It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Which predictions came true? There has been little to no change over the past 20 years. Climate scientists are worse than religious cult leaders. When their predictions don't come true they make up some other bull# and move on to new sheep they can manipulate.
I like this one -
Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.
Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”
However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.
When a Princeton University professor fails to see the incredibly stupid errors of his predictions you know you have serious problems. It amazes me how ignorant the majority of "intelligent" people are.
Posts like this scare the excrement out of me. The anti-science hysteria is breathtaking.
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Good thing the US military is already equipped to fight in an any environment and weather conditions.
Good thing there are already bases all over the world in all kinds of climate extremes.
originally posted by: Phage
originally posted by: FarleyWayne
a reply to: Spider879
I believe that was a SMART-CHOICE ... BECAUSE:
Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
From your source:
At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seeker1963
Agenda 21 is a real program initiated by the UN. The US rejected it a long time ago.
It isn't a conspiracy to crowd people into massive tenement buildings nor a conspiracy to take over the US or the world.
Have you ever read it?
In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level. The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports. In response to the opposition, Don Knapp, U.S. spokesman for the ICLEI, has said "Sustainable development is not a top-down conspiracy from the U.N., but a bottom-up push from local governments".
originally posted by: Spider879
This means in the up coming water wars ,political unrest ,mass migrations,the U.S military will just sit on it's collective behinds whistling Dixie because some paid off climate change denying politician set up road blocks for them in preparing for what's coming,as everyone who ever belonged to any military organization knows you don't avoid or win battles, wars without preparation,these extremely greedy Pols would rather see us not getting ready just because they believe the $$$ they are receiving from the folks who are behind the anti climate agenda their financial overlords like the Koch Brothers, and Americans for prosperity types will keep them immune.
Oh one more thing climate does affect battle field conditions,as one who was almost swept overboard during foul weather conditions while on-rapping I had a lil taste of that.
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
UK public is the most sceptical in Europe.
Question : Which one of the following two statements best corresponds to your opinion ?
Climate change has been proven by science UK 63%
Climate change has not been proven by science UK 37%
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.