It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Climate scientists divert blame to glitchy computer models.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:45 AM
These liars now believe they can get away with blaming the computer.

As the saying goes, GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out.

Now every computer programmer out there knows this (GIGO) fact, so for these scientists to blame the programmers who simply designed the programs to give the results that the scientists wanted to see is a real stab-in-the-back.

Climate scientists themselves now admit their calculations on global warming were WRONG, though they divert blame to glitchy computer models.

Looking back to 2010, does anyone remember this...?

A new "Little Ice Age" could begin in just four years predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov.

It looks like Habibullo was correct and we now need carbon dioxide emissions just to stay warm.

The 2007 film 'Sunshine' might be about to become reality.

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Rapha

you mean the "climate models" they programmed??

yeah, not even a nice try, just completely transparent hogwash..

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:08 PM
I read this report yesterday of ice melting underneith the Antarctic, and I've always believed the climate is warming. Being all because of humans I do not believe but I do see a trend. Even the OP'ers reference shows this, although less than predicted on average, and at a much slower rate.

This should teach those in high places that science equates to theory and not certainty in most cases. Especially those where past data (repeated studies) aren't available.

None of this explains how a hole in the ozone layer or methane gas leaks from fracking or more agriculture might affect climate (how much it affects it). Would still like to know the effects, if any, from a scientific standpoint.

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:29 PM
I would rather pursue a scientific approach and be on the safe side. The cost of being wrong is too large.

I believe the GW denier propaganda and anti-science propaganda are a concerted effort by corporations to increase profit. Guys, everything science comes up with can't be wrong
That means science could be right on this. Religion plays perfectly with the whole "deny everything" meme.

At least a scientific approach considers the possibility that a hypothesis or a model can be proved wrong.
Willful ignorance doesn't have that option and neither does the invisible puppet-master in the sky.

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Rapha

‘remember thou art but mortal, and all glory is fleeting’

I see two issues to ponder.

1. A whole lot of very smart thoroughly meticulous people made a mistake.
2. The data entered was entered badly on purpose.

Which scenario is more likely?

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:50 PM
Whatever happens, we have 2 choices...

Adapt or Die.

Geo-engeneering isn't a solution, we have no idea what we are messing with.
Temperature changes on earth have been happening since the dawn of it's existence because it follows a cycle just like everything else in the universe.

Instead of loosing money in determining if there is global warming/cooling, we should be focusing on what to do if any of those situations happen because whatever's going to happen, we can't stop it nor should we attempt to.

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:52 PM

reply to post by grey580

‘remember thou art but mortal, and all glory is fleeting’

I see two issues to ponder.

1. A whole lot of very smart thoroughly meticulous people made a mistake.
2. The data entered was entered badly on purpose.

Which scenario is more likely?

How about 3. Climate change has happened multiple times in the past. The elite and their stooge scientists simply utilized the word ignorance and made people believe that they had a perfect answer to the End-of-the-World problem, that they knew wasn't going to happen anyway.

10,000 years ago, the Northern hemisphere had the Ice Age. So either the mammoths farted a lot or the sun heated up. i am going to stick to mammoths farting because they disappeared somehow.

Remember how scientists once wanted to say how global warming was directly proportional to the amount of methane produced by cows.
Cows / mammoths - same

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

better safe than sorry left the station a long long time ago buddy.

are you another one of those types that blames the masses for the ills of the planet?

do you really think that if everyone immediately stopped producing garbage for landfills and green house gases that it would make any difference at this point? Dont you know that the entire 'system' depends on the manufacture of devices that produce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide and people to use those items? Everyone is complicit here, but the elite and corporations the MOST.

its a fact...people were just fine with electric cars in the early 1900s.....but all that was shut down right away by Standard Oil, Henry Ford and the other players that realized they could make tons of money on dirty technology. And thank God Tesla won the war of the currents and not Edison or things could be 10X worse than they already are.

no, its too late to avert disaster IF humans really are to blame for 'climate change' (notice no one is using 'global warming' anymore....nice little backtrack). However, there is a small subset of scientists that dont go along with the popular bs story about whats causing climate change and they have found that there are in fact warming trends taking place in our entire solar system! Hows ya like them apples?

and by the way, maybe the beating our atmosphere has taken has (which is what protects us from radiation and potentially damaging effects of the sun and other radiation) has something to do with at least 2,000 nuclear tests and detonations??? just maybe...somethin to think about.

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 02:28 PM
The lame scientists look like they are desperate to get more funding...

Global warming will end life on earth (but don't panic, you've got 3.5bn years left!)

Read more:

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:05 PM
okay so there is the NIPCC which is the NONgovernmental international panel on climate change

then there is the original intergovernmental panel on climate change - the IPCC

the NIPCC is funded by the Heartland Institute which is funded by the Koch Bros (millions of dollars) and the panel consists of.... i can't figure that out. i found a few names. i need to do some more googling on that. so far all i've got is , Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA) Tim Ball, Don Easterbrook, and Cliff Ollier..... all of whom are regular skeptics.

the IPCC was set up my several governments in the late 80's and THOUSANDS of scientists contribute WITHOUT BEING PAID. the IPCC funding comes from all the participating governments. the US is one of them to the tune of about $2.5 million although that number has often been reported as $13 million which is the COMBINED contribution not the US contribution alone. the IPCC reviews studies submitted (voluntarily) by scientists and publishes them.

from wikipedia -

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data. The responsibility of the lead authors of IPCC reports is to assess available information about climate change drawn mainly from the peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[14] The IPCC reports are a compendium of peer reviewed and published science. Each subsequent IPCC report notes areas where the science has improved since the previous report and also notes areas where further research is required.

BBC article about the latest report

Leaked details from the forthcoming report indicate that the worst sea level rise scenarios for the year 2100, under the highest emissions of carbon dioxide, could reach 97cm.
Some scientists, including Prof Rahmstorf, have been unhappy with the models used by the IPCC to calculate the rise. Using what's termed a semi-empirical model, the projections for sea level can reach 2m. At that point, an extra 187 million people across the world would be flooded.

But the IPCC is likely to say that there is no consensus about the semi-empirical approach and will stick with the lower figure of just under 1m.

basically they gather THOUSANDS of studies and put them together. some have different variables. the consensus is that they are now 95% sure humans are causing the warming (up from 90%). they prefer to be cautious and approve the LOW numbers instead of the higher ones.

at the end of the article it says some are calling for a review of IPCC procedure and instead of releasing a massive report every year..... they move up to the twitter generation.

maybe then there would be less confusion because massive scientific reports aren't going to be read by the general public and are a lot easier for people to misinterpret.

so..... basically the new IPCC report says we're still warming, the polar ice is still melting, and sea levels will continue to rise.

new topics

top topics


log in