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.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96
I dunno ask Obama, he's a corporate worshipper too.
I used to live in industrial area, some kind of coal plant, for some period. It sucked to be honest, the air was unbreathable.
Yet I know many people, very smart people, who actually believe it without anybody paying them for it. One of them is one of the best in the field of solar panels in the world.
Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Indigo5
Even without the NASA quote the point still stands... The buzz word right now is "Global Cooling"..
Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
The astonishing hypocrisy of some governments is astounding, whilst advocating mass pollution, destruction, and economy wrecking (agriculture, wars, banking, privatisation, outsourcing) with one hand they are punishing the individual for petty carbon footprints and taxed to the hilt on minimal wages with the other whilst their nations are glad to have jobs and own their homes if they do. Serfdom didn't stop in the middle ages it just wears a new coat and a new name.
P.S. if a person puts their head in the sand their a.se sticks out, a perfect bike rack.
A talking points memo sent Monday night ahead of President Obama’s speech Tuesday on climate change tells Obama supporters to downplay economic arguments and words like “regulations.”
The memo, obtained by National Journal, includes a “do’s and don’t’s” list of phrases to use (and not use) when advocating for action on climate change. “Do discuss modernizing and retooling power plants and innovation that will create green jobs…Don’t try to suggest net job increases,” reads one part of the memo.
More from the 14-page memo’s “do’s and don’t’s” list: “Do inform audiences about the nature of the problem, who is at fault, and what can be done…Don’t debate the increase in electricity rates. Instead pivot to health & clean air message.” Another one says: “Do use ‘cutting carbon pollution from power plants’…Don’t use ‘regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.’ ”
The memo, obtained by National Journal, includes a “do’s and don’t’s” list of phrases to use (and not use) when advocating for action on climate change. “Do discuss modernizing and retooling power plants and innovation that will create green jobs…Don’t try to suggest net job increases,” reads one part of the memo
Originally posted by ArnoldNonymous
I did a full report in college on how global warming being caused by the human race is a complete farce.
To think we can make any difference on this huge planet is ridiculous. Our greenhouse gas output is less than a percent created naturally.
Hey Obama, how about you spend another 50 billion dollars on green energy and watch it all disappear!
Originally posted by Gazrok
If we'd get onboard with firing nuclear waste into space, we'd have a pretty clean energy source that has been in use for decades....nuclear energy. The high-level waste disposal has always been the big problem, but with the privatization of space, we might see a market for it.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by neo96
Hey neo.
The data behind climate change is there. It's unanimous.
Read a book.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by HairlessApe
I suggest people read stuff like this:
www.forbes.com...
wattsupwiththat.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
And stuff like this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by yuppa
Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by neo96
Hey neo.
The data behind climate change is there. It's unanimous.
Read a book.
Wrong. its 97 percent which is not unanimous. Until its 100 percent it stays a theory. And in the earlier parts of the thread there is evidence to suggest that the Global warming numbers are not accurate at all because of dirty polling and trick questions. But feel free to deny this or ignore that inconvenient truth.
Thanks, but I've done enough research to know it's unanimous.
I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.