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.

 

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Another article that is close related to this topic:


Fox & Friends producer wanted to talk about future trends. I said #1 will be impacts of climate change. I was told to pick something else.

— Michael Moyer (@mmoyr) April 30, 2014


Huffington Post: Science Editor: Fox News Told Me Not To Talk About Climate Change

On the bottom of article, just go through 'Connect the Dots'. It is not that hard and you might figure something out... Everything is connected and make sense only if you look from global perspective...




posted on May, 1 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I guess all the climate change deniers left to go finally study up on a subject they knew nothing about.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Many scientific theories are eventually proven wrong:
www.theguardian.com...

Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.

More scientists who are not Warmists:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Your link isn't working.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

Sorry about that, must be wrong URL tag.

Here is link: www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.


Apparently you've ignored all 'correlated' graphs of increased warming, increased CO2, increased methane, and decreased solar energy.

I guess 97% of climate related scientists simply assume correlation without evidence, because that's how science works apparently.

EDIT:

Your list of scientists claiming warming isn't real doesn't exist. So, not unexpected.
edit on 2-5-2014 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: Matt1951
Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.


Apparently you've ignored all 'correlated' graphs of increased warming, increased CO2, increased methane, and decreased solar energy.

I guess 97% of climate related scientists simply assume correlation without evidence, because that's how science works apparently.


yes, it would appear that 97% of those people don't know how the scientific method works or are all in on the biggest conspiracy ever! But...let's apply Occam's razor for a moment...But it's bigger than that. Look at all the other prominent scientists, physicists, microbiologists, astrobiologists, astronomers, doctors...They mostly all think the same thing too so...the largest conspiracy ever with a cast of millions and the jaw dropping ineptitude of most of the world's scientists continues. but back to Occam's razor...the among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Yes, sure you could say Solar Energy eminating from the Son is sooo simple. That's the answer but that's not what I mean. I mean.. does it take fewer assumptions and is it simpler if a. All of those thousands of scientists and millions of support personnel many of them with PHDs and Doctorates..are wrong and or in on the largest conspiracy on earth or b. They are right and not part of the largest conspiracy and largest case of ineptitude ever in the history of the world and that there will always be a small percentage of legitimate scientists with differing opinions on most theories and that the rest of those sleezebags are in the pocket of huge fossil fuel companies.

I'm going with Occam's Razor with this global warming thing.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
The Farcical and ridiculous IPCC


Global warming is 'almost definitely' caused by humans, UN report claims
Finalised version of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has been released
Co0nsists of 1,500 pages of text, 600 diagrams and cites 9,000 publications
Warns CO2 has reached levels unprecedented in at least 80,000 years and scientists are 95% certain that man is to blame for global warming


Global Warming - Man Made

What a load of rubbish! The fact that temperatures have barely risen in the last 20 - 30 years would dissuade them from continuing this nonsense. You would think!

So if "Global Warming" was being caused by Humans the why are the other planets heating up? Are there large populations of people we don't know about living in our solar system?

You advocates of the Global Warning farce can throw all the scientific crap as much as you want but in actual fact Global Warming being man made is absolutely stupid. And all that crap is backed up by more stupid crap. Like reports from the IPCC saying people should stop eating so much baked beans...........LMAO

Baked Beans and Global Warming

Do they actually think there are people out there that believe all that rubbish?

Oh yeah! There are some idiots in here!



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: Matt1951
Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.


Apparently you've ignored all 'correlated' graphs of increased warming, increased CO2, increased methane, and decreased solar energy.

I guess 97% of climate related scientists simply assume correlation without evidence, because that's how science works apparently.

EDIT:

Your list of scientists claiming warming isn't real doesn't exist. So, not unexpected.


Warming halted 16 years ago, while man made CO2 increased. So there is no correlation. The high priests of Global Warming were predicting a tipping point where we would have runaway warming. This included the Prophet Gore. I presented two different lists, so which one are you claiming does not exist? Both lists do exist, although they both go against the Church of Global Warming.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
Warming halted 16 years ago


The very premise of your argument is false. Warming hasn't halted at all, mean global surface temperature is still increasing.

Eccentricity causes confusion in those who don't bother to study up. Winters are colder and shorter, Summers are warmer and longer. Just because winter is more harsh, doesn't mean the planet isn't still warming.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

originally posted by: Matt1951
Warming halted 16 years ago


Warming hasn't halted at all, mean global surface temperature is still increasing


No.

This is from a Warmist site:
www.climate.gov...
"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951


i like how in that report they say, that, El Niño and La Niña effect the worlds climates, causes it cools and warm. but that in the end after it has nothing to do with global warming and that eventually the warm water will rise and still cause global warming.




The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.


we've known about at least since the 19th century, and the people in central , north, and south america have known about a lot longer than that. i dare place all along any pacific coast have known about for a long time.


Is El Niño something new and unusual in the Earth's climate?
No. El Niño has been occurring at least since people started putting thermometers in the ocean around the middle of the nineteenth century.Moreover, archived documents left by the Spanish colonists in Peru confirm that El Niño impacts such as occur now (flooding, marine life disturbances, etc.) have been felt in Peru ever since the first conquistador (Francisco Pizarro) set foot there in the early 16th century. And, as far as we can tell from paleo-climatic indicators such as geological evidence & tree rings, El Niño has been occurring for at least thousands of years, probably much as it has during this century. It will probably continue to occur as long as our climate system works the way it has since the most recent ice sheets of the late pleistocene receded (i.e., needing to get rid of excess tropical heat as explained in the question Does El Niño play a special role in Nature?).
Frequently Asked Questions About El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)


another thing that has always bothered me is the fact that early thermometer were probably not that accurate, and i would believe that any recorded temps before say 1940 would be off. i say this because in the business that i use to be in, we used thermometers to check ovens, coffee machines, ice makers,motors and all kinds of stuff. and every few years there would be new calibration methods and thermometers come out.

here is a Q&A from the same people ( NOAA) that you posted, about El Nino. same link as in the above quote.



• So, will the global warming due to greenhouse gases (exhaust from our cars and factories) cause ENSO events to become more frequent or more severe?
. We don't know that for certain. Some studies suggest this may be true while others cast doubt on the idea Part of the problem is that natural changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO events have occurred in the last five centuries for which records exist, and it is hard for us to distinguish those from recent characteristics that might otherwise be attributed to greenhouse warming. This is also a subject of great interest in research. Unfortunately, while ENSO intervals are well matched to the political time scale that governs our research funding (3-4 years), global warming is not. On the weather effects of El Niño:
•Do weather patterns change during El Niño? Absolutely, and rather drastically in the case of the stronger events, such as 1997/98. If all that occurred during an El Niño were a warming of the equatorial ocean where nobody lives, El Niño would not occupy the public awareness as it now does.


now i'm not saying it's all El Nino, or what the didn't talk about La Nina, both of which happen at irregular intervals, and can last long peroids of time and the effects can last even long after the events.

this in my opinion has more to do with global warming than man made causes.





edit on 3-5-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

You're misinterpreting the data, "close to zero" isn't zero. You can clearly see it is increasing in the chart.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951
Many scientific theories are eventually proven wrong:
www.theguardian.com...

Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.

More scientists who are not Warmists:
en.wikipedia.org...




Can you quote the data that you believe is wrong or are you just shooting in the dark? Exactly what correlations do you object to and why? Saying something is false without telling us what it is really doesn't create doubt.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951
Many scientific theories are eventually proven wrong:
www.theguardian.com...

Correlation does not prove causation, concerning increasing temperatures and CO2, and Warmists do not even have correlation on their side.

More scientists who are not Warmists:
en.wikipedia.org...




Can you quote the data that you believe is wrong or are you just shooting in the dark? Exactly what correlations do you object to and why? Saying something is false without telling us what it is really doesn't create doubt.


I will reply one last time to you Gianfar. I believe you are presenting yourself as something you are not. Read the posts I made on this page. All you have to do is read.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: Matt1951

You're misinterpreting the data, "close to zero" isn't zero. You can clearly see it is increasing in the chart.



www.climate.gov used the words "close to zero". Are you saying they are misinterpreting their own data?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

You touch on the complexity of the subject. Even if global temperatures were still heading up, it would be difficult to determine the actual cause.
Even if Warmists are eventually proven correct, right now the only solution Warmists offer is massive construction of nuclear powerplants. Not even considering there is a limited amount of uranium that can be mined. DOE says wind and solar will provide a percentage of future energy needs, but never close to a majority. China and India are going to burn ever more carbon fuels no matter what the US and EU do.
We also have to consider special interests. If Global Warming is a dire problem, then there is lot of money available for research, and associated professors and climatologists are very important people. If man made Global Warming is determined to be a minor or non-existent problem, there would be no research funding, and the professors and climatologists would be meh, not VIP. Ask a professor if man-made global warming is possibly a problem, and if his income depends on global warming research funding, he is likely to reply that it could be a problem.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt1951

You ignored the point and presented a straw-man. Your own source, climate.gov clearly shows an increase. Please respond to that point with something substantive before presenting a new argument.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
a reply to: Matt1951

You ignored the point and presented a straw-man. Your own source, climate.gov clearly shows an increase. Please respond to that point with something substantive before presenting a new argument.



Bull. I did not present a new straw man. Be honest.
I copied the words from climate.gov and put them in quotes.
Under the figure is the statement
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly"


Those are not my words. Those are the words of climate.gov.
Please respond to that point with something substantive before presenting a new argument.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
It would not surprise me to find any ATS member here arguing that mankind needs to do something in response to climate change has an axe to grind and is heavily invested in energy stocks or the futures market and is simply looking to maximize profit taking...same as Al Gore, who happens to own a good share of Occidental Petroleum...and has rigged a lot of deals in their favor...they also use CO2 in energy extraction...
edit on 4-5-2014 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join