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.

 

Study Finds Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Basically zero

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So you're telling me that THIS is the study you chose to believe? But all those other studies saying it's real are fake?

I don't have a dog in the race but that seems a little biased if you ask me.

Most climate change studies are done with federal grants. That's where the true bias is. Science isn't objective anymore. They do what the establishment tells them to so they can continue to make an income, and right now the narrative is the emissions from my truck are killing polar bears so more taxes are required. Thousands of government jobs now depend on this narrative. Much like the war on drugs.

Whenever a study is done without a government grant it's findings are generally similar to the one in the OP. That humanities co2 output has a very small impact on global climate. Being skeptical of this doesn't make you a science denier. But blindly believing people and entities who stand to profit from selling you a lie makes you a fool...




posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp



Just because you walk out the coast or marina and there isn't water literally splashing over onto the streets doesn't mean it's not happening.


So your argument is that the sea levels have risen because there has been flooding, but that the sea levels haven't actually risen as evidenced by the fact that you can walk out to the coast and marina and there isn't water splashing over onto the streets?

I think you ought to rethink this one. Would it not make more sense that they've simply developed land (due to population growth) that has a higher water table and therefore floods more and thus the need for pumps? Rather than saying the sea level is rising under the land but not on the coasts?

ETA:
It seems to me that there are two kinds of AGW believers. Those that believe based on events from far outside their home (IOW, they don't know what the climate has been like in other places and are easily duped into believing it's changing massively, somewhere). Then there are those who believe that every local weather event is caused by it. The latter group is the funniest to watch, they give us great lists like this.
edit on 14-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Mach2

Well since I can easily just search google and find hundreds of local news sources about flooding from below the city and the measures they take to basically use sump pumps to get the water back I'm going to say there is an issue.



Just because you walk out the coast or marina and there isn't water literally splashing over onto the streets doesn't mean it's not happening.


Flooding? Seriously?

The whole area is built on either coral, which was once seabed, or swampland. There has been flooding since before the industrial revolution. Read up on the building of the Flagler railroad, for an idea about the conditions before the area became overpopulated.

You obviously don't know much about the history, or the water tables of the area, if you think the localized flooding issues are connected to global sea level rise.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The sea levels are rising up through the sewer systems...



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Where will the ninja turtles live then?



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Dfairlite

The sea levels are rising up through the sewer systems...





posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Article "Debunked"
By the University of East Anglia ? Grand Central of the Climategate scandal ?
Seriously !!!

No Sorry.
WRONG.
There is NO global warming aside from FRAUDULENT manipulation of the raw data.
NOT science.
FRAUD.
BUT GO AHEAD, BELIEVE IN YOUR FLAT-EARTH "WARMING" BULL#.

Furthermore, another paper about to be published in Nature actually affirms we are about to enter a solar Maunder minimum cooling period.
www.nature.com...

The SUN controls the weather, not groping politicians like Gore or cocktail waitresses like AOC.
Don't be so gullible.


edit on 14-7-2019 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

They will become tortoises.


www.bbc.com...
edit on 14-7-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I can show you all kinds of proof that peer review is a complete joke.
That and when peer review actually took place it's just a verification of scientific method not verification of the writers results.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Your article doesn't prove that turtles can turn into tortoises.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah that’s all very nice but am not really into debating climate change, it’s like trying to debate with a creationist at this point.

I am going to believe those 8 respected experts over your non-peer reviewed article that wouldn’t even pass a first year uni essay. I mean they reference themselves 4 out of the 6 times they actually bother to reference and 2 of those haven’t even been published.

Also those rebuttals are not all the same one of them actually lists 15 other articles that all reach different finding form your one non-peer reviewed, poorly referenced garbage article

It’s actually laughable.


Most of us are irritated that the "global warming / climate change" issue is being used as a scare tactic to implement financial scams, regulations, and taxes that will actually do absolutely nothing about their so called problem but will rake in trillions of dollars for the "chosen people and carbon credit scam trading middlemen and corporations".

That pretty much sums it up. Will not support any scheme and will wait for a real solution.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
It's quite interesting to me that so much effort has gone into disproving the easily provable: that cloud cover has a direct effect on temperatures. This phenomenon has been used for decades by meteorology. Sunny days and cloudy nights equate to generally rising temperatures, while cloudy days and clear nights equate to dropping temperatures. Water vapor, which is the stuff of which clouds are made, has an absorption spectrum that is orders of magnitude greater than carbon dioxide, primarily due to the water having a strong tendency toward hydrogen bonding, which changes the energy levels needed to promote/demote electron orbital positions.

Carbon dioxide, in stark contrast, has a very narrow absorption spectrum, which greatly limits the amount of available energy it can absorb/emit. This is the same reason carbon dioxide is used as a lasing material.

I read the rebuttal. 6 points that make no sense:
  • (1) The climate models are incorrect, and have demonstrated this time after time, without success.

  • (2)Stating that previous climate models are incorrect is not the same as dismissing the possibility that other models may be proven more accurate. That is simply asinine logic.

  • (3)All climate models... all models period... are unvalidated at their inception. Validation is based on correct predictions of future events, which by definition cannot occur until after the models are published.

  • (4)The lack of available cause and effect proof is not proof of a lack of cause and effect. Another purely asinine example of flawed logic.

  • (5)No scientific paper is the end-all, be-all of the subject. Even Einstein's Relativity has been re-examined and verified, tested, and expanded in scope. To expect this paper to be the final authority on anything, especially in light of numerous predictive failures of the "acceptable" Global Warming papers, is ludicrous. It simply provides an alternate explanation for correcting the errors in the earlier Global Warming models. I would personally expect both human activity and cloud cover to have some effect, although I would also expect the latter effect to be orders of magnitude greater than the former.

  • (6)I saw no dismissal in the paper of previous research, only acceptance of failed predictions (something that a great many "scientists" seem to be unable to accept, even in the face of absolute verification). Proposal of provable phenomena is not dismissal of anything.
Instead of a genuine analysis of the paper under consideration, this read more like a desperate attempt to argue against science itself in the name of science. I have stated many times in this forum that the moment anyone states that "the science is settled" the science comes into question. Every single scientific discovery has been accomplished by questioning present theories.

I also find it quite interesting that certain posters have openly stated their unwillingness to even look at possible explanations for the failure in present models, denying the scientific method openly in the name of the scientific method. Methinks someone is unable to debate their position, likely because they are unable to even understand that position. This typically happens with humans who make a conscious decision to accept a belief in something based on personality or authoritarian approval.

But it never happens in true science.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

And you know this how? Are you the one conducting the tests? Are you a climatologist? If not then I fail to see how you have more authority than those actually conducting the tests.

You sound like an armchair expert that doesn't really know what he's talking about, only what he wants to believe to be true. You speak in absolutes yet have probably never taken time to run any tests yourself.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in the race because the waters have been muddied on the issue.
edit on 7/14/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It’s been Debunked

I saw this on a other forum and it’s been heavily criticised, the referencing alone wouldn’t scrape you through a basic first year college essay.

Now you can read the above link if you want or you can ignore it, man made global warming and climate change is real, it is a established scientific fact and not one I am personally interested in debating because at this stage if you still refuse to believe the science there is little I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise


Sadly for you the Climategate emails courtesy of East Anglia (who provided the entire basis of the Global Warming ponzi scheme) shows in their own words that the data has been falsified from the very start.

Further quotes from many other people show them flat out admitting that Global Waming/Carbon Credits is nothing more than a wealth distribution scheme.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This is ONE contradictory study out of thousands that all agree it is real. Peer review is going to shred this work apart.

Learn how science work and not just cherry pick studies that support your predetermined opinion and ignore all the other studies that you disagree.

Doing what you did is the height of disingenuity.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I live on Lake Michigan and lake height is a cycle related to rain and snow fall. My place is nearly 600 feet above the ocean level. Miami is sinking because of development just was reading that the other day.



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: richapau

Thank you for a great illustration of how propaganda works. You really think this is the ONLY study that shows there is little man made effect? But yes, you're right, the "climatologists" will run around screaming discredited and parade their pseudoscience around long enough to make you believe they've really debunked this one. You've proved you've already accepted what they have to say, before they've even said it.

PSA: The proper response, if you're a fan of science is:
A) Provide your own reasons for why the study is wrong/right
B) "I look forward to the debate on the merits of this work"

edit on 14-7-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mikell

You're blaming gravity?



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Hmmm clouds... so contrails control global warming. I may be wrong but contrails and spraying is used for both cloud seeding and dispersion.

So if low cloud cover controls most of the global temperature, isn't meddling with it for decades a man-made influence?



posted on Jul, 14 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Duderino

Cloud seeding requires the clouds to already be there and simply affects the type of precipitation. contrails would only affect the temperature in a very, very minute manner. Now smog has already proved to have an effect on surface temperatures.







 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join