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.

 

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

page: 2
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I have no use for NASA nor any other abc agency reporting to Govt.

I'm 50 yrs in age and can say that the climate is changing. Lies? Motives? Natural? Man? Whatever.

Anyone of my generation knows for a FACT that something is not right. The sky isn't even the same blue as it used to be. Look up to Draw your own conclusions. Look at your garden to see FACT.

Tomorrow there will be another report that this one was false...the next week...another report confirming this one.

BUT...We all know the truth.

Peace


edit on 30-6-2014 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
www.giss.nasa.gov...


So you did or you didn't see the graph and the global #s?

Derek



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

Irregardless is not a word.


Other than that, this is pretty profound if true.

You can guarantee that there will be vehemently opposed perspective popping in at any moment. They will first discredit the sources in the OP, point to Skeptical Science for all opposing points of view and "facts" to support their argument, and this thread will descend into a never-ending turn for turn of "MY source says...." vs "well, MY source says...", eventually leading to the OP being de-railed.

It will go from "the data has been manipulated" to "your sources are wrong, unreliable or biased", and I bet it happens in less than 4 pages of posts. lol

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

20ppm for one decade or several? How many? How far back do your "real" numbers in your data source go?

Can you produce something, besides a graph, with actual measurements, that can DIRECTLY relate the measured output from the Industrial Revolution, inclusive of every factory, every chimney, and every carbon contribution made from the past 150+ years?

Please provide us some type of proof that shows, factually, with evidence and without a doubt, that 40% of our CO2 came directly from the Industrial Revolution?

Please also provide us your source of data for each decade that CO2 ppm has increased 20ppm per decade?

I'm not talking about references to Skeptical Science or WUWT. Provide a sourced paper, that has the experiments and observations that support your statement.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Scientists can measure atmospheric conditions trapped in seasonal snow ice, so think the south pole ice core drilling. You can even use the presence of lead in the atmosphere to see where we used leaded gasoline or CFC's to see where we started using aerosols. Those are what the graphs are based on.
If you don't like graphs, you can just collect the data.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

Yes... but let us blame it not on CO2 which you expell and plants breathe... but on the toxic clouds of heavy metals belching out of Coal plants, and the PCBs coming out of Dow chemical for a hundred years, and Fuku, WIPP, and Hanford rad plants, and the rest of the toxic filth humans spew so that our kids can play gameboys and watch the tube...

Something is screwed up.... let us not fix it by paying Soros and his friends at the CFR another tax so that they can find new ways to play their Hegelian flute!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rockn82


As much as I wanted to laugh when you said that…

Now I'm the one laughing and crying at once. Unbelievable…

Thanks for showing me that.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

Although you're right about the heavy metals and sulfur-rich gases that result from the burning of coal, those are localized issues. They only impact what's happening in that specific area (by which I mean an area the size of the general atmospheric potential to relocate that material, which is by no means a global problem with respect to something as heavy as the metals at least.) Global climate change could potentially affect the globe, as the name implies.

This stems back to NIMBY, I think... Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right to ignore these localized issues, but that's probably the reasoning behind it.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Scientists can measure atmospheric conditions trapped in seasonal snow ice, so think the south pole ice core drilling. You can even use the presence of lead in the atmosphere to see where we used leaded gasoline or CFC's to see where we started using aerosols. Those are what the graphs are based on.
If you don't like graphs, you can just collect the data.


As another poster already pointed out, graphs are easily manipulated and you can use them to make data look however you want the viewer to see it. If I take 500,000 years of data and put it into a graph 300 pixels wide, it will definitely look like lines overlap and follow each other. Spread the same graph out so that you can see a 100 year slice at a time, and the data and graph appear in a completely different context and give a totally different perspective to the viewer. I would not rely on graphs.

Scientists don't measure atmospheric conditions from snow ice, they INFER based on data contained in it. There is no way to accurately measure the climate or atmospheric conditions prior to our direct observations and measurements, so we look at evidence and data that POINTS to what MAY have occurred. It is best guess, with some factual pieces that we can pluck out with known laws of physics and chemistry, but it in no way whatsoever paints a complete picture of what took place at a point in our history when we were not there to observe or measure it directly. To your point, we can look at particles trapped at different layers of the ice to see when certain events occurred in history, but it's impossible to derive all of the variables needed to make up an accurate model with any type of predictability to forecast against.

It's as big a question as trying to figure out how life started on Earth. Too many unknown variables, regardless of how many layers of rock we study or chemistry or biology. In the end, it's a guess with a ton of assumptions, and the planet's climate and the science around is not any different.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
To hide the plain truth in front of you one could come out and claim they are manipulating the data in an attempt to glean whatever deny-ability they can from a bad situation.

The climate is changing, Ive seen lots of changes in weather patterns over the last ten years or more. The weather in my area is different than it was as a child.

I have some conflicting feelings on the subject but i am sure that global warming is real and i feel that its accelerating the changes in global weather.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11




Anyone of my generation knows for a FACT that something is not right.


Yep it sure isn't.

The fact that governemnts around the world are trying to control the land,the air, the water. We all use.

And tell us the grandiose lie.

It's to save the planet!.

It's not even close.

What it is ?

Another means of CONTROLLING US.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well, I can't disagree with your assessment of science. I mean, we agree on pretty much everything you said...
Truly, all graphs are simply a visual manipulation of the data. I merely meant to suggest look at the data itself. If you don't trust the sources, you can make your own measurements, was what I was trying to get at. (Bad joke, I know, most people can't go do this kind of thing...)
And yes, interpretation of the past is founded in the assumption that the natural laws operated the same way in the past as they do now. That refers specifically to physical processes, not to say that everything was the same. (Common misunderstanding of uniformitarianism...) Now, these assumptions are necessary to make models. Without them, the data is meaningless numbers. Assumptions can be wrong, and when proven wrong, are dropped in favor of other, better supported assumptions. No proof in science, only strong support.

That said, I don't know if you're giving ice core isotope analyses their fair dues... Isotopes of oxygen present in the ice water can tell a lot about a climate, and gases and carbon isotopes are quite useful as well (no, I'm not talking C-14 dating, I'm talking about carbon isotopes as an indicator of the reserves from which the carbon was sourced).
While it is true these are only pieces that provide correlation data, it's better than nothing.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well, I can't disagree with your assessment of science. I mean, we agree on pretty much everything you said...
Truly, all graphs are simply a visual manipulation of the data. I merely meant to suggest look at the data itself. If you don't trust the sources, you can make your own measurements, was what I was trying to get at. (Bad joke, I know, most people can't go do this kind of thing...)
And yes, interpretation of the past is founded in the assumption that the natural laws operated the same way in the past as they do now. That refers specifically to physical processes, not to say that everything was the same. (Common misunderstanding of uniformitarianism...) Now, these assumptions are necessary to make models. Without them, the data is meaningless numbers. Assumptions can be wrong, and when proven wrong, are dropped in favor of other, better supported assumptions. No proof in science, only strong support.

That said, I don't know if you're giving ice core isotope analyses their fair dues... Isotopes of oxygen present in the ice water can tell a lot about a climate, and gases and carbon isotopes are quite useful as well (no, I'm not talking C-14 dating, I'm talking about carbon isotopes as an indicator of the reserves from which the carbon was sourced).
While it is true these are only pieces that provide correlation data, it's better than nothing.


We totally agree, I starred you.


I would just caution that correlation does not equal causation, and far too many times, this specific topic is snagged on that simple concept. Data is one thing, but if all it does it provide correlation, which most climate science does, we can't necessarily determine cause. Science is not based on consensus either, and unfortunately, the thing you hear repeatedly is "the consensus is..." or "the science is settled..." - both of which are extremely dangerous. Politics is consensus based, not science.

~Namaste



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This has been cited several times in other threads. I'm surprised this one is still open.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Pre-industrial CO2 count: 280ppm

Today's CO2 count: 400ppm

Source: Cosmos

400-280=120

(120/280)*100%=42%.....


Over a 40% rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Please add to the existing thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you. Closed.




top topics



 
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join