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.

 

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Thank you for sharing that graph! It is truly remarkable how the church of science is able convince all "rational" people whatever they would like! It appears that with all of the technologies that are withheld from the benefit of the public due to profits also one of the most impressive things they have accomplished is the ability to give certain groups of "professionals" the smug view that they are correct in an unquestionable way, I mean peer review is without flaw correct lol cracks me up, they are just as bad as doctors who view alternative health as quackery.




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Didn't Al Gore and his coven of evil scientists predict that the Arctic would be devoid of ice by 2013?

How'd that work out?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

Being a nasa scientist doesn't make him an expert on climate change. What if his job was design a better toilet for the mars mission. How does that make him qualified to dismiss all the scientific evidence which points to the contrary? Answer, it doesn't because unless he's a climatologist he's talking out his ass.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Bilk22
Thank you for sharing that graph! It is truly remarkable how the church of science is able convince all "rational" people whatever they would like!.

Bilk22's graph is terribly dated. Please see this post by mc_squared that tears it apart.

Alternatively, see eManym's post just after that.
edit on 20Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:25:14 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: madmac5150

Being a nasa scientist doesn't make him an expert on climate change.


I just want to point out that there were janitors on the IPCC who signed their name to the science. So now we're going to be picky about who we call a climate expert?
edit on 27-4-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
one guy says its nonsense, and hes a hero.

a thousand others say its true, and they are on the take.

did you know the sun revolves around the earth? its true, cause this one guy said so! never mind all those that disagree, they are obviously on the take.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Thank you for the information!



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: madmac5150


How does that observation hold up against a huge body of research illustrating how climate change now effects whole species of indigenous fauna and regional weather patterns?


Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.




Ahhh conspiracy troll. You've never studied the data.





Show me your data, warmist troll.




So, you're saying you don't have it? If you haven't done your homework, you wouldn't have anything of interest to discuss with me. Play twenty questions with someone who isn't up to speed.



edit on 27-4-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Something that should always be considered when looking at dissenting voices about an established science, what are his credentials? Chemical Thermodynamics, he's not a climate scientist, not to say that he isnt scientifically literate, but climate sciecne isnt his area of expertise. Im an environmental scientist, and i probably know a fair bit more about climate science than most non-climate scientists, but climate science was part of my studies. Its an infinitely complex system, hence the uncertaintly about predictions and constant refinements and altered projections based on new data. The important thing to recognize is that just abut ALL climate scientists agree that there is a positive trend in increased warming and thats taken as fact. Its based on nothing but raw data that has been projected forward based on what we know.

Im constantly hearing ''scientists'' who debunk climate change, some of them have no related expertise at all to climate, like scial sciences. But that gets burried in the enws headline for the sake of a story. If you had a broken car would you take the advice of a mechanic, or would you take the advice of a completely unrelated professional over your mechanic? You see your mechanic, because they understand how a car works and why it does what it does. You wouldnt call your plumber to fix your car, because he's a plumber, what would he know about cars? maybe lots, but not more than your mechanic.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Those who profit from pumping carbon in our atmosphere are part of the oligarchy and resistant to any changes that will hurt their profits.


Man, no kidding - which is exactly why they've launched a massive PR campaign to deny the scientific reality happening here. ...It's like you're so close, yet so far...

I think the problem is you're not understanding how carbon taxes or Ponzi schemes work.

Our ENTIRE economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. We are sucking the planet dry of its finite resources at accelerating rates with absolutely no sustainable exit plan in place. The way our fractional reserve system inherently works is that this bubble has to keep growing just to keep it from bursting. Carbon pumping industries are at the forefront of this Ponzi paradox, and they have absolutely no conscience about the consequences because all they care about are their immediate quarterly profits. They obviously want you to consume more of their resources, not less, and they want you to have as little conscience about it as they do.

Meanwhile the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce our consumption habits and therefore rein in this Ponzi scam. I don't believe a single so called skeptic on ATS understands anything about carbon taxes. Everyone here just naively subscribes to the same rhetoric because blah blah big guvvermint blah regulation blah taxes bad...

Those of you who are here to deny ignorance instead of embrace useless talking points like this might want to look at British Columbia - one of the few places that's actually implemented a carbon tax.

And specifically here's what all the oil companies, denier blogs and right wing media don't tell you about it:

BC's carbon tax is revenue neutral. This means the money they take from the consumer at the gas pump is returned right back to the taxpayer in the form of lower income taxes.


The key to the B.C. carbon tax shift's success, Elgie said, is that it while taxes went up on fossil fuel use, income taxes were reduced, so it discourages pollution while encouraging employment and investment.


The net effect on you, me and the overall economy is nothing. And if you use less fossil fuels then YOU are actually MAKING money.

The only ones losing $$$$ in this transaction are the fossil fuel companies.

This is why they are so heavily invested in convincing all of you that global warming is a hoax, carbon taxes are a scam, and environmentalists are just trying to take your precious freedoms away.

It's frustrating to see how many people on a conspiracy forum have the whole conspiracy back-asswards and just can't find the forest for the trees here.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150


Regardless of whether 'climate change' is caused by humans, the sun, little green men, the consequences to us are the same and we need to do what we can to mitigate this change or perish.

Regardless of whether 'climate change' is going to kill the planet, we have polluted the biophere to the point of toxicity and we need to mitigate that.

We need to change our livestyles, invest in clean energy sources and clean up methodology (think pacific gire, think fukushima....)

Global warming (whatever the cause) exists - the polar ice sheets are melting - not only raising sea around the globe but, more importantly, decreasing the salinity of the ocean and slowing currents, two important SURVIVAL systems to all life on this planet.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Honestly, there is no debate that the output of the sun in its last full cycle in the late 90's and early 2000's put out more energy, and the latest solar cycle has been less than "stellar", with minimal peaks, flares, sunspots, etc.

What this means is that we saw a period of warming exactly when the scientists who support man made warming were screaming the loudest to get everyone on board with their doom-porn environmental crusade. Earth was warming as was Mars.
In this protracted solar minimum, we will continue to see a leveling off and maybe even a cooling as long as this reduction in solar output continues. Cycles are wonderful things, folks.

Now, we are going to see increased CO2 levels and increased methane levels for awhile. The unknown factor is if we have passed a tipping point in the thawing of things like permafrost and deep ocean methane fields to see a full reversal of normal, natural warming trends.

So climate change is real, but highly unlikely that it is man made. HOWEVER: We now have over 8 BILLION humans on the planet. Anyone who thinks that the sheer number of humans alive right now, consuming resources at an ever increasing rate will not have an adverse effect on the world is, well, not thinking very critically. That doesnt mean we are ruining our planet. It means we need to think about how we continue to use resources before we do begin doing serious harm to our planet.

I don't buy into the doom-porn of man made global climate change. I DO, however, firmly believe we have been poor stewards of our planet, and that we need to get that crap under control pretty quick, or we will face some serious consequences. Water shortages, for instance.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Have you been reading my posts on this thread? Earlier in this thread I stated that all taxes and insurance payments are a ponzi to an extent. I know how a ponzi works.

That is the 2nd time in this thread someone has tried to spin what I have posted, the guy that was trying to say I don't know anything about the carbon levels being the other. I'm no slouch intellectually, it is odd that many posters seem to take shots at my intellect on here lately. It is not just thread.....



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
The global temperatures have been rising exponentially in the last 75 to 100 years. This is a cause for concern and is an indication of global warming.

I had to lol at this one...

If global temperatures rose exponentially for 5-7 years, we would all be dead... let alone 75-100...lol

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
a reply to: guohua

Yes, but in the 70's global temperatures had been on a slow decline of a few percent from 1940 to 1970. Since the 70's, global temperatures have increased 800% and since the late 1800s by 1400%.

wow.,,,,


First we have someone say that temperatures have increased exponentially for 75-100 years, and now someone who claims that global temperatures have increased 1400% in less than 200 years. That would mean that the mean temperature of today would have to be 190 degrees celsius and all life would be dead...

mean global temperature in the 1800s was 13.6 C. Current mean global temperature is 14.6 C.

That's an increase of 1 degree C

Jaden



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: np6888

Actually it is quite simple.

Think of how many millions are being invested every year for the "green technology", how many taxes the countries pay for the carbon dioxide they produce and consider who owns the great "green technology" works like the huge turbines and huge areas with heat storage devices.

As far as i know, every year a greater percentage of the global GDP is related to the "green technology", every year countries pay higher taxes for the carbon dioxide they produce and every year more "green technology" devices are being established around the world.

That easily NWO can guide the economies world wide and treat them the way NWO wants simply by creating a global warming myth, that easily they can control the technology we use in our every day life with all the consequences this may have. Do you know where the money each country pays to Al Gore's treasury every year are being invested? Of course not. Do we know who appartizes the Board of Directors of that company/organization? Of course not.

Then why should i believe in their lies? From the moment something politicians, such as Al Gore, do is not crystal clear and yet not proven that it is for the good of humanity, why should i believe in the bovine excrement they are trying to sell me?

For example, last week i saw a documentary about global warming and how it affects India and Himalaya. India's weather agency is positive that the level of ice on Himalaya is being reduced the last 300 years. However, as the documentary was saying, they are not yet able to say whether if the ice melting is based on the global warming or not! The documentary was made in 2012.

So having that in mind along with the fact that Europe in the last 10 years has had the greatest rain drops and snow falls since weather agencies started to keep data, are we able to say that the planet is getting warmer?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Matt1951

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: madmac5150


How does that observation hold up against a huge body of research illustrating how climate change now effects whole species of indigenous fauna and regional weather patterns?


Global warming is a religion, not a science. Everything in the old days (drought, flood, hurricanes) was blamed on an act of God. Now it is blamed on Global Warming. With absolutely no proof.
The primary purpose of the Gobal Warming religion was to act as a stalking horse for the nuclear power industry.




Ahhh conspiracy troll. You've never studied the data.





Show me your data, warmist troll.




So, you're saying you don't have it? If you haven't done your homework, you wouldn't have anything of interest to discuss with me. Play twenty questions with someone who isn't up to speed.




I am saying if you have seen data you believe, you should be willing to share it with us. I am highly skeptical you can present data which cannot be readily shot down. Which is why you will not present it. Play twenty questions with you, Warmist troll that you are.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

When President Obama was elected, there was a surge of excitement among Warmists that the new President would move on Global Warming. All of a sudden, nuclear power was the solution to all our problems. Until Fukushima. Don't you think there is more than the oil/gas/coal companies involve here?

edit on 28-4-2014 by Matt1951 because: spelling, from sticky keyboard.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I have a theory about those 'fossil fuel are not danger for climate changes' and 'earth climate changed on its own for millions of year' scientist. Most of them are 'ex-NASA' (or some other institution) scientist and imho they are trying to cash a bit their 'scientist' status by making such a claim, most likely paid by oil industries.

Just blind man would not see changes, or someone who never seen air pollution in big cities. Earth was changing anyway - true, but tempo of change is product of us.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Everlastingknowitall



Honestly, there is no debate that the output of the sun in its last full cycle in the late 90's and early 2000's put out more energy


Well there's no debate about that because it's just not so.




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join