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.

 

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by WolfofWar
 


A question: Why is the Bush admin. spending millions trying to convince the US public that GW/CO2 is NOT a problem then?

J.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 



More Pseudo-Science.... Besides, would you like your kids to get Melanoma - which is what ozone depletion tends to amplify?

J.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
predictions verified....but end result is STILL not verified. Global Warming has to update and change definitions, readings, results all the time. The IPPC itself allows this, as long as it steers the end reslut in the same direction.


As I mentioned earlier, that's exactly what the study that this thread is based on does.

Sometimes the data we have is not ideal, we eventually get better more reliable data, so we reassess previous findings. But the science is just following the evidence.


They should have lost all credibility when the Hockey Stick theory was debunked.


It wasn't really debunked. It was the very first study of its type, the stats could have been more appropriate, when they are, it makes no difference, the conclusion is the same.

Add to this the several major multi-proxy temperature reconstructions which essentially show the same thing, there was no debunking.

Even if it was debunked, it was only a study that assessed historical temperatures, it was of no consequence for the notion that GHGs can cause warming.


Its not science unless it is proved over and over, and the end result means something. If the end result just keeps brining up new questions, its still just a theory.


And it has been. Each year it gets stronger and stronger. I've been following this for 20 years, the evidence is much much stronger since then.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think you mean Melanoma if you're talking skin cancer.
Also I think it got buried, but I posted on page 12 two independent studies that show that sun temp fluctuation has very little effect on Earth's climate.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

A question: Why is the Bush admin. spending millions trying to convince the US public that GW/CO2 is NOT a problem then?



Why is the UN spending millions to convince us it is a problem? Why is GE spending millions to convince us it is?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Heh....I just knew you'd bite. How predictable. Potential as in: we can't be sure just HOW catastrophic GW will be in the long run.

Jeez....grasping at straws now - slow day at the Burger King, huh?


J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by angst18
I'm at a continual loss to understand why people are so quick to dismiss the wealth of scientific data that link the intensity of Earth's warming cycle to the very obvious pollution of human industry.

When you can link farting cows to a cause of global warming, you have to start questioning the so-called science. Thats why!!!!!







Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.


www.realclimate.org...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by angst18]


"unlikely" again, people using words that are not definitive. Thats leaves questions, therefore this is just a theory. Who is to say the lag time that the effect would have is not 100 years? You know something is wrong, when the so-called science can be questioned by common sense. I am not a scientist, and even I can make points that call into question the validity of these studies.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by angst18
I think you mean Melanoma if you're talking skin cancer.
Also I think it got buried, but I posted on page 12 two independent studies that show that sun temp fluctuation has very little effect on Earth's climate.


''More Pseudo-Science.... Besides, would you like your kids to get Melanoma - which is what ozone depletion tends to amplify?

J. ''

Yep - Melanoma...

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


''I am not a scientist, ''

Yes - this is one thing I can agree with you on.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
How many scientific studies have you read?
I have a subscription to Physics
Today and the Journal Science, and terms like likely, unlikely and probably are common in almost every published and peer reviewed study.

That's the way science works... EVERYTHING is theory.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I think you've already pretty well stated yourself you know very little about science. I'd quit while your ahead if I were you


J.


Excuse me? I do not believe you have brought anything intelligent to the post that has not been argued away. Relying on others to prove a point is not intellignet at all. I am arguing logic with you all because in the case of global warming, science just has not proved anything.....yet. And when it does, I will consede I was wrong. If I can call into question the validity of "scientific" sstudy, without a scientiffic background, I think that says something about the science itself. Too many questions, not enough answers, and plenty of theory just do not add up to the already arrived upon ending. You can't create science by taking an end result and making data fit.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by 27jd
 


The earth is currently heating up faster right now than it ever has in the last 800,000 years. Fact.

So this is not just some cyclical, natural enviromental event. Also, it should be noted that the major changes have only begun SINCE the advent of the Industrial Revolution....again - scientifically verifiable.

J.

What if its an 800,000 year cycle? Hmmmmmmm........ Maybe this is the year it reverses?? Oh wait, it already began that trend in 1998.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by WolfofWar
 


A question: Why is the Bush admin. spending millions trying to convince the US public that GW/CO2 is NOT a problem then?

J.


No, they are attempting to get all the facts and prove what the cause and result is. Its you who are accusing the Bush administration of it. I know about the news article, so don;t bother linking it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


The UN's whole raison d’être is to try to keep nations talking - as opposed to warring, and act as an unbiased world body of opinion capable of bringing itself to bear on itinerant member states, if need be. Global Warming is a global issue (hence the globalin GW) - the UN would be remiss NOT to get involved.

Please don't start with the whole Bush admin. anti-UN nonsense...

GE obviously see a market for their alternative energy products. They can perhaps also forsee the way sane governments worldwide are headed on this issue.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   


If I can call into question the validity of "scientific" sstudy, without a scientiffic background, I think that says something about the science itself. Too many questions, not enough answers, and plenty of theory just do not add up to the already arrived upon ending. You can't create science by taking an end result and making data fit.



This statement is ridiculous.
Sorry, but you could probably also call into question the FACT that an electron can't possibly be in an infinite number of places at the same time, or that a photon can't possibly be both a particle and a wave at the same time, but it's because you aren't a scientist that you can assert this disbelief.

Someone trained in Quantum theory knows that, in fact, these things are accepted as facts in the scientific community. Those that are versed in multi-dimensional mathematics and probability theory have confirmed the likelyhood.




[edit on 11-12-2007 by angst18]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
[ I've been following this for 20 years, the evidence is much much stronger since then.

Maybe you should go back 30 years ago, when all the scientists and news paper in the 70's were predicting global cooling and mini-ice ages. They were prediciting whole civilizations would die out because they would not be able to produce food to sustain themselves.

Look, global warming is a circular arguement. The erath ahs heated up and cooled down for a millenia, no one knows why, no one can prevent it. Why do we honestly feel that we have that much significance that we contribute to a naturally occuring phenonoma? Are we really that vein?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 



No. Wrong again. The Bush admin. is afraid of the GW debate. If they ever did admit it was occurring, they would then be expected to DO something about it. Doing something about GW would hit themselves and all their rich, powerful oil industry friends right where it hurts - in their bank accounts!

You have yet to come up with one logical, scientific, or even interesting post here.

Simple really.

j.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by angst18
 


Well said my friend.

Unfortuately, if there were minimum IQ requirements for computer use - things would be civilized - but very quiet around here
Sometimes I think it should be a viable option though... This 3 minutes of fame thing can get pretty tedious at times.

J.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Trader, you might want to check out the thread I just made here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It explains how you can't really believe all the studies and (dis)info we've been receiving about Global Warming.

Hey, I was on your side, but after finding this, I'm not too sure anymore.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Maybe you should go back 30 years ago, when all the scientists and news paper in the 70's were predicting global cooling and mini-ice ages. They were prediciting whole civilizations would die out because they would not be able to produce food to sustain themselves.


No, they weren't.

ToWSt, you're just parroting obscurantist talking points. There were a few scientists who suggested that the cooling would predominate, but it was never a widely held view, or a strongly supported one. One major paper suggested that aerosol cooling would outweigh GHG warming (Rasool & Schneider, 1971). There was no certainty.

I can show this very easily if you like, the National Academy of Sciences report from 1975 shows the scientific position at the time:


Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.

NAS/NRC report, 1975.

No certainty in any way. No real prediction possible.


Look, global warming is a circular arguement. The erath ahs heated up and cooled down for a millenia, no one knows why, no one can prevent it. Why do we honestly feel that we have that much significance that we contribute to a naturally occuring phenonoma? Are we really that vein?


Not circular at all.

I think we have more insight than you think, but hey-ho. We can not really affect things like solar activity, or comets smashing into the earth, or deccan-like volcanic activity. But we can reduce our impact.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join