New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

Originally posted by chocise

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It wasnt even taken into context.. All NASA was saying was global warming maybe slower, they didnt say it wasnt an issue..

You should look into "James Tayler" also.

LOL

Here's some context, ....

and here's some more:

Detailed Picture of Ice Loss Following the Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelves

Melting Icebergs in Polar Oceans Causing Sea Level Rise Globally, New Assessment Findss

Accelerated Melting Of Continental Icepacks Is Major Reason For Rise In Sea Level Between 2003 And 2008

Lasers From Space Show Thinning Of Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets

First Direct Evidence That Human Activity Is Linked To Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse

Nothing to worry about thou', as it simply isn't happening... like the changes we're all witnessing in global climate trends.

It's right before your eyes yet you chose to live in denial.

edit on 28-7-2011 by chocise because: typo

Because Stone Age man caused the glaciers to melt across north America by driving SUVs and using air conditioning.

Since we know massive glaciers once covered the earth, and then melted, we can say that since all feedback/forcing mechanisms are now known to be nothing more than works of fiction, any study that claims man is responsible for melting glaciers is nothing more than a work of fiction.

Reply to post by mnemeth1

Good find memneth, and good rebuttals (sp?) lol. But have you considered the cow farts? J/k


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ShogunAssassins


You are using a web site with studies from 2010 and prior to counter a study just recently published?

There is a reason they only allow things to be called theories, and it is for precisely this occurence. New science can find what old science missed, or was incapable of finding.

I imagine we are still a very long ways away from understanding the climate system of our planet, let alone how we affect it.

Edit to add:

Also note that in any real science community, actual data trumps computer models every time. The computer models are probably being rewritten right now to take into account the actual readings. Maybe we will get a better model, maybe not.

reply to post by peck420


Which site would that be? The NASA site on climate change you all are claiming doesnt exist because of a NASA study that used the word "less"?

"I imagine we are still a very long ways away from understanding the climate system of our planet, let alone how we affect it."

I agree with you 100% on that.

i would like to point out that recently a paper from cern was released that showed the contribution from cosmic rays to cloud forming,
the scientists were told not to interperate the findings or to draw conclusions,
because the conclusions would go against global warming and were deamed to political

lol
its a hell of a thing when science is subserviant to politics
global warming is and continues to be a money maker and if serious scientists want grant money
they wont upset the gravey train

it is no surprise to me at all thanks op keep up the good work
i am sure you realize the amount of money spent on trying to keep this con going
some of it is spent to attack anyone who shows the truth

keep fighting the good fight and let the facts speak.......

star and flag op
sock pupets for the warming lobby go away you are easy to see

xploder

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by peck420

 

Which site would that be? The NASA site on climate change you all are claiming doesnt exist because of a NASA study that used the word "less"?

"I imagine we are still a very long ways away from understanding the climate system of our planet, let alone how we affect it."

I agree with you 100% on that.

edit on 28-7-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)

Shogun, please tell me what you think would happen to the climate scientists' government funding if they came out and said there was no problem with climate change?

Originally posted by XPLodER
i would like to point out that recently a paper from cern was released that showed the contribution from cosmic rays to cloud forming,
the scientists were told not to interperate the findings or to draw conclusions,
because the conclusions would go against global warming and were deamed to political

Yeah.

That report, piggybacking on this report, pretty much destroys any remaining shreds of credibility the State funded alarmists had.

reply to post by XPLodER


Anti global warming is and continues to be a money maker.. Its the same money maker that has got us into so many wars and the situation the US is in today.

Speaking of politics, i wouldnt expect much else from a mostly right wing conspirecy theory site.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You should take a long hard look at the NASA site.

It's on threads like this negative flags/stars should be employed. I thought ATS was about 'dispelling ignorance'.
You really have no excuse[s].

Climate change: How do we know? The evidence.... straight from NASA, extensive references supplied

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Anti global warming is and continues to be a money maker.

LOL

Because a few oil companies can compete against the tens of billions the US government throws at climate scientists?

Is that what you think?

At any rate, that's not what I asked. I asked you to tell me what would happen to government funded scientists' funding if they came out and said man made warming was not a problem.

Don't you think it would be drastically cut?

reply to post by mnemeth1


The majority of the data is pretty much sound, over all you make a silly argument. To answer your question anyway, funding would stop.

Now a question for you. If some people spent and fought just a bit to clean up the world as they do fighting against the idea that global warming is real the world would be a better place? Now why would you not want the world to be a better place unless you had something to gain from it?

What amazes me is how easy they trick the commoners to fight for them!

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The majority of the data is pretty much sound, over all you make a silly argument. To answer your question anyway, funding would stop.

Now a question for you. If some people spent and fought just a bit to clean up the world as they do fighting against the idea that global warming is real the world would be a better place? Now why would you not want the world to be a better place unless you had something to gain from it?

What amazes me is how easy they trick the commoners to fight for them!

So if funding would stop, don't you think they have a massive incentive to lie about warming?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Care to answer the question, i was polite enough to answer the one you asked already.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The majority of the data is pretty much sound, over all you make a silly argument. To answer your question anyway, funding would stop.

Now a question for you. If some people spent and fought just a bit to clean up the world as they do fighting against the idea that global warming is real the world would be a better place? Now why would you not want the world to be a better place unless you had something to gain from it?

What amazes me is how easy they trick the commoners to fight for them!

Are you seriously saying that the objectors spend enough to "fix man made global warming"? LOL

You remember LIVE EARTH? How much did that cost, oh and how much CO2 did it create?

Al Gore serves on the board of APPLE THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPANY ON THE PLANET AS RANKED BY GREENPEACE!!!!!

So much damn hippocracy its insane.

reply to post by MasterGemini


Did i say "Fix"? If i didnt say it.. I would think i wasnt suggesting it.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by peck420

 

Which site would that be? The NASA site on climate change you all are claiming doesnt exist because of a NASA study that used the word "less"?

Please note the bolded section.

You have know idea what my view on climate change is outside of us knowing very little about what is happening.

I only comment on these threads because it sickens me to see science corrupted for political and monetary gain. Which has been a very effective tactic for the current leaders.

Our actual science says this (this is ALL WE KNOW FOR FACT):
1) Climate is changing.
2) Different compunds have different effects.
3) We are dependent on and have influence on climate.

That is it, in a nutshell. We have less than 60 years of hard, verifiable, data. We are using that data to attempt to construct models that will explain thousands of years of change in a further attempt to gauage future change.

What would solve this issue in its entirety is certain data sets we do not have, and will not have in our lifetimes.
They are as follows:
1) Detailed measurements of greenhouse gases prior to human activity.
2) Detailed measurements of greenhouse gas rise during human activity.
3) A base point of where humanity was in global climate change timeline at the begining of human activity.
4) A map of global climate change in its entirety prior to humans.

reply to post by peck420


You all, as in most on this thread. Again, people come to this subject like lawyers wanting to pick apart every word..

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Anti global warming is and continues to be a money maker.. Its the same money maker that has got us into so many wars and the situation the US is in today.

Speaking of politics, i wouldnt expect much else from a mostly right wing conspirecy theory site.

could you please direct me to the anti carbon credit market?
could you please direct me to the govenment funded anti warming reasurch?
because i am interested to see where a person would make a profit from
NOT SCAREMONGERING

cern scientists are too scared to talk about a major projects results
for fear of loss of funding,

tell me who controls this science
and do they own a carbon exchange?

ask yourself and answer honestly
are the people with the most to lose the people with links to the carbon credit business?

xploder

reply to post by peck420


I respect your take on things Peck.

I personally would not give them even that much credit.

I think the entire thing is a sham from top to bottom. No more money should be wasted pursuing this rotten corrupt science at all. I don't think any future research will turn up anything different.

This article originates from the heartland institute and then has been repackaged by the right.

The Heartland Institute -- Failing to prove smoking was good for you has move on to the screwing the environment is good for you

About us:
Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

and

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

You need to find the original research -- I bet it doesnt say what you hope it says (as has been pointed out)

Why are you people so hell bent on pollution -- you should have been here in the sixties - you could light the rivers on fire and see the air. We fixed a lot of the inspite of all your whining It took about 50 years and The right swore it couldn't be done.

Glad Im old because we are rapidly going backwards -- thank you right wing and your new BFFs the tea party