It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by audas
You continue to REFUSE to provide any links or references to back up any claims you make - further the links references, and voluminous amounts of to the contrary of what you clam are merely dismissed as not relevant simply becuase they utterly destroy your arguments.
The idea that the Carbon Credit scheme will not solve the crisis, or that the uK may benefit financially from it or that it will make it a user pays system falling largely on the shoulders of the private citizen are all utterly true - however at no point does this provide any relevance to counteract the evidence that global warming is a reality - none. It is simply congratulating yourself on your outrageous claims which completely lack any form of substance.
Again - provide links to these mysterious sources ???
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. ...
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.
Dec. 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.
In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers ... are prepared by a relatively small core writing team ... . The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
Business-as-usual scenarios provide a useful warning about the potential for human-made climate change. Our analysis of climate forcings suggests, as a strategy to slow global warming, an alternative scenario focused on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon (soot) aerosols. Investments in technology to improve energy efficiency and develop nonfossil energy sources are also needed to slow the growth of CO2 emissions and expand future policy options. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels.
We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario. This scenario focuses on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.
Originally posted by jdub297
Finally, the Hansen study for the National Academy of Science included some interesting observations; especially in light of his later AGW advocacy and discrediting for blatant misrepresentations in his subsequent "studies."
(Hint: not all "Studies" are equal. Witness the fraudulent "Hockey Stick" of Mann, and the most recent inclusions in Nature of studies based on "data" from non-existent Antarctic weather stations!)
Weuse near-surface air temperature data from42 occupied stations and 65AWSs from the READER (Reference Antarctic Data for Environmental Research) data set1. We use passive infrared brightness measurements (TIR) of surface temperature from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer8, a satellite of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We use the RegEM algorithm9–11 to combine the data from occupied weather stations with the TIR and AWS data in separate reconstructions of the near-surface Antarctic temperature field. Split calibration/verification tests are performed by withholding preand post 1995 TIR andAWS data in separate RegEMcalculations. Calibration and verification statistics are calculated for each grid point fromthe comparison of the reconstructed time series and the original temperature time series. We show RE and correlation r values in Fig. 1. CE verification values yield results indistinguishable from RE in our study and are reported in Supplementary Information. Significance levels of the calibration/verification statistics are based on Monte Carlo simulations of red noise as the null hypothesis. In Fig. 2, the95%confidence interval is the unexplained variance, 2s, where s2 error 5s2 data(12r2 ver), s2
data is the temporal variance in the original satellite temperature data and r2 ver is the verification fractional resolved variance. Significance levels of trends are calculated using a two-tailed t-test, with the number of degrees of freedom adjusted for autocorrelation. In reporting trends for different areas, we define West Antarctica as 72u–90u S, 60u–180u W; East Antarctica as 65u–90u S, 300–180u E; and the Antarctic Peninsula as westerly longitudes north of 72u S.
Nevertheless, Hansen and his collaborators (maybe because of his collaborators admitted that CO2 is the least important of the GHGs in our atmosphere. Moreover, they recognized that drastic measures are not necessary are not necessary to keep CO2 in check.
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by melatonin
Melatonin, with all due respect, do you contend that the studies you referenced comprehensively includes all the pertinent variables?
I don't mean to diminish the body of work in question.
as a commentary on the refusal of what, at least to me, seems a disconnect in the reasoning behind anthropomorphism in public policy-making.
And in the end the question remains; why do we so abruptly deny the inclusion of so many factors in our considerations of fearing nature. Biomass, geological venting, degradation of bio-activity in the ocean, solar influences..., why do these not figure into the equation again?
What of unknown variables?
Can men actually manipulate a chaotic system in flux and expect to understand the outcome?
Our planet is already reacting to our presence. What happens when she continues to react; while we putter with the balance in play? Does that make any sense?
Originally posted by scorps
I agree that Al Gore may of screwed things up, but there still happens to be a issue with the enviroment and he brought lots of attention to this issue. I Think that we need to find new fuel sources before we have no more fossil fuels left. There are many things that need to change enviromentally, CO2 and Polar bears just arent them.
Originally posted by Chuffer
Al Gore has a new argument for why carbon dioxide is the global warming boogeyman — and it’s simply out of this world.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.
Originally posted by stander
reply to post by Amniodarone
You must be one of those mentally subordinate folks who call any PhD alchemy "a fact."