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: Grimpachi
originally posted by: johnwick
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: swanne
Untrue for one thing, even if it was true that makes it incorrect how? I mean science isn't correct or incorrect based on taxation or monetary value.
Ah but results are based on that.
Ask any AGW proponent. The evil oil companies get the numbers they want out of science all the time.
Why is it magically beyond reproach when it is paid by anyone else?
The gov has motive to get scewed results just as much if not more than the oil companies.
If ATSers can agree on anything, it is that the gov always strives for more tax money and more control over people.
Which ironically enough, is exactly what the AGW agenda is all in favor of.
Do you not see the hypocracy?
Your argument doesn't work at all.
We have a republican congress and senate and their biggest donors are from the energy industry yet science and the scientists that still get government funding are still telling them and the world AGW is real and impending.
Your logic has failed.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
If there is no lag on one side, but a lag on the other, there is an average lag--you just confirmed what I posted. Whether or not a lag exists on one side and not the other, the claim here is that both sides of the earth are melting (during a continual rebound from a cold period, I might add)--what's the level of CO2 in the southern hemisphere right now versus the northern? According to you, they should be different, yet I only hear one number ever spoutted out, not two. Either that, or the average temperatures per hemisphere should be nominally different right now, but according to your information, the rate of temp rise (or, at least, the average temp at any given moment) could not be equivalent at any given time because of a lag on one side of the earth (assuming the average temps are equivalent, ever).*
Do you have any data from multiple sources to back up your claim that "They have continually narrowed the lag?" (whomever the "they" are) If so, hopefully it contains details about how they've gone about collecting this data and why they're reducing the length of lag. I request this because there are a lot of things that seem to continually be revised without much scientific background that have an uncanny ability to enable the AGW argument...and it's always done by this "they." So, who are "they?"
...if you look at each hemisphere separately, it appears that the northern hemisphere lags the CO2 by 720±330 years, but the Southern hemisphere temperature leads the CO2 variations by 620±660 years. The same figure also reveals that the global temperature lags the CO2 by 460±340 years, which is the main find of the paper