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.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Gazrok
I could debunk that for you and have in the past, but if I do it... will you believe me? It would be better if you researched on whether what Forbes claims is true or not and see it for yourself.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Weather extremes tied to jet stream a river of air above earth that dictates much of the weather for the northern hemisphere has been unusually erratic, hence the 94 temperatures in Alaska,
Scientist don't know why it is doing this they have never seen it before
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Kali74
I've taken plenty of statistics....it is child's play to completely skew a survey. Perhaps that is the foundation for my cynicism? I KNOW how easy it is to skew for a desired result. I've read the papers (and quite familiar with academic papers and peer review), seen the math on both sides, and also seen plenty of papers about the methods used globally and over the last century, to record temperatures. Enough to know that the temperature records are highly flawed, so the raw data is flawed, and therefore any statistical analysis of them (even if done flawlessly) is going to be flawed.
And of course, the best data of all....that for the past 16 years, the alarmist's predictions have all been WRONG. So it is quite difficult to believe any of their predictions.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)
Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?
Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?
Click here for more: www.democratsagainstunagenda21......
Who are we?
We are engaged in educating ourselves, our peers, and our country about UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Form-Based Zoning, Green Energy Mandates, Carbon Offsets, Cap and Trade, Redevelopment and other programs that restrict our land rights and civil rights.
This vitally important information transcends party lines and illuminates much of what we have witnessed over the past two decades.
This is not a left or right issue. It's an American issue. The information on these sites will help you to identify what is happening in your town and to stop it.
Originally posted by DaMod
I personally do not understand why people are so loyal to the "man made climate change" concept.
This is not a sports team.. This is not your favorite band..
Originally posted by DaMod
This is merely a scientific concept to which does not demand loyalty.. In fact it demands due diligence and scrutiny.
Originally posted by DaMod
Any opponent to this concept no matter how respected they are in the scientific community is shunned for simply pointing out how inconclusive this concept really is..
Originally posted by DaMod
Climate change for all we know could very well be the result of a natural cycle that occurs over a period of time.
Originally posted by DaMod
A great example of this would be the Permian extinction..
The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.
The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.
The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.
Originally posted by swanne
reply to post by Indigo5
There is a difference between a popular weatherman, and a IPCC billion-dollars computer model upon which the World bases its energy policies and taxes.
Originally posted by Gazrok
There have been 5 Extinction Level Events, long before man entered the picture....where a large percentage of Earth's life went extinct. Somehow, I think that anything we humans do is going to pale in comparison with the next one, when it happens.
Originally posted by AkhenatenII
Hey skeptics...... when your are up to your knees in salt water get back to me.edit on 26-6-2013 by AkhenatenII because: spelling
Written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute and then leaked to The New York Times, the memo described, in the article's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'
.....
The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment.
.....
The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
....
In 2013, The Guardian revealed that two trusts, the 'DonorsTrust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund', operating out of a house in the suburbs of Washington DC, have bankrolled 102 think tanks and activist groups to the tune of $118m between 2002 and 2010. The conservative donors to these trusts are said to represent a wide range of opinion on the American right who have found common ground in opposing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.
They ensure their anonymity by funnelling the funds through the trusts, and the money flowed into "Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore," the report said.
The stream of cash was used to fund a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental initiatives and to wreck any chance of Congress taking action on climate change. The money funded a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a 'wedge issue' that benefits the hardcore right. Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has researched other networks of ultra-right donors, said, "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."