It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
0.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
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.
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.
Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate.
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.
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.
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--.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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).
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.
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.
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."
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).
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.
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
Why did you ignore the video footage of two experts explaining the sham that man made global warming is.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.