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.

 

Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
it's too late my friends, the increase in air pollution will go on, there is no stopping it. the forward-thinking people do not have the money (read: power) and the people with the money are not forward-thinking. at 61, I'll be ok, and my son at 27 should be ok, it's his children that will be in for some suffering, and then its just a matter of time...maybe this is how it happened 200,000 years ago.... "man" crapped so much in his own yard, that oxygen deprivation, coupled with mass extinctions, reduced the population to living in caves for 10's of thousands of years. we are coming up to the end of this cycle, and will soon start up another one.
edit on 31-3-2014 by jimmyx because: punctuation




posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 





Red herring? There are all kinds of quotes from fox news stating that global warming isn't real including Sean Hannity for one.


From the op?

Quote it please.

The article from the Guardian.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You just used the "head stuck somewhere" analogy right after I used it to make a point.
perhaps you can answer this. Why are scientists still doing research into global warming/climate change?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

jimmyx
it's too late my friends, the increase in air pollution will go on, there is no stopping it. the forward-thinking people do not have the money (read: power) and the people with the money are not forward-thinking. at 61, I'll be ok, and my son at 27 should be ok, it's his children that will be in for some suffering, and then its just a matter of time...maybe this is how it happened 200,000 years ago.... "man" crapped so much in his own yard, that oxygen deprivation, coupled with mass extinctions, reduced the population to living in caves for 10 of thousands of years. we are coming up to the end of this cycle, and will soon start up another one.


why did man have to live in caves for 10,000 years? Was it to ....adapt to his changing world?

Hmm..........



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

network dude

amazing
reply to post by network dude
 


Funny how you focus on the word "Almost" like that's the big disclaimer. Because if that were the case...Almost every scientist agrees on evolution. Almost every scientist agrees that we went to the moon. Almost every scientist believes the earth is older than 6000 years old. Because there will always be scientists in the special interests pocket and there will always be some wacky guys with diplomas that have contrarian view.


You seem to have missed the rest of my post. Would you like to address why science is still "studying" our climate?
What's the point? We already have it figured out right?


But why is science still studying evolution? We already have it figured out, right? Why are we still studying the sun? We already know all there is to know about it right?

Of course not. We know that evolution is true, but we keep studying it to get an even better understanding. Same with Global Warming. We know it to be true and man made, but we keep studying it..



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


I see what you're saying and I have my own pet theories that I just put out there with risk of ridicule as well. However I think this is different, because there is so much research and data out there and that to just say that it's false is dangerous. And it's not just you and a few people here and there and a few scientists that disagree with this report and these conclusions. It is whole states, and powerful politicians and powerful lobbies. As has been posted, most of the deniers state that some of the ways we mitigate or tackle global warming is the problem. That's the real issue. We don't want carbon taxes and that sort of thing...we don't want the government spending billions on this program or that. We don't want to lose fracking jobs.

However those, are different issues. We first have to agree that there is a problem.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I wonder if you all ever go outside anymore?

Name areas of the country that has normal climate in the last decade????



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

beezzer
Scientists and great thinkers once thought the earth was flat.

Guess if science says it, it must be true!


Yes they did.

Once upon a time they said the Earth was flat.

They also said the Earth was the 'center' of the universe.

And apparently the global warming crowd still think they are the center of the universe.
edit on 31-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Seeing lots attacking the people whom they disagree with and not the evidence.
Same old same old.
Sigh.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.


Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Goteborg
 



Goteborg
Are you really this dense? You ask me for 3 instances when you quoted me as saying there are 2 instances.


A typo hardly means I'm dense. So, can you show me the TWO instances? Can you just type or copy them to prove your assertion, because I don't know what you're talking about. Or is attacking my intelligence the best way out of this discussion?



You say that the information and statements in the opening section of the report don't reflect the content of the report?


No, I didn't say that. Can you respond to what I do say rather than finding fault with my wording and other trivial matters?



I don't care what you believe but before you try to push your religion on me please be able to prove not only that your god exists but that he exists as you say he exists, until then kindly keep your doomcult to yourself.


So, you're asking me, a NON-scientist to prove what the scientists are saying or else just shut up? I'm terribly sorry but telling me to shut up only reinforces my beliefs that you don't want to know the real truth about climate change. And I will share my opinion anywhere and everywhere I want to. I simply asked you to show me where this report equated scientific concession to fact. That's it. If your only response is to say I'm dense and part of a cult, when I've CLEARLY explained that it doesn't matter to me because I'll be dead by the time things heat up, then I will stick with my original opinions. I was hoping for an intellectual discussion...



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



network dude
You just used the "head stuck somewhere" analogy right after I used it to make a point.


Yes, I do think people who haven't done the research and deny something they don't understand have their heads stuck in the sand. The part I didn't say is about Kool-Aid. I don't want anyone to drink Global Warming Kool-aid. I want you to educate yourself and THEN form an opinion one way or the other.


Why are scientists still doing research into global warming/climate change?


Because they don't have all the answers - the 100% verifiable proof of everything. They still study evolution and the stars and fractals and physics and everything. It's their job.
edit on 3/31/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.


Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.


Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.


Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.


Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.


They can't the only thing they can do is 'show' a computer model based off incomplete data.

Since temperature records only go back 150 years.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Fine, it wasn't a typo. Whatever.

You threw the link to the report out there, you called everyone out to read it. I assumed you read it. Then you ask me for proof regarding what I had to say about it. Did you not read it?

See, I'm trying to help you. I could quote from it but I prefer to encourage others to read it, specifically the opening part about methodology. I don't know why you took exception to that, I think you would want people to read it, after all, you posted it.

Let's give this some time, give people time to read it, and then we can talk about it.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

neo96

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.


Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.


Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.


They can't the only thing they can do is 'show' a computer model based off incomplete data.

Since temperature records only go back 150 years.


Scientists, climatologists can't even predict (with any accuracy) what the weather will be like this weekend.

But they can state with all certainty, what will happen 1000 years from now. And their synchophants eat it up!

(oh, bring an umbrella this Saturday, it might rain!
)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

swanne

amazing
And I, frankly, feel like Galileo here facing the inquisition.

So do we. Do you know how much guts it takes to many of us to question mainstream? Many of us will get ridiculed. But we do it anyway.


How can you deny science?

I am quoting science to show the illogical conclusions which seem to have been made! I criticize the fact that people don't take into account the geological, scientific record of inter-glacial periods!



That's because short-sighted people tend to view "history" from an anthropological stance.

They can't see the big picture in terms of epochs, or billions of years.

If it's warmer than yesterday. . . global warming!
If it's colder than yesterday. . . . global cooling!

I compare some of these climate doomers as taking a temperature at noon and stating that that is the temperature average for a 24 hour cycle.


Scientists take a long view though and that's who I'm reading and listening to. No climate doomers here.


Then show me a study that goes back 1 billion years.
Or 100 million years.
Or 10 million years.


Read the Data.. Read the reports. Study the issue and read the research. I can't do it for you.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

network dude

jimmyx
it's too late my friends, the increase in air pollution will go on, there is no stopping it. the forward-thinking people do not have the money (read: power) and the people with the money are not forward-thinking. at 61, I'll be ok, and my son at 27 should be ok, it's his children that will be in for some suffering, and then its just a matter of time...maybe this is how it happened 200,000 years ago.... "man" crapped so much in his own yard, that oxygen deprivation, coupled with mass extinctions, reduced the population to living in caves for 10 of thousands of years. we are coming up to the end of this cycle, and will soon start up another one.


why did man have to live in caves for 10,000 years? Was it to ....adapt to his changing world?

Hmm..........


oxygen levels were higher during the age of dinosaurs, these studies... geology.com...
have shown that they were able to reach such massive physical size, substantiated by ice core drillings showing a higher level of atmospheric oxygen from eons ago....at our present and future time in history, with the constant increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, saturation points will be reached where plants are unable to absorb the increase. less and less oxygen will be available that enriches blood flow to the human brain. functional brain activity will, over time, slowly decrease, leading man to exist only in a survivable, but dulled state of simple actions, I.E. primitive shelter, simple foods, loss of higher levels of intellect, etc..............over thousands of years, as greenhouse gases slowly subside, and absorption of carbon dioxide increases, more and more oxygen will be put back into the atmosphere. over a couple hundred generations of man, increases in oxygenated blood constantly flowing to each new generation will slowly increase intelligence, and thus the learning curve of man will start anew.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join