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: theantediluvian
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.
Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.
This quote from scientific American
If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.
That just means they are MORE hungry for money!
Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?
But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?
I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.
Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.
You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?
You choose to only follow one end of it.
If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....
There you go, being wrong again!
Of course money flows out of both sides.. but doesn't it seem suspicious that most of the vocal deniers are on the Heartland Institute's payroll — the same fake-science-whorehouse that has been serving big tobacco interests since the 90's? Or that one of their most notable "experts" with op-ed pieces in WSJ, Forbes, etc isn't even a scientist but rather a lawyer? (James M. Taylor) Or that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (even if you dispute the 97% figure), who receive funding from a multitude of sources, aren't deniers?
originally posted by: seeker1963
Someone already addressed the "SUN" which is also something that your scientists and cause refuse to address! Perhaps my skepticism is warranted because I don't jump on a cause blindly????
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
The earth is not a greenhouse and CO2 is not the problem. Junk science mixed with political ideology is.
~Namaste
originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
You will still deny global warming/climate change when you live in NYC and the sea lvel is up to your ass while ice caps in Antarctica/Arctica are melting *right in front of our eyes* and people in countries such as Australia are dying in staggering numbers due to skin cancer (incr. UV radiation due to ozon hole).
I guess it's the nature of ignorance...because I cannot think of a better example of IGNOR(e)-ance.
Also..hint: If you lack so much scientific basic understanding that you seriously think the aging/expanding of the sun has anything to do with climate change....you should not have an opinion. It's embarrassing to read.
Hint2: The issue of global warming/climate change is on the table LONG before Al Gore came even to the scene, there was already concerns/research about possible climate change when Al Gore was not even born.
WHY for God's sake must global warming be a political issue at all? Oh wait! It's because IT WAS MADE into a political issue..and now guess by whom and by why? It was made into a political issue by LEFT/RIGHT politicians of your wonderful bogus "two party system" where people are divided into two whether they like it or not.
OBVIOUSLY, there are only two outcomes...those who believe that man-made global warming may be real, which NOW are labelled the liberals, hippies, anti-american, whatever...and those who reject man-made global warming...which NOW are normally at the side of the conservatives : ) That this entire game is hideous, un-constructive and that no-one ultimately profits from having made this a political issue you obviously don't even realize?
originally posted by: MarlinGrace
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: theantediluvian
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.
Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.
This quote from scientific American
If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.
That just means they are MORE hungry for money!
Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?
But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?
I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.
Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.
You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?
You choose to only follow one end of it.
If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....
There you go, being wrong again!
Of course money flows out of both sides.. but doesn't it seem suspicious that most of the vocal deniers are on the Heartland Institute's payroll — the same fake-science-whorehouse that has been serving big tobacco interests since the 90's? Or that one of their most notable "experts" with op-ed pieces in WSJ, Forbes, etc isn't even a scientist but rather a lawyer? (James M. Taylor) Or that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (even if you dispute the 97% figure), who receive funding from a multitude of sources, aren't deniers?
I hope you don't take Bill Nye seriously. Money says you don't even believe 30,000 scientist either. Didn't Al Gores Global Warming invention happen just after his internet invention? I always get the two dates mixed up. I have said it many times now. Why is the answer for the US only 4.4% of the worlds population to make sacrifices for the entire planet to fix Global Warming/Climate Change?
I can't get this purple koolaid past my nose and pass the smell test to even take a drink of this concoction.
Now let's look at this petition site. At least they were courteous enough to provide a breakdown of the qualifications of the petition signers:
Of the 31,487 signers we have:
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
Medicine (3,046)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102) - 322 metallurgists! (ROFLMAO)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
Computers & Math (935)
The remaining categories are:
Chemistry (4,822)
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
Here are the only signers that might have some sort of claim to an expert opinion on this issue:
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
That's less than 2% of signers. Of those, the majority are meteorologists who are, again, not climatologists. In fact out of the 31,487 signers, only 39 of them are even claimed to be climatologists. That's what? 0.001% or so of the signers? What is this supposed to prove about what 97% of climatologists agree on?
Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it fraud. You were probably the type to argue the earth was still flat or that the earth was the center of the solar system when it was proved otherwise. May I know how exactly you've come to the conclusion that it is fraud?
It would mean you'll have to understand complicated 5th grade math involving averages (whooaaa! complex!). There is nothing scientists can do about that.
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation
The deep-sea sediment oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) record is dominated by a 100,000-year cyclicity that is universally interpreted as the main ice-age rhythm. Here, the ice volume component of this δ18O signal was extracted by using the record of δ18O in atmospheric oxygen trapped in Antarctic ice at Vostok, precisely orbitally tuned. The benthic marine δ18O record is heavily contaminated by the effect of deep-water temperature variability, but by using the Vostok record, the δ18O signals of ice volume, deep-water temperature, and additional processes affecting air δ18O (that is, a varying Dole effect) were separated. At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As other posters have presented, and as I have presented in my post in my signature, there is overwhelming evidence being ignored, that shows that temperature rises occur before CO2 does.
originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
The earth is not a greenhouse and CO2 is not the problem. Junk science mixed with political ideology is.
~Namaste
Will you deny there is a "greenhouse effect" basically over all major urban centers today, in the US as well as in China or Europe...where cities are literally choking under a cover a smog...caused by....well you guessed it...EMISSIONS and mainly Co2.
So I guess...the "smog warnings" which now are a reality on radio and TV and which did not exist, say, 20,30 years back...are just a fantasy?
Are you denying that SMOG exists...and are you denying that...say..in Asia, people now run around with protection covering their mouths/nose in the major cities...and there are "artificial sunsets" on LED screens since the sun is not visible anymore? It's a REALITY, not science fiction.
Would you also deny that if we would NOT have toxic emissions which are MAN MADE (car exhaust, industry pollution etc), mainly CO2 but also CFC, say if we would live in a pure "fantasy world" where all this doesn't happen...the above would not be the case. You *could* breathe freely in LA, Beijing etc...and you WOULD see the sun, many illnesses etc. would not even exist
How can you deny what is OBVIOUS right in front of your eyes?