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.
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Dfairlite
NASA earth observatory most definitely does not agree with what you just claimed.
here
originally posted by: Dfairlite
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Of course this was the prediction in 1989, by the same body that is warning us today that we have only 10 years to act. What really happened during the warning period? We saw a small increase in temperatures and basically zero rising sea levels. Polar ice was melting a little but has regained most of that in the following 20 years. However, don't forget, 2000 was supposed to be the beginning of the end, not the end of the warming.
These people are stupid and they play on your being uninformed to try to get you to give up your freedom.
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Dfairlite
NASA earth observatory most definitely does not agree with what you just claimed.
here
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Dfairlite
NASA earth observatory most definitely does not agree with what you just claimed.
here
As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.
The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,"writes H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "This compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."
Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Dfairlite
NASA earth observatory most definitely does not agree with what you just claimed.
here
All I read there was "Hey, someday soon we are gonna have to rape taxpayers further, so let's keep this scam alive."
I saw some pretty pictures, no evidence and a couple of alarmist statements without any standing.
Cheers - Dave
The plaintive calls about global warming and loss of polar bear habitats, the stern warnings about rising seas and flooded coastlines - this is what the public hears about. Then there’s this pesky, inconvenient truth they don’t hear about: $1.5 trillion.
“Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking, notes Don Jergler, an analyst for Insurance Journal, an industry publication
“The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes.