It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nice going.. using wikipedia as a source instead of actually checking the actual scientific papers.
And of course there are more people who publish for pro AGW side when they only hand out funding to those who want to prove that global warming is real. The funny part is that they dont even accept the science if they happen to come to a different conclusion than proving global warming.
So can you explain why it was warmer earlier in holocene? If you even know what that word is...
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
Also maybe some of the warming has to do with the sun having been more active than in 8000+ years over the last decades?
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Originally posted by babuthegreat
reply to post by TsukiLunar
here's a link of the IPCC retracting a statement about glacier melt that they used to get grant money.
Published works are under close scrutiny by other scientist. Looking for any reason to prove it wrong.
Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by The Old American
So what is your point? Should we just go ahead full speed ahead onto the rickety bridge because no one has proved positively that it is rickety?
... or should we proceed with caution and be prepared for the worst, just in case? As far as the world's atmosphere goes, our health is pretty dependent on its health, and not polluting it would be a good thing, whether or not the extra CO2 is proven to be a problem or not.
I really don't understand the motives of people who try and defend avoidance of changing things for the better with spurious arguments that accomplish nothing useful; at least for Joe Citizen. Continuing with unbridled fossil fuel use helps only those that produce it and profit from it. Being their patsy seems to be the only game here.
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.
Have you read the method that they use to measure the AIR temperature? Here ya go www.telegraph.co.uk...
Yet according to Mr Parker, the new results do not undermine the case for global warming: "It is raising questions about the interpretation of the sea-surface data."
Here's an interesting article i found on the subject i found: amlibpub.blogspot.com...
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by burntheships
This is like saying you needed bother with that tetanus shot. I know you stepped on a rusty nail but lets just wait and see what happens. It is not sound logic and it is dangerous.
There has been a growing recognition that no controlled scientific study (in which half the patients were given the vaccine and the other half were given injections of sterile water) has ever been carried out to prove the safety and effectiveness of the tetanus vaccine. Evidence for the vaccine comes from epidemiologic studies which are by nature controversial and which do not satisfy the criteria for scientific proof.
The tetanus vaccine over the decades has been progressively weakened in order to reduce the considerable reaction (fever and swelling) it used to cause. Accompanying this reduction in reactivity has been a concomitant reduction in antigenicity (the ability to confer protection). Therefore, there is a good chance that today’s tetanus vaccine is about as effective as tap water.
Until the last few years, government statistics admitted that 40 percent of the child population of the U.S. was not immunized. For all those decades, where were the tetanus cases from all those rusty nails?
So, instead of concerning yourself with the fact that global warming is now shown to be over inflated by 40%, you're more worried about qouting one line from the article showing that the a member of the team chose to not stir up controversy with the findings.
The simple fact is, global warming has been shown not to be anywhere near as bad as what the government funded scientists are trying to make the general public believe.
I never said you can't use link to Wiki as a source. Don't attribute others arguements to me. You feel free to use whatever sources you want to.
Originally posted by The Old American
Both the "global warming" climatologists and the "climate change" ones have been bought and paid for, the former by groups that want to regulate business into the ground, and the latter by groups that have in turn been bought by unscrupulous businesses that want to keep the status quo.
Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."
Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming. www.fieldandstream.com...
Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Honor93
There are plenty of sources that refute everything about this scientists' non-existent "expertise" on Global Warming. This story isn't about GW - it's about Big Oil trying to deny the truth to the public by parading it's paid GW "experts" before the Press with non-scientific stories designed to confuse people and prolong their own mega-profits for as long as humanly possible - while the world burns.
This sort of intelligent discussion is exactly why I joined ATS. Thank you very much for this, I'm highly enjoying this.
`The reality of global warming is this, there hasn't been official data collection on the subject for anywhere near a long enough time to prove that we're not just experiencing natural temperature fluctuations
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.
Borehole data are direct measurements of temperature from boreholes drilled into the Earth crust. Departures from the expected increase in temperature with depth (the geothermal gradient) can be interpreted in terms of changes in temperature at the surface in the past, which have slowly diffused downward, warming or cooling layers meters below the surface.
Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, boreholes, corals, and lake and ocean sediments. The deposition or growth rates of the proxies' material is influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century. * The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.
Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by TsukiLunar
I think "man made" global warming hasn't been proven in anything, all science is basically just a bunch of guesses anyway..... who knows which "side" is right.
Originally posted by EspyderMan
The only way to know for sure that we caused global warming is to remove our species from this planet and watch it for 2000 years to see if it happens with out us naturally. Otherwise it is impossible to prove 100%. The use of the word incontrovertible is astounding for scientists seeing as their theory has no basis of proof. The numbers they use are made up and guessed on and we are expected to just take their word for it that this is true?
What kind of "scientists" are these people? They totally detracted from what Science is.