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.

 

Obama dire climate report more certain than ever

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Respectfully, please re-read my post. Nowhere did I mention anything about government or give a personal opinion on what I believe the solutions to be. I talked about how we need to move from debate about the existence of human caused global warming into talking about concrete solutions to the problems that we have all created. I am entirely open to solutions that do no stem from government. In all probability there has to be a multi-faceted approach on many levels to address the challenges that we face.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing



I keep seeing people bring up Global Cooling years ago. I already posted and debunked that. Global Cooling never eally caught on with science....it was more of a pop culture thing and only proposed by a few scientists. Global warming on the other hand had hundreds of thousands of proponents in main stream science. It's a real thing!


Have you noticed the trend of how people or which people believe the fringe elements.

About 3% or less of the climate scientists believe climate change isn't driven by man and for some reason that 3% is supposed to have so much more credibility in the denier circles an even smaller percentage not even totaling 1% was flirting with the ice age thing so now those scientists are their holy grail.

I find a remarkable correlation there.




edit on 6-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
that is true we stopped using CFCs. spent billions of dollars in the process of doing so. you may find it interesting to learn that the ozone layer started to repair itself before the ban on cfc'S took place. reply to: mrmeeseeks



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=17887562]lostbook[/postwww.skepticalscience.com... the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." (Ian Plimer)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




Oh right, what you really mean is you are going to ignore the evidence I have shown complete with quotes, documentable I might add, that the UN and members of the Club of Rome have colluded to foist this monstrous thing on us for the purpose of World Domination


Allow me to wax over how difficult it is talking to each other this way.

Essentially, you're talking past me, while I'm, from your perspective, talking past you.

You claim I am ignoring your points, whereas you, from my perspective, appear to be skirting the issue of human influences on the environment. Were each seeing something different in the "other" were communicating with.

I'm speaking in this existential way because it helps put us back into reality. This is where I try to speak from: I want to be aware of myself as I reason, so that I am not ignoring or dismissing what the other says.

What I am sensing, mostly from you, is a sense of Fear. That we have good reason to fear the UN and the "elites" and all the people you crumple together as co-conspirators.

If you stop and think about it, you're experiencing an emotion, and in this emotion, everything else you think is being animated and directed by this emotion. I am telling you this because I always thought this way. I'm not sure if you recall our prior conversations, but i recall you being similar to myself. I used to post as Dontreally before I changed my username. Over the years, my studies have taken me to different areas, so, within a relatively short period of time (probably 3-4 years) I have experienced a transformation of perception in myself, particularly, in how I understood myself in relation to other human beings, which in turn influenced my political and social views.

All those liberal books and ideas I used to comment on in the past really just came from ignorance. I didn't know what I was talking about. But I wanted to see myself commenting on it so that my "internet self" could feel strong, influential and coherent. Now, I realize that this is what most people are doing when they're perceiving reality from a perspective where the self is seen as isolated and different from other selves: ignorant of the ontogenetic facts of it's own developmental history. How the self emerged from an intersubjective experience of the other. As I began to look into myself and ask myself: why do you believe these things? And why do you feel this way about others? I understood that a lot of this conspiracy thinking I engaged in stemmed from a personal feeling of not seeing myself reflected in the experiences of others. This produced in my mind, in my unconscious, a bias in how I thought about the category "others". I realized how I always generalized things. I couldn't trust others in my own personal life, so, in my conspiracy beliefs, there is this whole category of others who represent - in their totality - a body of beliefs, which, upon analysis, could not be trusted. And considering also that beliefs - positive, or negative, that is, beliefs of commission, and beliefs of omission, exist dialectically with one another, when I am making generalized claims about elite, I am omitting, and ignoring, alternative explanations that are far more fundamentally sound, and rational, and balanced.

When I began to read books that I would have earlier denounced in my generalized way as "propaganda" - essentially everything, from my old perspective, was tinged with a conspiratorial hue, and implied enormous prowess in the conspirators - I was surprised by how much my perceptions had been changed. And how different I began to feel about institutions which I previously regarded as corrupt and inept.

Like I've written so far, I think climate change is real, because human beings represent an unnatural activity in earths geological history. The biosphere - from the stratosphere to the ocean depths - life exists in a delicate balance. This balance is called homeostatic, and the process by which it achieves it, is called homeostasis.

If you accept the above principle: that all systems seek homeostasis, than climate change is a sensible and scientific concept, because vehicles, planes, trains, plastics, concrete, dont create themselves, but rely on oil to make them go or make them real. I think its ridiculous for you to take those emails about "climate doubt" as proof when the argument and the logic is crystal clear, if, and only if, you are thinking in the right categories. If you understand scientific concepts like entropy, chaos theory, homeostasis, then what we've done to the environment is very likely to induce changes.

You dont think in the proper categories. You are hung up on agenda 21, scientist emails, evil elites, and thus in a fairly constant state of arrested development.

It's an unfortunate part of reality and being human that such wide distances in perception can exist between people.

Far from me being a moral relativist, I think there is a right, holistic, and ecological way to see things, and a wrong, individualistic insistence - based in ignorance - that the self is real and its interests are fundamental, way to see things. The former takes into account context - the world of relationships - while the latter is caught in a feedback loop where ego supports views which in turn supports ego. The fact of the importance of relationships in our thinking goes unnoticed. Meaning, the minds epistemological processes remain the same, unchanged, and continuously on guard against becoming challenged.

I don't expect this to mean anything to you, as, like I wrote when I began this self conversation, I am just trying to explain what I'm seeing. It will undoubtedly be irksome for you to read this, as I am essentially describing your views as wrong, and wrong because they begin at a false frame of attention. But I can't implant my knowledge into your mind (unfortunately), so you will go on being someone with harmful views which imperil our specie, while I will try to think responsibly, as best as I can, so that we can all live in a better and more empathic world.

ps. I do not worship or care much for the concept of gaia. Although, the idea that earth is a "living system" that seeks homeostasis seems true, and feels true to me. Earth, if you'd like to describe it as feminine, could be called "my mother", and I could feel a sense of awe, that my life is unfolding on a planet as it swirls through the universe. And the fact that this planet is venue of this experience, the planet is obviously important.

Still, though, metaphysically speaking, earth is just another object. It's reality is dependent upon it's position in the solar system, on the size of the sun itself, and on the particular position it has in the galaxy which allowed for life to grow on it. So, I tend to think of God, as the ultimate reality. On the hand, I can commiserate with others who feel a special connection with the very physical planet which supports their physical existence.

and BTW, it doesn't matter how many times this issue has been debated. It is not going away. It is going to gain more steam and it will likely become a major talking point by the democrats in the next general election. And as well it should be.
edit on 7-5-2014 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I encourage everyone to find out for themselves. to stop listening to scientists who primarily get there funding from governments. Which are run by selfish, self serving politicians. Scientists conduct studies, tests and experiments to obtain Data. Which is then analized and then INTERPRETED. The way one scientists interprets data compared to another. Their always seems that something gets lost in translation. I was always taught that science is the pursuit of truth. and I'm sad to say but it seems that it's far from that in this present day.even the most simple minded among all of us has to question how these scientists who can't even accurately predict the weather for the next 3 days with the accuracy that they claim to have from there weather and climate models. from which they are predicting climate for the next 100 years. and FYI to date none of the climate models from the past have been accurate in predicting the weather of today. not one.the Earth has been around for 5 plus billion years. modern humans for the last ten thousand or so (which is debatable) we have been keeping weather records and temperature for the last couple hundred. All these figures that you hear about teperatures of the past. And expecially about co2 and carbon parts per million figures that scientists give for climates of the past are all speculationat best....human beings are not a disease of the earth we are not the plague, the cancer that some people would have you believe. Earth is not a God that we should worship. Man wasnt created for the earth. The Earth was created for man.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Existentialism is not reality to me. It's an ideology I don't agree with. Talk all you like about it though. It doesn't change the fact that Al Gore lies about Global Warming and is making a huge profit going around the country talking about it and making money off carbon credits. If nothing else, I would hope you might see that this is hypocrisy characteristic of the Elites, who think they deserve more than the rest of us "useless eaters" and "units" in their little game of being important and powerful.
Anyway, I'm not the only one to believe that Agenda 21 and the Global Warming theory are manifestations of Marxist socialism.

junkscience.com...


edit on 7-5-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: traintrain
I encourage everyone to find out for themselves....

Earth is not a God that we should worship. Man wasnt created for the earth. The Earth was created for man.


Earth is also created for all other living creatures then (using same logic).. and if so look how bad other living creatures are doing on land and in the oceans today. Here humans are the MAIN reason they are doing so badly these days and much worse in the near future.
And you can say; hey it happened in the past many thousands or millions of years ago and man was not the reason then, so today also not the reason. Just a ''natural cycle'' in which we have no part.


edit on 7-5-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad


So the pole the scientist were sent to,where their ship was stuck...and then the following rescue ice breaker had issues as well...that's in the United States... *let me get my map*

NOPE! Far from here....



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: traintrain


Agreed. No climate change due to pollution (as they are claiming), but I do agree our pollution is messing up our air, waterways and soil and is directly impacting our food and health (along with all other living creatures).

Climate change? MUAHAHAHH! "Scientists" have also concluded in certain circles that 'cow farts' are far more harmful that what man is doing....so.....

I don't think we *truly* have scientists anymore. Because currently, 'scientists' have to prove everything mathematically....if they can't, then it's not considered 'science'. I'm sorry, by methodology, wouldn't that be considered Mathematics? Sure, mathematics has it's place in science, but should it be the major factor? What happened to experiments like they were done for pure discovery to get the answer, using math to help whittle down....not using math to try and shape the results?

edit on 7-5-2014 by BlackboxInquiry because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
- Does the climate change? Yes.

- Is it man made climate change? Unknown. It's known to be natural. It's unknown if human pollution has changed that natural cycle.

- Is it smart to recycle and try to pollute less? Yes.

- Is this an excuse being used by the left to increase taxes and big gov't stranglehold? YES.

- Is this an excuse being used by left wing politicians to curb legislation in favor of certain industries and gimmicks that they are heavily invested in so they can get themselves richer? YES.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte


appear to be skirting the issue of human influences on the environment


Water bottles in the ocean are one thing, co2 is another.

As far as fear... you are not sensing fear in me but the warrior goddess KALI's sword, as I expose elements that make people uncomfortable. Maybe for you it's your own fear of changing your outlook and worldview and accepting that certain people do have more control in your life than they should, and that this control might be to a point, much bigger than you ever suspected. It's classic unbelief in the power held by the Elites who you never dreamed had such evil intent. It is human nature to not accept that, so I won't hold it against you, but it certainly does not change anything.
Or maybe you are actually comfortable with a Big Nanny Government and you do not see the loss of liberty. I think that is the case with some people.
But then maybe we should fear these people who have so much control in the world that they can dictate that we buy insurance, that we pay for others to have it, that we lose our insurance for some Utopian ideal which will never be fulfilled, that they can dictate how much electricity we get to use, dictate water rights, stop us from having raw milk even. Why would you want to put up with that while they have big mansions and everything else they want in life but want to control what you have?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
When government starts to push policy on how people lives, watch out, as they will then dictate things in our lives that we do not want, or desire.

I do not believe that for all of the rhetoric that is out there about climate change, is valid on the part of the federal government. If the federal government was that serious about such, then why no laws that are being pushed for more sustainable solutions and green friendly areas?

Do you not think that the federal government could make a difference? Sustainable housing is possible, yet the government makes no move to make it affordable. When you think back to years gone by, there was at one time a push for recycling and preserving. Everyone had gardens, and grew food, people worked and cared for the land, and it was supported by the government. Those lessons and those who know how to do such are slowly going away.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The government's doesn't have a sollution.
They could for example say; only 100 grams/meat a week/or day maximum allowed (would help fight co2).
But it's bad for business and people wouldn't accept it and it wouldn't make the political figure populair for getting votes..

What about cars.. they can make smaller cars which can drive like 80-100km or more with 1 litre of fuel..
I don't see American's accept such a solution to fight co2.

Also like the fishery, many fish spieces are in danger.. 1 country could do something about it, another country will say thanks we catch more fish then..

WWIII?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
So the pole the scientist were sent to,where their ship was stuck...and then the following rescue ice breaker had issues as well...that's in the United States... *let me get my map*

NOPE! Far from here....

Please, do elucidate how this is a strike against climate change.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Anyway, I'm not the only one to believe that Agenda 21 and the Global Warming theory are manifestations of Marxist socialism.

junkscience.com...

I like how you take one or two quotes from a single post and make several posts full of nonsense about it. No wait, that's annoying.

What drives Capitalism? It's simple - growth. Without growth, Capitalism withers and dies. This is why recessions (little negative growth for a few months) are so painful. This is why depressions (multiple-years-long recessions) are devastating. This is why Capitalism is ultimately unsustainable.

Ask any biologist - what happens to a bacterial colony in a Petri dish? It eventually exhausts all resources - space or food - and dies off. The Earth is humanity's Petri dish until we can escape its confines. If we manage that, the larger Petri dish is our solar system, etc. It may take a long time, but global climate change is rather quickly shortening this window of opportunity to escape.

The logical end of a system that requires growth to continue is that it consumes all available resources. We are destroying our only home. God said to tend the garden, not murder it.
edit on 9Wed, 07 May 2014 09:56:45 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: for some reason 'this window.' gets removed in bbc



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes - gravity is a thing! So is the fact that there has been some global warming since the 1980s. But they are still working out the mechanics of the theory.

For instance: is it really anthropogenic sources of CO2 that is causing the warming, even in the face of the fact that other planets are warming at the same time OR is it related to solar activity.

2. Is it natural variation? Temperatures have been as high and higher in the history of the earth. Atmospheric CO2 has been higher and lower in the history of the earth. Is it really CO2 that is causing the warming knowing that there is an 800 year gap between high temperatures and high CO2

3. What are the mechanics that control weather - as yet, scientists are unable to predict cloud formation or models for particulate distribution. What mechanisms actually control earths weather

4. Why doesn't the current global temperature match our predictions from computer models

5. Why didn't the computer models predict a 17 year pause in the rise of global temperature. What caused the pause?

6. why are all those smart scientists reluctant to release the raw data?

7. How can all those computer models predict what the weather will be like in 50 years (accurately and beyond debate) and still can't predict weather for the next three days?

8. why when sceptics point to cold weather are we told that there is a difference between weather and climate. However, when global warming scientists point to the same weather as proof of global warming, we are supposed to swallow the codswallop whole without even chewing.

Like I say, lots and lots of debate yet to do.

And no one has yet answered my question: WHO WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IF THE GLOBAL WARMING SUPPORTERS ARE WRONG! WHO WILL REFUND OUR MONEY? WHO WILL GO TO JAIL FOR FRAUD?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



As far as fear... you are not sensing fear in me but the warrior goddess KALI's sword, as I expose elements that make people uncomfortable.


If you were truly wielding a Gift you would not need to name it. You've sought to lend authority to your cause and thus proven unworthy.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: traintrain
a reply to: [post=17887562]lostbook[/postwww.skepticalscience.com... the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day." (Ian Plimer)


Ian Plimer has been debunked and refuted on the volcanic issue. Google it.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
1. is it really anthropogenic sources of CO2 that is causing the warming, even in the face of the fact that other planets are warming at the same time OR is it related to solar activity.

Yes, most scientists in the world about 97% of them believe so. They have taken into consideration solar activity and concluded that Man is really messing up the climate with his pollution.

2. Is it natural variation? Temperatures have been as high and higher in the history of the earth. Atmospheric CO2 has been higher and lower in the history of the earth. Is it really CO2 that is causing the warming knowing that there is an 800 year gap between high temperatures and high CO2

No, again scientists have taken all this into consideration. It is man made pollution that is causing the recent spike in global warming.

3. What are the mechanics that control weather - as yet, scientists are unable to predict cloud formation or models for particulate distribution. What mechanisms actually control earths weather.

While prediction models vary and need lots of work. The Global Warming science is based on real data.

4. Why doesn't the current global temperature match our predictions from computer models?

We're still working on the prediction models. We have the real data of the past and present though. We know what's going on.

5. Why didn't the computer models predict a 17 year pause in the rise of global temperature. What caused the pause?

I googled and didn't find a 17 year pause in the rise of global temperatures. I posted a link from NASA earlier that didn't show that at all.

6. why are all those smart scientists reluctant to release the raw data?

Many scientists have released much raw data. It's out there. You're probably referring to one guy "Mann" or one UN Agency. When we talk about global warming science we are talking about hundreds of reports and thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands or even millions of researchers and support personnel.

7. How can all those computer models predict what the weather will be like in 50 years (accurately and beyond debate) and still can't predict weather for the next three days?

They are basing those predictions on hard science and data from the past and present and what they see now. Of course not all predictions are going to be correct. It's science and it changes as more data comes in.

8. why when sceptics point to cold weather are we told that there is a difference between weather and climate. However, when global warming scientists point to the same weather as proof of global warming, we are supposed to swallow the codswallop whole without even chewing.

Because one really cold winter doesn't refute global warming when we are talking decades. It still get's cold in Alaska but that doesn't mean there is no global warming. That's the difference between weather and climate.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join