Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming


www.forbes.com

Experts called by Sen. Barbara Boxer to testify during Senate Environment and Public Works hearings yesterday contradicted ... President Barack Obama on climate change.

Boxer may have envisioned her high-profile global warming hearings as an opportunity to build momentum for congressional or EPA action to restrict CO2 emissions. Instead, the very global warming activists she called to serve as expert witnesses delivered a crushing blow to President Obama's new restrictions on CO2 emissions.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.epw.senate.gov
www.forbes.com< br /> www.climatedepot.com
theadvocate.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
Obama addresses Climate Change: - Not enough time for "a meeting of the flat-earth society."
President Obama's Plan to Fix Climate Change is Fatally Flawed, Experts Say
Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Of course, you won't hear this on the MSM, but many of the very same experts Boxer had lined up to support Obama's imposition of expensive and overreaching restrictions on CO2 emissions were convincing in their opinions that drastic measures are unwarranted, unnecessary, politically motivated, and too costly to impose; with little or nothing to justify them in the first place.

The biggest supporters of the Obama/Boxer "carbon is evil" schemes were a former [I]Weather Channel[/I] host, an insurance executive who lost his ass insuring coastal homes, and a Pacific Northwest environmentalist.

Unfortunately for the Dems and Obama, the chief economist and scientists were in agreement that man-made global warming is not a threat and that "projected" threats and "economic models" used to support carbon taxes and "the Social Cost of Carbon," were unfounded, skewed to one side, and politically motivated.

Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and Dr. Robert P. Murphy,
Senior Economist at the Institute for Energy Research both clearly showed how models and projections and estimates supporting Obama and Boxer's positions were unsound and unwarranted by facts and evidence.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the (taxpayer-funded)University of Colorado; and Dr. Roy Spence, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (who gets most of his funding from NASA and NOAA), showed how peer-reviewed studies and physical data reveal the AGW "climate catastrophe" to be nothing more than a thinly-supported theory, and that the hard data shows otherwise.



www.forbes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
On the BBC (UK) today

Coverage of the science and technology committee taking evidence on the public's understanding of climate policy from broadcasters and expert journalists.


Basically it was a discussion on how they could get more of the public to believe in this scam. I heard them say that only 51% believe climate change to be real, and I expect they exaggerated that figure.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Unfortunately for the Dems and Obama, the chief economist and scientists were in agreement that man-made global warming is not a threat and that "projected" threats and "economic models" used to support carbon taxes and "the Social Cost of Carbon," were unfounded, skewed to one side, and politically motivated.


That's not what they said at all!

Heidi Cullen, PhD.:

Here in the United States average temperatures have increased by roughly 1.5°F since record keeping began in 1895. More than 80 percent of this temperature increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s warmest on record.

Emphasis added.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:

Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels.
Researchers have detected and (in some cases) attributed a human influence in other measures of climate extremes beyond those discussed in this testimony, including surface temperatures and precipitation.
A considerable body of research projects that various extremes may become more frequent and/or intense in the future as a direct consequence of the human emission of carbon dioxide.


Scott Doney, PhD.:

Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.


Roy Spencer, PhD.:

...human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has resulted in an estimated 1% reduction in the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space, and so some level of warming can be expected to occur from that change.


It sounded like measured, reasoned statements on the fact that global warming is occurring and at least some portion of it is a result of humans.

Thanks for the link to the senate statements, you should've read them yourself before posting.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
When a president has to mock people to get his point across then obviously he had a weak arguement to begin with. Its a peer pressure tactic that almost always works with the ignorant who dont have time to check evidence for themselves.

Call people names to discredit the opposition, present biased evidence to support your agenda, disregard any opposing views.

Honestly I have no idea whom obama WORKS FOR but he doesnt work for the majority who elected him. Its becoming more and more obvious by the day. The man is a disgraceful fraud!!



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
All I know is that things are changing. Man made/contributed or not, whether it’s Earth's natural cyclical nature or what have you....

I think too many people are running around like Chicken Little or worse, not caring/paying attention at all and are simply not properly preparing.

Call it a hunch
edit on 20-7-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
You know when political agenda hijacks science for global control, and global wealth redistribution people do need to be wary.

The planet does have natural cycles, so does it's life giver the Sun as well as numerous other complexities.

Creation and destruction is also a part of that cycle out of the ashs for millions,billions of years creates life.

The ultimate act of arrogance is those people who think they can control the world.

And The Boxers in this Country, or the Obama's need to stop acting like the US is the only industrialized country in the world we aren't.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


but Hans von Storch says......

However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.


many of these 'experts' with PhD's etc are bought off globalists.

the agenda mungers have hired the best sounding credentials money can buy.

we all agree that pollution is a problem, but let's get real.



During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”

For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp.



Divert.....

After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.


Senator Boxer must have been completely frost brained


I can just see the icicles hanging from her ears.


edit on Jul-20-2013 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Lmao why is it that the publications that support contrarians can't ever at least report honestly about what scientists actually say? Nor consider the possibility that the control they fear will come from lack of action?
edit on 20-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Perhaps if Senator Vitter knew what he was talking about there wouldn't be the awkward silence.


These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon.

Remarks by the President at the Morning Plenary Session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, December, 2009

Did you also miss Heidi Cullen's testimony about it being the warmest 10 years the US has seen on record?

If you bothered to read Hans von Storch's interview in Der Spiegel you'd also see that:

Storch: ...Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.


That interview is also the sound of a reasonable scientist and not a politician trying to skew things on one side or the other.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234


That's not what they said at all!

Heidi Cullen, PhD.:


Really? let's see the facts...

First of all Heidi Cullen is the same witch from the Weather Channel that publicly has called for a witch hunt against all meteorologists who would dare to deny or even question the AGW scam...


The Weather Channel’s climatologist, Dr. Heidi Cullen who hosts the programThe Climate Code”, is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be denied certification (or re-certification) if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade global warming. She posted this revelation in the blog she runs on the Weather Channel website and you can read it here: climate.weather.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...




Originally posted by links234

Here in the United States average temperatures have increased by roughly 1.5°F since record keeping began in 1895. More than 80 percent of this temperature increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s warmest on record.

Emphasis added.


Yeah, and about half, if not more, of the warmer years occurred BEFORE 1939 or during the 1940s...


2012 Didnt Crack The Top Ten For Record Maximums: NOAA has inflated 2012 record maximum number by adding new stations which didnt exist during the hot years of 1930s” — ‘That is a completely illegitimate approach. An apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations. When that is done, 2012 doesnt even crack the ten hottest years

Feds caught altering past temperature data: NOAA claims 1998 was previoushottest on record on record — But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest beforeadjustments’ — ‘In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934′ — ‘Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm the present. Their claims are straight out Orwell’s 1984, and have nothing to do with science

...

www.climatedepot.com...



Originally posted by links234
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:


Dr. Roger Pielke Jr is one of the scientists who does say mankind does have an effect, what he disagrees with is how much effect mankind activities contribute to warming...

You see, despite what the AGW religious lunatics like to claim "there is no consensus"... There are scientists who state mankind activities have no effect on the climate, there are scientists who state that mankind activities have an insignificant effect on the climate, there are scientists who state that mankind activities have some effect on the climate, while others state that mankind activities have significant effects, and then there are those who claim mankind is the main cause of Climate Change...

The fact is that those scientists who claim "mankind is the main cause of Climate Change" are the main proponents of the AGW scam, those scientists include Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Cullen, etc... It is these scientists, with the help of other AGW lunatics, who claim that "all scientists or a majority of them agree with us" WHEN IT IS NOT TRUE...

Then there is the fact that Roger Pielke Jr is one of the many, many scientists who have found that the AGW proponents have been using dirty tactics, trying to silence real scientists, posted and published false information, and have even erased raw temperature data so that NO ONE can verify the claims of the main AGW proponents...


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...


Among other dirty tactics...


[UPDATE 2 11/30: Here are several remarkable statements from climate scientists, one from the emails showing Kevin Trenberth calling for Chris Landsea to be fired for holding the wrong views and and a comment today from Gavin Schmidt justifying gatekeeping in climate science on political grounds. With comments like that, who needs emails?;-)]

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by links234
Scott Doney, PhD.:

Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.



The acidification in the oceans hasn't occurred just in the upper ocean, there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity, and releases of gases due to natural processes, and yes some mankind activity as well. Not to mention that there are other real toxic chemicals, and other anthropogenic, and even natural activities that are causes of more acidification of the oceans than CO2.


"They begin by noting that "several studies document acidification hot spots, patches of ocean water with significantly depressed pH levels relative to historical baselines occurring at spatial scales of tens to hundreds of square kilometers...illustrate that freshwater inputs, pollutants, and soil erosion can acidify coastal waters at substantially higher rates than atmospheric CO2 alone." And they add that "additional local phenomena -- such as sulfur dioxide precipitation, hypoxia, eutrophication, and both emissions and runoff from acidic fertilizers -- can intensify these localized hot spots,"...Some of the remedial measures that they list in this category are "stormwater surge prevention (e.g., holding tanks), coastal and riparian buffers (areas of vegetation near land-water intersections), intact wetlands, and improved onsite water treatment facilities," which they describe as "effective measures to address watershed runoff and associated pollutants."" [Kelly, R.P., Foley, M.M., Fisher, W.S., Feely, R.A., Halpern, B.S., Waldbusser, G.G. and Caldwell, M.R. 2011: Science]

www.co2science.org...

I have said it many times in the past, oil companies should be really stressing that their "safety standards" shoul be practiced at all times. Yes, there are frequent "safety meetings" in oil rigs on land and sea, but the truth is when push comes to shove unfortunately many company men (the bosses in oil rigs who represent oil companies) will push oil rig crews beyond their limits, who will in turn bypass safety measures, many times without wanting to, which in turn are the main causes for "accidents".


Originally posted by links234
Roy Spencer, PhD.:

...human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has resulted in an estimated 1% reduction in the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space, and so some level of warming can be expected to occur from that change.


It sounded like measured, reasoned statements on the fact that global warming is occurring and at least some portion of it is a result of humans.


If you knew Roy Spencer you wouldn't be trying to cherry-pick what he has to say.

In fact, here is his blog, go ahead and read it then come back and tells us that he agrees with the AGW claim...

www.drroyspencer.com...

In fact, in his blog he even puts an update in what he was talking about in that Senate report with regards to the AGW claim and REAL Climate Change...

Let me excerpt part of what he has to say...


Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”
July 19th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.

In this exceedingly rare photo of me actually cracking a smile, note my subliminal shout out to the “Coke” brothers (whom I’ve never met, btw…I don’t even know what they do):

From the opening remarks made by the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, apparently you can see climate change yourself just by looking in your backyard, or seeing how far from shore fishermen must go now to catch fish, or even (help me with the logic on this one) the fact that smoking causes cancer.

I just submitted my updated written testimony (Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated) to include the following chart (Click for full size):



This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm Period (RWP). So how is it we know todays warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldnt have been caused by humans? Hmmm?

And if you want to hit me with a Hockey Stick, might I remind you that there are many more papers supporting the MWP and RWP than there are supporting the Hockey Stick’s slick revision of history?

Or does “consensus” only count when it supports your side?

What’s that you say? The hockey stick is now the “new consensus”? So a scientific consensus can be wrong, after all? Hmmm.
...

www.drroyspencer.com...




Originally posted by links234
Thanks for the link to the senate statements, you should've read them yourself before posting.


You shouldn't be trying to twist in what context these scientists are making these remarks. Not to mention that there are some, like Cullen, who are complete lunatics.

Other tactics used by the AGW scientific lunatics include not only publishing and posting false information knowingly, but even trying to rewrite what the temperature data says in places like China and Russia, among others...


IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
...

An email from Jones to Mann in March 2004 stated:


Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Yesterday’s report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:


Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the countrys territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the worlds land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.

...

climateaudit.org...


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’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



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...

edit on 20-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add links.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I just have one question.

When was this debate that we are being told is over?

The AGW crowd flat out refuse to engage in open academic debate, and they have taken this stand since day one.

If Mann and Gore agreed to a debate, and supplied the sources of their data, I'd be a lot more comfortable and open to the idea.


If you read Paul Watson's (Sea Shepard) book he tells activists that it is perfectly ok to lie, just sound convincing. That's what we're seeing here, the playbook is being used.
edit on 20-7-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Lmao why is it that the publications that support contrarians can't ever at least report honestly about what scientists actually say? Nor consider the possibility that the control they fear will come from lack of action?
edit on 20-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Yeah
you like them apples don't ya?...


Why is it that AGW proponents think that by twisting what real scientists say, cherry picking, and even just making laughing faces as responses in posts corroborate the AGW religious hoax?...



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


So you're accepting that climate change is real and that we should do something about it?

Glad to see we're eye to eye on at least one thing.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


So you're accepting that climate change is real and that we should do something about it?

Glad to see we're eye to eye on at least one thing.


Wow, so again with the twisting what people and even scientists have to say...

On the contrary, I agree with those scientists who state mankind activities have an insignificant effect on the climate because the FACTS say so. Not to mention that if mankind was really the main cause, or if mankind's activities were a major factor in the climate then the AGW scientists wouldn't have a need to publish and post FALSE information... They wouldn't have a need to re-write what the data of temperature stations actually says... They wouldn't have a need to try to silence any scientist who would dare even question AGW... They wouldn't have a need to DELETE raw temperature data so that no one can verify their claims... If AGW was true then the AGW scientists wouldn't have a need to use every dirty tactic they can think of to try to corroborate their false AGW religion.

If AGW was a reality there would be evidence of it, and there isn't...

However, mankind does affect local environments, and this is what I agree that should be remedied, but this doesn't mean mankind activities have a significant effect on the climate...

The AGW claim is that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of the ongoing Climate Change. To these people it doesn't even matter that global temperatures were beginning to exponentially increase since the early 1600s... Not to mention the fact that the areas that have been warming the most are areas that are remote and very far away from sources of anthropogenic CO2...

If anthropogenic CO2 was the main cause of the warming/Climate Change, then the most warming should have been occurring around the sources of continuous anthropogenic CO2 emissions...

You see, real scientists try to warn people like you to the facts, despite having lunatics like Hansen among others as the directors of agencies like NASA...


...
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...

CO2 was labeled as a pollutant, since pollutants are not the cause of the warming CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming, hence AGW is a hoax.

edit on 20-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I don't know how to make my posts any shorter so they're easier for you to understand.

Moving on; what the OP suggested and what really happened aren't the same.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

I don't know how to make my posts any shorter so they're easier for you to understand.


Of course you don't understand that there is a big difference between AGW and Climate Change... The climate does changes all the time "NATURALLY"...


Originally posted by links234
Moving on; what the OP suggested and what really happened aren't the same.


No, he is right, there were experts at the Senate meeting who disagree with Barbara Boxer/Obama and the AGW claim... Just because she included a witch like Cullen who has called for scientists to be decertified if they even dare to question AGW doesn't make Cullen an unbiased expert. Just because you wanted to twist what Spencer and Pielke among others were referring to doesn't mean they agree with Boxer, Obama or even the AGW claim...

BTW, if you can only understand arguments in one small sentence or less then you shouldn't even be trying to discuss AGW or even Climate Change...



edit on 20-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


What if CO2 levels rise primarly because of excessive deforestation? CO2 is used by plants in the photosynthesis process so if less trees and plants exist there will be less CO2 consumed and this in turn will make it look like humans are causing it when in reality they are not.

Not to mention planets in our solar system are getting hotter lately and NASA has confirmed it. Could be a solar cycle of getting warmer and cooler at different intervals.

And even if CO2 was a real problem, instead of the government looking for an excuse to tax consumers, they could focus on replanting trees and green technology. You should know by now that big petrochemical companies do not want green energy because it will obviously affect their market negatively. If people use wind and solar energy fuel consumption goes down. Their "solution" is to buy up these alternative energy patents and small startup companies to make their competition disappear. Then claim alternative energy is still in its primitive phase.

The government taxing companies by forcing them to buy CO2 credits simply means the petrochemical companies pass the additional cost to the consumer without feeling any pressure of market competition, because like I said they have already bought the patents and startup companies. You people get taxed like damm suckers and that is what should annoy people. All facade and zero substance! In fact owners of small startups that don't sell their company often get killed in mysterious accidents...it has already happened in the past.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


So you're accepting that climate change is real and that we should do something about it?

Glad to see we're eye to eye on at least one thing.


Pollution is real and something should be done about it.

Why isnt obama doing something about it? Why isnt china and russia doing something about it? Oh I forgot it was all a scam from the beginning.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I just have one question.

When was this debate that we are being told is over?

The AGW crowd flat out refuse to engage in open academic debate, and they have taken this stand since day one.

If Mann and Gore agreed to a debate, and supplied the sources of their data, I'd be a lot more comfortable and open to the idea.


If you read Paul Watson's (Sea Shepard) book he tells activists that it is perfectly ok to lie, just sound convincing. That's what we're seeing here, the playbook is being used.
edit on 20-7-2013 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)


Doesnt paul watson post for infowars? I dont think the man is a scam artist. Maybe you are confusing him for someone else.

He actually invested heavily in fighting elephant poachers in africa and then went to antartica to fight off the japanesse whalers. The governments and greenpeace tried to discourage him and even threatened to have him locked up. Paul Watson had raised a large group of volunters to do what the UN should have been tasked to do.






top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join