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.

 

Last Decade Confirmed Warmest of Recorded Science

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I asked how he has politicized the science. By that I mean the explicit, empirical results themselves.

You can't just politicize something that fundamental by making a movie about it, or attaching your name to it, or even trying to profit off of it - if the data itself is robust.

If you're using this as your basis for politicization then I could say the theory of gravity is politicized by the sky diving industry.

I'm talking about explicit manipulation, cherry-picking, bastardization of facts for political purposes - something I can easily show the skeptics doing time and time again, especially with the stuff they accuse Al Gore or the IPCC of constantly "politicizing".

So pointing out that Al Gore claims to have invented the internet has no bearing on the robustness of any empirical data regarding man-made global warming. I don't need pics - I just need an argument that makes logical sense. And I find it funny that you think I'm touchy about Al Gore, as I could honestly care less what you think of him. That's kind of my point - it shouldn't matter, because it has no bearing on the actual science. Neither does he.



So again, I stand by what I wrote: I can provide ample, empirical evidence for man-made global warming. I can also provide solid proof that it's the phony skeptics actually manipulating it, spinning it and thus truly politicizing it.

I can start a new thread for you. I've been sitting on one for ages that I never bothered posting on ATS.

I've never bothered posting it though because I see no point.


I see no skeptics willing to consider objective facts for the sake of objectivity. I'm just looking for that before I waste my time is all. This whole debate is absolutely drowned out in partisan predisposition and confirmation bias. When you have those things in place - objective facts aren't so objective any more.

Your response is unfortunately riddled with this. I'll be honest - I was hoping for, and I expected better from you. I was hoping for "well I'm definitely skeptical, but if you can produce the goods then I'm certainly willing to listen".


Instead I got: "well I hate Al Gore, and I'm outright saying you can't produce any evidence."

Not a good start.

Do you honestly think if you're coming from a place so firmly entrenched, that anything I post will really make a difference? This is exactly why I don't bother.



So I'm still willing to put my evidence where my mouth is - but I strongly urge you to reconsider the spirit of your own skepticism, ie. reread your last post and evaluate where you're coming from on this, if you expect me to play along. Otherwise you can go back to hating Al Gore, and I can go back to having virtually zero faith left in ATS as a place where differing opinions can be used constructively as a means to deny ignorance.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I really understand how you feel as you know. It is unbelievably frustrating to discuss this subject here minus a few exceptions the rule is to ridicule and close your eyes while blocking your ears. To consistently post facts, data and evidence and be met with 'Global Warming isn't real or it's not caused by our actions.'

Very, very few actual skeptics post on this site with data of their own and even then they can't seem to without calling us religious fanatics and mentioning Al Gore and taxes. None of which change a single thing about science.

That said, I hope you do post your thread... I would appreciate it and I have a feeling a few others would too. Plus if even one eye is opened you've done a service.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Actually, I would like to see a thread that would more openly focus the contrast between the sides if that's what yours might just encourage. An open and serious debate with critical thinking and evidence sourced well off both sides would be a welcome thing to not just see but also be a part of.

Now in terms of politicizing, perhaps I misunderstood and have been too broad and vague in the sense of it having happened vs how it's come about. This is an interesting quote I happen to have...I'll cut a bit for space....


It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming.

Amazing thing to say.. huh? Oh, the same man who said that has said a few other things too.


Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

Who said such a thing? Probably an ignorant, right-wing loon who wouldn't know a barometer from a birth certificate, right? It must have been a pretty extreme kind of guy though, to be sure. Hold that thought a moment. I have another quote with a point to ponder.


In order for the environmentalists to remain employed, they had to adopt ever more extreme positions. Moore says: “What happened is environmental extremism. They’ve abandoned science and logic altogether.” Their message today is “anti:” anti-human, anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade and globalization, anti-business and capitalism, and ultimately, anti-civilization.”

Now that second one is even more extreme and sounds like it must have come right from Michelle Bachman or Rush Limbaugh, doesn't it? Why for so they hate the environment so much, a quote like that might just scream to some people to ask.

So who said such things??

The first two segments that form quote #1 come from John Coleman who founded The Weather Channel.

The second quote was made by none other than Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace.

You see, the two sides each have some very big names and some have letters after their names while some do not. The fact it's a debate and not settled science though is just a self evident issue that requires little more than a moment on Google or awareness of the topic at the newspaper level to know.

So, if you do have all the data you referred to, please do drop me a note on a new thread as I may miss it for some reason in the new topics roll. I'll almost certainly be a part of presenting one side of the issue for the facts involved. It sounds like fun.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
i have continuously seen posts about ALL the planets warming. someone asked for a link and the reply was to go search for yourself. since it seems to me that it would be impossible for us to know the exact temps of all the planets and if they are fluctuating the slightest bit.... i googled.

i came up with nothing. i found no credible article that says all the planets are warming.

most say it's POSSIBLE that pluto and mars may have warmed.

this article sums up most of what i found.

www.skepticalscience.com...

anyone want to share some links with me that give scientific evidence that all the planets are warming? i'm not finding any on my own.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


in regards to the greenpeace founder quote... he's not talking about SCIENTISTS. he's talking about environmental extremists who would be comparable to people who work for PETA.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


in regards to the greenpeace founder quote... he's not talking about SCIENTISTS. he's talking about environmental extremists who would be comparable to people who work for PETA.


I believe the whole problem is that the line once separating activist from scientist has begun to blur as the line separating traditional scientist from political scientist has all but vanished entirely. It's rather hard to know at this point what is accurate and what isn't. In one example I found......it's downright embarrassing


The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, is also in hot water. In November he dismissed as "voodoo science" a report for the Indian government showing that the IPCC's date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was wrong. It's now clear that, actually, the IPCC's claim was voodoo science. It reproduced a speculative suggestion – that the glaciers were going to disappear by 2035 – that had not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Pachauri's immediate dismissal of the Indian government's refutation was unscientific as well as wrong.

Now the Sunday Times alleges that he first heard that the glacier date was wrong in November, and failed to act. Pachauri was busy preparing for the Copenhagen summit, so perhaps it's not surprising if he didn't pay much attention, but someone at the IPCC should have done so, rather than letting the issue fester.
Source.

It's an interesting article...and the author is actually pro-environmentalist for the most part as I've seen things over time. These little things add up though and lines blur into nothing left to separate at all.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Ok, so we're already getting off-topic from the actual empirical evidence part, and appealing to authority instead - but let's pull on this thread a bit, because it happens to be a good one.

I'm curious what makes you believe John Coleman for example is a "big name with letters behind it", and not necessarily just some ignorant right-wing loon? First of all he is a TV weatherman - he has absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever (just a degree in journalism) - so how does that separate him from any other regular schmoe with a personal opinion about stuff?

But more importantly, part of my promise to you was to show that it's actually the skeptics politicizing and manipulating the evidence - so allow me to delve into this one a bit. It's a perfect introduction to where I'm coming from:


First off - if we're going to appeal to authority, then I want to bring up the consensus. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have now shown repeatedly through independent reviews that the consensus amongst professional climate scientists over man-made global warming is consistently 97%. Here are a few of those studies:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Doran (2009)

Expert credibility in climate change, Anderegg et al (2010)

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Cook et al (2013)

The #1 skeptic counter to this however is that there are many other scientists - i.e. "big names with letters behind them" who disagree with it, and they are suspiciously not included in these lists. This idea generally stems from the famous "30,000 scientists" petition, which John Coleman happens to be a huge outspoken champion of:



OK, so interesting conflict we have here right? You have already mentioned this sort of thing before - expressing frustration at not knowing who to believe.

Well, here's where I'm coming from: Facts show that the 30,000 scientist petition is actually nothing but a major hoax. First of all the vast majority of names on it are not climate scientists:


0.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

Source

Second of all, the only thing you need to qualify yourself as a "scientist" on that list is to have a Bachelor's degree in Science. That hardly makes someone a scientist. I know - because I have one.

But in fact you don't even need one, because all you really have to do is say you have a Bachelor's degree, since the list is not peer-reviewed or fact-checked in any way. This explains why it has turned out to have all sorts of phony names on it:

Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition


So the list that John Coleman cites as the backbone of his own credibility, is not credible in any way, shape or form. It is in fact kind of a joke. Except it's not a joke either - because it's a actually a calculated fraud:

The Global Warming Petition Project was spearheaded in the 90's by a formerly respectable physicist named Frederick Seitz. Seitz was once a president of the National Academy of Sciences 30 years before. Somewhere in between however he strayed into the world of "medical research" on behalf of Big Tobacco. Court documents reveal he was hired to manage RJ Reynolds funding of such research - picking and choosing what kind of studies would be done:



Source (pdf)

Conveniently though, none of these studies ever seemed to find any conclusive evidence that smoking increased your health risks. Vanity Fair did an interview with him back in 2006:


Call him the $45 million man. That’s how much money Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, helped R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., give away to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s. The research avoided the central health issue facing Reynolds — “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking,” says Seitz, who is now 94 — but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry’s purposes. Throughout those years, the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science — and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed.


So does that sound familiar at all? The evidence is "mixed" - i.e. uncertain, inconclusive...

(cont'd below)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Funny enough, even the Tobacco industry eventually deemed Dr. Seitz too old and "not sufficiently rational" for anything, as this Philip Morris document reveals:



Source

And yet, after he was thrown overboard by Big Tobacco for not being sufficiently rational in 1989 - he somehow emerged as a major global warming skeptic in the 90's, lending his name and his credentials to the cause. He wrote a cover letter for the Oregon Petition claiming there was no evidence CO2 can affect the Earth's climate, and fraudulently formatted it to look like it came directly from the National Academy of Sciences. This forced the NAS to do this:


The National Academy of Sciences has taken the extraordinary step of disassociating itself from a statement and petition circulated by one of its former presidents that attack the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control emissions of industrial waste gases believed to cause global warming.


Source: Science Academy Disputes Attack on Global Warming

And yet random people around the world continue to sign off on this fraudulent petition, misrepresenting themselves as a giant body of climate experts, and John Coleman goes around touting it on FOX News. So maybe you can tell me why I should view him as anything other than an ignorant right-wing loon?



...
Anyway I hope the above can at least add some perspective to your views. I'm not going to dictate to you who's right and who's wrong - just ask you to step back from all the rhetoric and try and look at all the evidence objectively, and then decide who's really lying, and who's the one with the suspicious agenda here.

Because we could either apply our own critical thinking skills, or just quote-mine and appeal to authority all day. I'll even give you one for free:


Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate.


You know who said that one?

Frederick Seitz, PhD. Former President of the National Academy of Sciences. He is a big name with letters behind it too.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Hi Kali, I know you get it


The problem is the thread I have is really only like half-done, and it's already absolutely colossal.

I just don't know how to condense it. There's so much evidence. But more importantly there's so many little misconceptions people have that need to really be chipped away at to get the message through - there's just no way to do it without writing a textbook.

This is especially problematic considering how many people just want instant gratification on everything. That's why denier propaganda works so well on them. It provides easy answers to difficult problems they find so convenient that they completely overlook the fact those easy answers are steeped in utter bullcrap.

It's like the carbon-lags-temp issue: You can try to explain to someone how a positive feedback loop works, or you can point to a graph jumping up and down screaming "SEE carbon lags temp - therefore it's an effect and not a cause!! END OF STORY."

I don't mind posting a thread for the few open-minded people left around here willing to listen to the whole story, but the problem is the trolls will derail it long before it actually gets anywhere.


I really wish ATS had a private option where you could start an OP that could be seen by everyone, but only those you invited or that requested your invite could actually post. Yeah it would be a bit authoritarian, but it would do wonders for some much needed constructive dialogue. I would have no problem inviting those skeptics who could simply prove they're patient and open-minded enough first.

That's what I'm trying to feel out here - whether it proves worth the effort though remains to be seen.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


thank you for exposing the truth about the "scientists" that think global warming is a hoax!!!! i had not read about that so i appreciate the info.


edit to add: the private thread idea is a great one! it drives me INSANE that we can't have a decent discussion without trolls coming in and screaming about al gore getting rich ('cause he's got the power to alter the world apparently). if not a private thread a thread that admin won't let get derailed. it's so frustrating to not be able to have one thread where everyone can JUST discuss AGW so we can have one strictly on topic discussion and then those opposed can have their own thread that we will leave alone. is that TOO MUCH to ask??

edit on 6-7-2013 by pasiphae because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Pasiphae that is only the very very tip of the iceberg. There is soooo much more. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread - I've been studying the real conspiracy here for 5 years now - and I can find the exact same sort of shady connections with virtually every single prominent "skeptic" out there. It's a plague.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Yeah, maybe we should petition ATS about this or something.

It's not just the screaming but the redundancy - all the people who come in and contribute absolutely nothing new to the discussion, but just rehash the same old long debunked memes. And yet they continue to act like they're suddenly the first ones to observe that climate's changed before - or ask why hasn't anyone ever considered the Sun...yeesh.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Well, that's a thoughtful and well considered reply. I'll be back with something equally thought out and carefully considered to address your points. It may be a bit as I have a ton going today...as some may have noticed my lack of posting recently. Indeed.. I'll certainly live up to my own side of the statements regarding support and reliable sourcing tho. Star for you!



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by libertytoall
 



You can't refute a single thing I said


I can refute everything you said - like for example the ridiculous "there's no hockey stick" myth that you arrogantly and foolishly summed up for me:

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

The hockey stick has been reaffirmed over and over and over again so many times that the National Academy of Sciences published a 160 page report full of different data sets from all over the world that reproduce it:

The only place the hockey stick doesn't exist is in the warped minds and blogs of climate deniers who are either explicitly part of the fossil fuel conspiracy, or - like yourself - haphazardly getting sucked in and played by it.


The only warped minds are the ones that continue this forced agenda of manipulation, deceit, and enslavement. You are on their side I refuse to enter the dark side. It's been a decade of hard science yet no definitive link..

www.thegwpf.org... From the horses mouth he says global warming has stalled for the last 17 years. Does that sound like an out of control climate we should all be bending over and placed in shackles over? Disgraceful..


As for the rest, I stand by everything I wrote before: I can produce piles of empirical evidence for why modern global warming is man made.

No you can't you can't even provide evidence global warming exists right now period.. Did you even follow climate-gate?? Any possible "scientific evidence" you come forward with will be fabricated lies still floating around the internet. The head of the IPCC has said after "fixing their mistakes" (cheating) in their models, global warming hasn't occurred in 17 years. You know all those famous scientists at the IPCC who conducted all the global warming studies that showed the hockey graph or that screamed doom and gloom? They're no longer relevant in the scientific community. NOBODY will read their articles, publications, reviews.. Their careers are OVER!


But the point of my post was to put out feelers for a reasonable discussion on it - one focused on humility and facts, not ego and partisan bullsh--.

Then realize you have been fooled or at least be willing to be open to that possibility.. What you're doing is trusting people who have been charged with fraud. Not a good idea..


Yet it never fails around here: Try to start up a sane discussion on this, and right away along comes some loudmouth, blowhard partisan fool spewing all sorts of belligerent ideological nonsense and derailing everything.

Who would that be? I'm still waiting for the definitive evidence linking human activity so we can have a debate over some actual content, or you can start with scientific evidence of global warming exists right now for starters.. After three posts of me begging for that information you have failed to provide it... That insinuates you have nothing to back up your position..



So I have no intention of engaging this circus with you. Someone who can handle it, sure. But people who open up with so much cock-sure arrogance like you just did - the more evidence that shows you're wrong, the more you are going to feel like a fool, and the more you are just going to get loud and belligerent because of it. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

I have not insulted or attacked you but you have me. Who's beligernet? I've asked for proof which you have failed to provide. Now instead of providing it you're going to whine and complain about me and then use that as an excuse to run off without providing evidence for your argument. That's quite childish.. (I win)


People like you ARE the real story behind the true conspiracy here. Professional disinformers arm you to the teeth with myths and hyperbole on this subject - and then pump you full of piss and vinegar about how Al Gore's just trying to steal your tax monies.

HE IS..


Then you go off marching into online discussion forums like this guns blazing with all your totally misinformed but authoritative statements about how there's no proof, it's all a scam, yaddi yadda...Shoot first, ask questions...never.

There has been NO EVIDENCE in 17 YEARS of global warming.. PROVE ME WRONG!!!



edit on 6-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 





www.thegwpf.org... From the horses mouth he says global warming has stalled for the last 17 years. Does that sound like an out of control climate we should all be bending over and placed in shackles over? Disgraceful..


I decided to research this supposed quote from the horses mouth. The interview was conducted by Graham Lloyd (not Steve McEvoy as your source states) for The Australian, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch... which that name alone should make even the staunchest skeptic want to fact check. The original article at The Australian site is paywalled.

Skeptical Science did a little digging too.


So the reality is that global warming continues unabated. Despite this reality, an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian (paywalled) claims that the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri agreed that there has been a 17-year pause in global temperature rises. Unfortunately we don't know exactly what Pachauri said on the subject, because Lloyd did not quote him directly (which is a red flag).


Even in the blogs such as you linked you can see that something is off because of what is in quotations and what isn't. Standard tactics well in effect here.


The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri's thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming.


I'm guessing this won't matter to you, but just like the Daily Mail article quoted and later debunked... maybe someone less white knuckled will see, if not the pattern of misleading articles full of non quotes, cherry picked quotes and utterly twisted context, than they might see that at least these two articles are complete trash.


Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article.


Not the 1st time? Color me shocked.


Here are the relevant passages from Lloyd's latest piece:

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises

[...]

Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain's Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.

Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.

"The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions," Dr Pachauri said.

The claim about the "peak climate-science bodies" undoubtedly refers to another misleading newspaper article wrongly claiming that global warming stopped by the Mail's David Rose, and Lloyd's comment about the Met Office prediction is also inaccurate. Ultimately the only statement the Australian article attributes to Pachauri on this subject is that "global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming."


Same Daily Mail article discussed in this thread.


Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn't disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct. Though it's also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).


These two examples of 'media' misrepresentation really should serve as an eye opener for anyone outside those of us that acknowledge the AGW theory. You aren't being told the truth about what scientists say or what their research shows.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Pasiphae that is only the very very tip of the iceberg. There is soooo much more. Like I mentioned earlier in this thread - I've been studying the real conspiracy here for 5 years now - and I can find the exact same sort of shady connections with virtually every single prominent "skeptic" out there. It's a plague.


i have read many of your posts debunking the denier "theories" and i'm always impressed. that was the first time i'd seen that particular info and it wasn't surprising in the least!



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Apparently challenge denied.
x2



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Why did you ignore the video footage of two experts explaining the sham that man made global warming is. I'm not here to debate if global warming is happening because I don't deny that. The climate changes cyclically between cooling and warming. If you're going to look at the charts over the last 300 years then yes we are in a current warming period with a trend that is not exaggerated from industrialization. The trend is predictable with or without human interference. This is why I keep asking you for the direct link, the smoking gun between human industrialization and global warming. Can you please just spit that out since you seem to believe it's so cut and dry? I've been waiting through 3 - 4 of your replies and you still avoid the proof! Soon this should be sent to the hoax section if no proof can be verified.

On another note, skeptical science has long been known for it's bias and is truly not a worthy reference to back up your argument. Find something with an .edu at the end of it.

I don't deny global warming and cooling I deny that humans have much of an impact until you can prove otherwise.










Even more recently, in collaboration with professor David Legates of the University of Delaware, we were able to provide a self-consistent explanation for these observed apparent sun-climate correlations, which involves the exchange of heat and moisture between the equator and the Arctic region. In addition, we recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic five to 20 years later. These peer-reviewed results, appearing in several science journals, make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play no or an insignificant role in climate change. The hallmark of good science is the testing of plausible hypotheses that are either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in BEST’s own data and in other data we have analyzed is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climate change


www.washingtontimes.com...
edit on 7-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 




Why did you ignore the video footage of two experts explaining the sham that man made global warming is.


Why did you ignore my entire post that shows the Australian as well as the Daily Mail completely misrepresented both of their sources for their separate articles with one or two quotes, took them out of context and then paraphrased them to make them seem like they said things they absolutely didn't. You don't need Skeptical Science to show you how they did it, it's obvious and commonplace.



On another note, skeptical science has long been known for it's bias and is truly not a worthy reference to back up your argument.


Skeptical Science is not a biased site, it is a site that explains climate science and what humanity vs anything else, has to do with it and clears up the smoke and mirrors used by 'deniers'.

When papers and scientists are constantly cherry picked and misrepresented by bloggers and think tanks, it's nice that there are people who take the time clarify.



Find something with an .edu at the end of it.


youtube.edu doesn't seem to exist.

Back to your videos...

The very first sentence spoken by Professor Plimer is this:

"I'm a geologist and the one thing that we miss out on in looking at climate change... is the past."

This is a lie, and this is what all these 'outspoken' contrarians do best. They know that people skeptical of AGW don't listen to anyone that doesn't flat out deny it so they control the narrative with their target audience. They say things like, "they ignore past climate change, they ignore the sun, they ignore this that and the other," conveying that if such common sense reasons are overlooked or ignored, the scientists must be stupid or agenda driven and the people who believe them must be stupid and are nothing better than trained seals.

Here's the thing though, the sun hasn't been ignored, climate changes in the past haven't been ignored (paleoclimatology anyone?)... nothing has been ignored, they have been ruled out as the dominant forcing of our current warming. Those things absolutely affect and drive climate but the key thing is climate changes based on it's most dominant forcing, that is us this go around.

His next line is ridiculous...

"Climate changes in our past have been greater and faster than anything we've experienced in our lifetime"




Exceptional Now

The climate has been warming since the industrial revolution, but how warm is climate now compared with the rest of the Holocene? Marcott et al. (p. 1198) constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world. The pattern of temperatures shows a rise as the world emerged from the last deglaciation, warm conditions until the middle of the Holocene, and a cooling trend over the next 5000 years that culminated around 200 years ago in the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have risen steadily since then, leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene. www.sciencemag.org...


Not to mention all the studies published on ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores that climatologists have been conducting to examine earths climate in the past, for at least 20 years.

Has earth been warmer in the past? Absolutely. Has warming occurred this rapidly in the past? No.

Do I need to debunk every sentence Plimer utters in that video? How about just the man himself?

Ian Plimer wiki

Looks like he's a shill for the Australian Coal Industry to me.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by libertytoall
 




Skeptical Science is not a biased site, it is a site that explains climate science and what humanity vs anything else, has to do with it and clears up the smoke and mirrors used by 'deniers'.

When papers and scientists are constantly cherry picked and misrepresented by bloggers and think tanks, it's nice that there are people who take the time clarify.

They don't clarify information on that site in fact they do exactly what you have explained is foul behavior. Ignore one side and present a skewed deceitful explanation of the other. They take the debated information and sling a one sided deceitful take on the subject. Just like Al Gore and ALL THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WHO GOT CAUGHT MISREPRESENTING SCIENCE.. Unless peer reviewed science is now accepting the ugly word “denier” in manuscripts, I’d say the “science” of the articles presented there come from John Cook's own opinionated disdain for human beings with different conclusions. I can guarantee not ONE peer reviewed piece of literature contains name calling like singling out other people as "deniers" etc.. That's not professional. Neither is polling over and over until you get the result you want. You know climate scientists behind the Al Gore movement did the same kind of things.. John Cook and Skeptical science are a laughing stock of the scientific community and for anyone like yourself you post that as proof just goes to show how ignorant you truly are regarding the subject.



Lead author John Cook(skeptical science) and I participated in a number of interviews to discuss the paper, including on Al Jazeera, CNN, and ABC. President Obama even Tweeted about our results to his 31 million followers.

Because he's a paid shill of the climate gate a$$_oles. Why else would HE get so much attention in the media over thousands of other scientists who are actually much more qualified? Because skeptical science is a ideologically driven website funded by Al Gore and company and supported by the investors in a carbon tax system by perpetually lying in order to TRICK people into believing it's sound science. (which it's FAR from it)


Back to your videos...

The very first sentence spoken by Professor Plimer is this:

"I'm a geologist and the one thing that we miss out on in looking at climate change... is the past."

This is a lie, and this is what all these 'outspoken' contrarians do best. They know that people skeptical of AGW don't listen to anyone that doesn't flat out deny it so they control the narrative with their target audience. They say things like, "they ignore past climate change, they ignore the sun, they ignore this that and the other,"

It's true the inconvenient truth of man made driven climate models is the need to suppress measuring anything leading up to the industrial revolution in order to achieve the ridiculous skyrocketing trend all the doom and gloom climate scientists try to project yet has never materialized (in the slightest) the way they portray. It's been decades yet still no man made link. I'm still waiting for you to supply that data for me. I've got plenty to back up climate models being driven by solar activity. Where's your data brother?


conveying that if such common sense reasons are overlooked or ignored, the scientists must be stupid or agenda driven and the people who believe them must be stupid and are nothing better than trained seals.

They are trained seals, climate gate was a prime example of how and what ends bad scientists are willing to take bad science to walk their own professional step ladder of paid off shills.


Here's the thing though, the sun hasn't been ignored, climate changes in the past haven't been ignored (paleoclimatology anyone?)... nothing has been ignored, they have been ruled out as the dominant forcing of our current warming. Those things absolutely affect and drive climate but the key thing is climate changes based on it's most dominant forcing, that is us this go around.

It's clear you have chosen to believe in pink unicorns and spaghetti monster science rather than live in reality.. I'm not going to be bated into responding to anymore of your nonsensical science beliefs that are based on OPINIONATED BULLSH*T until you can provide the smoking gun link between human activity and climate change. I swear I am not conversing another minute with you until you backup you asinine statements. Otherwise this is hoax bin material, which I already know it is..



edit on 8-7-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join