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: D8Tee
a reply to: SaturnFX
You are unable to put a number on how much funding flowed to the other side during the same time frame?
I provided links. I look forward to the propaganda to try and dismiss the scientific american link.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SaturnFX
I provided links. I look forward to the propaganda to try and dismiss the scientific american link.
No, you provided a link. Singular.
Your link did not address how much money goes to Global Warming proponents.
I do not dispute the article you linked. I simply state it shows one side only, which it does.
Do you state that scientists conducting pro-Global Warming research are doing so for free and providing their own equipment?
TheRedneck
btw, you realize you just added a link to a corporatist website that is a mouthpiece of special interest oil barons.
Brulle’s paper and the media narrative may score some temporary points with members of the general public who do not closely follow the global warming debate, but ultimately Brulle’s paper and the media narrative will backfire on global warming activists. The narrative will backfire because the general public is not stupid. Slick lies may win some converts who will not check the facts, but the greater number of people will check the facts and hold the liars accountable.
Science doesn't start with a goal, it starts with a question. a climatologist isn't trying to prove anything, they analyse the results of gathered data, form hypothesis's, then test it to see if the results align with the hypothesis. If so, then a theory is born.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Its funny to see you and Greven defending this study considering that both of you have argued till your blue that the PAUSE never existed.
Can you clarify something?
Are you now saying that it did exist but now that the data has been adjusted yet again, it no longer exists or are you saying that the PAUSE never existed and this study is just an exercise in lying with statistics???
Tired of Control Freaks
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The reasons for the PAUSE (that didn't exist) are so many and so varied that it is impossible to list them all here in text box.
Now we know that global temperatures dropped dramatically in the last half of 2016.
November 2016 was the second warmest November in 136 years of modern record-keeping, according to a monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Since the 1980's most of the information about global SST has come from satellite observations. Instruments like the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on board (MODIS) onboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites orbit the Earth approximately 14 times per day, enabling it to gathering more SST data in 3 months than all other combined SST measurements taken before the advent of satellites.
Nevertheless, the so-called “pause” in global warming barely registered in the public consciousness until early 2013. In January of that year, an article by lead author James Hansen – perhaps the most responsible and vocal voice in global warming scholarship – began with alarming news. In 2012, it announced, temperatures the world over had been 0.56 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 base average. This was in spite of a La Niña that had chilled the waters of the equatorial Pacific, and therefore had the opposite effect on global temperatures of an El Niño.
The appearance of a slowdown was more likely, in my mind, due to transient effects of changing ocean currents and turnover (more mixing from top to lower layers from new weather/climate patterns, resulting in the extra heat going more to depth than surface), and/or experimental problems.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Care to take a shot at explaining why the non-existent PAUSE did not affect the data prior to 1998?
All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data."