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 is no Global Warming

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. Here is the conclusion of the paper:


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.


www.oism.org...

Do we need cap and trade? No. Do we need Kyoto? No. Is industrialization the cause of global warming. No, there is no global warming. Is it worth it to continue debating? Not to me.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
-------HA HA HA HA HA HEHEHEHEHE-HE HE --WOW--delusion- i suppose the chem spraying is nothing===hope ya dont have young children you are telling this to--go read your facts again--this time a little slower--



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
there are 3 topics i cant stand: Global Warming, Health Care Issue and Swine Flue. much ado about nothing.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
You are Wrong .. THERE is Global Warming ..

What the research is saying is that Global Warming is NOT Man-Made..



[edit on 21-12-2009 by Polynomial C]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.


Which one? So this is a piece of science that would overturn more than one hundred years of physics.

Where was it published?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


TheComte seems to believe that the oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a credible source. And to be fair, maybe at one time it was. But then the inmates took over the asylum.


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.)


[edit on 21-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



lol, I doubt it ever was. Anyways, I knew where it was published I was just hoping that the OP might just name the journal:

Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons

Just the place to look for groundbreaking climate science, lol. However, if I wuz looking for right-wing vanity 'science', I'd know where to go.

The OISM is great for lulz, though. One of the few 'research institutes' that sells christian homeschooling packs and DVDs on surviving 'nucular' war.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh c'mon, they DID spell "nuclear" correctly. Probably took a few tries to get it, but it's something!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
"Poly" you can't just say "he's wrong" and be done with it. Ok, let's say that's what the article says...global warming is not man made. Everything about your life right now and in the future is because Global Warming is man made --the whole Copenhagen thing is because of man-made Global Warming. That's what our leaders are saying, and they're changing our lives based on that "fact."

Soon we all will have thermostats that have to be in a certain range and all data just from a stupid thermostat, will be sent to the government. If we adjust it beyond that range we will be heavily fined. And that's just with a plain old thermostat. And because Global Warming is "man made," they're going to have the rich nations pay the poor nations a percentage of their GDP. Or how about taxing tanning salons so heavy that many won't stay in business because sun tanning is dangerous. Doesn't matter if sun tanning is dangerous in the long run, it's a personal choice.

They're taking out all personal choice based on man made Global Warming. They have to define it as man made so they can tax, fine and pass laws against us to get people in line with their agenda. After all, if you and I had nothing to do with this "Global Catastrophe," well you can pretty much guess. We're being made to care and pay for something we had nothing to do with.

The article is contradicting what the leaders of our world is saying, and that's important.

Doesn't matter though, they're gonna do what they want. Health Care Reform will pass. Global Warming will continue and you, me and everyone reading will be affected in a way that isn't right.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh c'mon, they DID spell "nuclear" correctly. Probably took a few tries to get it, but it's something!


I suppose. Gave me the sads, though. I can't but help imagining the Bush variant eminating from Art's cakehole.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I personally think that the Earth is warming up a bit. But anybody who bothers to look at a temperature chart can see that the Earth has been going through weird warming and cooling trends for the last several million years, long before we started making automobiles.

So while the Earth might be heating up, I tend to think we have essentially nothing to do with it. I remember as a kid seeing empty beer cans lying along the road and not liking it a whole lot. So the whole recycling thing is fine with me. I wouldn't kid myself into thinking it's going to have any effect one way or another on the temperature of the whole Earth.

I mean, really. That's ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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.


I was 'attacking' your attempt to present this BS OISM article as having any sort of scientific authority. It has none. It's little more than the ramblings of a bunch of quacks and shills.

As for the 'data', it's pretty easy.


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.


The first experimental data was found in the late 19th century. Try the work of Arrhenius and Tyndall. It's the reason they are called 'greenhouse gases'.

ABE:
And for the second time, I'll push this fantastic talk by Prof. Richard Alley who skates along the very edge of current research in climate science:

The biggest control knob: CO2 in Earth's history

He's a real researcher and expert. The data is showing that CO2 is more important to climate than we even thought just a few years back.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Polynomial C
 


You are wrong... there WAS global warming.. not caused by man.. and it has been over since 2008 or before. The Sun is taking a nap..its gonna get cold. ..really cold.. very likely major crop failures in the next 2 or 3 years because of it.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
While we're exploring the integrity of one side of the argument, let's explore the integrity of the other.Summary of IPCC WG AR4 Protocol


.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.....


The methology highlighted in this essay calls the integrity of the IPCC into question at the very least.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


Global Warming means climate change ...

That is a huge misconception .. people think just because it has the word WARMING in it the world will get WARM ...

The Climate will change (Colder in some parts, Hotter in others) that change is caused by global Warming ...

Also .. I don't think Global Warming is caused by man...

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Polynomial C]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I have said this before and I'll say it again, I'm doing my part, I burn coal..



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


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.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

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.


lolwut?

It's the physics, _____ .



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 22-250
I have said this before and I'll say it again, I'm doing my part, I burn coal..

And in observance of the statement just put out by PETA, I will do my part by not killing my three dogs (who do fart a lot). And I do have an SUV and a diesel burning pickup and tractor.
Incidentally it has be 10 degrees below normal here for the last six months.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join