It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global warming (The smoking gun) Proff that Cantnot be ignored)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:21 AM
Finly to all thous who say its made up and no way man can influince his enevirment . Finly SOLID scientific evedence Showing Behond DOUGHT the earth is Retaning More energy then it is relising back into space by 0.85 watt. Directly related to the EXCESS co2 and other green house gases relised be mans activitys .
Keep your head in the sand if you want but this IS proff for all thous who aloways say one sorce isent relable.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Simcity4Rushour]

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:32 AM
but they have scapegoats for whatever effect all this has on our society!! Are you having trouble breathing, well, don't smoke, or be around people who do!! getting a little fat around the it's not the pollution in the air, or the crap in the food making you just eat too much!! or hey, no they aren't starving because of famine caused by drought...they're lazy, and backwards people!!!
why acknowledge facts and be force to give things up we so dearly love, when we can just create scapegoats to blame the problems on!

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:08 AM
One thing they dont tell you, is that there is evidence of global warming on every planet in the solar system. Do a search of NASA archives and you will find the info.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:38 AM
Just Watch Me

Student of irony that I am, I make a point of ignoring "Proff that Cantnot be ignored".

Why? Because my doing so proves the lie.

Anyone who makes such claims has declared their unreliability as a source.

Odds are good that I have already seen this elsewhere, or will see it through other channels.

I just thought I would point out what works and what doesn't.

You are free to benefit from my feedback or ignore it as you see fit, but I'm telling you honestly that I have no intention of clicking on a link presented this way.

Another tip: I make a point of not agreeing with people who insult me for being a skeptic.

Turns out that's an amazingly useful policy.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:12 PM
No doubt everyone here has already heard of the brouhaha about Science magazine 'censorship' and how Science rejected a submission that disputed the claim there is a global warming consensus.

For clarification, here is the text of the disputed paper and the correspondence between the author and Science magazine. Read it and draw your own conclusions.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:44 PM
To start, science is not about absolute proofs found by anyone.
Also, news articles, even in 'science' sources, aren't very meaningful. Its amazing how twisted and horribly incorrect reporters can get their information.

What is the news article stating

Climate scientists armed with new data from deep in the ocean and far into space have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, a conclusion they say validates projections of global warming.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not new information no? Its been known for a while that the oceans are retaining more heat. The question is, why, and what are the effects of it? Does a portion of a degree make a difference? And what are the normal amounts that these data point vary? And if the oceans are warming up, why isn't the rest of the planet warming up in a corresponding manner?

These guys are climatologists, they're not 'all scientists'. From what I understand, there is a consensus amoung climate modelers that c.f. the GreenHouse Theory is happening. But not amoung all scientists. Why? Is there perhaps some flaws in climate modelling that other scientists are less convicned aren't important?

Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

One degree over a hundred years? Maybe? Certainly, the world is not going to engage in radical, destructive, changes based on a single report. This is not a 'smoking gun', there are no smoking guns in science.

For clarification, here is the text of the disputed paper and the correspondence between the author and Science magazine. Read it and draw your own conclusions.

For my own part, any scientist who writes up webpages complaining about his paper not getting accepted into one of the Big Journals is a tool and crybaby.

Heck , just look at the correspondance.

he submits the original stuff as a letter
it is too long for a Letter, but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references.
he resubmits
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been

widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we

cannot publish your letter

Like I said, he's a tool.

Then he pretends that he just wants everyone to know whats going on, blah blah blah.

Fine, publish in one of the hundreds of other journals out there. Like I said, this guy is a whiner and a tool. Lots of papers get rejected all the time.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 11:46 AM
I agree the protest is bit pissy, and the paper itself is hardly worthy of publication. It is basically a fancy literature search. What I find interesting is the results. Using the same methodology but with a more extensive data source he reaches different conclusions than the original paper. This undercuts the validity of the original paper and indirectly the integrity of the editorial board that accepted the first and rejected the second.

There is more here than a simple rejection...

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 07:01 AM
Would the methane deposits in the ocean be a factor in gobal warning?

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:03 PM


log in