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.
originally posted by: robobbob
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
scientists and learned men for decades swore that smoking was safe
scientists and learned men swear that GMOs are safe
scientists and learned men felt open air nuke testing was safe.
scientists and learned men told everyone thalidomide was safe.
scientists and learned men felt it acceptable to infect humans with various diseases such as syphilis and observe the effects instead of treating
scientists and learned men felt that measuring skull size and topography were grounds for racial persecution
science is one of the most powerful tool in humankinds possession. However, it is conducted by human beings. Subject to personal bias, jealousy, and yes greed.
So when scientists whos funding, career advancement, and self worth is tied to validating a particular theory, don't be in too big a rush to just believe them.
The "elite" and big corporations that leftists and OWS types claim to distrust and hate, are poised to make fortunes that will make oil look like small change, and crush individual freedoms....provided that the world accepts their climate change agenda. How is it that a there are already hundreds of BILLIONS tied up in carbon exchange programs all based on a theory not already proven? Not a formula for cold, dispassionate, and unbiased study and analysis.
originally posted by: buster2010
Not a real shocker. These are people who scream keep your government hands off our Medicare. If they are not bright enough to know that their Medicare comes from the government then why would they trust scientists.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Most scientists (as in - MOST) agree - and so to disagree with most of them is to disagree with scientists - in general
Their title is correct - at least according to their figures. Which I admit - I can't prove or disprove. It's not journalism at it's worst - unless you can prove they screwed with the poll
Let’s be clear: No one probably wishes more than climate scientists that global warming wasn’t true. If someone was able to prove conclusively tomorrow that all the models of climate change were wrong and we aren’t experiencing manmade global warming, climate scientists would throw the biggest party imaginable, ecstatic that their fears of doom and gloom turned out to be illusions. Unfortunately for them and for all of us, global warming is happening, whether we believe it or not.
Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone.
In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring.
Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%.
Calculations indicate that chlorofluoromethanes produced by man can greatly affect the concentrations of stratospheric ozone in future decades.
Human activities are projected to deplete substantially stratospheric ozone through anthropogenic increases in the global concentrations of key atmospheric chemicals. Human-induced perturbations may be occurring already.
somebody show me some hard evidence that mankind has had any effect on the climate of this planet
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."
We Lost the Original Data
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
originally posted by: EverydayInVA
Come on then somebody show me some hard evidence that mankind has had any effect on the climate of this planet. Please, I'll switch over to your side as soon as anyone can show any hard evidence.
originally posted by: JohnInFL
Mother Jones is a left wing rag more appropriately used to line the bottom of bird cages.
originally posted by: Greven
We put in the atmosphere over 100 times the combined sum of CO2 from all volcanoes in the world, annually.
We've been doing this for decades.
Is that hard enough for you?
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide
The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.
"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.
Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.
As a greenhouse gas, water vapor is 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide and its increase is a key factor in the rising global temperatures appearing in the models.
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.