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.

 

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

What if global-warming fears are overblown?


money.cnn.com

Expect to hear from John Christy of the Earth System Science Ctr at UA-Huntsville; a climatologist who refuses to accept funds from oil or auto industries. He was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report and an author of AGU's 2003 statement on climate change. Christy is not calling for drastic cuts in CO2.
Christy has produced reams of data that undermine arguments that earth is warming at an unusual rate and question if remedies being considered do any good.
(Interview follows at link.)
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
www.samaylive.com
money.cnn.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
World's largest polluters unite against 'carbon' schemes
OMB Criticizes EPA Finding on Greenhouse Gases




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Christy's critics claim his research is funded by corporations and the oil industry. They ignore sworn proof that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests he gave to charity.

His most controversial argument is that the surface temperature readings upon which AGW is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says.

When Christy and Roy Spencer, a NASA scientist teaching at UA-Huntsville, analyzed temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface. Clark and Spencer found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings - which makes sense if bricks and pavement are retaining heat that would otherwise be dispersed.

Christy was interviewed by Jon Birger of Fortune and posted on “CNN-Money” at this link:
money.cnn.com... .

Here’s an excerpt:



Q. During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

A. We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

Note: (Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades."

Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)


With Congress and Obama pushing for immediate CO2 regulation, cap and trade laws, and taxes that will come out of our pockets, isn't it time to consider what scientists who are not AGW advocates have to say?

Christy's interview makes it clear that there is no real consensus agreement on AGW or the drastic remedies AGW advocates have proposed to get rich from.

jw

money.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-5-2009 by jdub297]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
What if they are overblown? They are overblown.
According to half of these scientests the whole world is going to collapse around us because of CO2 emissions. Somebody always has to get everyone worked up and make them think the world is coming to an end. Now the politicians see it as a way to suck some more of our hard earned cash from our pockets, for our own good, of course.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I think we should be more concerned about our addiction to fossil fuels. And either way, pollution is real. It may or may not be heating up the world (I think it is, but regardless) it's affecting our HEALTH. And the health of thousands of species. Maybe the ice would be melting anyway. Again, I don't think so.

But we still need to curb our fossil fuel usage. And turn off lights to conserve electricity. And install solar panels because they HELP.

You should care about your environment. Warming isn't the only problem. Deforestation? Pollution? Littering? Habitat loss?

It's not worth your Hummer.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I think there a plenty of scientists that never put much faith in this global warming phenomenon. There is an equal amount of data on both sides. They can't even decide if the global temperature has indeed changed. If they make the leap that it has changed, then there are literally hundreds of plausible natural reasons. After the natural reasons, there is the obvious effect of more population, development, concrete, deforestation, etc. If you jump all of those hurdles, and finally get to CO2, the problem is that some of the largest CO2 emitters are living things! Not to mention it is a necessary part of the atmosphere for plant and sea life, so we can't just eliminate it.

Originally this was a CFC, CO issue, and they warned of holes in the ozone. They limited CFC and put catalytic converters on all cars. That problem is solved, the ozone has mostly recovered, and now it is a CO2 issue (CO2 is what comes instead of CO after the catalytic converter does its job). Maybe we can add another converter, change CO2 to CO3 and carbonate our own sodas while we drive (for you non chemists, carbonic acid CO3 is how they accomplish carbonization in drinks)!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I am all for improvement of our environmental impact, but I think it is ridiculous to add a bunch of taxes to everything to fix something you cant even prove is a problem. I think a gradual move towards lowering our environmental impact is best. What good does it do if we are all broke and the economy is crashed? Then how is anyone going to improve the environment.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 





But we still need to curb our fossil fuel usage. And turn off lights to conserve electricity. And install solar panels because they HELP.

You should care about your environment. Warming isn't the only problem. Deforestation? Pollution? Littering? Habitat loss?

It's not worth your Hummer.


Right on! That is the real issue, we have a limited energy supply. Fossil Fuels will not last, nuclear energy has too much by-product, hydro-electric is not environmentally friendly (now they're blaming the China earthquake on the dam). I have not heard of one scientist researching how pulling energy out of the atmosphere via wind turbines will affect the global weather!? If we harness wave-action, will it change the ocean currents?

The only true answer is conservation and moderation. Solar power, wind power, and all the others have their place, but if we exponentially increase our power usage, we are doomed.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by getreadyalready]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Well then we are doomed. As China and India continue to develop that will be more and more people consuming power.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter if it is overblown (and it is). They've got the sheep in such a frenzy about it, they're ready to voluntarily waltz into the metaphorical slaughter house with a smile on their face, so long as it's to combat the evils of climate change.


They've stumbled upon the ultimate fear tactic: a theory that can neither be proven nor refuted, but requires "action" "just in case." It's the ultimate catch 22 and they're going to use it left and right to pass whatever legislation they want.


TA



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
A Talk Show Host, Neal Bortz, did a very good independent study once. (I think it was him) Maybe it was Hannity...

They sent people to all of the sensors used to compute temperature to just see where they were and how they were operating. Apparently you can get a map of them.

Anyway, they found one sitting under a businesses air conditioning unit. You can imagine how that one was skewed..

Another was next to a "Black Paved" parking lot.. Imagine the readings coming off of that...

They discovered that many of them were in spots that would artificially raise the over-all average.

Add to that the Liberals being in power in the admin, house and senate and they can determine for all of us whatever they choose. Such as Global Warming; The Myth!

For every study that the ice packs are melting, I can find one that shows they are growing.

For every study showing Polar Bears dieing off, there are studies showing the population is the best it's been in decades.

To just make a decision like that. that effects everyone in the country; using only the data that "he" agrees with, is irresponsible and damaging...

But nothing more than I expected...

It's going to get worse people.. Much worse...

Semper



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
This is a bit old, so some of the data may have changed but its Referneced Divine Cosmos if you wish to investigate more.

Here’s a brief summary of some initial data points from our exhaustive study, with over 100 mainstream / NASA scientific references:


Sun: Higher activity since 1940 than at any time in previous 11,000 years. (This data has changed due to lack of sunspot activity(added by me Seeker))

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Massive internal warming, over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in rotational speed in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto drifts away from the Sun

I wouldnt call it a lie (Global Warming) I would just say that they really dont understand what is happening at the moment.


[edit on 14-5-2009 by The_Seeker]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
... either way, pollution is real. It may or may not be heating up the world (I think it is, but regardless) it's affecting our HEALTH. And the health of thousands of species.


If you've read any of my posts on this issue I strongly support local environmental action. If we can't take care of our own backyards, how can we expect to unite globally? I do not believe man is a significant- enough infection of this planet to have a great or lasting effect on it.

Gaia is resilient and heals herself when we give her the chance. There are many who've devoted lives and careers to finding a means of benign co-existence here.

“Carbon Benefits Project”: Land management lowers CO2, may open carbon markets to poor
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


But we still need to curb our fossil fuel usage. And turn off lights to conserve electricity. And install solar panels because they HELP.


Geothermal has been proven since it was first used in Italy 300 years ago. Flexible, cheap solar cells will soon be available (w/i 1 year) that deliver power at $0.10 per watt, even in ambient light and from oblique angles to the source. There's hope in renewables.


You should care about your environment. Warming isn't the only problem. Deforestation? Pollution? Littering? Habitat loss?


Unfortunately, many of the largest, loudest, most powerful AGW advocates are focused only on "remedies" that generate income from consumers and industry. Even at the expense of conservation and forest management.

"Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Finally, it is shortsighted and misguided to force draconian changes on the American economy when the world's largest polluters are left to their own devices.

"World's largest polluters unite against 'carbon' schemes"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We can make a difference.

jw



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Why punish Americans, who are willing to take reasonable action, when 4 billion people do not agree to the same measures Obama and Chu are pushing?

"World's largest polluters unite against 'carbon' schemes"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even Australia, the EU and the UK have realized that the carbon-trading schemes do not work and suffer from unintended consequences.

jw



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

As China and India continue to develop that will be more and more people consuming power.


Just today, India called on the other major developing nations, the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), accounting for over 2/3 of Earth's population and most GHG emissions, to oppose carbo trading schemes:

"World's largest polluters unite against 'carbon' schemes"
www.abovetopsecret.com... .

jw



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

star

As for polar bears, their population now exceeds 25,000, higher than it has been in over 50 years, and growing.

The total icepack is over 440,000 sq. km. larger than it was 10 years ago.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

It's not worth your Hummer.


This is where people that believe as you do go off the rails. If someone can afford to pay for all the extra taxes, fuel, etc. for a Hummer this is America and people like you don't get to tell others what kind of car they can drive! You hate SUV's, by all means don't buy one. Do your own best to save the environment the best way you can in your own life, but STOP telling others how to live their lives. FCS, how many Hummers are actually out there and what percentage of the world's polution do they cause. Look at places like "Chindia" instead for where the real pollution is occuring.



Never mind the truth being that human caused global warming is a fraud. Let's now talk about pollution instead (BTW, this is such an obvious deflection attempt). The keys to your Hummer, please. That will solve everything ...


[edit on 5/14/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Flexible, cheap solar cells will soon be available (w/i 1 year) that deliver power at $0.10 per watt, even in ambient light and from oblique angles to the source. There's hope in renewables.



Within a year never happen.

They will not be down to $0.10 per watt 20 years from now.

What site are you getting the figure from.
And who will be building these panels.

This is another pipe dream by someone that does not know how things work in the market place.

First no company could make enough to meet supply at that cost.
then demand would be so great that just supply and demand would keep the cost well above $0.10 per watt.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I suggest you all look up "Air Scrubbers" There is no actual problem when it comes to emissions. The PTB have pushed this global warming stuff to get us to get rid of this addiction to fossil fuels. That is the only reason, to make us live "greener" since we do only have a limited supply of fossil fuels.

Global Warming is just as Natural as the Ice age. CO2 emission can be taken out of the atmosphere by 1 tonne per day. We have the ability to take it out of the air, but the overall goal is to get us from fossil fuels to a sustainable soceity. That is it in a nutshell.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
global warming is fake!
it's only here to make people pay a carbon tax
rebel against any efforts to tax us any more!

[spam link removed]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
There's no What-If. It is overblown.

The GW crowd preaches it like it's the Gospel of Al Gore and he's the 14th apostle.

And as far as I'm concerned no one can predict the weather. And don't bother telling me that climate and weather are different. Climate is just the weather on a large scale.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join