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: amazing
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier
It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.
But the whole man made global warming debate is much more complicated than just Carbon and water vapor. It also takes into account Methane, N2O, and Ozone and furthermore we know that small changes in things can have huge impacts.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier
It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.
But the whole man made global warming debate is much more complicated than just Carbon and water vapor. It also takes into account Methane, N2O, and Ozone and furthermore we know that small changes in things can have huge impacts.
I agree it is complicated, but why then is the focus on carbon? Why have all these pollutants combined had little to no effect on climate?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: manuelram16
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t
By no means am I trying to suggest that science is ever wrong, but there is a STARK difference between trying to debunk or overturn a scientific theory versus debunking or overturning a commonly accepted scientific factoid
Ive been standing outside planned parenthood all day.
GREENBELT, Md. — I’M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.
In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age:
“And the lead scientist at NASA said this — he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That’s what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you’re welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing.
“So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up — is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no...
“How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?” That “lead scientist at NASA” was me.
...
And that, I thought, was that.
So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn’t explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
a reply to: luthier
It makes as much sense as global warming is man made. According to this presentation, water vapor is more a culprit than Carbon. If a chart showing a century plus of climate change has been constant to this day, no amount of hysteria and doom porn about man made increases can be valid. In the absence of valid proof, any model to the contrary has to be skewed.
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.
originally posted by: smurfy
originally posted by: imd12c4funn
So how about peer reviews that show climate change is a good thing? Better crops, more habitable areas, etc...
Do you think climate is more a cause of destruction of habitat and species than deforestation or Fukushima radiation?
I would think radiation spewing into the jet stream and pacific ocean would have more negative effect on these things than a minute temperature change over a century. Or cutting the forests that are home for uncounted species. A percent o 0 is still 0.
Animal habitat sustainability etc; came into the calculation some time ago, so much so, one panel person or IPCC member...but I think the latter, resigned because researchers needed to include animal habits/habitation and so on, because it was becoming crazy, I present among others, the Arctic Squirrel,
'Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, and Nigel Golden, from the University of Wisconsin, spent eight days in the Kolyma River watershed in north-east Siberia, Russia, studying the burrows of arctic ground squirrels.
They found that when squirrels made their burrows in the permafrost they mixed soil layers, increased aeration, moisture and temperature, as well as redistributing soil nutrients – all of which could contribute to an increased thawing of the permafrost and release of organic carbon.' In other words, the little feckers were trying to stay warm
wryheat.wordpress.com...
There's probably some paid research going on to find out why Aliens are visiting Earth, and my guess it that they come here for their holidays because Earth is so cuddly and warm due to climate change, and by so doing, (summary) increasing the farting population. The plus side, there are no lizard aliens coming here to do a bit of chomping!
originally posted by: Marid Audran
More people also means the possibility for more solutions. As is pointed out in this article, so long as people have been able to worry, they have been able to do so about over overpopulation. www.nytimes.com...
originally posted by: imd12c4funnMan made global warming and ocean acidification thoroughly and scientifically discredited.
originally posted by: manuelram16
a reply to: amazing
So you're saying Climate Change is not commonly scientifically accepted fact, !!!good!!!
maybe it's about time to stop the bullying and PC police
originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: amazing
Ive seen the 1 guy vs 1000 guys argument for about 1000 different 1 guys at this point.
Waitng for someone to say, well its just these 2 guys...
Don Easterbrook, Professor emeritus of geology, Western WA University has gone before the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change to present the real facts on global warming.