The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

reply to post by AndyMayhew


I somehow agree. I am an uncle to 6. The 3 of them got iPhones, and the rest got Androids... They spin the whole world around this phone. I ask them what do you see in that phone?

They answer: "Next weeks trends!"
"Like what", i ask?
"Their clothes, and a new color for the iphone!", thats whats its all about ---- i hear!
"Amazing piece of electronics" - i say - "how do you know that honey" ?
"because almost 1k people "like it" on Facebook, and they can't be wrong!"
"Ohh, i see. Interesting. So these 1k people know what matters then?"
"Stop with your conspiracies uncle! This is the new trend!"

i feel like im back in the 80s (as a young stud(pid), with holes in my jeans, and i know excatly what they mean... Or do i ?

Check out this page. It contains 1000 peer reviewed articles skeptical of AGW.

www.populartechnology.net...

reply to post by kloejen

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by poet1b

 

It's not my fault you failed to read the article you linked, that actually proved you wrong.

You really love attacking people and getting that little zinger in THAT badly, don't you? I mean...you've missed THE WHOLE POINT I'VE MADE to focus on a "zinger" totally out of context and out of place to what was said, to begin with.

If we can chat on topic, this is an interesting one. If this is another of your threads to just dump on anyone who does not agree with you...then I am sorry I wasted my time to even post this much on a subject i DO enjoy discussing.

That you must absolutely be so opposed to the idea that current global warming is caused by humanity, is a good indicator of irrational thinking. Thus the whole point of this thread.

Has it ever occurred to you to "just say no" to the urge to drop another insult or provocation into a reply? I've read down the thread and I know this is in NO way personal. You're doing it to many people.

It's not irrational thinking. It's a difference of opinion. Intelligent people can have them and still be intelligent people with educated opinions. Amazing to consider...but it happens every day. Even on THIS topic.

This is really quick for me...but I totally misread the purpose of the thread. I thought give and take discussion was more the idea than a trap to put down opinion..so I'll agree to disagree ..barring anything to really engage in constructive debate with.

I usually appreciate your input, but all I'm seeing here is a hostile, willful ignorance. You insult him about four times while in the same breath accusing him of being insulting. Not only do you insult him, but you turn downright vicious.

And his point was valid, after all! The link you provided, intended to substantiate your point in no small way, suggested pretty much the exact opposite of what you described it as suggesting. It was a mistake - just own it, and move on. We all make mistakes.

With Big Money funding both sides of the equation, it's of course difficult to know which science to trust. But considering the geopolitical stage at large, as I know you often do, it cannot be denied that the production and distribution of OIL is one of the most powerful forces of our time. From many distinguished perspectives it is THE force. So just using informed logic, it is quite likely that the hegemonic powers behind Big Oil outweigh the powers behind a still-theoretical model for Carbon Credits.

Could ALL of this climate science pointing towards AGW be manufactured for such a half-assed scam like Carbon Credits? The concept is so outlandish, almost cartoonish, that personally I can't see it ever having been a viable option.

Without Carbon Credits, what's left for greedy opportunism to infiltrate and skew the scientific data? Truly objectively weighing both sides of the equation here, it seems far more likely that Big Oil's propaganda is superior, and that AGW is indeed a reality. In my opinion.

reply to post by Son of Will


What you saw was something I should have known better than to even reply to, to start. I'm writing this only in clarification because I did leave this one rather abruptly. However, my challenge in debating well with a couple specific folks sometimes goes well outside and well before the current thread of a given moment. That's what I should have known better on. I figured I could get into a topic I'm very passionate about and totally ignore that other aspect.

My bad..and my apologies to those it bothered. It shouldn't have happened. With that..I exit stage left. (This was that 2nd thread another post of mine referred to this morning about too much passion with...if anyone had wondered what I meant)

*poof*

reply to post by Son of Will

With Big Money funding both sides of the equation, it's of course difficult to know which science to trust. But considering the geopolitical stage at large, as I know you often do, it cannot be denied that the production and distribution of OIL is one of the most powerful forces of our time. From many distinguished perspectives it is THE force. So just using informed logic, it is quite likely that the hegemonic powers behind Big Oil outweigh the powers behind a still-theoretical model for Carbon Credits.

Could ALL of this climate science pointing towards AGW be manufactured for such a half-assed scam like Carbon Credits? The concept is so outlandish, almost cartoonish, that personally I can't see it ever having been a viable option.

I think you have done an exception job of putting this into perspective.

I notice that I haven't gotten any response from those piling on about carbon credits as to why they can not see the ruse for what it is.

The zombie invasion has already started, its just not as bloody and obvious as in the movies.

poet1b
reply to post by AccessDenied

 

No, this is not a natural cycle.

Denying global warming at this point is like denying that the Earth is round, and orbits the sun.

Global Warming has brought us to temperatures not seen for over a million years.

A million years eh? Not seen eh? Not a cycle eh?

upload.wikimedia.org...

Looks like 5 cycles over 420,000 years to me. Scientists even call them cycles. Are you denying what scientists have called it?

Oh wait thats not a million years...

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

Hai there it is, 9 cycles over a million years. If you look really closely what do you see? A general cooling trend. Entropy. See how the troughs of the cold periods start off not even touching the bottom of the graph but as you move towards present day they do?

And before you go spouting off about look at present day co2 having a giant peak you should be aware that ice core bubbles take almost 100 years to form, melting and refreezing until they become permanently frozen. This would bring any peaks down and any troughs up. It would have the effect of doing some "averaging" on the graphs. But we have the ability to measure co2 precisely at present time in the atmosphere... There is no possible way to get a real temperature or co2 measurement from ice cores. You get an average of a little less than 100 years.

For people who believe in conspiracy theories you sure let this one slide in undetected. Probably because this is a "good" one. Makes you feel good to spread the lies when you think youre helping something.

Nice try though.

The 6 stages of real science...

w
wi
win
winn
winna
winnar.

poet1b
... global warming deniers on ATS.

"HIDE THE DECLINE" denier.

I'm not going to worship at the altar of Al Gore and feed into his Carbon Credit Scam
based on bogus science and name calling by the far left.

FlyersFan

poet1b
... global warming deniers on ATS.

"HIDE THE DECLINE" denier.

I'm not going to worship at the altar of Al Gore and feed into his Carbon Credit Scam
based on bogus science and name calling by the far left.

edit on 9/24/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

These same people cant see the cycles and try to convince people that co2 was a cause, which was then shown to be an effect, and now they try to convince people that its both...

Natural warming releases more water vapor from oceans. The most potent greenhouse gas there is. This warming then releases co2 (a fact they love to try and talk around), more water vapor vapor, more greenhouse effect, more of other greenhouse gases released until..... water vapor falls out of sky in droves, planet cools, ice age ensues. Never once has dry ice fallen out of the sky and reversed the warming. Its always water ice. Good luck living in Canada or the northern half of the US in the coming millenniums. Funny part is they tell you co2 warming will cause what? The freezing that will naturally occur anyway as it has 9 times in the last million years.

herp derp

For years I've bought the AGW theory and accepted that humans are the culprits in the (placed in context) rapidly changing climate. One thing always bothered me, however. That's the overlooked issue that it cannot be falsified. Why? Because we cannot falsify it one way or another without the ability to travel into the future and observe the outcome.

Of course, the science behind AGW is strong and consensus among climate scientists hovers around 97%. The don't solely base the theory on predictions or on faith, instead they try to base it on their understanding of the chains of evidence. So they spend much of their time proving the links between things that're in their models. For example, they know that albedo affects the ability of the surface to hold onto the heat because they've proven it. They also know that CO2 can trap heat because they've proven it in the lab. They've also proven that the CO2 in our atmosphere is the kind we're burning and not the kind we'd expect to be emitted naturally. The kind of things they've proven gets more and more complex, but in a roundabout way the whole theory relies on these things because without them the models cannot be trusted and would just be spaghetti that happens to predict things. Spaghetti is cheap and fast, but what happens when the short-term transitions to hte longer term and the predictions start failing? This is why the components in hte model have to be proven.

The problem is that proving something in a lab or in a short-term window of observations is not the same thing as the immense complexity of the earth systems and the large ranges of time. Controlled experiments do not capture this complexity and thus it makes me skeptical. Short-term observations of complex systems also inspire in me mistrust because they similarly do not capture the immensity of nature.

Still, there're many problems with the very things that're emitting so much Co2. For example coal power is thought to have killed upwards of 200,000 people every 10 years in the US before 2000. AFter 2000, because of new policies and changes to power plants, it's thought the number is upwards of 100,000 deaths every 10 years in the US alone due to emissions from coal power plants. Obviously, it's far worse in other countries, like China. This paints an ugly picture of fossil fuel and is not something the fossil fuel business wants as discussion. It also effectively puts the fears of nuclear power into context, since the deaths due to nuclear are estimated to be far less, even counting Chernobyl. Why have we given a green light to coal power to kill so many people and even to potentially - assuming the climate scientists are right - contribute so much to climate change? It's sanctioned murder.

In the end, I believe we will legislate this, assuming the planet doesn't start rapidly cooling, as some suggest it may. My skepticism will be overpowered in others by the fear of inaction. Fear is a large motivator in history and I expect it to play a large role with the human-induced climate change issue. Most people are NOT climate scientists, so sadly fear or blind belief will HAVE to be part of the driving force to get people behind it. When people see what they think is a train coming straight for them and they think their shoe is stuck, you bet they'll try to get themselves free and escape imminent doom.

All that being said, I do believe humans have a large influence on the world, there's no denying that. Extinctions are higher and we pollute and we engineer and frankenstein walks the earth. I just am not sure if it's wrong or right. When i was younger I was certain it was wrong. I was ready to curse my nature. But I'm older now and I believe we have to comprimise and acknowledge our limitations to change the nature of things. For instance, I mentioned coal powewr earlier being a major suspect in sanctioned murder. However, no matter what form of power we use to fuel our grid, it'll result in some deaths. Perhaps, in some twisted way, coal power is in fact the best possible outcome. This life pushes you through so many things and makes you jump through rings of fire.

Here are your choices....

A) Its a cycle. Planet will go into ice age. (yes i know that technically we re still in one, dont trip yourself up trying to sound smart)

B) People are messing up the system, planet will go into ice age.


Literally. These. Are. The. Choices.

Either way the outcome is the same. Now why would they take a known outcome and stick it to the end of AGW?

Take the end truth, add a lie to the beginning and when it happens they are right...even when theyre not.

?Profit?

People, yes including me sometimes, are easily fooled. A fool and his money are easily parted.

Good luck with the advancing glaciers.

FlyersFan

poet1b
... global warming deniers on ATS.

"HIDE THE DECLINE" denier.

I'm not going to worship at the altar of Al Gore and feed into his Carbon Credit Scam
based on bogus science and name calling by the far left.

Former politician Al Gore is to climate science what a 10 week old piece of lettuce, orignally off a MacDonald's burger, found at the bottom of a rubbish bin is to haute cusine

And arguably more palatable.

No-one seems to know why so-called sceptics keep on mentioning him, given that there are at least several million people on the planet today who know more about climate than he does, but it is hoped that some day we may understand this bizarre mystery. Current models suggest this may not be within our lifetime though

AndyMayhew
No-one seems to know why so-called sceptics keep on mentioning him

A NWO picture says a thousand words into the future.


He is certainly a tree hugging zombie.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


I figure everyone who goes after the Al Gore angle voted for GW, which is a solid indicator of their complete lacking in a grasp on reality.

Admitting Gore was right would probably make their heads explode.

reply to post by poet1b


" Admitting Gore was right would probably make their heads explode."


OK Popeye , you got some EXPLAINING to do on that Comment .

Please List ALL your reasons for Believing Al Gore is Right About Anything to do with the Alledged Theory of Global Warming in so Many Words........






i297.photobucket.com...

For anyone to take these claims of runaway man-made climate change seriously the Hurricane season should have been super active as the computer models predicted.

It's not the fact that we don't "understand the science" or are in "denial" about man-made climate change. It's the fact that you have to prove that the rate of change in climate is not natural and is man-made. You can't really do that based off of CO2 data. For the simple fact that volcano's are erupting underwater all the time releasing a exponential amount of CO2 beyond what us humans have even produced in the entire industrial age.

The results of the CLOUDS experiment at CERN proves beyond a doubt that all climate models were wrong up until that point because the experiment proved that clouds actually produce a negative feedback loop. Not the positive one that the models assumed it was. What else is wrong with those models? Well we know from leaked data that the leaders in the Man-Made climate change camp will fudge data to prove they are right.

Also, while correlation does not prove causation, in a few more decades of studying the sun and the earth climate temps I believe you will see the sun is the main driver of "climate change". When you look at the man-made temp data compared to the activity of the sun you see a strong correlation with rising temps and an active sun and not so hot temps with a sun not so active sun.

Besides sending us all back to third would status with carbon credits and the like isn't going to solve the problem of the Man-made climate change, because according to that camp it's too late and we are all going to die in a burning inferno on earth because we didn't act fast enough, anyway.

I still want to see the advancement in alternative energies and see electric cars become a huge success because electric motors have way more potential than the internal combustion engine. I also feel that we need to cut back on pollution and take care of our planet better, but we can do all those things without the need of a carbon credit scam that isn't going to do anything other than make us all poor and the rich extremely wealthy.

Take this quote for what it's worth, taken from Page 75 of The First Global Revolution , published by The Club of Rome in 1991:

Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised. In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

I don't know. Is it real? Maybe. Have we been completely and thoroughly manipulated? Absolutely.

reply to post by Timing


Great Post , you make very good sense there . BRAVO !

reply to post by poet1b


" The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible. "


Now , we all Know that is an UNTRUTH put forth by these Alledged U.N. Scientists , question is , what is their Real Motive Behind this " LIE " ?














www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by Timing

The results of the CLOUDS experiment at CERN proves beyond a doubt that all climate models were wrong up until that point because the experiment proved that clouds actually produce a negative feedback loop.

You may want to reconsider that claim. While CLOUDS did demonstrate that cosmic rays can produce aerosols in the middle regions of the troposphere, it did not demonstrate that those aerosols have any effect on cloud production.

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.

www.nature.com...

The forcing effect of clouds depends upon their type and altitude. Lower altitude clouds, like cumulus and stratus do have a negative forcing effect. However high altitude clouds (cirrus) have a positive effect.

When you look at the man-made temp data compared to the activity of the sun you see a strong correlation with rising temps and an active sun and not so hot temps with a sun not so active sun.

Are you talking about Solar irradiance or sunspot activity? If it is sunspot activity wouldn't temperatures tend to follow an eleven year cycle? If it is irradiance you are talking about can you provide some evidence of such a correlation?

because according to that camp it's too late and we are all going to die in a burning inferno on earth because we didn't act fast enough, anyway.

Who says we are all going to die in a burning inferno, exactly? I haven't heard that claim from anyone. That would be a bit of an outrageous strawman argument on your part, would it?