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.
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
Originally posted by TheComte
Peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh c'mon, they DID spell "nuclear" correctly. Probably took a few tries to get it, but it's something!
Originally posted by TheComte
Why don't you attack the data instead of relying on ad hominem attacks, mudslinging, and lolz? The warming trend is natural. Man hasn't caused anything. The planet will survive no matter what we do.
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
.Looking first at the number of authors we must take into account that an author for one working group can also be an author for another working group. Anil Markandya of the UK was an author of WG II chapter 8 and WGIII chapter 2, and Blair Fitzharris of New Zealand was an author of WG I chapter 4 and WG II chapter 11 and theWG II "summary for policymakers". They, along with 39 other authors contributed to more than one working group. The situation is even worse in the Synthesis Report where 38 of its 41 authors were also authors of the contributions by the working groups. All of these are counted at least twice in the IPCC's total of 1250 authors.
Chapter 9 of Working Group I had 53 authors in total but more than 40 were part of a network of people who worked previously together. In direct contradiction to the IPCC's statements that the team of authors should havea wide range of views and experiences, most were climate modellers and in many cases multiple authors were affiliated with the same establishment. In the latter case it was not uncommon for a contributing author to be a subordinate (academic or work) to an author higher in the authoring hierarchy [note 2]. For the sake of argument
let's ignore these irregularities and assume, despite the absence of confirming evidence, that all 53 authors fully
supported the chapter's findings.....
Originally posted by TheComte
So, you agree there is no data to support the hypothesis that co2 is causing global warming. But, you think that it is. Ok, duly noted. Thanks for your comments.
Originally posted by 22-250
I have said this before and I'll say it again, I'm doing my part, I burn coal..