Editor-In-Chief Resigns, Blows Gaping Hole In Climate Denier Alarmism

reply to post by OrchusGhule


Finally...exactly what i've always said...

Thank you.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by MasterGemini

 

The answer to your question is simple - naturally we are headed to an ice-age. But this process takes thousands and thousands of years.

The reason we are getting warmer instead is because that warming is anthropogenic.


The "they said in the 70's we're heading for an ice age" meme is just more evidence that current warming is indeed man made.

Bull, bull, and more bull. MAN IS NOT AFFECTING THE CLIMATE! The conceit of humans is just beyond belief. So here are the numbers:

Number of cubic miles contained in the atmosphere from the surface of the Earth to 5 miles:
4,907,231,315 cubic miles

Space occupied by all the humans on earth:

"Well if there are 6 billion and I think there are, and water weighs 62.5 lb per cubic foot and people weigh about the same and most people weigh less than 120 lb and we take 2 cubic feet for each, then it would be 6,000,000,000 x 2 or 12,000,000,000 cubic feet. or 1067 x 1067 x 1067 feet. or a mile square piled 43 feet high."

ALL THE HUMANS ON EARTH TAKE UP A 1 MILE SQUARE PILED 43 FEET HIGH"

So the atmosphere is comprised of almost 5 BILLION CUBIC MILES and every human on earth and most of the animals could be put in a "box" ONE mile on a side and you Gore Cult idiots are going to try and convince me or anyone that we affect the climate?

STUPID BEYOND BELIEF!!!

Put Al Gore and the climate scammers in jail!!

Originally posted by OrchusGhule
The global warming debate is entirely irrelevant considering what is being done to the planet's ecology. If global warming is a reality, then it is just an obvious sign of what we already know, that humans are systematically destroying the ecology of planet earth. If global warming is not a reality, then the fact remains that humans are systematically destroying the ecology of planet earth. Regardless of the debate, there is no disputing the fact that every ecosystem on the planet is in moderate or severe decline. No honest scientist will dispute this.

Global warming, therefore, is not the problem. It is a symptom. The actual problem is the ever increasing and unchecked extraction, exploitation, and waste of every resource available.

Yes, stopping this process will destroy the "economy" as it is currently. Yes, stopping this process will likely require a reduction in human population and a return to some type of equilibrium with the ecological systems on earth. There is only one reason human population has reached this level, and it is due only to our resource use system, which is based upon infinite growth, an exponential function.

You can not have infinite growth within a finite space. If you attempt to argue against this truth, you are insane, dumb, or both. The obvious, but typically overlooked fact about this is that eventually, one way or another, it all has to end.

Who gives s**t if the ice caps have melted when all rivers, lakes, and oceans are polluted and depleted? Who gives a s**t if its 120 degrees most of the time if all plains are scorched, all forests clearcut, and all mountains flattened? Global warming or no, it does not really matter when there is nothing left but dead soil and toxic waters. And if you don't think we are working real hard for that, just go to China and walk around in their industrial areas, if they will even let you in.

Why have the so-called "elite" chosen global warming as a flash point? Because you can't act on it. There is not s**t you can do about it on a personal level. Its a distraction, and you are all falling for it. You sit here bitching back and forth about global warming, doing nothing, while just down the street a factory is spewing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals in your local river, and you don't even know about it, nor do most people even care, because its much easier to sit around and debate a meaningless subject, achieving nothing. Meanwhile, the people who have distracted you with global warming are continuing their rampant destruction of all ecosystems and all biodiversity.

End: rant.

edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2011 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)

You ar righteoclogical damage is the big issue, which is precisely why global warming is NOT irrelevant becasue thats where all the money is going,billions wasted that could be funding other things that realy matter.

If the AGW believers were serious, they'd be doing everything they could to end the wars of empire. If they were true environmentalists, there would be crowds of protesters choking the streets of every major city in the world, trying to stop the wars. The average person might care about these things, but those at the top could not care less.

Try removing the profit motive and stop pushing depopulation and deindustrialization and you might gain back some measure of credibility. Until then, the AGW theory is just another scam imho.

reply to post by Muckster

I was reading a story on this yesterday. Great thread and i liked your insight

Hey thanks Always good to see a nice (and sane) post amongst the standard fare of trolly rants this topic inspires.

It really is amazing how much propaganda has overwhelmed even basic common sense in this discussion isn't it?

I am equal parts fascinated and of course mortified by it. I agree the main culprit is human greed but I think it's also more than that - It's almost like a cocktail of all the worst qualities our species has to offer: greed, apathy, vanity, anger, fear, and last but not least plain unfortunate ignorance (and the fact that people often really do consider it bliss sadly).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/531a9728f926.jpg[/atsimg]

The oil company’s and corporate giants (Some of the most greedy people on the planet) have done an amazing job, when you think about it...

I think it's even more amazing when you consider the fact they've actually done a really poor job - in terms of hiding their motives, covering their tracks, etc (the evidence is obvious and everywhere, for anyone who just chooses to look), and yet this disinformation campaign has managed to work so well anyway.



I mean - get me started on this topic and I'll go for hours! I can show you leaked memos where fossil fuel companies have created fake scientific organizations, and clearly stated their intentions to "reposition" global warming as theory and not fact:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7678c8350a88.jpg[/atsimg]



Exxon in particular has their dirty fingers in this so deep that there's an entire website dedicated to all funding they've provided: Exxonsecrets.org



I've done threads showing their paid off shill scientists admitting out of their own mouths where their paycheques come from:

Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil



And these phonies of course represent the vast minority of climate scientists, with numerous peer-reviewed studies showing a 97-98% consensus:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Expert credibility in climate change

Yet they've managed to convince so many people that it's more like 50-50, just by screaming loud enough.




It's also funny how little research (+ a bit of reading between the lines) it actually takes to get to the bottom of the story here. You can go to Wikipedia for example and note that every single major scientific organization in the world has acknowledged and mainly endorsed the serious gravity of man made climate change. Until recently however there was one that held out -
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Shocking huh?

However, even they had to change their position after many of their members threatened to quit if they didn't.

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.

So it's good to know even "a significant number" of petroleum geologists still have ethics


But of course according to the brainwashed deniers, none of those people do - they're just saying this stuff because they ALL take their cheques straight from Al Gore.

So we can't trust them! We can only trust the oil companies and the right-wing plutocrats who are trying to protect our precious freedoms. Our freedoms that revolve around remaining an inefficient, overconsuming and morally bankrupt society completely dependent on the finite resources that they control and make themselves obscenely wealthy off of. Yeah, that makes so much sense it hurts. It really does

reply to post by SavedOne

Feel free to rebut arguments, but the personal attacks really need to stop..

Ok, absolutely, I agree. But do you not see the crazy hypocrisy in the rest of your post?

This is the problem with the global warming alarmists, they get their panties into such a wad that they can't rationally discuss the subject without resorting to name-calling and it just makes them look like a bunch of emotional crybabies. I try to read both sides of the argument and remain objective, but when the alarmists engage in that stuff it's hard to take them seriously.

Yes you sound very "objective" there. I mean, are you unaware that this sort of respect is a two-way street, or do you just not care?

This is kind of the subtle point behind my OP - anyone who acts like a true skeptic and displays the ability to discuss the subject lucidly and rationally I will gladly respect and even appreciate.

But the topic is always almost automatically hijacked by deranged ranting and authoritative hyperbole, unapologetically stubborn ignorance, pointless pissing contests, etc - so it's really no surprise it quickly degrades into what it is, unfortunately.

reply to post by mc_squared


Hey mc-squared, if you hate oil so much why in the hell are you using a computer made up of plastic which comes from oil by products?...

Stop using your pc already... Go ahead and live inside a cave please, and stop with your lies, and deception, which you continuously post, over, and over, and over.

Why are you using clothes, plastic and all the wonders of industrialization if you hate them so much?

Obviously you hate the environment since you, and your idols want to sequester atmospheric CO2, which is what plants and all green biomass need for food.

You are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who want to push your lies, and deceptions on others to further your agendas.

If you really want to make a true change and in the meanwhile help mankind and nature, stop claiming CO2 is bad and causes "extreme warming" because there is no proof to such a lie.

Instead of wanting to sequester atmospheric CO2 start a company that will gather the plastic in the oceans, or ask your hollywood stars, which are a mayority liberals, to put their money together, alongside the money from Gore, and Hansen, who are richer than most of the rest of mankind, and demand for them to start a company that will clean up the plastic island in the pacific.

Or demand instead for companies to stop releasing toxic chemicals instead of siding with the elites to tax atmospheric CO2 so every human on earth that is not rich can be taxed to death...

Please go ahead and move to whatever tree is nearest you and stop using your AC, and your heater, and your warm/hot water... Stop using your paste, and your plastic toothbrush...

But, STOP demanding for everyone else to do so, and STOP demanding for a beneficial gas, which is what CO2 is, to be sequestered when this will cause even more global starvation...

We know people like you don't care about humans, and people like you don't care if poor people have to unfortunately burn wood to stay warm, or to cook...

We know you don't really care about the environment since you want CO2 sequester, when all green biomass on Earth needs MORE atmospheric CO2 than what exists at present.

Stop trying to sell the lie that you are doing it to save the world, all you people want is to have more power, and for people to be pushed into doing what YOU want.

Stop posting threads, and responding to threads since you are creating more, and more pollution...

But of course you are not going to do any of that, after all, what you really care for is to annoy, and to push people to accept your lies and deception....

Originally posted by mc_squared
...
It's also funny how little research (+ a bit of reading between the lines) it actually takes to get to the bottom of the story here. You can go to Wikipedia for example and note that every single major scientific organization in the world has acknowledged and mainly endorsed the serious gravity of man made climate change. Until recently however there was one that held out -
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Shocking huh?

...

Really? You forgot to mention that scientists have come forward stating that a lot of scientific groups are not even asking their scientists members what they think, but the directors, whom are only from 6 -14 or so are the ones posting "all scientists agree with us" when they didn't ask the rest of the hundreds, and thousands of scientists in each group about it.

I have started threads showing this, and the reponses from hundreds of scientists, and you actually tried to claim this is not true...

Even the IPCC has done this, and several scientists have tried coming forward to tell the world that AGW and in general Climate Change has become POLITICIZED...

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC)



Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.
...

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Of course when this is shown to members like "mc-squared" such members have the audacity to claim all these scientists are "paid off by oil companies"...

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

www.newswithviews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. John Christy, will be the keynote speaker at Directions Media's Rocket City Geospatial Conference next week. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize last Friday (Oct. 12), along with former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, for its work on bringing attention to climate change issues. Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is skeptical of some of Gore's work on the issue. "Climate has evolved from a topic dealt with by a few bookish, pocket-protector scientists to a multi-billion dollar industry that has begun to drive legislative policy on Capitol Hill, to embolden high-profile environmental activists... and to create anxiety among the largest industries (and thus people) of the world."

L ink

BTW, I am not being paid by any "oil companies to post any of this", but I am tired of egomaniacs who want everyone else to do what they do, and want to push their agendas on others based on lies, and deception...

Then there is the lie that 2000+ scientists participated in the IPCC reports and they all agree, when the truth is very far from this lie...

Here is part of the statements made by Prof. Reiter as he testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005. Prof. Reiter also withdrew from the IPCC for similar reasons that Chris Landsea withdrew, as well as other scientists.

Here is part of what he had to say about the section to which he was asked to be a contributer for the IPCC report.

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

www.nationalpost.com...

A fact that many people are not aware of is that most of the so called "experts in Climate Change" are in fact not experts at all. Only a few of the authors of the IPCC were really scientists which have studied Climate Change. Over 1,250+ of the contributors for the last IPCC report were environmentalists, environmental activists, policymakers, and a myriad of other groups and government representatives who were only trying to force people to believe that we must act now by giving them billions of dollars if they were going to stop Climate Change...

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html


and what have we caught the AGW doing?...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

And what is the real goal of the AGWists?...

The following link, and article comes directly from Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist and author.

November 21st, 2009

The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).

Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.

The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.

At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which peoples energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.

Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.

Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.

The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.

A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.

The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?
.........

www.drroyspencer.com...

Trenberth's Retro Climate Claims

Trenberth is living in 2006 or 2007 America when the media used to believe uncritically the UN claims and never questioned the "man behind the curtain." The science is disintegrating so fast that even climate activists are now openly lamenting the entire man-made climate fear movement. See: Climate Activists Shock Admission: 'Climate change campaigners should not have fixated on carbon dioxide' -- 'only responsible for about half of the problem' - Sept. 18, 2009

In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat.

It's time Trenberth got a badly needed reality check, which of course Climate Depot is only too happy to provide.

A small sampling of recent developments include: new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm.

The year 2009 saw a report from 35 international scientists directly countering the UN IPCC's scientific claims. See: “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” This year also saw the flow of peer-reviewed scientific papers continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. as well. See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”

Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

For more complete analysis see: Science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse – August 26, 2009

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UNs claims and its scientific methods. (Presumably, these skeptical UN scientists did not get Trenberths memo on how to avoid being "poorly informed.")

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.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD 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 UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' - September 30, 2009 - 'We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority' - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 - Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“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 UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” - declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN 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.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: 'We're not scientifically there yet' - July 16, 2009

Trenberth's claim that the UN IPCC is an "very open" also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn't it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. 'Peer review' developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean's research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." McLean's study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

....................

Link

reply to post by mc_squared


Thanks MC_Squared, I’ve actually followed a lot of your threads/posts and I used to create a few of my own on this subject. Unfortunately there are a few on ATS (I will not mention names but I am sure you know who I mean) who, rather than debating in a sensible manner, simply spam post after post on nonsensical opinions and corporate sponsored "facts".
It’s a shame but they simply kill the thread with spam... drowning out anyone else’s message/opinion so that you reply’s get lost in a sea of waffle.

It amazes me that some people have the time to spam threads with this amount of worthless information... and I can’t help but wonder what their motives are and who they represent. How many are paid activists?? Or maybe just highly opinionated people with no life/job to occupy them!
These people do not win debates with the quality of their posts but with the quantity... and that’s a shame. Until ATS can do something about the individuals who do this, this topic is dead in the water on ATS. However, I am glad to see that you are still fighting the good fight and I always enjoy reading your threads. So, many thanks to you MC_Squared for doing a grand job and not giving up


Peace

The biggest "gaping hole" in Man Made Global Warming is the weather itself.

I just checked the weather...like I do every morning...you know, cup of coffee...hit the headlines...check the weather.

In Raleigh, NC on Sept.4...in 1948...it was 100 degrees...record high...same in 1949...

In 1993..it was 95 degrees...

Now in 2011...today, mostly sunny...less humid ...high of 82...yup...HIGH of 82...

In fact the rest of the week we will be in the 80s..lows in the 60s...almost cool for summer in the "sunny south"

In fact, I'm kinda pissed it's not hotter 'cause it is still summer and I love hot days and cold beer.

Until we start seeing something with some concrete consistancy as far as warming goes... I still believe the whole thing is horse stuff.

once again we have the Big oil funds skeptics and real people who care for the enviroment fund the alarmists.

When will people wake up that both sides of the argument are being funded by the same group.

there is not 1 man who owns BP and not 1 man owning the clean energy, they are big corperations funded by the same groups who want to get you to argue like school children about who has the tougher father.

Wake up and look at the bigger picture, sure we do need to reduce our consumption and be less wasteful, but what we dont need is goverments telling us that they intend to introduce carbon taxes and ETS's as these are what are planned and will do nothing to save the planet as large corperations are corrupt and greedy anyway.

Support global warming if you want, but dont support a carbon tax or ETS

reply to post by Muckster


You seem to think Al Gore isn't corporate. . . .

He is on the board of directors for Apple, the least environmentally friendly company on the planet.
Oh he also works for Google.

What does that say about ol' ManBearPig?

investor.apple.com... (scroll down a little)

Apple named 'least green' tech company
www.guardian.co.uk...

Apple attacked over pollution in China
us.cnn.com...

The guy wants power and he will do anything to get it. He clearly does not give a damn about the environment or else HE would have been the change he wanted to see in this world.

Too bad others don't recognize this and keep saying is a good honest person when he clearly is not.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Thanks MC_Squared, I’ve actually followed a lot of your threads/posts and I used to create a few of my own on this subject. Unfortunately there are a few on ATS (I will not mention names but I am sure you know who I mean) who, rather than debating in a sensible manner, simply spam post after post on nonsensical opinions and corporate sponsored "facts".
It’s a shame but they simply kill the thread with spam... drowning out anyone else’s message/opinion so that you reply’s get lost in a sea of waffle.

Word.

Well thanks for sifting through the sea of waffle as well

I am familiar with your posts also and have had you on my friends list for a while now (friends list is great for identifying posts I know are actually worth reading in the sea of waffle).

As for the certain someones we are not allowed to name - I of course know exactly who you mean. I think their sociopathic spamming is more a desperate attempt to convince themselves of their own lies than anyone else. I usually take the approach that the more they spam my thread, the more it means I hit the nail a little too close to the head for their liking - so I actually take it as a compliment more than anything at this point.

But you're right, these people have pretty much decimated ATS with their obsessive compulsive ranting - and something should definitely be done about it.

reply to post by MasterGemini

You seem to think Al Gore isn't corporate. . . .

He is on the board of directors for Apple, the least environmentally friendly company on the planet.
Oh he also works for Google.

ok... and when exactly did i mention Al Gore?? Did i ever say he wasn’t corporate???

Please provide me with the quote that will validify your comment!


Peace

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by mc_squared

 

The oil company’s and corporate giants (Some of the most greedy people on the planet) have done an amazing job, when you think about it... they have convinced many people that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by greedy Nazi greenies who want nothing but your money... Where as they (the corporates) are simply looking out for your freedoms lol

Corporate giant = Google / Apple = Al Gore on both accounts.

See what I am saying now?

reply to post by MasterGemini


What is with constant obsession with Al Gore - did he come up with the science? I already showed you a paper from 1896 and a video from 1958 (when Gore was 10) talking about Global Warming. Did Al get to these people too? He really must be powerful - no wonder he brainwashed me so well! lololol.

All I ever see is "skeptics" obsessing over Al Gore talking about how much "believers" are apparently obsessed with him.


All you conspiracy theorists who think AGW is a conspiracy because Al Gore made a movie about it - especially the right-wingers - I have one for you: I guess that means we should all just believe the official story about September 11th, because Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 9/11.