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: NewzNose
a reply to: Grimpachi
Because peer reviews are spot on gospel intel, right?
Look again...yes, be thorough.
Nothing is what it seems. The sun itself has a different intensity for a reason.
Fox Mulder was right afterall.
originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Grimpachi
Raw unadjusted data is flat.
what you show are the `adjusted` temperature record, not raw
RSS data is quite clear, flat record.
In any real scientific endeavor, `adjusting` data is called, correctly, scientific FRAUD
I don`t expect you to understand, but here goes:
originally posted by: pheonix358
Now, argue with that graph. CO2 emissions have always followed increasing temps and this makes a lot of sense.
The warmer it gets, the more plants can grow, more plants = more animals = more CO2 in the atmosphere.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Yes, as I said the media picked up on the global cooling back in the 70s and it showed up in the tabloids a lot, but they were ALL based off of those 7 peer reviewed articles. There were many times more peer reviewed articles about AGW during that same period.
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: VoidHawk
Yeah , GiGo - Garbage in , Garbage out......my computer mode;l shows I will win the state lottery next Wednesday.
The above is a perfect example of a phenomenon where a not quite idiotic layman picks up on a factoid and then asserts that his exceptionally simplistic explanation