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.

 

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Talk about ripping apart claims....
Can't tell me there isn't an agenda.....

www.forbes.com...


Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.


Of course, everyone is ignoring the REAL reason for all this hype in the first place....

Misdirection. Obama is eager to divert ANY attention away from the fact the government has been spying on EVERYONE for decades. Sadly, it will probably work.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I could debunk that for you and have in the past, but if I do it... will you believe me? It would be better if you researched on whether what Forbes claims is true or not and see it for yourself.

ETA apologies, I assumed your post was regarding something that happened a few years ago... checking into it now.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I could debunk that for you and have in the past, but if I do it... will you believe me? It would be better if you researched on whether what Forbes claims is true or not and see it for yourself.

Forget Forbes. The facts are clear. Just look at any satellite "warming trend" and you'll see a peak 16 years ago, and a steady drop after that. The IPCC predicted the exact opposite and recently they had to admit their model was wrong (duh!).
www.washingtontimes.com...

Sea levels? Warmers are eager to see them rise, but they never do. Yeah, sure, there a floods, but these are occasional. Billion-daollar satellite measurements show no rise.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

Himalayan glaciers are growing.
news.heartland.org...

India and Russia and Canada just came out of cold records. I know, I live in Canada.
(Russia: )rt.com...
(India: )www.thegatewaypundit.com...
(Canada: )ca.news.yahoo.com...



edit on 26-6-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I've taken plenty of statistics....it is child's play to completely skew a survey. Perhaps that is the foundation for my cynicism? I KNOW how easy it is to skew for a desired result. I've read the papers (and quite familiar with academic papers and peer review), seen the math on both sides, and also seen plenty of papers about the methods used globally and over the last century, to record temperatures. Enough to know that the temperature records are highly flawed, so the raw data is flawed, and therefore any statistical analysis of them (even if done flawlessly) is going to be flawed.

And of course, the best data of all....that for the past 16 years, the alarmist's predictions have all been WRONG. So it is quite difficult to believe any of their predictions.


edit on 26-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Weather extremes tied to jet stream a river of air above earth that dictates much of the weather for the northern hemisphere has been unusually erratic, hence the 94 temperatures in Alaska,

Scientist don't know why it is doing this they have never seen it before


could be affects of the LOOP current disruption altering other natural sea currents few years back in the GOM /water

or the current radiated atmosphere from FUKUSHIMA exposure

FEAR causes denial and so patience...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I am sorry, but the right-wing politicians lost thier scientific credibility when they declared that ...

Mike Burgess (R-TX) Fetuses Masturbate in the Womb
jezebel.com...

Todd Akin (R-MO) Republican Says Raped Women Can't Get Pregnant Because They're "Tense & Uptight!"
globalgrind.com...

Paul Broun (R-Ga.) Evolution, Big Bang 'Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell'...He's appointed to the SCIENCE COMMITTEE in Congress
www.huffingtonpost.com...


“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”


Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas; it is a harmless gas ... And yet we're being told that we have to reduce this natural substance
www.npr.org...

Just a small sampling...



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Essentially you are claiming that if it is 100 degrees in one county, 102 degrees in a nieghboring county, and the local weatherman claims it is 101 degrees outside...then he is lieing and thier isn't a heat wave! Damn science is wrong!



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


There is a difference between a popular weatherman, and a IPCC billion-dollars computer model upon which the World bases its energy policies and taxes.

Just like there is a difference between the accuracy needed to shoot a target at 100 from you, and the accuracy needed to land Armstrong and Buzz on the Moon.


edit on 26-6-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I personally do not understand why people are so loyal to the "man made climate change" concept.

This is not a sports team.. This is not your favorite band.. This is merely a scientific concept to which does not demand loyalty.. In fact it demands due diligence and scrutiny.

Any opponent to this concept no matter how respected they are in the scientific community is shunned for simply pointing out how inconclusive this concept really is..

Climate change for all we know could very well be the result of a natural cycle that occurs over a period of time.

A great example of this would be the Permian extinction..

That was the result of drastic climate change long before humanity was ever in the picture and that is not the only one. Some 84% of all genera went extinct during that bout of climate change long before mammals even existed.
edit on 26-6-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


though I believe that society has some impact on the warming of our planet! We should be giving tax incentives
to those that convert older plants to control emissions instead of penalizing those that can't afford to!
Our economy is on the precipice of total Annihilation between the healthcare bill, printing money and this we can expect to see hyperinflation for sure!
The time to be switching to clean energy is long past and should have started happening when the jobs started going south and east in the 80s! We could have saved ourselves so much money in empire building to control the ME and used that money to change our infrastructure! Now with so much debt this will be DCs new way of paying for their bloated budget and at the same time turning America into a third world country!
I expect this to drive up already high food and fuel prices and destroy massive amounts of jobs!
I also expect them to loosen already deplorable fracking restrictions to increase the amount of natural gas that can be extracted at the cost of ground water and the health of those in the general area!
thehill.com...
news.yahoo.com...
If Americans only knew what most on this site do there would be pandemonium in the streets! The administration
has sold the uneducated a package of lies that will destroy most of the middle class that's left!
I am fine with saving the environment but this is not what our government cares to do and we only need to remember this administrations use of corexit to realize this!
______beforeitsnews/gulf-oil-spill/2010/06/the-amount-of-neurotoxin-pesticide-corexit-sprayed-by-bp-tops-1-million-gallons-75584.html
edit on 26-6-2013 by nosacrificenofreedom because:

edit on 26-6-2013 by nosacrificenofreedom because:



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Kali74
 


I've taken plenty of statistics....it is child's play to completely skew a survey. Perhaps that is the foundation for my cynicism? I KNOW how easy it is to skew for a desired result. I've read the papers (and quite familiar with academic papers and peer review), seen the math on both sides, and also seen plenty of papers about the methods used globally and over the last century, to record temperatures. Enough to know that the temperature records are highly flawed, so the raw data is flawed, and therefore any statistical analysis of them (even if done flawlessly) is going to be flawed.

And of course, the best data of all....that for the past 16 years, the alarmist's predictions have all been WRONG. So it is quite difficult to believe any of their predictions.


edit on 26-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)


You do have a knack for summing it right up and cutting directly to the heart of things. My largest frustration at this point is even the flawed temp records are becoming very hard to find pre-2000 or so. Hard copy or digital, doesn't much matter for being like searching the Library of Congress for a book someone stole years ago. I'm trying to get a feel in what data exists for ocean temps and current patterns to see if some change may be suggested in the deeper sense of our "Weather Engine". It's like saying I want proof of Santa. Everyone has an opinion but the proof seems to be missing either direction.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
youtu.be...






Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?
Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?
Click here for more: www.democratsagainstunagenda21......

Who are we?
We are engaged in educating ourselves, our peers, and our country about UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Form-Based Zoning, Green Energy Mandates, Carbon Offsets, Cap and Trade, Redevelopment and other programs that restrict our land rights and civil rights.

This vitally important information transcends party lines and illuminates much of what we have witnessed over the past two decades.
This is not a left or right issue. It's an American issue. The information on these sites will help you to identify what is happening in your town and to stop it.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I personally do not understand why people are so loyal to the "man made climate change" concept.

This is not a sports team.. This is not your favorite band..


I am not "loyal" to any scientific theorey. I do believe in math, gravity and other premises of science though? Does that make me an idealogue?


Originally posted by DaMod
This is merely a scientific concept to which does not demand loyalty.. In fact it demands due diligence and scrutiny.


Right...if only the skeptics employed due diligence and scrutiny to the selective, dishonest, and skewed evidence that they cite.


Originally posted by DaMod
Any opponent to this concept no matter how respected they are in the scientific community is shunned for simply pointing out how inconclusive this concept really is..


They are shunned for empoying dishonest math and science at the behest of industry.


Originally posted by DaMod
Climate change for all we know could very well be the result of a natural cycle that occurs over a period of time.


It could be, but "for all we know"..it is not.


Originally posted by DaMod
A great example of this would be the Permian extinction..

While the earlier stages of the Permian extinction likely involved some gradual climate change during the evolution of the planet, almost every scientist agree that the mass extinction climaxed with mass volcanic eruptions or a massive metoer impact.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
There have been 5 Extinction Level Events, long before man entered the picture....where a large percentage of Earth's life went extinct. Somehow, I think that anything we humans do is going to pale in comparison with the next one, when it happens.


The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.

360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.

The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.

The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.

The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Hey skeptics...... when your are up to your knees in salt water get back to me.
edit on 26-6-2013 by AkhenatenII because: spelling



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by swanne
reply to post by Indigo5
 


There is a difference between a popular weatherman, and a IPCC billion-dollars computer model upon which the World bases its energy policies and taxes.



Right, cuz IPCC involves 100s of thousands of researchers dispursed throughout the world. They don't do thier own research directly....and out of those thousands of scientific teams, Russian hackers (employed by whom?) revealed the statistical certaintity that some of the folks involved contibuted less than scientifically honest results.

And the far-right, following the idealogical dictate of "distrust all science" handed to them by industry and amplified by the evangelical right, took that opportunity to discount the entirety of the world's scientific community.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
HAARP creates the climate change. They should shut that place down after some whistleblower comes clean again THIS TIME about haarp. I guess he/she will have to fly to china/russia again to avoid prosecution, or more likely some unfortunate "accident" in the usa.

WTH is climate change? Why don't people start asking themselves what exactly pollutes the earth and what does not? The bilderbergers have hijacked everything that ORDER the democrats and republicans to pass BS LEGISLATION.

There is NOTHING green about AGW and the tax credit RIPOFF!


If I want real green then I will vote for the green party. Save your HYPOCRISY mr obama and go sell crazy somewhere else you idiotic shill.


I bet the rockefellers and rothschilds are having a ball laughing out loud at how utterly stupid/naive some folks are.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
There have been 5 Extinction Level Events, long before man entered the picture....where a large percentage of Earth's life went extinct. Somehow, I think that anything we humans do is going to pale in comparison with the next one, when it happens.



And we will all die...so why worry about our health?

See...I am not worried about "mother earth"...she will shake us off like a bad cold.

And frankly I am not worried about human extinction...we are up there with cockroaches and rats.

I would rather not have my Grandchildren live in sewer like conditions though.

Wars for water and climate refugees/migration and the conflict that will cause...

Not the survival of the human race at large, nor the earth....just a quality of life that doesn't involve ever more severe natural disasters, rising sea levels, draughts, famines and poluted air and water, and wars for oil..



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkhenatenII
Hey skeptics...... when your are up to your knees in salt water get back to me.
edit on 26-6-2013 by AkhenatenII because: spelling


How about we stop the rampant deforestation of the amazon? How about we stop the chemtrails? How about we stop HAARP? How about we make nuclear energy safer and use it more often? How about promoting wind energy, solar energy, tidal energy, etc.?

There are solutions but tax credit ripoffs based on carbon dioxide do NOT count! Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas and does not cause problems. It simply gets recycled like everything else found on earth. This is why AGW is A FRAUDULENT SCHEME!

And how about we stop dumping raw sewage into the water? Force companies to use scrubbers on their chimneys. Right lets not talk about any of that, heh?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
It just amazes me how easily people are used...



Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'

.....

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment.

.....

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

....

In 2013, The Guardian revealed that two trusts, the 'DonorsTrust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund', operating out of a house in the suburbs of Washington DC, have bankrolled 102 think tanks and activist groups to the tune of $118m between 2002 and 2010. The conservative donors to these trusts are said to represent a wide range of opinion on the American right who have found common ground in opposing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

They ensure their anonymity by funnelling the funds through the trusts, and the money flowed into "Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore," the report said.

The stream of cash was used to fund a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental initiatives and to wreck any chance of Congress taking action on climate change. The money funded a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."

en.wikipedia.org...

This is science ...if it's an idealogical/emotional issue to you, then you have had your buttons pushed...see above.




top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join