It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

ATS Poll: How concerned are you about "Global Warming"?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:05 AM
To put it lengthily would be poor use of time and space. Am I concerned? No.

Do I care? Yes, loving the planet does not have to be synonymous to such a negative emotion: Concern would not accurately describe how I feel in regard to our planet. Concern tends to imply tackling a task bigger than your influence which can be taxing on your health and energy.

So cocnerned...? No, not often am I concerned. Do I care? YES All the damn time I do.
edit on 2014 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:19 AM

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: burdman30ott6

in the 1970s the same climatologists were storming DC with dire news that we were about to cause an ice age.)

That part is not true. There were a very small handful of scientists that theorized that. That theory never caught on in the scientific community. Not like with Global Warming today with 97% on board.

Yup it was an extremely fringe group that endorsed it in fact there were only 6 papers total written on the subject to compare that in terms understandable in 2013 there were 2259 peer-reviewed climate article written on AGW. Somehow 6 papers from the 70s get a lot of attention yet the thousands on AGW are rabidly dismissed.

Go figure.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:26 AM
I am 100% certain that human activities are causing climate change that is likely to be detrimental to human - and other - life.

But I'm not too concerned about it and I think we should concentrate on learning to live with the consequences of our actions, rather than trying stop doing what we've already done and will inevitably continue to do.

Now, if we were specifically talking about tropical deforestation (one of the ways human activity is detrimentally affecting the climate, but which has many other consequences too) that'd be a different matter! That to me should be our no.1 priority.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:35 AM
Just to put this out. There is a thread which contains some viable solutions on how to reverse co2 damage many of which would create jobs plus one on a fuel alternative for our cars that would be less expensive than the one we have now but like I have said on several occasions TPB especially those that want us to use oil based fuels will probably do everything in there power to keep that from happening.

I am tired of debating if there is a problem, but I am all for debating what would be the best solutions. FYI those solutions do not involve a tax.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 04:15 AM

originally posted by: Mianeye
It's a problem, how big of a problem we don't know.

Somewhat concerned.

Of course it's a huge problem back in 1985 we only had 30 or so odd years to arrest the problem with the combustion engine in order to insure that the Polar Shift would not happen. According to the Angelic Race on the planet Thiaoouba the hydrogen engine much like we had before during the time of Atlantis had to be reintroduced. Instead it was deep sixed like so much other tech that could help humanity. TPTB want the polar shift to happen in order to depopulate the Earth and that is all due again to climate change caused by us. Look at Edgar Cayce predicting the polar shift if you do not believe the Angelic race. Although they are us and we are them. They split their soul down to this kindergarten level. Either way most of ATS 99.99% is ignorant of even the basic meaning of life itself and is embroiled in the ignorance of their own concepts and theories. Whatever needs to happen will happen and it's too late to turn back time. If they didn't kill the electric engine we could have had a chance and its barley coming out now. Maybe the future is malleable so I guess we will have to wait and see. Not sure which universe we are in yet although I know we are better off then if the Angelic Race had allowed the Nazis to finish the atomic bomb.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:18 AM
Considering the Earth has been "warming", then "cooling", then "warming" again, and "cooling"...............well you get the drift, but I am not worried at all because the Earth is just doing what it has always done. It's just that this time around someone worked out a way to make money out of it.

Corrupt politicians and big business leaders are more of a threat to this planet then any warming, or cooling temperatures !

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

With all respect for all the american ATS members and US citizens in general..

Because the last poll about the missing plane had a surprising result you maybe should add the choice....

-- Never knew there was a problem with global warming.

Add such a simular option in each poll and maybe we will get some more interesting and surprising answers.
edit on 10/5/2014 by zatara because: of an idea

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:38 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yup it was an extremely fringe group that endorsed it in fact there were only 6 papers total written on the subject

Every science textbook every year of the 1970's said that we were headed into an ice age. I guess fringe groups run the public school system.

The majority of voters and college graduates are "educated" by that same fringe.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:53 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

in 2013 there were 2259 peer-reviewed climate article written on AGW.

2259 climate change scientist reviewed papers by climate change scientists and not a single fact about known global mechanisms gratuitously leaked out.

Only climate-possibility-computer models, a lot like fed reserve economics and give-all-the-power-to-the-biggest-government politics.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:18 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I thought it was farting that was causing it - now its not farting anymore, its breathing.

It was global warming, then its climate change, now earth's atmospheric feelings.

How am I ever going to keep all this straight

Oh, that's right...

edit on 10-5-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 07:23 AM
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Every science textbook every year of the 1970's said that we were headed into an ice age. I guess fringe groups run the public school system.

Do you have links? I sure would like to know what those textbooks actually had to say.

The true fringe group is the ones who ignore scientific consensus. It is a pattern they latch on to the 3% of the climate scientists who disagree that warming is manmade and back in the 70s they agree with the few who wrote those 6 papers.

But hey I am not saying the textbooks weren't whacked have you ever seen the nutjobs that are responsible for providing the content in textbooks seems they are more concerned with interjecting creationism in them than anything else I would just like to see what they actually said.

2259 climate change scientist reviewed papers by climate change scientists and not a single fact about known global mechanisms gratuitously leaked out.

When you say leaked out..err does that mean you didn't bother to read them. They are not a secret in any way they are published and easily accessible. They might not be in your textbook though they are new.

Oh and there is a lot more there than just computer models don't fool yourself or play one.
edit on 10-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:41 AM
I voted that I'd never heard of Flight MH370
edit on 5/10/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:25 AM
I'm not worried about it at all. The earth changes over time and "They" know it. Just another tool in their arsenal of scare tactics to make us think we need them. Looking outside right now if I never heard of global warming, I'd never had known there was a problem to begin with.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:47 AM
I'm somewhat concerned about AGW. I am pretty assured that technologically and economically speaking it can be solved. What really bothers me is the lazyness, ignorance, and lack of willpower to actually do something about it - not doing something about it is pretty much the antithesis of what I try to be.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to respond to this post. I am lost for words. Where do I begin?

Do I need to continue, or have I succeeded in demonstrating how incorrect your statement is?

Billionaires have a lot of money - they invest in a great diverse range of things, in other words they have a very diverse portfolio. Renewable energy is for various reasons a sound investment, it is growing, there is a clear, recognized need for clean energy. Therefore, billionaires have invested in it. The fact a billionaire has invested in renewable energy doesn't actually mean they are an "environmentalist". Just like the fact that I get public transport doesn't mean I am an environmentalist. Or the fact that I use a recycling bin doesn't make me an environmentalist. Further, the fact that I went camping once doesn't mean I am an environmentalist.

How many those listed developed their fortune from clean energy? Probably not many. Versus how many billionaires have made their fortunes directly from fossil fuels? A lot. How big of an industry is burning fossil fuels versus clean energy? Fossil fuels are vastly bigger. How many of those billionaires have also invested heavily in fossil fuels? Probably most of them. It's obvious that fossil fuels are a vastly bigger industry than "wind and solar" you speak of! So your own argument doesn't speak for you, it speaks against you.

the citizenry can effectively be forced into paying even more and the billionaires can get even richer by having their hand in that cookie jar.

You realize wind and solar tend to be decentralized generation methods? That means that very often people who own land or buildings often reap the benefits, rather than the cash flying to a select business such as fossil fuel company or large utility? How much do you know about the electric power grid?


It's usually preferable to know the meanings of the words you use, before you use them.

In regards to your comment on the scientists, uh... whoopie? If my paycheck depended on me making a ridiculous statement and the repeating it over and over to convince the sheep it was the gospel, I'd be out there making repeated ridiculous statements, too.

Scientists are paid to uhm, research things. Not the nonsense that you just made up.

Scientists recieve grants from governments & trusts
governments recieve money from tax policies
individual politicians recieve money from corporations
Trusts recieve money from corporations
corporations recieve money in exchange of goods and/or services from people
people are presented with regulations and threats as defense of ever increasing taxes and costs for goods and/or services

Right, where the money comes from doesn't actually invalidate the research. Also fossil fuel companies are far more powerful than companies building wind turbines. Actually many of the largest companies that build wind turbines also build equipment for conventional power stations too.

In conclusion, everything you said in that post was 100% incorrect. You have things backwards.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's 2014, profits don't go down... consumer costs go up.

Limiting the use of fossil fuels over time will reduce the revenue of "big oil" and reduce profits. Some of that revenue reduction will now go to companies selling alternatives. What exactly is the issue with this picture?

it's consumers like you and I


Those scientists who have formed this phantom consensus make their money from the governments through grants.

or in other words, you don't like there findings because it might have impacts on the way you live, so your conclusion is the scientists are making it up. I suppose you think tobacco isn't bad for you, and the scientists who say it is are simply doing it to make profit?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Radiation, antibiotics and drugs, agricultural polutants, GMO, water unsoluble carbon fuels, plastic trash, etc is polution... and since I freaking love salmon, halibut, moose, and bear meats I'm all for doing everything possible to keep that crap out of my environment

Let's play your game here.

All the scientists who say that radiation and plastic trash are bad for the environment are making up a "fake consensus'! This is because they mostly get their funding from the BIG CORRUPT GOVERNMENT through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), whose very existence wouldn't be justified without these SCARE STORIES! And why does the BIG government allow this to happen!? Because it allows TPTB to TAX us more through forcing the implementation of things such as SAFETY MECHANISMS FOR NUCLEAR REACTORS and RECYCLING! GOD FORBID. It surely won't be companies that have to pay for this, it will just be us poor consumers who should be allowed to use products that trash the environment whenever we please!

Scientists are actually very unreliable. Some scientists say that radiation is good for you! Therefore, there is no consensus that radiation causes cancer. But most have realized they could make money by TAXING us. Any scientist who disagrees with this was obviously paid off, and therefore in on it.

But seriously, how can you possibly be concerned with any of those issues and pollutants, when many if not all of the concerns you raised about AGW apply to them as well?
edit on 10/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/5/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:06 AM
No opinion.

In my readings I've run across science that goes both ways. The argument is, as I understand it, more about the cause of climate change, not the fact of climate change.

Or so I understand it...

Hence my no opinion opinion.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:05 PM
I'm tempted to say Obama is like the dullard Jack who trades in the family cow for some magic beans. Except that Obama is using OUR money to buy them and he'll get a cut of the profits in the whole shady scam.
Of course its a scam. We gouge our businesses and economy of tax dollars and impose sanctions against us and transfer that money to those who have invested in other countries who will then reap the benefits of new industrialization and new economies. How can an obtuse shmo like Al Gore get rich by doing nothing but push his phony theories and extort money from US companies? The earth may be getting warmer and it may not be, but certainly the activity of the sun and other environmental factors are the driving force, not man. I'm not saying we don't influence it to some degree, but saying we can stop what we're doing is silly and... stupid. The people on top reaping the benefits of our economies, the 1%, will keep things as they are to keep themselves rich and in power. Only now they want more than 99%, they want 99.5%. So we can pretend we can alter our carbon output and pretend that will make a difference. It won't. I just refuse to let those on the take get rich off of the rest of us.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:15 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I am not worried about global warming. The solution will be to unite the People of the world to dig massive holes. Las Vegas really does need to have its own Sea. And we definitely don't need the Desert of Northern Africa anymore. And the landlock countries of Asia should get their own Seas too.

The biggest problem of global warming is the rising sea levels. The solution for that is to dig massive holes. The next biggest problem is the Wrath of Nature. The solution for that is to stop polluting.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:19 PM

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Every science textbook every year of the 1970's said that we were headed into an ice age. I guess fringe groups run the public school system.

Well yes, back in the 1970s we thought all interglacials lasted ~10ky and since the current interglacial has lasted 10ky then we must soon be heading into a new Ice Age. Except even then many climate scientists believed that CO2 emissions were likely to at least delay this. And now we know that interglacials can last more than 10ky and that we're maybe another 10ky away from the start of the next one regardless of human activity.

That's the thing with science: we're always finding out new things and changing our theories and predictions accordingly

However, even in the 70s only a few extremists were predicting an imminent Ice Age - people like Nigel Calder whose book (The Weather Machine) and subsequent TV programme on BBC (I think as part of the Horizon series) popularised the idea in Britain. He had some quite bizarre (by modern understanding) ideas on how ice ages started. Though he did at least acknowledge that many thought AGW would prevent a new ice age. More recently he wrote the "anti-AGW" book The Chilling Stars, working with Henrik Svcensmark who ..... was predicting an imminent ice age.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:20 PM
Majority of members from a country probably contributing the most to global warming, voting that they're not worried about it.

The results are turning out to be as embarrassing as the one about MH370.

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:34 PM
What pisses me off the most is the fact that the auto industry has had the technology for a long time that would get between 100 and 200 mpg. But for the sake of corporate greed they would rather see their pockets filled with money instead of giving a future to our kids and grand kids.

You can refer to a thread right here on ATS to learn more:

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in