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.
My position is that if there is actual evidence that we are having an effect on the climate then something should be done. But there is nothing so far that shows that we are having an effect. Not only that but I hope that all the raw-data is open to be scrutinized and stomped on by everybody that want too. Along with the methods and computer code. It should all be open and transparent so no questions are left unanswered.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Nobody said the e-mails were faked.... they could be legitimate. But all the claims saying that this proves everything is hoax and a fraud have been debunked".
You people read things like "hide the decline" and jump to conclusions that they are hiding "global cooling"..... that is FALSE, and DEBUNKED.
You people read e-mails that say "they had to pad the data while smoothing it" and you jump to conclusions and don't even consider the reasons for smoothing the data and how they effect the outcome.
The e-mails are describing "smoothing" issues in data. There are many reasons they "smooth" the graphs, why don't you read up on them. When you "smooth" graphs a lot of inconsistencies show up.
Think about it... say you have a graph with the exact amount of people that visited ATS every day over a month. To make the graph easier to read they "smooth" the graph and instead of showing every day, they show every few days. Well this will show "ups" and "downs" in the graph that aren't actually there....
This happens in foreign exchange trading all the time, I know from personal experience, and you can test it yourself. You choose different types of graphs, some smoother than others, and you will get direct conflicts between two graphs. They both show the same exact data, one just has more data than others, and the trends look completely different.
When you are comparing two different charts, both that have been smoothed, side by side, and your point of comparing the charts is to see how they relate to each other... the errors in smoothing will show declines and inclines that are not accurate.
All of you are jumping to conclusions! It is ridiculous! The e-mails are being misinterpreted.
The e-mails do NOT over power the thousands and thousands of scientific studies done over the years.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
This is what you don't understand. We are not going against MMGW because of (insert reason here__________) we are going against the theory of MMGW because the science doesn't add up.
And we could finally know, one way or another, which side was right.[/qoute]
If any side is actually right. There needs to be a lot more data to be able to actually determine anything. We need a lot bigger data set than just 160 years. Also we can't just throw the data out, but at the same time how can we verify that at the time the data was recorded was it correct? I doubt there are detailed records suitable for scientific analysis from 160 years ago.
I also would like to mention that I don't trust the MetOffice either seeing how close they were with the CRU. What really should be done is an independent analysis by parties that have nothing to gain that can be trusted to be neutral in the matter. Also things like Tree Ring Proxies and Sediment studies should be excluded because that data is unreliable.
Unfortunately the whole thing needs to be started over from scratch. Which is a real shame.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Actually, I never wished "all my opponents" would disappear, but only the ones that insult me and call me names.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I tore you a new one...
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
F.Y.I. Wiki is not a "source"
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Another source of man-made CO2: Deforestation
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I bet you feel humiliated now.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Here is a NOAA source:
The global oceans are the largest natural reservoir for this excess carbon dioxide...and over the next millennium, is expected to absorb approximately 90% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You are just a troll who will deny all facts...
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Greenhouse gas = warmth. If Earth didn't have greenhouse gases, Earth would freeze up. So more greenhouse gases equals more warmth. The Earth relies on greenhouse gases to stay warm. Without them, everything would freeze up. Since humans are producing more and more greenhouse gases every year, it is only logical to conclude that the Earth will get warmer because of it. Do you see how simple that logic is?
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Since there is NOTHING that can absorb ALL the CO2, then the more and more we create is getting stuck in the atmosphere, causing more trapping of heat.
The reason MMGW doesn't add up for you, is because it really isn't a simple addition problem. You have to take a lot of factors into account.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by infolurker
I don't support Cap and Trade, nor am I trying to justify it. The Cap and Trade idea can crash and burn for all I care. I know there are crooks and liars who are trying to make money from it. I see that clear as day....
However, I do also see how taxing people for their emissions will get them to reduce emissions. It is just like fining people for parking violations, it will get them to at least try to stop violating parking laws.
I just hate when people say MMGW is a hoax just because people are trying to make money from Cap and Trade.
MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it. Not even I would agree if someone could prove CO2 doesn't trap heat and humans make more than Earth can absorb.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, you said, without provocation, that "people are evil and dumb," which is your justification for insulting everyone in your petulant and undereducated tirades. You have no respect for anyone who is capable of seeing through your Wikipedia-driven hysterics. Which is everyone.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I haven't looked back there to see if anyone has tore me a new one, but I'm sure if anyone was back there, it would be you. That seems like your natural environment.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Stop using it as a source, then.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
More Wikipedia sources.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No more humiliated than I would feel watching a retarded child struggling to assemble scientific evidence.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No comment necessary. Stop worrying about it, you ninny. The oceans handle it all.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, I almost always agree with facts when they're presented to me. Lies, exaggerations, dimwitted distortions, gullible half-truths, I'll argue every time.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I see how you consistently attempt to overlook the Sun as the ultimate source of warmth that has anything to do with life on this planet. But then, the half-baked MGW hoax is all about denying the Sun is the source of any climate change on Earth.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Hold on, you just said that the oceans are expected to absorb 90% of all atmospheric CO2 over the next thousand years.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And we're not creating more CO2 in a year than is produced by, say, a single active volcano in one day. What's your solution to volcanoes? Tax them?
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
LOL... Whatta maroon.
In fact, the closer they are to Earth, the less accurate are the theories of astrophysicists (and scientists in general).
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
So what has Stephen Hawkings actually done to warrant our awe and reverence?
— Doc Velocity
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You know 90% is not "ALL"? 100% is all. So even if their prediction is true, which it isn't, we still have a problem.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that man is making greenhouse gases?
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that greenhouse gases warm the Earth?
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Do you agree that, right now, not all 100% of the greenhouse gases are being absorbed?
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
MMGW is totally real, and great minds like Stephan Hawking wouldn't agree unless there was something to it.
The "great" Stephen Hawkings hasn't actually done anything except sit in a wheelchair for most of his life and theorize about astrophysical subjects that we can never validate before our species becomes extinct or evolves into another species. Astrophysics is a monumental edifice of theory that cannot be validated.
....
— Doc Velocity
Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
I have no clue about you folks, but I will take the word of an American Hero over that of some ramped up activist scientist with an agenda, anyday of the week.
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
[Stephen Hawkings] has done more in a wheelchair than you will ever do in your life.