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.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by MMPI2
you asked for a citation...i gave it. you immediately rejected it in a rather anti-intellectual manner.
did you even read the article? did you look at the graphs that were published by noaa and nasa, and were then deleted off of their websites?
yes, indeed. there is a sucker born every minute...especially those that buy into the global warming con.
I read the first couple lines of the "conspiracy".
an account created in september on godady had a chart up of nonsense that of course cannot be validated.
Sure, why not...lets go with that guy over the american science academy or the international science institute...
"that guy" is the truth...everyone else on earth is crazy
all hail "That guy".
What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored?
just want to see -your- angle on this.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SaturnFX
What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored?
just want to see -your- angle on this.
The majority agree we need to get off fossil fuel..
The MMGW is just a money making scam and actually takes attention away from the OTHER things that are polluting our planet..
The Governments should be encouraging alternative fuels but some say they are actually hiding them..
Like here in Australia, solar panels could be much cheaper but are taxed so high..
Why is that?? And if you attache your panels to the grid you actually pay more...
It's all a scam....
Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...
I may not know the true problem here.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7429e83c3818.jpg[/atsimg]
To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.
Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?
Originally posted by backinblack
Thanks FX..That graph clearly shows our current temp is at the LOW side of a 10,000 year trend...
Originally posted by mayabong
Why are mars's polar ice caps melting?
(hears crickets....)
What, in your opinion, are you fighting for? Are you for keeping to fossil fuels forever without finding new and clean energy sources? Are you suggesting corporate carbon emmissions should never be monitored? just want to see -your- angle on this.
It is generally acknowledged that global warming is occurring, yet estimates of future climate change vary widely. Given this uncertainty, when asked about climate change, it is likely that people’s judgments may be affected by heuristics and accessible schemas. Three studies evaluated this proposition. Study 1 revealed a significant positive correlation between the outdoor temperature and beliefs in global warming. Study 2 showed that people were more likely to believe in global warming when they had first been primed with heat-related cognitions. Study 3 demonstrated that people were more likely to believe in global warming and more willing to pay to reduce global warming when they had first been exposed to a high vs. a low anchor for future increases in temperature. Together, results reveal that beliefs about global warming (and willingness to take actions to reduce global warming) are influenced by heuristics and accessible schemas. Several practical implications are discussed.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...
I may not know the true problem here.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7429e83c3818.jpg[/atsimg]
To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.
Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?
Originally posted by mc_squared
Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by backinblack
You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...
I may not know the true problem here.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7429e83c3818.jpg[/atsimg]
To me, this doesn't seem too bad, however I am now interested enough to see just what is going on here.
Any meteorologists or earth science majors able to explain what I am seeing here and why its still a disturbing trend?
Can I ask where you got this graph? It seems to me to be one of those bastardized "skeptic" versions. Not only is the information exclusively from central Greenland, it also seems to be conveniently using the high end of uncertainties for natural variations while completely leaving out current trends. You can find more complete reconstructions here for example.
Also remember it isn't simply the amount of warming that's such a big concern, it's more the rate. Hence all the hoopla over the hockey stick:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9396cd11cf7c.png[/atsimg]
- edit because now that I took another look at it I also noticed the scale on the x-axis is completely off. According to that graph the "Medieval warm period" took place around the fall of Rome and the Little Ice Age (16th to 18th century) happened some 1000 before it was supposed to lol.
edit on 12-12-2010 by mc_squared because: makes you wonder how out of scale the y-axis is!
man the waters are muddy on this issue..some serious agendas being pushed on it appears both sides.
You surprised me!
Originally posted by SaturnFX
You know what...I am going to actually say something that will blow the collective mind of ATS...
I may not know the true problem here.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7429e83c3818.jpg[/atsimg]
Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% . Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.