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 Annee
Since Al Gore gets the average "Joe" to pay attention to how they affect the environment - - I support him 100%.
Originally posted by grey580
I blame Man Bear Pig.
Originally posted by dtice
I just love how people automatically jump to the conclusion that just because you have a differing opinion on climate change you are going to destroy the planet by "throwing your trash in the backyard".
Originally posted by whatsup
I can see by the attitudes expressed on this board that there is no hope for mankind (or the planet).
should you ever get some terrible medical condition, be sure to tell your specialist that you also know more than him!
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by Annee
Since Al Gore gets the average "Joe" to pay attention to how they affect the environment - - I support him 100%.
Do you support his carbon credit scam as well??
Originally posted by grey580
I blame Man Bear Pig.
Someone's GOTTA tell me .. what' this Man Bear Pig thing?
Now they (Sunspots) are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.
Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.
Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by Venit
First off as has already been said, the source is hardly reliable. Secondly, 'Global warming' doesn't mean temperatures will go up everywhere, it's an average rise and will/is causing greater unpredictability in weather patterns.
That is called Climate Change, which is natural, and not Global Warming.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The claim surrounding Global Warming is that atmospheric CO2 has been protrayed as being more important than the Sun, and all other natural factors, yet we know for a fact this is not true.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Computer models can be rigged to show whatever anyone wishes to.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Computer models are not evidence, and in the past Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 than now yet, there were no massive die-offs in land, or the oceans, unless there were other cataclismic events which also caused greenhouse gases to be released.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Originally posted by czacza1
Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening
www.worldnetdaily.com
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents. Lack of sufficient data has hampered such predictions in the past. Scientists at IFM-GEOMAR and from the MPI for Meteorology have developed a method to derive ocean currents from measurements of sea surface temperature (SST). The latter are available in good quality and global coverage at least for the past 50 years. With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years.
“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. “In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”
This suggests that El Niño-like events will occur much more frequently in the future if the global output of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is not drastically reduced. An increase in the amount of inter-annual variability is also seen with the long-term warming trend in the east Pacific; this is mainly expressed in the cold events (La Niñas) becoming stronger, as can clearly be seen in Figure 8.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - A blizzard shut down major highways Monday in Wyoming and South Dakota, and meteorologists said one mountainous area might get as much as 40 inches of snow.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial closed because of the icy, blinding weather in South Dakota's rugged Black Hills. Temperature plummeted as the storm moved eastward and wind gusted to more than 60 mph.
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."
ICECAP, which is the acronym for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, promotes the views of global warming skeptics. The website claims to be "the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public.
The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].
This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President.
(It is worth noting that in the late 1990's, George Carlo founded a group known as the "Science and Public Policy Institute" to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues. Approximately eight years later Ferguson founded his group with the identical name, oblivious to the existing of Carlo's group. Ferguson states that after registering his organization in Virginia he discovered that Carlo's group existed but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery).[1]
The website of Ferguson's SPPI draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
Funding
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.
[edit]Exxon Funding
According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]
Funding from Exxon includes:
2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]
[edit]Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]
Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation
[edit]Frontiers of Freedom and Tobacco
In a 1996 memo, Jeff Taylor of Frontiers of Freedom writes to Alexander Spears, of the Lorillard Tobacco Company to solicit funding. Taylor describes the activities in which Frontiers of Freedom engaged to attack the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the tobacco industry. The memo also shows how Frontiers managed to generate a clamor among Congressmembers seeking the praise from Fof, a relatively new group. Wallop writes,
One sure gauge of our growth took place recently when we presented 15 members of Congress with our 'Defender of Freedom' award. When we returned to the office, we had calls from a handful of other Members asking why they had not been recognized by Frontiers.[1]
One of the "Achievements" Frontiers lists for 1996 was Wallop's guest-hosting of the Armstrong Williams talk show. Armstrong Williams was recently revealed to have accepted $240,000 in taxpayer funds from the George W. Bush administration to comment positively on his show about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act.
A USA Today article about the scandal can be seen at www.usatoday.com...
Other policy topics on which Frontiers of Freedom was active include privatizing Social Security, privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (and, ironically, this was all back in 1996).