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.
The only people don't think we should pay attention to such alarming possibilities are idiotic greedy capitalists who have a financial interest in destroying our planet.
And of course the dimwits who listen to them.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: Matt1951
originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: madmac5150
One scientist's opinion is close to meaningless. 95% of SCIENTIST'S believe there is enough evidence that man is affecting the planets environmental balance in an extremely negative way. The only people don't think we should pay attention to such alarming possibilities are idiotic greedy capitalists who have a financial interest in destroying our planet.
And of course the dimwits who listen to them.
Prove that 95% of scientists believe in global warming. The initial poll was rigged, it is nothing more than propaganda by the warmists. According to Al Gore (aka manbearpig) earth should have been incinerated by now.
No-one has claimed that, not even Al Gore. The fact is, the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been rising since records started being kept. The only debate is to whether this trend is natural or has been affected by human contributed carbon dioxide. There is absolutely no doubt that the carbon dioxide contributes to this trend, it is simply a question of determining how much. A NASA scientist is entitled to his personal opinions on the subject, but his personal interpretation of the data is no better than anyone else's. Ultimately, it is an expression of political belief.
originally posted by: eManym
a reply to: guohua
Yes, but in the 70's global temperatures had been on a slow decline of a few percent from 1940 to 1970. Since the 70's, global temperatures have increased 800% and since the late 1800s by 1400%.
originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: madmac5150
How does that observation hold up against a huge body of research illustrating how climate change now effects whole species of indigenous fauna and regional weather patterns?
I've got me a Science degree with a background in atmospheric physics,
I've got me a Science degree with a background in atmospheric physics,
originally posted by: Matt1951
originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: madmac5150
How does that observation hold up against a huge body of research illustrating how climate change now effects whole species of indigenous fauna and regional weather patterns?
Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.
originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Gianfar
The data that they love to reference has been skewed, and NOAA even owned up to it, citing bad placement of "official" thermometers... large cities act as "heat islands", especially at night. Phoenix is an excellent example; night time temps in the city are much warmer than the surrounding Sonoran Desert...
originally posted by: Matt1951
Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.
originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Gianfar
From what I have read, I'll take the F.
originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: guohua
Ahhhh the 70s. I remember watching a few of those as a kid... my parents swore by it, especially after the winter of 78.
Didn't pan out then... won't pan out now.