New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Originally posted by jimbo999
As for your evidence for 'Solar Heating' - well, your own link makes YOU look the fool I'm afraid. Here's a quote from you link..

QUOTE:

'Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon'

Note the word 'some' in the first paragraph. ie. 1 or 2 people probably on the Enron payrolls...

Kinda puts the shutters down on the 'Solar' theory really...


J.

Hi there Jimbo.
You know, I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read this argument. You're basing your entire rebuttal on the meaning of "some" in a random document that isn't really defined?? In this usage, some could mean any amount from two to one less than the total. The fact that you would just assume that it's a very low number shows your bias.

I noticed that you didn't contradict the beginning of the paragraph you're indicating.

"'Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system"

Does that indicate that you do, in fact, accept the idea that all of the other planetary bodies in our solar system are experiencing global warming on a similar scale to ours. I can understand how maybe you could argue that this is not true and continue to argue your viewpoint. However, if you accept it as true that we are only one of 8 planets (and one large non-planet ) that are experiencing the same condition even though the others are uninhabited then I don't understand how you can continue to argue that this is all manmade.

I'm no fan of Al Gore, if that's what you're thinking. He hijacks 'trendy' issues for personal political gain, is how I see it. Invented the Internet? Hah! Please..

Fact of the matter is I haven't even watched his movie. All the things I listed above are from my own research into the matter. I don't even know what his 'inconvenient truths' are. Is it the same as my list?

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Jimbo over here is the reason they will go unquestioned in their pursuit of more money and power.

And why do you think he believes CO2 is the prime reason? Perhaps it's because the other reasons aren't given enough publicity? How many mentions of the other larger reasons I listed before are made in the main stream media?

Anyway, I can see from your posts that you will consider those other reasons, which I believe to far more important than CO2. At least you're not denying outright that global warming is happening and we are contributing to it.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Why is everything a UN conspiracy with you?? Trust me - you only need to look a LOT closer to home if you want conspiracies..

J.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


Hi,

No - I'm simply asking to see some 'legitimate' science to back it up. Sounds too much like just more convenient 'psuedo-science' - nearly always handsomely paid for by the oil industry to me...


J.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Haha.. yeah. Unfortunately most times people tend to ignore my message and start moving off into the extreme ends of the spectrum again... anyway what's your take on my first post in this thread?

reply to post by jimbo999


Stop bringing Enron into the arguement, because youlose there. Know who traveled with Algore to the Kypoto meetings during the Clinton Administration? Ken Lay. Thats right, the Ken Lay of Enron. Their administration was deep in Enron. Energy policy was set by the Company and the administration often reached outt o friends abroad to get them international contracts. Here is a an article, a very short one, but its from TIME magazine. I figured even the liberals couldn;t argue that one since thats about as far left and teh mainstream media goes. www.time.com...

When I have time I can send you a U2U showing how intertwined their relationship was, but it was not about the international contracts, but about the carbon tax credit trading scheme. Enron was trading energy, not producing anything. If they could get control of the carbon market.....Their income statement would be set for ever. When the Clinton adminitstration failed to approve the ratification of Kyoto (this is what brought the wedge between Gore and Clinton) it pretty much ended the hope of Enron surviving. They had banked everything on this. I spoke on a thread here a while back lising all the different pipe lines and other things the Administration worked out for enron, but can;t seem to find it.

Trust me......Enron wanted Kyoto.... Ken Lay was regulary noted as saying...Enron set the energy policy. They needed Kyoto more than anything, Algore was his puppet.

OK, as one of the few (only person?) here who have actually read this study, the news article is a fine piece of climate 'obscurantist' propaganda.

All the study actually does is reassess a set of data that showed congruence between temperature data in one area of the atmosphere and some model predictions (Santer et al., 2005; and a few others), and suggest that it is not as congruent as previous studies suggested.

That is it. No more, no less.

Given it is from some of the 'usual suspects', I think I'll wait for it to be digested by people who know their sh!t (wich is always the way, especially with such characters). At most, if correct, all it really does is place us back in the position before the Santer et al. 2005 paper.

Says nothing about GHGs not affecting climate. Sorry.

If you want the article, U2U me. Here's the abstract without the propoganda:

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

So, we have one study suggesting a few other studies were wrong. Heh.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by Beachcoma


The human diet alone should be enough cause for alarm to start heavily restricting the meat industry, but do we? No, we don't.

We have technology to produce vehicles that won't put out any emissions or use fissile fuels, but will they put them into production? No, they won't.

We are polluting every part of this earth, but will we change our lifestyles? I have, will others? Probably not.

Batting blindly for either side can only bring about a negative outcome.

reply to post by jimbo999


Psuedo-science?


I will say it again.

Taking numbers and making up charts and graphs can be called science. But when you start assuming things and calling it global warming, its still a theory, regardless of what the charts and graphs say. What is your PROOF!!!!!!!!!! There is not 1 piece of evidence that proves GLOBAL WARMING even exists. (ITS ALL CYCLES...round and round and round, over and over again) Even the United Nations has gone to begin calling it climate change and not global warming. This way, when temperatures go back down, they can still blame it on man and business...AND COLLECT TAXES AND LEVY FINES!!!!!!!

reply to post by traderonwallst


Errmmm...I said earlier that that was a typo on my part I meant 'Exxon' not 'Enron'. Sorry about that - must be this new keyboard....or my old brain perhaps.

J.



[edit on 10-12-2007 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Poor guy... I think he means Exxon.


He doesn't even know he's against.

Another ATS Don Quixote. Fighting windmills with only the ferociousness an oblivious man can.

Well, - coming from someone who can't even spell or string an english sentence together - I find that highly amusing. And yes - I meant Exxon of course....it's called a typo.

If you're going to try and refute thousands of legitimate scientists, I'd advise you to at least come up with something a little more credible than 'solar warming'.

The only 'Don Quixotes' around here are the poor fools who waste everyone elses time expounding theories that are actually hair-brained propaganda...

J.

Knowledge has no finality and either is the pursuit there of. If we don't question the answers given, how are we to know what is right and what is being withheld from from us, or better yet, manipulated?


And Exxon and Enron was less a typo and more a factual error, as we all can see.

Keep the tone and after my nap I will come back and ruin your cute little ATS career, D.Q. I promise.

How about this with all the money wasted on Global warming campaigns, celebrities, ad and etc, why not invest it in a few scientists and gadgets who will not exaggerate those rising temperatures a little bit?

OK how about this I will fight global warming if there were no profits turned!
Companies are making so much money from global warming and I have studied economy and realize the potential in Global Warming!

You have the Green side(who still use gas but make companies like NBC money), you have the Government who is in the middle making money from both sides, and you have the oil companies who are still turning profit from us, yet they pay carbon taxes.

Hmmm...The government is making so much more money from both sides that they will let this continue until...well lets just say they will let this continue.

Also did you know that Third World countries will be allowed to freely produce whatever they want to? These include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Guess what? China is the leading CO2 emission contributor, and how come the US and EU won't make them cut their CO2 emission a little bit to save the environment?

The Climate Change Protocol treaty is of course about the redistribution of all the wealth. Do you remember how the US invaded Iraq through scare tactics? That is the new way to grab the money scare tactics.

"We will all die in 2020 if we do not collect 100 billion dollars for Global Warming!"

Guess what? it is working.

“Right now I do not have confidence that changes in sea ice and clouds are done correctly in climate models. The annual cycle is not correct in many models, so why should it be correct in climate change [projections]?” - Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Errmmm...I said earlier that that was a typo on my part

I meant 'Exxon' not 'Enron'. Sorry about that - must be this new keyboard....or my old brain perhaps.

Yeah Jimbo, the X and the X are very close to the N and the R on these new fangled keyboards! I'm sure it was a "typo" and not a cramp.

Perhaps you should admit your mistake and realize the "talking points" you are putting forth are not helping your argument.

Just a thought.

Becker

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Becker44]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Becker44]

Outstanding!

I wonder if Al Gore and his 'team' will have to give back their nobelprize in near future... could be (will be!) quite embarassing for them...

Flagged & Starred!

reply to post by traderonwallst



I think that far too many confused posts on this site re: 'Global Warming' are proof of at least one thing: there is a lot of mis-information around - due mainly to the psuedo-science that is given far too much main-stream press.

I personally know several enviromental scientists and a few world reknown professors. One of them is considered a world authority in her field. We have discussed this very subject several times over a meal or two. Many scientific departments are desperate for funding today. Some scientists of littlle repute are more than willing to warmly accept funding from dubious sources. Those sources are more often than not oil companies. They come with blank cheques in hand and pre-drawn conclusions for these 'scientists'.

Needless to say, oil industry PR people make damn sure these 'scientific papers' are published and WELL publicised - after all, that's the whole point in the first place.

This sort of behaviour is considered crass & non-scientific by more legitimate and reputable scientists - but they KNOW it goes on.

These are the real roots of the mis-information that threads like these contain. This is the REAL conspiracy - if that's what your looking for.

J.

Both sides are wrong! This is the same old Political Game playing itself out in the same old way. Both sides throw accusations at the other. Both sides parrot what they are expected to say by their respective Leaders. Both sides exaggerate and even come to justify lies to make their point for the "Good of the World". Utter and complete stupidity reigns supreme in that environment. It never stops and if there is something to fear its that we will destroy ourselves to make a Political Point or win an Election somewhere.

Gore was full of crap and any Intellectually Honest Person would admit that. So are those on the other side of the extreme. The fact is that Science does not have all the answers. They do not yet know what is going on. They gotta keep those dollars rolling so while they fight to hold down their bile and they parrot the statements that are expected of them.

The United Nations is the most inefficient, larcenous, lying piece of crap Body of People ever to be assembled. It is nothing more than a hangout for a "Bed of Thieves". Any report emanating from that Anterior Orifice of Humanity should be flushed down the nearest appropriate device.

Whats even worse are the Parasitic Organizations that feed off the fears these Chest Thumping Contests create in the populace. As if the World needs more groups of Maniacs like Greenpeace trying to sink ships full of Plutonium just to make a point. Yet, the blind continue to send in the Dollars so the Executive Officers can continue to draw obscene salaries for knowing nothing and making no difference other than creating a public nuisance.

The Earth is busy about its business of being the Earth. Everyone on both sides, unless they are insane, wants a clean environment and a sound economy. To accomplish that means to work together and ignore the emotionally charged extremists who get some obscene pleasure out of dividing us. They are far more dangerous than a can of Hair-spray could ever be. If this issue did not exist they would run full speed to invent one. The dividers are the true Cancer eating away at our future.

The Economy is important and the Environment is important. Both need to be given consideration in this issue and it does not take a genius to see that. While these debates rage, about whether Global Warming exists, nothing positive can possibly be done nor can any arguments be fully trusted. Anyone who is absolutely convinced they know the truth can not be taken seriously. The truth is that Science does not know at this point. Science is to be forgiven for their Intellectual Dishonesty though. Without funding no Science can take place. Without exaggeration and dishonesty there is no funding. As this battle rages all we can hope is that the truth wins out in the end.

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


So now we're resorting to threats?? Hmmm...


J.

Originally posted by jimbo999

The truth??? Puleeeze! This is just more Bu#e, pro-oil propaganda - plain & simple.

J.

I suppose it's my SUV that's melting the ice caps on Mars too.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Well said.

Unfortunately your post will probably be ignored, just as mine are when it comes to this issue.

Originally posted by Unit541
I suppose it's my SUV that's melting the ice caps on Mars too.

Nope, your SUV is just emitting GHGs that warm the earth. The melting ice-caps on mars are likely a result of dust-storms.

Same old arguments, it's like deja-vu all over again...

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]