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 saturnine_sweet
But comparing the ozone depleting abilities of CFC's to the "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide is misleading. CFC's directly interact with the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide and its potential effects involve far more complex processes.
For instance, the most popular way to explain it is that increased carbon dioxide traps more heat....now, going off the top of my head, if I remember right, the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment is around the scale of 0.3%. As you can see, that does give some difficulties with having enough particle density to have a greenhouse effect.
Also note, as show here man made carbon dioxide comprises a very small amount of the actual carbon dioxide level. What does this tell us? One, that carbon dioxide has little to do with warming trends, and two, that man-made carbon dioxide isnt the problem. If you want to address rising levels, proper action would be to stop the destruction of rainforests, etc. That is where the rise in carbon levels comes from, more than anything. What we contribute is merely a drop in the bucket.
Why would there be so many scientists saying otherwise? Well, lets see...where does funding come from? Politicians...and who are the greatest proponents of GW? Politicians...it's politics, people, not truth.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions...Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
Why would there be so many scientists saying otherwise? Well, lets see...where does funding come from? Politicians...and who are the greatest proponents of GW? Politicians...it's politics, people, not truth.
You give me a link to an article about the IPCC...A POLITICALLY ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION, funded by...the UN....which is what? A political organization. Who recently refuted the claims of the IPCC? Former scientists who said what? That it was all political...
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Somehow I don't think they will be saying it's all nothing to worry about anytime soon, else all that funding goes away.
That reeks of the claims made about evolution, as well. All scientists agree on evolution, because any scientist who doesnt, is not considered a scientist by those who do, and no material that dissents is allowed for publication in science journals.
that first link I posted makes it pretty clear how insignificant the human contribution to greenhouse gases are. Thats without even getting into the science of how much effect carbon dioxide levels could even be having. The fact alone that man-made carbon is such a low percentage DOES show that rainforest destruction has more to do with rising carbon than SUVs and factories, because it shows an increase in natural carbon levels.
Again, examine the facts, not the spin, not the conjecture, not the inference.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I give up. Its like talking to a room full of parrots. Or, more accurately, evangelists.
Here's a fine example...melatonin just stated that humans, by his data, are responsible for 3-8% of warming. Well, the global temperature has changed .4 C vs the "average' (which is, in and of itself, inferred and shaped by opinion) since 1860 (which is the oldest data I came across.) Thus, we are responsible for a .012 C - .032 C change in 150 years. The world is going to end, indeed.
As for not understanding science, sure I do. Some funding goes to climate research when there is a possibility for concern. BILLIONS will be going into it if these interest groups (like IPCC) can sell their apocalypse! So yes, it certain DOES benefit them to sell their myths. They can have limitless funding AND save the world! Hurrah for manbearpig!
Genetics and thermodynamics and information science all refute dawinism, neo-darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. My point was that man-made climate change is along the same lines, in that its an unassailable faith in the eyes of the vocal majority of the science community. However, "sanity is not statistical."
My point with rainforest destruction vs "fossil fuels" is that all the political action to stem the "coming apocalypse" is bent on penalizing the successful, not stopping deforestation
even though that is obviously more of a problem. I was thinking you might see the obvious, but in case you missed it...thats more evidence of political motivations. Who pushes climate fear the most? Socialists. Who do socialists target? The "unjustly" wealthy of the world. Even though they, themselves, are usually amongst that group. But no, there's no political motivation....
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Just had to toss this in there...a link to atmospheric composition...as you can see, the variable gas CO2 comprises 0.036% of the atmosphere's composition. Now, obviously thats a VERY small amount. Now, look at that deeper. It's variable, both in the amount at any given time, and the amount per location. When talking on the scale of 0.036%, exactly how hard is it, do you think, to skew your results according to where and when and how you obtain your measurements? Not saying it necessarily happened with this measurement, but on that small of a scale, even unintentional error in regards to control measures can greatly increase results.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I give up. Its like talking to a room full of parrots. Or, more accurately, evangelists.
My point with rainforest destruction vs "fossil fuels" is that all the political action to stem the "coming apocalypse" is bent on penalizing the successful, not stopping deforestation, even though that is obviously more of a problem.
I was thinking you might see the obvious, but in case you missed it...thats more evidence of political motivations. Who pushes climate fear the most? Socialists. Who do socialists target? The "unjustly" wealthy of the world. Even though they, themselves, are usually amongst that group. But no, there's no political motivation....
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Now we progress to personal attacks in the face of data.
I was being generous by just comparing to to temperature change.
It would be even less, if I were to go through all the steps to convert the hypothetical effect into correlating percentages for temperature increase.
oh god, PLEASE RESEARCH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Snowflakes are a result of entropy. For order to spring from nothing, you have to break those laws. Sorry. That argument is a result of philosophical scientists who don't understand the processes of thermodynamics. And, in terms of information science, snowflake do not gain information, either. They lose information (and heat, in terms of thermodynamics,) and their patterns are the result of this.
In the end, Im not seeing science from you. Im seeing opinion. Bring some science, I'll refute it. If you want more specific backing of any particular point I made, ask for it. But personal attacks are what people resort to when they can't refute facts. I have no agenda but truth. I just believe in dealing with reality as it is, rather than making up stories to fulfill my lack of confidence in my own thoughts and perceptions concerning life.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
wow, more personal attacks. backed by your faith in science. No, scientists don't falsify data! There never was a piltdown man....no man named...what was it..Hei Suk Hwang...ever faked cloning...no one ever skewed the "hocky stick" temperature data from NASA...right. Strangely akin to a christian saying god is always good, and if he seems bad, we just don't understand it.
Yes, we can measure elements down to PPB. I know this. This is relevant how? I can measure down to PPB my daily bowel movements, but that doesnt mean there's that much biological waste in the atmosphere.
most of who are actively trying to prove an hypothesis concerning man-made global warming...are taking samples that accurately reflect the overall atmosphere.
Repeatability can ensure some accuracy in many cases, but establishing any control is likely to be as much guesswork as it is hard science.