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.

 

Global warming much less serious than thought post 2

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Here is the article
www.theregister.co.uk...


Looks quite good and I always have belived that " global warming " was greatly exaggerated in the 1st place
^ this was the origal post ><

Sorry for the short post, it seems the ADIM bot didnt like it.
What I do not like about the "earth savers" most of them do not have a clue about about what they are taking about
The way it goes is "hey I can get a goverment grant from this. woot"
Making money out of "saving the planet through eliminating co2 emissions" is a total waste of "place your country here" tax payers money
This link/post will do something to adreess the balence abit , I hope, but I have seen STAR and FLAG for a lot of stuff on ATS for crop circles,UFO's,ghosts the lot, which have been disputed for +5 pages, most have been rubbish

As a matter of fact Giggle (you know who I mean) "eliminating co2 emissions" and see who makes the money out of this




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Very interesting,to say the least,but...........

Hey,wait a minute,you can't have two threads on the same thing,dude.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweevo
 




Looks quite good and I always have belived that " global warming " was greatly exaggerated in the 1st place


So, you didn't believe it when they said it was that bad. But when they say it is not you just believe them with ease?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sweevo
 

Even a couple of degrees is way too much based on past history.
The main reason this claim started was because they thought that because it was warmer during periods of high co2, it must have been because of greenhouse gases. It was later discovered that the temperature increased centuries before co2, which shows that it was in fact temperature that modulated the co2 levels.

Now the only proof they have besides flawed computer models is that it has warmed a bit since the recovery from little ice age, which of course happens when you start the data point during a cold period.
If you look at the longer trends then you see a entirely different picture.



edit on 25-11-2011 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...


Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US..."This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained.

OK... but.......


The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

...let's not get ahead of ourselves now - we need funding from this scam for a little while yet!!!


It should be pretty obvious by now that between this, the flawed "proof research" that used the TAMPERED data to do the proof with (whilst referring to it as "the original data" even though it is widely acknowledged that the ORIGINAL data was LOST FOREVER), and the leaked e-mails from CRU (both sets), that MMGW is not only bogus, but fabricated, in order to perpetrate a fraud against The People.

You only need to look at the people who were on the "independent panel" that investigated CRU after the first set of e-mails were leaked to see that it is anything but "independent", but not only that, totally biased.

The people that were on the panel included the director of one of the largest wind turbine manufacturers in the world, the director of the "Future Fuels" division at BP, two computer experts, one member of the House of Lords (part of the UK Government) and a geologist.
None of them experts in climate, never mind science, and yet they seem to think CRU did nothing wrong, whilst being pretty obvious to those who really bother to look that the "science" they conduct isn't science at all.
edit on 27-11-2011 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



new topics

 
2

log in

join