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.
Originally posted by kiwifoot
Hey Bro, nice reply, I haven't time to argue all of it. Here's a little it to keep you honest!
I believe quite strongly that if there is such a thing as the NWO, it's a small group
I was gracious enough to link to short videos, just to start.
If you are indeed curious, as you claim to be, do you own research. That should sate your curiosity.
It has nothing to do with what I think, the man has no qualifications and has in fact lied about his qualifications.
I know that, so I found out for myself that he is, in fact, wrong.
Monkton=Claims that the NWO has manufactured AGW in order to bring about a communist world government.
And now you tell me that the Peoples Republic of China, A COMMUNIST state, is critical of global warming.
Originally posted by mbzastava
Originally posted by atlasastro
Point out one peer reviewed published paper linked to climate gate that was fraudulent.
Just one.
how about the infamous hockey stick? this one has a nice IPCC stamp on it =)
climategate describes EXACTLY WHY the science is fraudulent. Sheesh its like calling out a pathological liar that continues to think you believe them. by no stretch of logic are the deniers required to prove fraudulent science. all we require is an even platform and the uncorrupted data (if there is any left) speaks for itself.
as far as using crazed old scientists as media platforms... why the hell not?! denier science has been shunned to hell, and the only voices we get in the MSM are "loonies." surprising how these loonies still manage to present some slivers of undeniable logic and the subversive thought process that is essential to seeing through all the bs.
peace,
mbzastava
Originally posted by olle2000
So, the global warming is under way mainly due to solar activity. Now what? Stop talking about it, and start to actively NOT SUPPORTING THE ONES WHO PERPETUATE THE SITUATION. How?; you may ask, and I will answer.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by NoHierarchy
The idea that CO2 hasn't been higher in hundreds of thousands of years is another fallacy that has been re-presented repetitiously and refuted ad nauseam.
It's important to understand that glaciological records which the IPCC base their idea on pre-industrial levels of CO2 have been found to consistently underestimate the amount of atmospheric CO2. Reason being, because there will inevitably be diffusion of CO2, especially in the newer and thinner layers of ice, thus it is probable that the actual CO2 at the time they were formed would have been higher. Also, anything like what we have measured at Mauna Loa over the last 50 years would be smoothed out, and a great amount of information lost. You can see how ice core records compare with stomata proxies and there's a glaring contradiction, stomata measurements show much more variability. Ask yourself, why the IPCC arbitrarily refuse to use stomata proxies when they are probably a more reliable indicator. Paleo-reconstructions can never be used as absolutes anyway since there is no standard measurements which they can be compared, only relatives.
Personally, I think the biggest threat to our freedom is the susceptibility of people to unquestionably believe anything they are told. My guess is people believe in AGW to fill a spiritual void that comes from not believing in any God.
EDIT: this video crystallises my thoughts perfectly: www.youtube.com...edit on 19-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Clavicula
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Humans may contribute somewhat to the average global temperature. It is how much that is in dispute.
CO2 by itself does not allow for enough radiative forcing to cause a "dangerous" temperature rise. IPCC acknowledge this but rely on so called positive feedbacks to make their "predictions" of dangerous global warming caused by man made release of CO2. The positive feedback used in the IPCC climate sensitivity equation does not correlate well with observed data. The scientific method require that a theory can verified with empirical observation. Running models is not enough. Some observations may even indicate a net negative feedback.
Here is a little "gem" from NOAA since you refer to them in your post. Maybe you can ferret out why this is bad news for the CAGW theory.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a6f9ff5d398.png[/atsimg]
I know, you did in you're reply.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
I can link you to videos too, hundreds.
This is a from you, who linked video's in your response to me.
Instead of lazily linking me to videos how about you explain to me, in your own words, why the science that Monckton advocates is flawed. False commentators like yourself always give themselves away by linking people to videos, without explaining the science itself.
Have you considered that you may over estimate the value of you own impressions, especially as a reliable instrument for gaging any one persons aptitude for scientific comprehension in relation to climate change.
If I were a betting man, I would say that you probably don't understand the science and just take AGW on faith. At least, that's the impression I'm getting.
Do I sound worried in my posts? I was trying to convey pity for you. Oh! Well.
Oh, I've done my research. Don't worry about that.
What is the wager again?
He's never lied about his qualifications.
That's what the AGW attack-dogs what you to think. They attack the messenger and try to smear their reputation instead of the message itself
Here you accuse me of being lazy.
Instead of lazily linking me to videos.....
Calling my commentary false without actually arguing any of my points.
False commentators like yourself....
Claiming I have fallen for some scam.
nd you fall for it, hook, line and sinker.
and you fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Of course he has qualifications, and even if he didn't, are you really such a snob as to judge a man by his title?
Point out Monktons Science. He has none, that is why he is wrong.
Well, let's hear it. Stop keeping me on tenterhooks and explain why his science is wrong.
Monkton=Claims that the NWO has manufactured AGW in order to bring about a communist world government.
And that shocks you? I would expect nothing less from the greedy banking elite.
Yes, and not just China, but India and Russia too.