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: luciddream
a reply to: BIGPoJo
Didn't realize he was a climate scientist. I'm a computer scientist, I have the same level of qualifications to discuss climate change
Lol what? He is an astrophysicist. pretty close to climate science... computer science is not even "real" science... its like political science.
The Sun will continue to get hotter and hotter as it ages, we cannot do anything to stop it.
of course it will, we are just making it faster. We can do something, not burn fossil fuels like its paper.
Instead of spending and taxing based on the carbon religion
yeah, not everyone who are for protecting the earth also loves taxing. but we have deniers who deny just because they think it will tax them. people deny science because of their political affiliations.
geochemist James Powell found just one author who rejected global warming.
Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate.
I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.
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.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: eriktheawful
I probably shouldn't talk science before morning caffeine. I'm on my phone headed to work but briefly I think it has more to do with the poles and the equator. I think my overall point stands though lol.
it's way more than that with climatologists
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing
Look above. My last post addressed the 97% consensus. It is not an agreement on MASSIVE MAN MADE climate change. We all agree that climate change happens. The divide is among those who argue the extent of mans impact and the extent of natural factors being the over all driving force. The abstracts of over 12000 papers dealing with climate change were looked at. The results of the study were doctored since they didnt define the parameters honestly. SOME climate change caused by man is not MOST climate change driven by man. The scientific community is not in agreement on that one.
That my friend is still 50/50. NOT 97% consensus. Just read what I posted.
Nahle, I was not examining your personality!
I was examining the various search results for your work… which seem to all track back to your own handy work.
Then I was pointing out how easy it is to convince anyone of anything if you control all the information sources. It's what I call "Science in a Vacuum."
Case in point, you are ignoring my points A and B. Why not respond to them? Rather than hand waving. And instead of inviting me to investigate the 'substance' of "Your" science - why not show me where you've summited your science to accepted experts to have them look at your work?
What do they have to say?
April 5, 2014 at 9:40 AM
originally posted by: jrod
We are now at 400ppm CO2 and the trend is still rising. This is a result of human industrialization.
What I really like about Cosmos is how Tyson attacked junk pseudo science that many industries pull to keep selling a dangerous/harmful product. It happened with lead in gasoline and it continues to happen today.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: coastlinekid
CO2 is our friend... the earth's plants need it by the way... as for humans making the earth warm up?... Doubt it...
In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling."
Guy and his dad were corporate big oil stooges that have no credibility, published peer reviewed papers, and are clearly on the dole.
Bit like having Ronald McDonald explain to you why McDonalds makes great diet food...