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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

ITS NOT SOLAR CYLES!!!!

READ THE POSTS




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yes there are, have either of those two planets warmed?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The person I'm replying to (not you) is talking about solar cycles.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

You profess to "know" of solar cycles, then demand redundant, non-sensical, circular questions that HAVE been answered by physists at NASA (in the links I provided up thread). There is a MYRIAD of other data (linked from NASA for starters) and from researchers worldwide. NO SCIENCE IS EVER SETTLED!!!! EXCEPT by when DECLARED politicians for THEIR political/financial gain.

Now...if you are EVER at O'Hare...take a look around the airside terminal. some of those "CCX" carbon offset credit machines (you flew x #miles so YOUR Carbon Indulgence is___). Plunk some Benjamins into slot and know how YOU are saving the planet (for Al Gore's profit)!



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Glinda



non-sensical, circular questions that HAVE been answered by physists at NASA


No they haven't. I understand that they are saying that there seems to be correlation between the LIA and the sun being in an inactive phase.

I assume you're presenting this theory to point out the opposite, that a more active sun will cause warming... so my question (again) has the sun been active enough to cause warming since the late 1800's?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Oh look, we're back on Solar Activity and temperature! Time to post this for the third time in this thread:
data.giss.nasa.gov...
lasp.colorado.edu...

Will they respond this time? Maybe they'll go bring up volcanoes again! It's a grand mystery.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Humankind will NEVER stop climate change. There are too big obstacles and too many of them. Earth will be slowly (but surely) decay under our s*hit. We DO NOT think enough of our children and next generations. All we do is think ourselves. If we really want to change, we already have seen it. Get over it and move on.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I became aware of "pollution" in 1970 when it happened, literally, in our back yard. Some yahoo with a bit of loose change in his pocket bought 6 old house trailers and put them on a lot that adjoined our farm. Apparently his loose change ran out before he could hire a plumber to install a proper septic system so he just straight-piped them into the creek that was the property boundary.
One fine fall day I was taking a walk in the woods along the creek and was assaulted by the most horrible smell I'd ever experienced. All 6 of those trailers were occupied by 3 or 4 college students each and all their sewage was flowing directly into the creek. I found my way to the creek and could not believe what I was seeing....or smelling.
When I got home I told my parents what I'd seen and smelled. My Dad explained that what he had done was against the county health codes and if I wanted it to be put right I must go the county health department and make a complaint.
I was only 16 years old at the time but I was angry that any adult would be senseless enough to do something so stupid. I'd never approached any public official for any reason but I marched myself into the office and told them my story.
Within a week there were signs that my complaint had been heard in the form of heavy equipment putting in a septic system. I learned that there are people who must be beaten over the head to do the right thing when there is money to be made. I learned that only by taking action can we hope to have a fine society because there will always be a few who will ignore the health/well-being of others for money.
That began my activism. I became a conservationist. I'm still a conservationist. I take personal responsibility for my life and the land I own and manage.
There was a time, briefly, in the mid-to-late '70s that the idea of conservationism was taught in our education systems, the importance of acting responsibly in our consumer decisions. Using cloth diapers instead of disposable, using returnable bottles for beverages, alternatives to plastics made with oil....and on and on. But then, sometime in the '80s the "environmental movement" came along and co-opted the education system. They didn't want to talk about personal responsibility they wanted to preach government control of every aspect of our lives.
I'm a conservationist. I care for my land and I'll be handing it off to my children in far better condition than when I purchased it. My children were raised to be conscious of their consumer decisions and to take care of their world. My grandchildren are being raised with the same values---that nature is precious and that no government has ever "protected" one single animal, plant or body of water, only people can do that.
When you hand over the care of our lands to government you are in for a terrible shock. When you hand over yourself to care of the government you are in for a terrible shock. The government and all its bureaucrazies are bought, lock, stock and barrel, by one special interest or another. And each and every one of those special interests has a goal of collecting money. Their purpose is to transfer money from others' pockets into their own. I don't have a lot of money and I never will so I can't buy a position at the table when the money transfers are being discussed.
But I can be a responsible human being in my daily life and be able to look myself in the mirror and say I've done the best I can with the knowledge I have. I can't say it any better than Phoenix did a few pages back. All I can do is try to educate people that I see coming out of the educational system with a flawed understanding of how government works---that government was instituted to make people do the right thing.
So you may call me a "denier" or any other soft-insult you please because I won't join the AlGore chorus. I'm too busy trying to protect my land and money from the greedy government to join in the choral activities.
My scientific education came in the days before "consensus" science had been introduced. But I realize that my concept of science is way outdated. I firmly believe that my grandchildren will live to see the day that the human-induced-climate changers are viewed with the same disdain as the flat-earth people. I believe the pendulum will swing back to using proofs in science rather than emotions but I fear that time will be precipitated by the global collapse being engineered by those few amongst us who are truly evil.
As for the "crapping on the living room carpet" crowd, let me say this, 99.9% of people will not use their living room as an open sewer nor will they use your living room in that manner. Hasn't this been your experience? How many people do you know who actually do such a vile thing? Only a few drunken louts, I'd be willing to bet. So, just in case one of those drunken louts happens to show up at your house, wouldn't it be a good idea for you to go to the trouble and expense of posting signs in your living room instructing those few as to the proper place for relieve themselves? Maybe we could just pass a law that all homes must have clear signs pointing to the toilets and outlining the penalties for misuse of the living room carpet as a toilet? That would solve that problem, wouldn't it? ----what do you mean, the drunken louts wouldn't read the signs?



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry




Al Gore said about 5 years ago that basically 'if we don't change course and do something' that there would be no ice on the poles in 5 years. Well, guess what? (haha, I said GUESS) - the scientists that were sent up there got stuck in RECORD ICE.



No he didn't say that. I have seen that claim parroted in several threads and it seems you are yet another lackey of the denier crowd who doesn't bother to look up what he actually said and will buy into what other groups have claimed he said. It was two 6 minute speeches he gave in Germany and in neither speech did he make that claim. What he did do is quote two possible timeframe of when we "could" see an ice-free arctic, but deniers latch on to the earliest date them claim he said it would happen. I have even seen sights and articles where they completely misquoted him where a few even had his recorded speech there, but it seems people were too lazy to watch and see what he actually said.

Well guess what? The people who are too !#@! to educate themselves are easy to dismiss..

Or maybe there is a wide swath of people who do not understand the difference between the words could, would, and will.

He said the earliest could be within 5 years but said other reports put it under 22 years. When that 22 year time frame comes and goes and the ice is still just as plentiful as today at that point the deniers can cry Gotcha.



Gore said that on Sept. 21, 2007, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."

Read more at www.liveleak.com...




I don't think there will be a gotcha.


Just can't stand someone who disagrees with the paid lackeys and scared lemmings?

Here's a thread that you could have some fun in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Just can't stand someone who disagrees with the paid lackeys and scared lemmings?

Here's a thread that you could have some fun in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about an independent, unfunded study that finds things are rather similar to what the IPCC says?

No paid lackey there, but similar results. What point are you going to move on to now?

Also, why is the opinion of a businessman with a journalist degree important in regard to climate science?
edit on 11Thu, 08 May 2014 11:32:13 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry


Gee thanks but well... I have been in that thread for quite some time already.

Look I personally can't stand big al gore but if you cant argue against him without making up fabrications then you obviously don't have anything of substance to argue with.

There is a common trend with most deniers. They generally don't research their own claims (like the one you made) they put more stock in fringe science or minority(like the 3% that don't endorse human causation of warming and they constantly site that scientists endorsed an ice age at one time. Well there were 6 not 6% but 6 studies total suggesting that that isn't even a 1% of scientists in the field). Anyway when you say paid lackeys does that include anyone who gets paid to work? Can you site some scientists that disagree with AGW that do so with their own funding (they must be independently wealthy).The fact that a person works for a living has turned into paid lackeys I guess or maybe that is just a red herring the denier group hasn't thought much about.

Its just pitiful how much misinformation I see parroted in the denier circles even when you show some of them how it is wrong with sources they will ignore it and parrot it again in another thread. That is called wilful ignorance to the extreme. Sorry but it is a bit frustrating when that happens.

If you have "good" arguments then by all means present them I would love to see something new that goes against what 97% of the worlds climate scientists are saying, but all I see is the flawed same old same old which is mostly "bah what do scientists know" type of thing.

edit on 8-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Independent? Where's their funding come from I wonder- shed some light on it?


Everybody has funding from somewhere, I just wonder what the focus is of those who are funding these 'independent' studies.



edit on 8-5-2014 by BlackboxInquiry because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2014 by BlackboxInquiry because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Independent? Where's their funding come from I wonder- shed some light on it?


Everybody has funding from somewhere, I just wonder what the focus is of those who are funding these 'independent' studies.

If you are correct, that means somebody is funding your posting here. Check and mate.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

and for the third time - NOT SOLAR ACTIVITY - sunspot cycles and solar irridesence

www.google.ca...:en-US
fficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo= u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=SdRrU4bENIidyASy7YGIBA&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1152&bih=711

Why does your graph only cover 13 years - how meaningful is that?

Tired of Control Freas



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
“There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.”

We're in the Denial phase with a little bit of conflicts with the bible. Hopefully soon we'll be in the final stage when everyone says that 'yeah, we knew man made global warming was true all along." Then maybe we'll get off our butts and do something about it. Hopefully.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
and for the third time - NOT SOLAR ACTIVITY - sunspot cycles and solar irridesence

www.google.ca...:en-US
fficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo= u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=SdRrU4bENIidyASy7YGIBA&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1152&bih=711

Why does your graph only cover 13 years - how meaningful is that?

Tired of Control Freas

You are mind-boggling ignorant of what's going on.

That chart is from 1880 to 2013, not a mere 13 years, and plots Total Solar Irradiance (iridescence is the correct spelling, but also not the right terminology) with Global Temperature Mean (average global temperature). Solar minimums are associated with a decline or absence of sunspots. This, in turn, correlates well with Total Solar Irradiance. Solar Activity is used to describe various phenomena, including sunspots and irradiance.

You need to do your links better, as an emote is in the midst of it. I see little difference between that and what I've posted, save for other graphs apparently using different TSI reconstructions than the one I used.

Additionally, if you think 13 years is meaningless, why are 17 years meaningful (aka the 'pause').
edit on 14Thu, 08 May 2014 14:28:12 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not out there publishing 'official' papers and trying to change laws and funneling money through bunk companies selling smoke and snake oil.

People can think for themselves and if data isn't matching up, then why not say so. Nobody needs your permission to disagree and call it as they see it.

Check mate? Where's the chess board? Playing a one-sided game and making up rules as you go along?

Have a beer, because this is gonna be long. You won't use common sense and I won't buy 'paid for' data or research funded by companies who are DEMANDING a certain outcome so they can profit off the ill-educated.




posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

first point - your right - I misunderstood the graph.

The significance of a 17 years?

www.llnl.gov...




In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.


It comes from Ben Santer (a supporter of the global warming theory and and atmospheric scientist)

www.climatecommunication.org...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
“There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.”

We're in the Denial phase with a little bit of conflicts with the bible. Hopefully soon we'll be in the final stage when everyone says that 'yeah, we knew man made global warming was true all along." Then maybe we'll get off our butts and do something about it. Hopefully.


Oh my that is so true. There was even a congressman on record making the claim climate change was false because the bible says..yada yada. That was some time ago but for one recently have a look.

God Controls the Climate, So You Can Relax


I know, he’s just a Tea Party candidate with almost no chance of election, but Greg Brannon, primary candidate for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Kay Hagen, said in a debate the other night that God controls the climate.
And here all this time you’ve thought it was physics.
blogs.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 8-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
And still no one claiming its the sun, in this thread, will offer any proof that it is.
edit on 5/8/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join