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.

 

Methane Gas Leak in Arctic Throws Scientists a Climate Change Curveball

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
It’s really not the great threat that the IPCC suggest. Sure, methane has 20x the greenhouse potency of CO2 according to the IPCC, but so has water vapour and there’s already an overwhelming abundance of that in the atmosphere which hasn’t done the world any harm. Furthermore, methane is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere since it reacts readily with oxygen, especially under exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun, whereby it is converted into more CO2 and H2O. And then too, it currently exists as a tenuous trace gas whose concentration must be measured in parts per billion and in view of its short atmospheric lifetime as well I see no reason to think that the melting of the arctic tundra would cause that to increase significantly. So, I see no cause for alarm over the release of arctic methane. Just another vacuous pseudoscientific scare-campaign that only useful idiots buy.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 



Yes the mayans, solar flares, planet x, global warming, elenin, second coming!!!! people believe every doom and gloom fearmonger garbage they hear.


Here's the funny thing about that:

5 out of the 6 doom and gloom fearmonger things you mentioned above are based on nothing but tinfoil propaganda, and yes, believed to be real by the tinfoil fearmonger crowd who are so prominent here on ATS.

1 out of those 6 fearmonger things is based on 150+ years of hard science and physical facts AND is the only one of the 6 whose predictions have actually come true. Annnnd of course it's believed to be a total utter [HOAX!] by the exact same group of people.


Sums up the ridiculousness of the so-called global warming "debate" (and unfortunately ATS these days) in a nutshell, really.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin
 



Yes the mayans, solar flares, planet x, global warming, elenin, second coming!!!! people believe every doom and gloom fearmonger garbage they hear.


Here's the funny thing about that:

5 out of the 6 doom and gloom fearmonger things you mentioned above are based on nothing but tinfoil propaganda, and yes, believed to be real by the tinfoil fearmonger crowd who are so prominent here on ATS.

1 out of those 6 fearmonger things is based on 150+ years of hard science and physical facts AND is the only one of the 6 whose predictions have actually come true. Annnnd of course it's believed to be a total utter [HOAX!] by the exact same group of people.


Sums up the ridiculousness of the so-called global warming "debate" (and unfortunately ATS these days) in a
nutshell, really.


Yes and the hard science you talk about has admitted that the earths temperature has risen by only 0.2 of a degree over the last 30 years.Coincidently 150 years ago was a period cooling (mini ice age) so what we are seeing is not warming, but normalizing.
They have also admitted that the hottest year on record was 1998 and the earth has been cooling ever since.
They wont admit that the medieval warm period was actualy warmer than todays temperatures and so was the Roman warm period.

But we are getting there slowly, the truth is coming out....
edit on 26-4-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Do you honestly think that humans have no impact on the environment or climate?

There are approximately 750 million cars worldwide if each driven a modestly average of 12,500 annually they use 581 gallons of fuel and releases 525 pounds of carbon monoxide.
So in one years’ time world wide humans use 435,750,000,000 gallons of fuel and dump 393,750,000,000 or 178,601,996 metric tons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere! 178 MILLION! lol

Do the math yourself with your own car. Then visualize if you can how many of those 5 gallon containers you need a year for your car to drive. Then if you can visualize the world using this amount.

To say that humans do not affect the environment or the climate, is ignorant or naïve and shows the lack of an ability to visualize outside even your own needs and uses of materials.

It is simple multiplication yet many cannot grasp this concept, now if you wish to argue this further, I will respond with “yes I know math is hard”...



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 
To say that humans do not affect the environment or the climate, is ignorant or naïve and shows the lack of an ability to visualize outside even your own needs and uses of materials.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that humans have no impact on the climate, just that the impact is not catastrophic or significant enough to justify disruptive geo-engineering projects, punitive taxes, and funding for unctuous green-advocacy groups.


There are approximately 750 million cars worldwide if each driven a modestly average of 12,500 annually they use 581 gallons of fuel and releases 525 pounds of carbon monoxide. So in one years’ time world wide humans use 435,750,000,000 gallons of fuel and dump 393,750,000,000 or 178,601,996 metric tons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere! 178 MILLION!

I can't say I've heard many environmentalists fretting about carbon monoxide levels in the atmosphere. The big concern seems to be over CO2. Nevertheless I believe O2 becomes toxic to humans at levels of 35ppmv+ and the current atmospheric level is about 0.1ppmv. So, no cause for alarm just yet then, eh?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
information concerning this thread has been posted before. I suggest you search before posting what you just have.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
You know, if something does happen I am going to make it a point to go cover all those exits for the underground bunkers people are building before I die. If most of us are going to die I think we should make it unanimous.
For the good of the people applies to these sort of things



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yes I agree polluting and other things are effecting the oceans very much the currents may stop or slow to much. This could create a mini ice age but other problems exist the methane gas under the oceans maybe being released which could also put us into a long term cooling cycle. Then on top of that our sun is going to cool for a while in about five years give or take. So I say it is going to get a lot colder in the future. Which it looks like it already is doing. I understand we have warm days here and there and climate is messed up right now and maybe forever but I still say cooler. Break out the hot coca folks. But we are smart and I'm sure we can figure it all out. Let' s build a bubble lol



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Telling me they have found natural occurances to climate change only adds to the delema. The problem as I see it is, yes Climate change is a natural occurrence, but we do not know the mechanisms or processes that creates a tipping point into a less hospitable world. Either creating a runaway Greenhouse or Snowball earth, I think is very much in our hands in this point of human history.

So put those numbers to cows and methane if you like or do you remember CFC’s? The amount of car CO2 production is a drop in the bucket compared to the entire affect humans have on the Planet. I would like to use Fukashima as an example, that actions of even one country can have a lasting impact on the entire planet, not just Japan.

The view of inexhaustible, unchangeable, uninfluenced by human activity, visions of Earth is best left in previous 19th-early 20th centuries and has no place in the 21st! Visualizing 7 Billion consumers makes me understand we have a HUGE impact on this planet.

Of course reversing this view can be achieved by as well.

But first we must take responsibility and ownership of the state of this world brought on by our actions or inactions. We must state honestly and bluntly that we DO have an impact on this world for good or for bad. We need to understand that Mega companies will stripe the Earth clean, poison us and future generation all for a bottom line and product we gladly pay for.

Realizing what we have is finite not inexhaustible and finding ways to use the resources we have wisely needs to happen. I would hate to see it enforced by legislature but most people are too greedy, or stupid or deluded in the belief that more is better or a false need to keep up with jones' to change.

But denying the fact that we have any influence on Earth needs to end, period!

I do not agree with most environmentalist scare tactics, but fear motivates people who lack vision to see what kind of an impact they have multiplied by 7 Billion…

edit on 26-4-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by joecool9887
 

Suns going to ramp down next year, there's a four cycle thing we have to deal with for either next spring or the winter after where there will probably be severe snowstorms. I'm predicting six foot snowstorms from this around here. Happens after every four solar cycles solar max, 40-50 years approx. I don't know about the rest of the country, I just know about here. Maybe global warming will help us avoid this.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


it's global cooling not global warming



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
And I don't blame the planet I blame everything people natural cycles all things add to it but I'm sure we do the the most. And I'm sure in the long run we are making the planet cooler not warmer maybe at first glance warmer but that is artificial. When we make so much haze to block the sun it would only make sense to make it cooler when we stop the ocean current it would make sense to say it going to cool off or get really cold. I am not no scientist but I use what makes sense to me everyone has a right to their own opinion. And this is mine.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by joecool9887
 


Hey, I live in the U.P. and I sure don't want it to get cold here again. I don't care if it gets nicer here but we've had our share of the cold for a long time. It's nice to see the others in the country get snow, we have experienced snow scoop makers here and we also make excellent snowplows for trucks. We'll make the plows for the whole country as long as you keep the snow
We can even create an additional small snowscoop factory so we can make another two thousand scoops per year.
We can make snowshoes too and teach others how to have winter festivals. Cutting holes in the ice and jumping in is always a blast.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Not to worry a new one will be coming shortly.

First the same players pushed a new Ice Age coming telling us that all trees would be dead, well a few years ago. I got indoctrinated into that in the early 1970's.

Then many of the exact same people decided they could advance their agenda by claiming normal climate change was man caused. Now that failed.

Can't wait for what's next. It will of course be tied to a plan that will make progressive academic leaders rich beyond their wildest dreams.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by joecool9887
reply to post by rickymouse
 


it's global cooling not global warming


No, it's normal, natural, cyclical climate change.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
Yes and the hard science you talk about has admitted that the earths temperature has risen by only 0.2 of a degree over the last 30 years.Coincidently 150 years ago was a period cooling (mini ice age) so what we are seeing is not warming, but normalizing.
They have also admitted that the hottest year on record was 1998 and the earth has been cooling ever since.
They wont admit that the medieval warm period was actualy warmer than todays temperatures and so was the Roman warm period.

But we are getting there slowly, the truth is coming out....



Yeah and don't forget one volcano releases more carbon than humans ever have, CO2 is plant food, all the planets in the solar system are heating up, carbon lags temperature by 800 years, in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age, Al Gore has a beach house, etc etc...

The difference between being a true skeptic and just another clueless tinfoil-bot is the capacity to understand that not everything is true just because it's somewhere on the internet.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by auraelium
Yes and the hard science you talk about has admitted that the earths temperature has risen by only 0.2 of a degree over the last 30 years.Coincidently 190 years ago was a period cooling (mini ice age) so what we are seeing is not warming, but normalizing.
They have also admitted that the hottest year on record was 1998 and the earth has been cooling ever since.
They wont admit that the medieval warm period was actualy warmer than todays temperatures and so was the Roman warm period.

But we are getting there slowly, the truth is coming out....



Yeah and don't forget one volcano releases more carbon than humans ever have, CO2 is plant food, all the planets in the solar system are heating up, carbon lags temperature by 800 years, in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age, Al Gore has a beach house, etc etc...

The difference between being a true skeptic and just another clueless tinfoil-bot is the capacity to understand that not everything is true just because it's somewhere on the internet.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths


You realy are brainwashed, more than most.

lets break it down for you...

"Temperature has risen by only 0.2 of a degree over the last 30 years." Source ?... NASA goddard satalite data.

wattsupwiththat.com...

"The earth has not wamed in 15 years, and has actualy cooled" Source...? UK MET office.

thegwpf.org...

"190 years ago was a period cooling (mini ice age)" Source ...? Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823

en.wikipedia.org...

Medieval warm period was actualy warmer than todays temperatures and so was the Roman warm period. Source...? Greenland GISP2 ice core data , its also backed up by russian Vostok data.



This by far the most revealing graph in the whole GW debate, incidently the IPCC or NASA have never disputed it, but they do try to pretend it doesnt exist.

CO2 is plant food? Higher Co2 levels increase plant growth, are you are trying to say it doesnt? tell that to the Dutch.. greenhouse operators in Holland. 98% of them use CO2 enrichment. with results of 30% - 40% increased plant growth. The IPCC doent deny this either it seems.

www.springerlink.com...

"carbon lags temperature by 800 years" Source ...? GISP2 ice core data also, i dont know why you included this because it has never been debunked by the IPCC, They just choose to ignore it as well.

www.newscientist.com... ing.html



"in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age" Source...? This comes from NASA's James Hansen, who predicted that the earth would enter a global cooling phase, in the late 1970s he wrote a number of scientific papers on this subject.. Its strange that you should mention this because Hanson himself has admitted he did predict global cooling but got it wrong. he is today one of the formost proponents of AGW and the head of NASA Goddard institute.

As for Al Gores beach house, Ive never heard this before , but he does have an 8 bedroom mansion house in Tennessee with heated swimming pools fountains which has been estimateed to have the carbon footprint of 20x average home. he doesnt deny this.

www.businessweek.com...

But then again he is predicted to be the first carbon Billionaire as he reaps the profits from his investments in the Co2 scam, i suppose he has to spend his money on something


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Heres a few other things you might find interesting.. this is from the worlds foremost expert on sea levels, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, he says sea levels are not rising. imagine that...

www.climatechangefacts.info...

And from one of the worlds leading experts on polar bears , Dr Mitchell Taylor, guess what.. there numbers are actualy rising..

mnfmi.org...

And what about the "Consensus on global warming that we hear so much about?....

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda..

www.wnd.com...

"Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models"

wattsupwiththat.com... prical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

Im gona include the letter because its such a good read..

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Consensus...? I dont think so.
edit on 27-4-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


You know what I love? I went ahead and called out a number of these boneheaded climate myths for you, provided a link to their debunkings in advance - and you still just took the bait, didn't read anything, and automatically regurgitated them anyway.

Yeah, thanks for the lesson in brainwashing pal.


Let's examine some of these incredible facts of yours that apparently make climate deniers so clued in to the truth, while people like me just drown in Al Gore's Kool-Aid:


Item #1


Originally posted by auraelium
"Temperature has risen by only 0.2 of a degree over the last 30 years." Source ?... NASA goddard satalite data.


First off there's no such thing as "NASA goddard satalite data". GISS accumulates their info by way of surface station records. So right off the bat I know you really have no idea what you're even talking about. Second, if you're going to list them as a source - why don't you go directly to the source then? Instead you link to some post on Anthony Watts' notoriously biased and pathetically misinformed climate denier website.

If you had just gone straight to your own source you would see this:



Source: GISS

That's your NASA goddard satalite (sic) data, and it clearly shows a temperature anomaly around 0.5 C over the last 30 years. And if you think that's not a big deal then it just further demonstrates how untrained your critical thinking skills are when it comes to the climate debate. You have any idea how much energy it takes to raise the average temp of the entire planet half a degree centigrade?





Item #2


"The earth has not wamed in 15 years, and has actualy cooled" Source...? UK MET office.


Again - you list the source, but then link instead to someone else's perverted version of it. Here's what the UK MET office themselves actually have to say:


The period 2000-2009 was warmer than the 1990s that, in turn, were warmer than 1980s. In fact, the average temperature over the first decade of the 21st century was significantly warmer than any preceding decade in the instrumental record, stretching back 160 years.

Despite variability from year to year - which sees some years warmer and others cooler - we have identified a clear underlying trend of increasing global temperatures from the late 1970s of about 0.16 °C per decade.


Source: UK MET OFFICE



So I'm going to stop right now and point out the serious hypocrisy in climate deniers like yourself calling other people out as "brainwashed", when you have to depend on third party sources interpreting the data for you.

And speaking of those third party sources - the global warming policy foundation website you link to is just a biased mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry. See: Lord Lawson's links to Europe's colossal coal polluter


So how much more arrogantly foolish can you get calling people out as brainwashed, and then listing a bunch of energy industry shill propaganda as your source, especially when it says the complete opposite of what the original source actually says?




As for the rest of your gish gallop of climate denier memes, I can't be bothered going through each and every one - but if I'm brainwashed, then here's how braindirty you are from all the blatant utter fossil fuel propaganda you're spewing:



Medieval warm period was actualy warmer than todays temperatures and so was the Roman warm period. Source...? Greenland GISP2 ice core data , its also backed up by russian Vostok data.



This by far the most revealing graph in the whole GW debate, incidently the IPCC or NASA have never disputed it, but they do try to pretend it doesnt exist.


This "by far the most revealing graph in the whole GW debate" is completely skewed to push a fast one over you. The graph does not start from 2000 AD. That is a bold-faced lie thrown in there by the climate denier who once again "edited" this information from its original source.

The first data point is 95 years before present. And it just so happens the "present" in this case is actually 1950. So the graph actually starts at 1855. And do you know how much temperatures have risen in Greenland since then? I actually did an ATS post on the innacuracy of this tainted graph here. If you factor in Greenlands' warming of the last 150+ years it actually looks like this:

(cont'd next post)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Greenland Warming in true context compared to today:



And here's another representation from Dr. Jason Box - an actual climate scientist who actually studies Greenland, and clarifies this outright lie in a proper perspective:



Source

So that's your "most revealing graph in whole GW debate" for you lol.

Actually - in fact, that is the only statement you got right in your entire post. Because that misrepresented graph does indeed reveal how much climate deniers obfuscate the information out there to push their pro-fossil fuel agenda, and to manipulate people's ignorance to help them entirely skew the whole GW debate.


So congratulations on being just another clueless tinfoil pawn in their game. Now please continue re-posting all their propaganda for them on websites like this, while you confidently explain to others about how brainwashed they apparently are.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Yeah, they did. But I'll use something scientific:

From Einstien: COLD is not a real thing. It's the ABSENCE of HEAT.

When you add SOMETHING to NOTHING, it does not increase SOMETHING. So anyone giving this bullarky as fact is being every bit as silly as the bathtub debunker.

Think of it like Alcohol and water. Pure alcohol added to the same amount of water becomes diluted. Add that again to another equal volume of water, and the alcohol is further diluted. Adding more water NEVER increases the Alcoholic Content.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join