews.com...

Go ahead... are you talking about the "2,500 climate experts from the IPCC" which in fact over 2,400 are only policymakers who had made obscure papers for their respective governments, for example on motorcycle safety, and whichs those governemnts were using as leverage to get what they want from this farce?...

Only a few of those "2,500 experts", their numbers around 56, are real experts with degrees in Climate Science and most which disagree with the claim that mankind is to blame... and most of them are the very scientists that the left LOVE to bash for not believing in anthropogenic global warming...

One example of those REAL Climate Change scientists from the IPCC who have been trying to inform the ignorant masses to the truth behind Climate Change is Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville...


Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

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.

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. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

Link

You don't have ANYTHING but deceipt, exagerations and lies, and that's the truth...
edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Oh and btw, let's not forget the scientists who have had to leave the IPCC, and other government jobs all around the world because they would not jump into the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon... Such as...


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.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...


Chris Landsea, chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, resigned from the IPCC in 2005. He objected to the poor science and politics behind the IPCC hurricane claims.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.


cstpr.colorado.edu...

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberths role as the IPCCs Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
...

stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

But you go ahead and keep believing in the fairy tale/LIE that is anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change for all I care.

edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
And more corroborating evidence to my argument...


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...

Not to mention the fact that CRU, and Jones had deleted their raw temperature data.


We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/]We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeyy
 



But I thought the majority of scientists and Meterologist Dismiss Al Gores theories on global warming and it's cause.

This was the Case back in 2006. Global Warming was beat up on so much infact that they renamed it to "Climate Change".



Nope - these are just popular myths peddled by the denial industry. Look into it a little deeper and you'll see for yourself:

1. The idea that most scientists disagree with Al Gore stems from this infamous "Oregon Petition" that purports to have the signatures of over 30,000 scientists refuting man-made global warming. However, in depth examinations of this list have revealed that the vast majority (99.9%) are not climate scientists.

There are veterinarians on that petition for example.

Furthermore, most of the names on there are not even real scientists, period. All you need to "qualify" is a Bachelor's degree - that hardly makes someone a scientist, let alone qualified to talk about climate as one. Less than 1/3 of the signatures even claim to have a PhD, and I stress the importance of the word "claim" too - because the list is not followed up or fact-checked in any way. There have been all sorts of fake names found on it. Read more info here:

Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition
31,478… 13,245… 152 OISM “scientists” can’t be wrong

So this petition is not credible in any way. In fact it is actually a very prime example of the dirty methods the fossil fuel/free market/denial industry tosses into the discussion to create the illusion of a significant debate. If you want a GREAT breakdown on this - I highly recommend watching this video:



Invest 10 minutes on it, and open your eyes to the other side of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, real, peer-reviewed studies show there is a HUGE consensus (97-98%) on man-made global warming amongst actual practicing and publishing climate scientists, not fake experts hired by ExxonMobil. See this paper for example:

Expert credibility in climate change


Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.





2. As for the "they used to call it global warming, but now they call it climate change" myth - This one is not only patently false (debunked here), but it has an amazing, tragically ironic back-story to it. I've outlined it several times on ATS before - so I'll just link to one of my previous posts:

Read this only if you are a true, open-minded skeptic on climate - deniers who have a perpetual agenda against this stuff will have an aneurysm when they realize how stupid they are for peddling this particular meme



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Give it up already... Your idols WERE CAUGHT RED HANDED LYING...

If there was ANY truth to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) your idols wouldn't have a need to lie like they have been doing...

If there was ANY truth to your RELIGION, then the following wouldn't be happening...


...
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...

I also find it HILARIOUS how the AGW camp want to dismiss scientists in other fields of science that want to state their opinion against AGW, yet these same DENYALISTS OF NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE want to accept the claims made by the POLICYMAKERS of the IPCC.

The claims that the IPCC reports were made by over 2,500 scientists in the field of Climate Change IS A LIE... The mayority of the "IPCC scientists" were chosen by their respective governments because of their stance in AGW which would benefit the coffers of certain people in the multi-billion dollar SCAM that is AGW...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Of course it wouldn't be a climate change thread on ATS without ElectricUniverse show up to throw up (
) another 974 belligerent rants in one thread about the subject.

I have seen you post this ridiculous attempt to rationalize Greenhouse warming as impossible, because the most substantial effects happen away from urban areas, numerous times now - and every time I do my best to just bite my lip and laugh silently at your public displays of unbelievably shameless ignorance.

But really? Are you seriously this stupid??

Go educate yourself on what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means - or better yet: go fart in the corner of an elevator and ask if the guy in the opposite corner can smell it too...


And you know what the best part about you trying to cherry-pick this choice little soundbite is:


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.


The fact that you are honestly too obtuse to see you're actually just pooping all over your own pathetic point.


It's quite clear to anyone who can read slowly enough (i.e. not you) that by "pollution from urban areas" they are talking about localized effects tainting the overall global record - like, you know - URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT - the same thing YOU constantly try to blame the global warming trend ON.


Way to debunk yourself for the 3,897,928th time




But that's all the crackers you get. I'm still sticking to my policy of not feeding the climate cave-troll/keeping my sanity. So please go find someone else to once again make a total utter fool of yourself in front of.






top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join