Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by Vesica

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Finally, after 2 years of exhaustive study, I am satisfied that I have a complete picture of exactly what is going on….and my conclusions are disturbing.




So after two years of study you have an master degree and you are the expert in this field? Everyone who doesn´t agree with you is therefor wrong?

Pretty much, yes. Unfortunately (I would love to be wrong on this topic).

Originally posted by Clavicula
"Could", "Possible", "may". Typical sensationalism that all to often occur in climate science. Scare stories to make the research grants coming. I guess the methane has been there for a long time throug varying climate conditions like the holocene optimum. It did not occur then so why should it occur now?

Please read my previous posts.

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by The Sword

 

Ah, but you have to look at it from the other perspective too, because there are plenty of scientists that deny global warming. Hardly anyone here is going to be an expert on the subject, and so they really don't have the knowledge or authority to claim anything a hoax (though they are still welcome to express their opinions). At the same time nobody without the proper education and knowledge can really claim this to be a fact either.

I believe in climate change, but I also believe it is completely natural and there is nothing we can do about it.

Typical denialist opinion based on "feeling" rather than facts. Climate change is NOT natural in this case. We have raised the concentration of CO2 from 290 to 390ppm. That is a HUGE change....perhaps the fastest change that the earth has ever had to endure. What will the consequences be? We shall see.....

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Your masters were caught red handed, and your main idol Jones himself even thought about suicide, shame he didn't get it over with, he would have done mankind a big favor...

Give it up...

edit on 5-11-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

He considered suicide because he was being accused of crimes that he was later acquitted of by 3 (or was if 5?) separate Independence investigations.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverseThose of us who know by now that the AGW/Global Warming religion is nothing more than a scam know very well the difference between NATURAL Climate Change, and the BS that is AGW/Global Warming...

The fact that you KNOW AGW is a scam is exactly why you are irrational my friend. You "know" it's a scam, therefore any evidence to the contrary must be part of the scam. That is why you are incapable of looking objectively at the evidence.

Both sides are too busy fighting to realize our entire solar system is experiencing changes. Planetary climate change is real, is it caused by humans? No. Are we still treating the planet like a garbage dump? Yes. Is the climate change real? Yes. Something is happening, we just don't know precisely.

Originally posted by smurfy
You are telling me what I already know about the east siberian shelf, (the report is already out early this year btw) Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov would not have found anything in the east siberian shelf in the 1990's because they only started studying the shelf, which is a [shallow sea], (submerged land) in 2003-2008. Before that any studies ended at the coastline! Now in the last three years the seasonal melt, (measured in volume of water) has declined, with the melt sharply tailing off in September, in other words it is refreezing much faster than it had been previous and therefore the frozen period is becoming longer again, so that is a little good news, and I am just the messenger. The main point of my "thrust" therefore, is that no-one knows how long methane has been escaping from the east siberian shelf prior to 2003, and that the original fractures could well have been due to a major earthquake in that region and that all the methane that has escaped from there could have been converted to CO2 and added to the atmosphere in an immeasurable way, immeasurable, since no-one knew about it. Escaping methane is not a rare event either, and is theorised as means of sinking ships. Also there are other theories as to exactly how methane does escape even in deep water, geothermal heat is a "hot" one. So I'm afraid it is the science that is not cut and dried by a long chalk. It is a known phenomenon that CO2 concentration rises AFTER a ground temperature rise, it always lags behind, so a sudden increase of methane, caused by natural events like earthquakes or geothermal heat, is much more likely the culprit than AGW. Much more info needed, you probably know that yourself.

edit on 5-11-2010 by smurfy because: grammar

Hi again,

Sorry for the delay. I generally post at night (not to mention I work 60+ hours/week!).


I'm interested to get your thoughts on the following:

Shakhova notes that Earth’s geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

www.physorg.com...

Originally posted by lawlb0t
Both sides are too busy fighting to realize our entire solar system is experiencing changes. Planetary climate change is real, is it caused by humans? No. Are we still treating the planet like a garbage dump? Yes. Is the climate change real? Yes. Something is happening, we just don't know precisely.

Incorrect:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by mc_squared


Now do you realize that in this modern day and age of satellites and pyranometers and other fancy gadgets scientists have they in fact pay very close attention to what comes out of the Sun?

And the general consensus is over the last 30+ years of significant terrestrial warming our personal heatlamp has actually shown a cooling trend?

The above claim, again, has been proven wrong by real scientists like Wilson...

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
...

www.space.com...

When are you people going to give up?...

Your scientists have been shown to be crackpots, and scam artists who like Jones even considered suicide because of the leaked emails...

Your computer models have been shown to be wrong to the point of being flat out pointless.

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...


Then there are the LIES of "consensus", and btw the following is just a small example of how many scientists disagree with the AGW lie.

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...


There are dozens if not hundreds of research papers from real scientists, and not wannabes, that show the 20th and 21th century have not been the warmest for the past 1,000 years and much less the past 2,000 years, but of course the believers will present evidence from the scam artists like Jones, Mann, et al to try to counter the truth...

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Incorrect:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Really?... Let's actually take a look at what REAL scientists have to say shall we?...

Science News

Antarctic Science (2003), 15:2:173-173 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2003
doi:10.1017/S0954102003001305
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial

Galactic energy and its role in a changing Earth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN P.M. VAUGHAN


Proposed climate change mechanisms are many and various but generally attributable to our part of the solar system. They usually focus on temperature changes driven either by local processes such as variations in oceanic circulation, or, levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, or by global processes such as variations in received solar energy linked to changes in the parameters of the Earth's rotation and orbit or solar activity. However, two recent papers have suggested that we may need to look outside the Earth System and even outside our local planetary system for the possible origins of climate change, both on a decadal scale and over longer timescales of hundreds of millions of years. In each case, the galactic cosmic ray flux and its potential effects on cloud formation is considered to be the culprit.

journals.camb ridge.org

BTW, there are a lot more than just two papers saying this.

What could be the reason for so many governments, policymakers and crackpots passing for scientists to push for AGW/Global Warming?...

add
add

* UN advisory group on climate change submits report

STAFF WRITER 14:17 HRS IST

Betwa Sharma

United Nations, Nov 6 (PTI) Three weeks ahead of the Cancun Climate Change Conference, a high-level UN advisory group has presented a report with suggestions to come up with USD 100 billion a year by 2020, including tax on international flights, for poor countries to combat global warming.

The 21-member advisory group is co-chaired by Prime Ministers Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Jens Stoltenberg of Norway. The group was set up in February and includes Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, philanthropist George Soros and British academic Nicholas Stern.

"The Advisory Group has given us a path. It is now up to Governments to consider the options and to act," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told journalists.

"This is not about charity. It is about doing the right thing for those who are suffering most from a crisis that they did least to cause," he said.

www.ptinews.com...

Heck the bastards are not even scared of showing the reasons behind AGW/Clobal Warming, and the economic crisis...

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
........

blacklistednews.com...

So who wants to keep on cheering for the Copenhagen talks and other treaties the SOCIALIST elites want for us all?.....

what i find incredible is the number of otherwise perfectly intelligent people
who have fallen for the Big Oil crapola that jeaprodizing the planet is perfectly
acceptable, so long as we continue burning the last of the planet's hydrocarbons.

the planet's hydrocarbons were formed over the last 600 million years,
and we will have burned the vast majority of them in less than 200 years.

we are releasing carbon back into the atmosphere millions of times faster
than it was naturally extracted. to think this won't cause any problems is so
naive as to be ludicrous! only the most gullible could possibly believe the Big Oil
lie that nothing is wrong, keep up business as usual.

has it even occurred to you anti-GW folks that it is in the interests of Big Oil
to cast doubt on global warming? while Big Oil doesn't fund anti-GW groups
directly so much anymore, they DO payoff academics to spout their anti GW nonsense.

what better way to promulgate their agenda by buying off a few college profs to dis global warming?
it's basic human psychology at work here. who is more influential in forming public opinion than
supposedly "intelligent" professors claiming that GW is a bunch of nonsense??

god, at least KNOW when you're being hoodwinked.
unless you have a vested interest in Big Oil, why listen to them?
they do not have your best interests at heart. on the contrary, they are
ONLY concerned about their quarterly profits.

and they will do ANYTHING to ensure we use hydrocarbons until it's way too late...

reply to post by arufon


I think it goes beyond that for most of the deniers on here. For some of them, reality is too scary to confront so it's easier to deny it...even if that means distorting the truth.

Others lack the ability to say, "I was wrong". You can see that over and over in their threads. No matter what evidence they are presented with, no matter how obviously they are debunked, they will just twist and turn facts in every which way to avoid being "wrong".

Haven't you ever known someone like that in real life? It is often deeply ingrained into their personality so deep that they don't even realize it. In fact, more often than not, they accuse US as being incapable of being wrong (projection).

Having a debate with someone like that is a dead end every time.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Hey The_Liberator - since you're new to ATS I thought I should officially introduce you to our long-time resident climate troll.

He likes to jump all over any thread that threatens his flimsy right-wing FOX news paradigm, and he's armed to the teeth with all that fantastic, cherry-picked "peer-reviewed research" of his.

Never mind that these papers generally represent the vast minority of scientific data and opinion, he'll tell you that's just because all the other peer-reviewed scientists are lying - because his heroes Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe told him so - they did!

Anyway if you bother to actually look through his obnoxiously loud, crass posts - you'll notice half the time he doesn't even understand what his own peer-reviewed research says. For example:

Richard Wilson's study that found solar activity to be increasing (a whopping 0.05%!) for two decades from the late 70's. If he had bothered reading his own link in it's entirety, he might've noticed it also said:

firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.

So if the slightest shred of truth or reality actually mattered to him, he would also have noted that since then, NASA confirmed we experienced "the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century".


Anyway you may also notice that he has an amazing gift for debunking himself in his own posts. Earlier in your thread - which is centered around the question of whether mainstream global warming projections are "alarmist" enough - he attacked this premise by pointing to all his fancypants papers on the Medieval Warming Period.

Of course a number of those papers made no claim about whether that period was warmer than today - they just pointed out that this period of somewhat comparable warming, sustained over a longer timeline, (i.e. one which we ourselves are only entering) was a period of noticeable drought.

So there you have it: your theories are clearly too alarmist because the MWP was a time of severe drought - aha!!

Wait, what>?


So if you want a good laugh and see this particular member in their finest hour, I would suggest having a read through this thread:
Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

He makes a total self-contradicting *** out of himself on the first page, and then spends the next 8 of them denying it and showing everyone on ATS he has absolutely no grasp on basic physics, or how the greenhouse effect even works.

But yeah, after discrediting himself from having any ability to think clearly or critically - he still loves to reinforce his delusions by debating these threads with all the tact of a bull in a china shop - and remind everyone what a self-declared expert he is on being able to ween out the real science from the cherry-picked propaganda...

Do you know I've even had other more respectable climate skeptics on here acknowledge to me that he is their resident "village idiot" - and to please ignore him as he is only a detriment to their cause.

That seriously takes a lot to have your own camp disown you in this fight lol.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Hey The_Liberator - since you're new to ATS I thought I should officially introduce you to our long-time resident climate troll.

...

Richard Wilson's study that found solar activity to be increasing (a whopping 0.05%!) for two decades from the late 70's. If he had bothered reading his own link in it's entirety, he might've noticed it also said

Lemme guess, Electric Universe/Muaddib? The perseverative regurgitation of the Willson solar data gives it away - told you the ignore button was useful!

Krivova and Solanki (along with many others) have shown that Willson's finding is due to the 'sewing' of the ACRIM-gap. Numerous lines of evidence show that there was no increase of minima, and Solanki & Krivova's analysis finds that all three TSI satellite datasets (ACRIM, PMOD, and IRMB) show a minor decrease (of around .1-.7Wm-2).

Krivova, Solanki, and Wenzler (2009)

Originally posted by The_Liberator
reply to post by arufon

 

I think it goes beyond that for most of the deniers on here. For some of them, reality is too scary to confront so it's easier to deny it...even if that means distorting the truth.

Others lack the ability to say, "I was wrong". You can see that over and over in their threads. No matter what evidence they are presented with, no matter how obviously they are debunked, they will just twist and turn facts in every which way to avoid being "wrong".

Haven't you ever known someone like that in real life? It is often deeply ingrained into their personality so deep that they don't even realize it. In fact, more often than not, they accuse US as being incapable of being wrong (projection).

Having a debate with someone like that is a dead end every time.

HHHHHEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!

ALRIGHT! WHOA !.... HOLD ON THERE TEX!![/B]

Try reading through this thread. Its the same 3 pages repeated for 30 pages! Only the details and links change slightly!

OK I'll take one for the team: Say I'm" too scared" :"why look ladies and germs it IS: "worser than the worseriest" worst!!!


FIRST:

WHAT CAN WE DO?

SECOND:
wHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO ?


admittedly I'm a paranoid skeptic: We exhale C02; I find it exceedingly dangerous to handover any absolute power to a world body to regulate what is essentially a Human exhalation.
ridiculous right??
We know all the anti-terrorism legislation is only targeted against those evil "foreign terrorists":
Somehow It's kind'a funny ; however returning U.S..veterans are considered a potential terror threat?
Legislation is dangerous.especially when the legislators are plainly out of our reach.( ie. thehague or other world hq.)

Originally posted by The_Liberator
reply to post by arufon

 

I think it goes beyond that for most of the deniers on here. For some of them, reality is too scary to confront so it's easier to deny it...even if that means distorting the truth.

i often wonder if the GW deniers have any clue as to the repurcussions of steadily increasing the atmosphere's
CO2 level...
>>The present level [of atmospheric CO2] is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and likely higher than in the past 20 million years

Originally posted by arufon

Originally posted by The_Liberator
reply to post by arufon

 

I think it goes beyond that for most of the deniers on here. For some of them, reality is too scary to confront so it's easier to deny it...even if that means distorting the truth.

i often wonder if the GW deniers have any clue as to the repurcussions of steadily increasing the atmosphere's
CO2 level...
>>The present level [of atmospheric CO2] is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and likely higher than in the past 20 million years

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


From your own paper:

That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.

As the poster above me (mc_squared) wrote, recent observtions proved Willsons hypothesis wrong. science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by 46ACE

admittedly I'm a paranoid skeptic: We exhale C02; I find it exceedingly dangerous to handover any absolute power to a world body to regulate what is essentially a Human exhalation. ridiculous right??

There is a fundamental difference between respiration, which is carbon-neutral (CO2 release from breathing organisms and CO2 absorbtion in plants are balanced), and carbon from fossil fuels, which is not balanced by any sink. Thats why green biomass fuels are carbon-neutral, even if they produce CO2 by burning. So relax, noone would be regulating respiration, it would be pointless to do so.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

Reduce fossil fuel usage, promote alternatives. I prefer direct fossil fuel tax, and raised money used for alternative energy producers and users subvention over Cap and trade, that is really a scam, designed to make the elite even richer.

Is anybody keeping score?
Stanz says:"xyz"
Stanz was debunked.!
That was his earlier study! before the wedgeworth corrections were removed.
"Got it all figured out hmm?When can we expect to see your book? or even a white paper?

1)What can we do?

2)What would you like us to do?


Buehler? Buehler?

I thought so.... "dead air":....
All the attentio rush is in:"dude dude DOOOD!! the house is on fire!
whoa dooooooood..
What to do?
Turn yourself over to your global masters for this months respiration ration tickets???
Hey I'm all for electric vehicles; but if we started today we wouldn't t have the energy to replace the"fleet".Seven gallons of oil in material in every tire plus all the other manufacturing energy inputs.

close the coal fired plants and replace them: with? "Nuclear"? France gets 80% of their power from nuclear.yeah the waste is hot.with today's technology, Can't do that environmentalist have clogged the approval process to a complete standstill.

I'm also all for wind.This a years yearly motorcycle tour was to Yellowstone,glacier and back to Wisconsin miles and miles of windy open spaces in north and south Dakota's; Montana and Wyoming. I could count the wind"mills" (not "wind farms")on one hand.

why aren't we building wind??? Because we are not doing everything we can before installing the worldwide energy/carbon taxes.

If we showed some positive results with things we can accomplish there'd be no need to scare the poulace into needing "world environmental control"!)

30pages of contradictory evidence"I remain more convinced than ever its about fear and control.