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.
So when someone starts a thread titled Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers, I will call them on it.
originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: SonoftheSun
Who is dumb enough to confuse climate change with global warming? There are NO climate change deniers. Basic stuff here....
There is no credibility period, on either side. One side is funded by fossil fuels and the other side is funded by government. You can't trust either one to tell you the truth because they both have an agenda. You mention Idso received millions from big oil, well, every other AGCC priest is receiving billions (collectively) from governments and foundations promoting AGCC.
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?
originally posted by: yeahright
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Like almost everything, follow the $$. As soon as someone figures out how to slap a meter on the sun, we'll be up to our necks in solar powered devices.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
originally posted by: yeahright
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
What exactly is the harm with making an effort to ensure we do everything we can to NOT have an impact?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Like almost everything, follow the $$. As soon as someone figures out how to slap a meter on the sun, we'll be up to our necks in solar powered devices.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Do we, or don't we need to grow new industry and new jobs?
originally posted by: SonoftheSun
a reply to: Euphem
The planet is warming up. We have been (us humans) contributing to the change for the last sixty plus years at least.
To not see this, I would not describe as dumb, but simply willingly unaware.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: coastlinekid
CO2 is our friend... the earth's plants need it by the way... as for humans making the earth warm up?... Doubt it...
In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University's Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled "Greenhouse Cooling."
Source
Guy and his dad were corporate big oil stooges that have no credibility, published peer reviewed papers, and are clearly on the dole.
Bit like having Ronald McDonald explain to you why McDonalds makes great diet food...
The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.
You can say the same thing about all of the "scientist" claiming man made climate change.