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: BlackboxInquiry
I'm not a scientist, and I'm not out there publishing 'official' papers and trying to change laws and funneling money through bunk companies selling smoke and snake oil.
People can think for themselves and if data isn't matching up, then why not say so. Nobody needs your permission to disagree and call it as they see it.
Check mate? Where's the chess board? Playing a one-sided game and making up rules as you go along?
Have a beer, because this is gonna be long. You won't use common sense and I won't buy 'paid for' data or research funded by companies who are DEMANDING a certain outcome so they can profit off the ill-educated.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The significance of a 17 years?
www.llnl.gov...
Wallace says up to half of that increase is more likely to be due to complex atmospheric links that originate with rain and wind patterns in the South Pacific -- not warming from greenhouse gases. Unusually heavy rain in a region of the South Pacific sets up turbulence in the atmosphere that affects the whole globe, he said. Read more: www.ctvnews.ca...
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
It doesn't surprise me that satellite and weather station data disagrees. there has always been suspecian that the placement of weather stations was influencing the result (ie placed on hot asphalt in an airport)
His paper doesn't address sea-ice loss or degradation in other parts of the Arctic.
"The ice melt is dramatic," he said. "I would not claim to make any statement about the ice melt."
Read more: www.ctvnews.ca...
Well, no. Jupiter is very cold actually. And there is no place to stand on it.
then the earth will experience runaway climate change and end up like Jupitor
They do? Have you actually asked for the data? Looked for it?
But the scientists in question refuse to release the raw data
Who is telling us that? Give them our money to do what? No one has asked me for any money.
So they essentially are telling us "Trust me and give me your money"
To prevent the worst effects will cost the world about 2% of global GDP per year, or just over a trillion dollars, although that figure also rises the longer we wait. Since our total energy costs are about 2% of global GDP, this is a significant cost to bear, basically doubling our energy costs. By the same token, 2% of GDP is not a horrendous amount to invest in saving the world as we know it.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: lostbook
Exactly! Climate is changing - always has and always will
Now why is that a problem?
Tired of Control Freaks