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.

 

Global Warming Debate Turns Ugly

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Here is a crazy idea

Both are right, Humans effect the climate and the planet goes through heating cycles.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by budski

try reading all of the last paragraph instead of quoting part of one sentence out of context


It was the first half of your post that left me that impression.

That *IS* context.


just trying to point out some of the facts that are being withheld by those who DO have agenda's



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
This is the best I can do right now I'm afraid. I know that a great many people are aware of the 'discrepancies' in this report, this web-site being one such reporter. If I can find a copy, I'll give you the exact site .

www.sepp.org...

Obviously, the current report can be found at the IPCC's home page.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Oops, my response to loam didn't quite appear where it should.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
just trying to point out some of the facts that are being withheld by those who DO have agenda's


You mean like this?



Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?

More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.

These findings, part of a new report compiled by two watchdog groups, shed new light on complaints by a scattering of scientists over the past year who have publicly complained that Bush administration appointees have tried to mute or muzzle what researchers have to say about global warming.

"We are beyond the anecdotal," says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), one of the two groups, referring to press reports of a dozen instances of interference that have emerged over the past 12 months. "We now have evidence to support the view that this problem goes deeper than just these few high-profile cases."

More...




[edit on 31-1-2007 by loam]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
yup, exactly like that, and some of the facts stated in my original post are those that have been suppressed




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
This is the best I can do right now I'm afraid.


Please keep trying. I'd very much like to see the two charts. The other items found in the link you provide are interesting, but not necessarily compelling.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Regardless of what's causing the problem we should begin working on preserving the human race as a contingency plan to prevent extinction. One solution is colonizing the moon and preserving humanities blueprint any way we can i.e. freezing complete specimens and dna. If we can do the same thing on Mars all the better our chances.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Meteorologists can barely predict the weather 5 days in advance
Many of the scientists supporting global warming, were 30 years ago supporting the theory of an approaching ice age
Go to the GISS site and d/l all the info from weather stations
there are over 144,000 known glaciers in the world - a tiny percentage of these are receding - many are expanding


Maybe you should know the difference between a global climate models and regional numerical weather models before making bizarre comparisons, and also actually research the levels of accuracy.

Met Office's mean forecast error is just 0.06 °C in the last 7 years:
2007 forecasted to be the warmest year yet ATS

It's getting more accurate too:
Weather Forecast Accuracy Gets Boost With New Computer Model ScienceDaily


Accuracy of models that predict global warming Wiki

Maybe you should actually go look at NASA GISS data before talking about it:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Analysis Graphs and Plots

Or even the NOAA:

NOAA Climate of 2006 - Global Summary

As for CO2, know your isotopes:


The human hand in climate change
The IPCC reports are fairly candid about what we collectively know and where the uncertainties probably lie. In the first category are findings that are not in dispute, not even by les refusards:

• Concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide are increasing owing to fossil-fuel consumption and biomass burning. Carbon dioxide has increased from its pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million (ppmv) to about 380 ppmv today, an increase of about 35 percent. From ice-core records, it is evident that present levels of CO2 exceed those experienced by the planet at any time over at least the past 650,000 years.

• Concentrations of certain anthropogenic aerosols have also increased owing to industrial activity.

• The earth’s average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2°F in the past century, with most of the increase occurring from about 1920 to 1950, and again beginning around 1975. The year 2005 was the warmest in the instrumental record.

• Sea level has risen by about 2.7 inches over the past 40 years; of this, a little over an inch occurred during the past decade.

• The annual mean geographical extent of arctic sea ice has decreased by 15 to 20 percent since satellite measurements of this began in 1978.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The 70's doesn't compare to the media attention or science today and we didn't know enough to make useful predictions then as stated here in 1975.

As for you stating most glaciers not melting worldwide, that's just pure ignorance:
GLIMS: Global Land Ice Measurements from Space
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Glaciers Melting Worldwide, Study Finds Nat'l Geographic



[edit on 31-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone

Originally posted by loam
So all scientists who are inclined to believe that man plays a prominent role in global climate change have liberal minds???


It seems to me that all scientists who are inclined to believe that man plays a prominent role in global climate change also share the mindset that the government should strong arm the free citizens of the world into compliance because of "scientific consensus" which doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.

And who do the environmental whackos target? Business, capitolism, The western world- not the places that shouild matter the most to globalist, ie Brazilian Rainforests, India, China, Russia- places of communist/socialist bent.



If that delusion comforts you, then so be it.


You come to this conspiracy site with an "open mind" and see only what you want. As if the left were completely incapable of the fear tactics you've been trained to charge the right with.

How will we fix this GW Problem? The gov't will save us! A completely liberal point of view to shut down industry and ruin economies that have the unfair advantage of not being socialist in nature.



I will pit my squishy liberal insides to your squishy reasoning any day. Your posts are simply too ignorant to respond to so go back to listening to mush loosebowels and don't worry your ditto head about it.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I will pit my squishy liberal insides to your squishy reasoning any day. Your posts are simply too ignorant to respond to so go back to listening to mush loosebowels and don't worry your ditto head about it.


Now see Grover, that's the sort of baseless, personal attack that though I haven't thought how nice it would be to meet you till now, I would really love a face to face...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
("Grover, I know your squishy liberal insides...")


Child... you are the one who out of the blue started with the squishy liberal insides bullhooey and now you are claiming I am attacking you. ROTFLMAO!!!

[edit on 31-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists.


Wow. Way to discredit the entire article by opening with this statement/proclamation.

I smell more Blog Trash presented as News.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Your very first chart extrapolates data out to 2100 A.D. This is the surest way I know of to get bad data. My daily laboratory work would be off several orders of magnitude if I calibrated like that. Absolute rubbish! No serious scientific researcher could ever believe this.

The entire Solar System or more is warming through no fault of humans. The increased amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is trivial, and no one understands exactly what it means, if anything. A natural phenomenon, perhaps. People don't understand how minute the atmospheric CO2 is until you explain to them that 10,000 P.P.M.=1%. That makes 100 P.P.M. look like the small amount that it is: .01%, to be exact. Meaningless.

You will not convince me that a ONE degree F rise in global average temperature over 100 years is significant or anything other than a natural process. Get real!

I do not believe in Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming Many other scientists don't either, and many of us have been wrongfully discredited by the G.W. fanatics.

As I have stated elsewhere on this board, show me irrefutable evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I will champion your cause!

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The climate doesn't care what political flavor you are and denying risk fills the graveyard.

The Ant and the Grasshopper



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awake and All Seeing
Here is a crazy idea

Both are right, Humans effect the climate and the planet goes through heating cycles. [


Guess I am crazy too, because that is the most logical conclusion.

Whether humanity decides to control its climate fate,
or embrace a philosophy of neo-fatalism
....shall be the rest of the story.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Your very first chart extrapolates data out to 2100 A.D. This is the surest way I know of to get bad data. My daily laboratory work would be off several orders of magnitude if I calibrated like that. Absolute rubbish! No serious scientific researcher could ever believe this.


You haven't shown us anything to dismiss the fact that greenhouse gases effect temperature, because to do so would completely disregard the laws of thermodynamics.

Better show me your proven model predictions too, cause any bonehead can hindcast. So where are these forecasts you have made that are more accurate? I really don't care what your emotions tell you to believe and the data doesn't either, so show me your forecasts.

If you can do better than NASA, then get to work and prove it:
Forcings in GISS Climate Model

As for anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, march your butt over to the IPCC and prove them all wrong:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
New one is due out on the 2nd.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists.


Wow. Way to discredit the entire article by opening with this statement/proclamation.

I smell more Blog Trash presented as News.


sorry, it came up on google news, maybe if someone could post something showing that Dr. Heidi Cullen didn't call for the striping of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in GW, if not then maybe this is news worthy, just a thought.


apc

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Her exact words:


climate.weather.com...
If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
"[The chief executives of 10 major U.S. corporations have joined together to call for immediate federal action to combat human-induced global warming, saying that voluntary efforts are inadequate to do the job. The group, which calls itself the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, includes the chief executives of Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, PNM Resources, FPL Group and Duke Energy, as well as representatives from four leading environmental groups.
In the face of White House unwillingness to address climate change through the regulatory process, the group is urging Congress to set up an economy-wide cap-and-trade system—whereby the government would set limits on the total amount of emissions of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and companies would be able to buy and sell the right to pollute accordingly. The executives reported that to be effective, any such legislation must cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 10 percent below today's levels within a decade and at least 60 percent by 2050."]

www.emagazine.com...

Note what companies these CEO's represent... not exactly flaming liberals (not like yours truly)

HMMMM..... I wonder what they know that all you deniers don't?



[edit on 1-2-2007 by grover]




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join