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 heliosprime
Nice try but you still avoid the question by just pointing fingers and screaming "denier".
There is much data to debunk that GW is manmade, yet so many "believer" don't want to be bothered with something containing FACT. You point to a flawed study from 1978, yet won't read the data from 1995 from 'STANFORD" University. Hardly a "conservative" college.
GW is REAL, and the sooner we all realize that it is a natural cycle not vile evil of man, we can create the technology to compensate for the changes. In one hand the true believers scream help I'm melting, yet won't secure the energy needed to build an air conditioning system and fuel it.
Originally posted by melatonin
Amazingly, some of the people on Avenger's list above are also associated with these same two industry funded think-tanks (e.g., Michaels, Singer, Christy, Balling, Lindzen, Balliunas, DeFreitas). What a coincidence, heh.
[edit on 18-12-2007 by melatonin]
Originally posted by heliosprime
And as one who once was funded by research grants, the entire debate is funded by someone with an intrest. Mega-dollars can be made in research on either side, so "industry" think tanks is BS. Look at the data, not the names on any stupid list.
The raw data says CO2 contributions from man made anything is so small its silly to worry over.
Atmosphere, mixture of gases surrounding any celestial object that has a gravitational field strong enough to prevent the gases from escaping; especially the gaseous envelope of Earth. The principal constituents of the atmosphere of Earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.
Originally posted by heliosprime
I find it rather "FUNNY" how when the fact the 99.97% of the atmosphere is shown NOT to be CO2 this thread has died. All the fear caused by "we are all going to die from excess CO2" seems to fall away when the FACT that only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere is CO2 and man provides less than 1% (+-) of that.
How can man cause global warming through excessive CO2 emissions when the entire total man contributes is 0.003%?
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only "about half a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.
This report is in the spirit of enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot who reportedly said, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth."
[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Animal
So let's say the peers of these folks with dissenting opinions review their work, and disagree with it. What then? You're right where you started. Those who believe in man made global warming, and those who don't, and nothing is settled.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
You are operating under several assumptions
A- we know what the optimal temp is
B- climate change is man made
C- climate change can be stopped by man
The fact is that we don't know any of these to be "true" beyond any doubt. Anyone claiming otherwise is a snake oil salesman.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by melatonin
So you dismiss out of hand any scientist if they aren't in lock step with the environmental lobby?
Again, there is no consensus that climate change is a result of man, much as some would like that to be the case. No scientist worth their salt can say- yes, we know this is THE cause of this effect, or that if we do THIS, the effect will change.
Originally posted by melatonin
Also, your maths is wrong. Of the 0.0383%, we can account for about 25%ish if it. Pre-industrial the concentration was about 280ppm, we are now at 383ppm. Apes burning stuff can almost completely account for the rise.
Originally posted by heliosprime
OHHH KKKKKKKKK.......duh........let's see......25% of 0.0383 is 0.009575% then 99.99043% of the earths atmosphere is unaffected by man made CO2 from all sources.
the FACT that only 0.03% of the entire atmosphere is CO2 and man provides less than 1% (+-) of that.
How can man cause global warming through excessive CO2 emissions when the entire total man contributes is 0.003%?
Lets be clear...................99.99043% of the entire planets atmosphere has absolutely noting to do with man's burning fossil fuels
How can anything man does with CO2 have any effect on anything??????
Originally posted by melatonin
Again, if I place 0.0001g of polonium in 300g of water, will you drink it, it's 99.99% water?
As a GHG, it will cause warming, it is basic physics.
[edit on 20-12-2007 by melatonin]