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: Krazysh0t
[You see how the blue part shoots up really high at towards the right of the graph? That's us. THAT'S the effect of man made climate change. YES climate changes naturally, BUT we adding onto the Earth's natural changing climate. THUS the derivative of heat exchange increases. For some reason people refuse to understand this. Do they not understand calculus?
originally posted by: network dude
And what happened here?
How did those spikes happen? What events led to them? Also hugely important to know when looking at the BIG picture. I am not discounting anything you presented, but since you seem to be an authority on this matter, these questions are important to the overall future of our survival.
The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.
Abstract: “Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average (+/-)0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from
uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the (+/-)0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of (+/-)0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This (+/-)0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically
indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”
In other news , a self-proclaimed climatologist from Georgia states that NASA is incorrect and the world has cooled an average of 10deg C.
originally posted by: Farlander
a reply to: gmoneystunt
Following the money will lead you straight to Big Oil and all the resources they pump into disinfo about climate change. They have by far the most to lose if they can't keep their stranglehold on the world's energy production.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute today filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, seeking copies of any agreements his office signed that would protect internal communications stemming from his investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change record. CEI’s suit in New York state court comes after Schneiderman denied the conservative think tank’s May 5 request under the state’s freedom of information law for any common interest agreements that his office reached with other state AGs involved in his climate oversight efforts, as well as seven individuals and green groups also involved in Exxon probes.
originally posted by: flatbush71
At this point in time, the cause is irrelevant.
Coming up with a viable defense, even if its weak, unsustainable or unsuccessful.
People are learning what will and will not work.
Some other viewpoints on this claim. Dr. Lubos Motl: We received 1 billion dollars ‘Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just “may have received” the billion instead of the phrase “did receive” it.’ — ‘The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude…This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two…If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people’s minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude.’ Marc Morano: This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true. Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’ Tom Nelson: After UK Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly ‘fixed’ with the addition of weasel words ‘may’ and ‘up to’ [Guardian story yesterday, from the Internet Archive] Conservative groups spend $1bn a year to fight action on climate change Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change [Guardian story today] Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change …This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.
Robert Brulle pushes back on @Guardian $1 billion/yr spin on his study of "climate change counter movement" funding: "You may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.” It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulle