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.
The loss of Arctic ice is only a small symptom of what global warming represents. We are screwed. But if we start doing something now, we can soften the blow for our kids and theirs. They're the ones who will see the brunt of it.
Yet according to the climate-doomies, we're screwed unless we do something right now because we have like, three hours left until the polar caps freeze or melt or something!
Taxes, not so much. But "no reason?" Hardly.
So lets raise taxes and wee ourselves for no apparent reason!
Who in their right mind would ignore actual science and listen to denial and obfuscation of facts by organizations funded by energy (oil) companies?
Who in their right mind would fall for government(s) financially backing scientists that advocate AGW and use data collected via computer modeling as proof?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer
That's pretty much what I said..isn't it?
Nothing really matters, so screw it.
Good attitude. Good plan.
14.Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million  in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil  for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 "climate change denial front groups."
Theories of naturally caused climate change are often ignored by "mainstream" scientists and organizations because many research scientists are more interested in maintainining the flow of federal grant money for climate change research than in questioning the basic theory of human causation. From 1998-2009, nearly $25 billion  in federal funds was allocated for climate science research. Researchers who question human-induced climate change often do not receive grant money for research projects. 
his worrying English translation of a story from Germany’s Spiegel (Europe’s largest news magazine) claims that a scientific journal, Environmental Research Letters rejected an article suggesting smaller-than-anticipated warming effects because reviewers thought that the article was, “less than helpful” and “harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side.” This is despite the article having been written by a respected climate change scholar.
The same journal has form. This blog post reports a 2013 incident in which the journal declined to publish a comment piece by Prof Richard S J Tol. In his proposed piece, Tol said that some were “concerned about the standards of proof in climate research. [Some people] would emphasise the complexities of the climate system and highlight lack of rigour in peer-review, substandard statistical analysis, and unwillingness to share data,” said Tol in questioning whether another ERL piece had accurately portrayed scientific unanimity on certain scientific questions.
Prof Tol may look a bit odd but he is one of the world’s foremost economists specialising in climate change, an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. He was not amused.
originally posted by: WeAre0ne
A lot of people think like you do... and no offense, but you don't know what you are talking about.
I do, actually.
Global Waming Fiddling
AGW isn't based on models and cherry picked data. AGW is based on solid and well established laws of physics. The greenhouse effect is a real physical effect that CO2 and many other gases cause.. Another fact is that we are increasing greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) at an alarming rate, which is increasing the greenhouse effect, and at some point in the future will cause the climate to change, and get warmer. AGW is a proven fact based on physical laws, and there is no longer a debate on its existence.
Based on the laws of physics run through computer simulators with fudged or incomplete data. Climate and weather are still areas of science that are still not fully understood. Climate is far more complex than just the amount of certain gasses in the atmosphere. Climate is effected by numerous variables, several of which come from beyond earth.
Models and data are not used to prove something... they are only used to predict something. The models and data you talk about are only needed to predict what will happen in the future, and to help us prepare for that future, and give us a time scale. The models and data are not supposed to be used to prove to you or anyone that AGW is real... because that has already been proven by physics.
Once you understand that, it makes all this bickering (this topic) about cherry picked, and wrong, and or falsified data a huge joke.
Predictions....yes.....just like they make "predictions" with the weather forecast, and we see how accurate those are. And given that the projections so far have proved inaccurate, I'm not really trusting them to predict ten days into the future, let alone ten years.
Is the climate changing? Yes. That's what climate does naturally. It changes. It shifts. And has been doing so long before man walked the earth. We have seen major climate shifts in recent human history, and yet we are all here. (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, ect).
I'm not saying it's ok to pollute the environment. Quite the opposite. There are real environmental problems that we need to get a grasp on, like water pollution, smog, toxic waste disposal, recycling, wild area conservation, Animal conservation, halting urban sprawl, and finding renewable, safer energy sources. But all of these were environmental issues that had been important long before this AGW bs surfaced, and had solid facts to back these threats up. Not only that, but all of the above environmental issues also have basis in common sense and practicality, as well as science, such as: political, economic, health concerns, reducing waste, preserving the wilderness, and stewardship. They all had hard data to back them up, and far less dissent.
Pushing B.S. as science and expecting people to follow it like religion is a recipe for disaster.
If you haven't noticed, they call it "climate change" now for a reason... because the anthropogenic part has fallen apart. Now it's just "climate change", and since the planet has warmed more in some places, and cooled more in others, they can't really call it "global warming" anymore, because it's not just warming by itself.
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".
AGW is based on models that 10 years ago, predicted a future that did not occur. Every prediction fell on its face. The whole basis of a model is its ability to accurately predict something repeatedly.
Physics doesn't prove AGW. If models can't predict, with accuracy, what will happen, that means that the understanding that scientists use those models for is WRONG - IE - DISPROVEN. It doesn't matter how "close" they come. Close only matters with hand grenades and horse shoes. It can either predict it every time with the proper set of variables, or it can't. There is no in between with it.
1. Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to
both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us
for decades and longer.
2. Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a
perceptible impact on the climate for many decades.
3. Consequently, costs (whatever they may be) are borne in the near term and
benefits related to influencing the climate system are achieved in the distant
4. However, many policies that result in a reduction in emissions also provide
benefits in the short term unrelated to climate change.
5. Similarly adaptation policies can provide immediate benefits.
" Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy, Within the business we recognize that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health.
If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health. Doubt is also the limit of our "product".