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.
Climate change might not be disputed..........but Man Made Global warming is HIGHLY disputed in the scientific community.....
In that regard I would disagree with you. It is the lunatic ramblings of individuals like this which provide ideas for governments to act on. She's certainly welcome to her ideas but they can influence other weak minds to jump on the bandwagon. What's next ?? public flogging or incarceration for non believers ?
She has a BS in Biology and a PHD in Sociology and because of those two extremely unrelated degrees
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
Climate change might not be disputed..........but Man Made Global warming is HIGHLY disputed in the scientific community.....
I am sorry bud but that simply is not the case. There are no scientific institutions in the world that dispute AGW.. Further the majority of peer revieed science supports AGW.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
I have been trying to make as little impact on the earth as I can possibly do over the last three years or so. I've cut down the thermostat and don't go out to the store unless I have to. I try to buy locally produced foods and tend my five acres trying to study what the native trees and weeds need to survive and thrive. I speak to others about conserving our resources when I meet them and discuss natural ways to keep healthy. The medicines we take enter the ecosystem so my best contribution is to study the medicines and find the forms in nature that the pharmaceutical companies capitalize on. I can't do much more than that without hurting the environment more than helping it.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by brill
In that regard I would disagree with you. It is the lunatic ramblings of individuals like this which provide ideas for governments to act on. She's certainly welcome to her ideas but they can influence other weak minds to jump on the bandwagon. What's next ?? public flogging or incarceration for non believers ?
Wow really,, just wow. The woman has a phd and in your eyes she is a lunatic. I have not seen an ability on your part to counter her argument.
In fact I doubt you have even read her paper, but have instead relied on second or third hand knowledge to form your opinion,.
Try countering and explaining why she is wrong instead of relying sensationalist fear tactics copy and pasted in your OP...
Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
I stand by my statement. All major scientific institution's support AGW. The problem with relying on second hand data as opposed to checking the source yourself is it is based on opinion.
The website you referenced is not based on fact. Check out the IPCC site yourself. There is a lot of information pertaining to AGW.
Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included
www.ipcc.ch...
So again I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is.. Name the 17,000 scientists or name the Scientific institutions...
Funny I dont see many names coming up regarding the 17,000 scientists. Nor do I see list of peer reviewed science to back these claims up..
Soz bud its hogswallop....
10 Dec 08 – More than 650 international scientists are about to make them selves heard at this week's UN global warming conference in Poland. They are there to debunk claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Many current and former UN IPCC scientists have put out a report that debunks global warming.
They say that it is all political hype, and point out that the earth may actually be cooling. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists.
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.
Their message to policymakers?
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:
I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Liberalism has been called a "mental illness" and I'd have to agree somewhat. The fact that this creature from the halls of academia is parroting the same comparison, it tells me that she is not savvy enough to engage in any serious debate beyond the liberal "I know you are, but what am I?" template.
Originally posted by ANNED
They took a normal climate cycle and doctored the data to make it look a lot worse and called it AGW.