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 AllexxisF1
I dare anyone on this BB to post one...just one single peer reviewed scientific study that proves Global Climate Change is not happening.
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Global Warming is a Hoax, and now we finally have proof!!!!
Human influence may be a hoax, but cyclical global warming happens all the time (in relative terms)
Originally posted by VonDoomen
I'd take a 1,000,000 tons of CO2 (PLANT FOOD) pumped into the atmosphere
over the 150 tons of mercury per year thats pumped into the atmosphere. and this is just the US. These are the REAL climate/environmental issues.
Global Warming is a Hoax, and now we finally have proof!!!!
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by dwiggen
Then we can eliminate the 2 largest drains on America's economic foundation over the past 3 decades and return to the rip-roaring 50's and 60's when America was producing, growing, and actually living up to the "Richest Country on Earth" name again.
Originally posted by AllexxisF1
I dare anyone on this BB to post one...just one single peer reviewed scientific study that proves Global Climate Change is not happening.
Not some big energy funded website or some paid shrill. A solid peer reviewed scientific study.
JUST ONE.
Please God, just one.
Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Carseller4
Global Warming is a Hoax, and now we finally have proof!!!!
What proof? It has yet to be proven that those emails and documents are legit. It'd be too easy to create your own emails and documents, pass them off as fact, and cause a big uproar.
Yes, it's certainly possible, but without definitive concrete proof and verification - why jump to conclusions?
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The onus is NOT on the community to disprove human caused climate change, it is rather on the shoulders of those who support the hypothesis to prove their theories as correct.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by dwiggen
The problem with your statement is the so-called "science" behind every hypothesis you're basing your attitude on has just been proven to be manipulated and fouled by an agenda driven community. We by God had better stop wasting trillions of dollars on "feel good" nonsense related to the environment until we are 100% CERTAIN that the science behind the changes is solid and uncorrupt. As it stands now, neither one is the case and all the policies based around stopping man driven global climate change are clearly intended to redistribute money, power, and influence rather than intended to do one damn thing to "help" the environment.
Originally posted by AllexxisF1
We have made our claim, your side has not.
So once again show me a scientific peer reviewed study that refutes the findings of the IPCC.
Just one.
New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. Schwartz’s study is “in press” at the Journal of Geophysical Research and you can download a preprint of the study here .
Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, is the only person in New Zealand who has been an expert reviewer on every draft of the many IPCC Reports. He recalls” “My greatest achievement was the second report where the draft had a chapter ‘Validation of Climate Models’. I commented that since no climate model has ever been ‘validated’ that the word was inappropriate. They changed the word to ‘evaluate’ 50 times, and since then they have never ‘predicted’ anything. All they do is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.
Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.
The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.”
Most scientists have viewed the sun's unvarying brightness as the one constant in the ever-changing climate system. Now, in a paper published online this week by Science (www.sciencexpress.org), paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries.