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: Outlier13
Byrd - the first part of your post I tend to agree with. There must be multiple verifiable methods versus a single method. However, with respects to a scientist claiming a direct correlation to man and substantial impact on global climate change you are talking about a causation approach which can only be verified via the scientific method.
They must prove causation.
The purpose of my OP is it has been proven that the majority of "scientific claims" where causation is the premise there has been no verifiable or repeatable evidence to support those claims.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven
The memo got a few things right and a few things wrong.
Yes. Climate Change is a subject that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.
No. There was not a 25 percent increase in C02 by the year 2000, it was more like 14 percent. In the memo's defence, the paper referenced by the memo does indicate 14 percent was the low estimate for the year 2000, so they did get it right.
No. The temperature has not risen 7 degrees.
No. The Sea level has not risen 10 feet, there has been no change in the rate of increase at the tidal stations.
At least thats better than the apocalyptic predictions in the video that talk about sea level changes of 150 feet lmfao.
Here's the report "Restoring the Quality of the Environment' if you are interested. Well worth a read.
It's from 1965 and talks about C02.
link
originally posted by: face23785
The majority of papers draw no conclusion as to the cause because there just isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion.
Then they take the minority papers and state something like "90% of the papers that state an opinion as to the cause of global warming attribute humans as a significant contributor."
However, in a scientific frame of reference, "significant" basically just means non-zero. It doesn't mean it's a lot. 1% is significant, it means you can't ignore it in your calculations, but it doesn't mean it's the crux of the issue.
You find this alarming?
No alarming sea level rise
The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees.
No alarming temperature rise
No alarming increase in hurricanes
You don't need models to show that hurricanes are not on the increase.
early prediction from flawed climate models.
There appears to be only 15 years of data there, 30 years is the minimum for making a correlation with climate.
Most definitely an increase especially in the troposphere .
Heres the raw data if you want to check it out found this interesting
The IPCC fifth assessment report concluded "Although there have been substantial methodological debates about the calculation of trends and their uncertainty, a 95% confidence interval of around ±0.1°C per decade has been obtained consistently for both LT and MT (e.g., Section 2.4.4; McKitrick et al., 2010). In summary, despite unanimous agreement on the sign of the observed trends, there exists substantial disagreement between available estimates as to the rate of temperature changes in the tropical troposphere, and there is only low confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure."
Where?
Well ive seen studies that say mankind is somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the co2 emissions. We know it does indeed effect climate were still learning to what extent. However if we know it makes changes shouldnt we try to limit the amount we produce and not hope and pray the earth can handle it?
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Outlier13
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT
False.
On both counts.
You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.
You think Al Gore came up with climate change?
WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”
Older still is this 1958 video about it - Al Gore was all of 10 years old when this aired:
originally posted by: Outlier13
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Outlier13
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT
False.
On both counts.
You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.
You think Al Gore came up with climate change?
WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”
Older still is this 1958 video about it - Al Gore was all of 10 years old when this aired:
Another lib who cannot connect the dots proving most people only comprehend 60% of what they read. The operative word in my sentence is "agenda". Al Gore falsely promoted "man made global warming". That was the moniker at that time. "Climate change" is the most recent moniker now used by the left. No one denies climate change because climate change is naturally occurring. The Earth has been undergoing climate change since its birth.
None of you libs genuinely know what ole Al has been up to do you? It's amazing how obtusely blind people want to be.
originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Greven
Hold on chief. You're the one creating thread drift with your Gore reference. If you can't handle the rhetoric then don't troll the thread. And you for sure are a lib if you have even the slightest bit of support for the BS Gore has been promoting for the past decade +. The guy is so full of BS. This thread has nothing to do with Al Gore, however, you prove the point of the entire thread by referencing ole Al because none of the BS he promotes has EVER been supported by verified science.
originally posted by: Outlier13
Ask Al Gore. He can give you tons of "scientific evidence".
originally posted by: Outlier13
You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.
originally posted by: Outlier13
Gore is worse than a shill. He's the guy that starts a windshield repair business and walks around parking lots cracking people's windshields while leaving his business card under their wiper blade.
originally posted by: Outlier13
Oh, I already gave you the BEST example. Your buddy Al Gore. And since you self admittedly know more about ol' Al than anyone else then by default you already have access to all the "scientific evidence" you could ask for. What part of this are you not comprehending?
originally posted by: Outlier13
My responding with the Al Gore reference is all you need to know. Since you self admittedly know Al Gore better than me then why would I spend time reiterating what it is you already know? If you know Al Gore better than me then what could I possibly contribute that would ad to what you already know? Eh?
Al Gore is so full of BS and has long promoted a false narrative to serve a massive global agenda. Gore has personally profited off of this false narrative for a very long time. I don't need to provide evidence of this because it's in the public domain free for your reading pleasure. He is hypocrisy personified. But this thread isn't about ol' Al and his hypocrisy. It's about the glaring fact that if you don't employ the scientific method when promoting "scientific evidence" then you don't have any evidence at all. Regardless of the subject matter. It's all just BS.
originally posted by: Greven
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is essentially beyond reproach, that's why it's a law.
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: Greven
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is essentially beyond reproach, that's why it's a law.
If I may suggest, it would be wise to be careful with this type of assertion. There's a common misconception among the public that in science a law is on firmer ground than a scientific theory, and this is not true. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply, so don't take this as an attack, it's more of a PSA. If you weren't implying that and you're aware of what I'm explaining now, I offer a friendly suggestion to be more choosy with how you describe that in the future. When you say things like that it leaves most people with the impression laws are "more correct" than scientific theories, which is where the misconception comes from.
Scientific theories can be more accurate and have more evidence than laws, for example the Theory of Relativity more accurately describes how and why gravity works than Newton's Laws of Motion do. Newton's Laws can produce inaccurate results in some instances, yet they are still called Laws. Laws can be proven wrong and later superseded, for example for a few hundred years there was such a thing as Ptolemy's Law of Diffraction, which was later proven to be inaccurate and replaced by Snell's law.
Here's an explanation for anyone interested.
originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Byrd
You have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the scientific method.
The idea that man dramatically impacts and ultimately alters the global weather patterns of Earth is precisely why you would use the scientific method.
Any research that does not follow scientific methods is doomed to fail as authenticity of the results does not stand chance against scientific inquiry and analysis.
Last time I checked for a scientific claim to carry weight it had to pass the scrutiny of the scientific method and peer review to substantiate the claims.