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.

 

Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I posted a while back on this subject.

Originally, it was called the Greenhouse Effect, and contributing to it was emission of CFCs that were damaging the ozone.

Then it was called Global Warming, and damage caused by CFCs was replaced by CO2.

Then, it was named Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the damage being caused by CO2 was blamed on human emissions. (bearing in mind that we breathe this gas out as opposed to CFCs which can be regulated)

Now, it's being called just plain old Climate Change, with the blame still being placed on humans even though all scientific evidence says otherwise. As other posters have presented, and as I have presented in my post in my signature, there is overwhelming evidence being ignored, that shows that temperature rises occur before CO2 does. There are dozens of papers that show how CO2 as a gas making up .03% of the atmosphere can't possibly create the warming effect predicted.

And since when do we live in the times of Oracles and Prophets? We're supposed to believe predictions because they come from modern day monkeys with super computers that drive predictive models? The models are no better than the idiots who work on them.

Predictions that are usually wrong about it going to rain in the next 24 hours, I'm suddenly expected to believe and put all of my faith and TAX DOLLARS into believing a PREDICTION for the same type of model (global weather instead of local) that extends not just 24 hours, not 7 days, not 30 days.... but YEARS into the future? The same modeling that can't get tomorrow's local forecast right?

We're supposed to believe that they can predict localized changes, like cooling in one place while it warms in another, when they can't get the weather right for my neighborhood for the next 3 days? Yet, we are supposed to believe that they have it all figured out and already have a perfect solution... a TAX!

Oh, that's right... these are all models, right? They need tweaking, right? But yesterday (10 years ago), they were CERTAIN the oceans would be rising and global temps would be skyrocketing right now because the models said so. They just needed more tweaking...

Last year? They were CERTAIN that it would be one of the worst hurricane seasons on record, right? We were supposed to see dozens of hurricanes! We got.... ONE! Oh, right... the models had to be tweaked.

You can throw model after model out there, but when the OBSERVED effects are different than the models, that makes them worthless and not a single shred of accuracy from them can be relied on until they are within 99% accuracy, which they aren't even close to today.

The observations don't match the predictions, and in science, you always go with the observed, not the hypothesized, then go back and refine your hypothesis until it matches. That isn't what's happening here. Instead, they are trying to convince you that what you are observing is wrong, and skew the data to force it to match the predictions and models. Everyone knows it and has seen the evidence of it (ClimateGate emails).

Each time the facade begins to fall apart, they just change the name... same puppet, different hand.

Do we pollute? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Absolutely. Should we stop? Absolutely. But don't try to make us believe that WE ARE the pollution simply by breathing.

The earth is not a greenhouse and CO2 is not the problem. Junk science mixed with political ideology is.

~Namaste




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
the volcano that erupted in Mexico City a few years ago according to scientists (high priests of New Age Religion) concluded that this volcano released 7000 times the CO2 into the earths atmosphere than humans have released in 7000 years.

the scientists were unable to detect any change in the CO2 levels, ozone or any other indicator.

way back in time there were probably several hundred volcanoes erupting at any one given time here on earth, and if not hundreds then at least two or three score. how is it that even while all this harmful CO2 and other harmful gasses were being released in amounts that must send shivers up the spines of todays Chicken Littles (The story of The Sky is Falling) mentality individuals. nothing happened on earth?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.


That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?


But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?


I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.

Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.


You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?

You choose to only follow one end of it.

If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....

There you go, being wrong again!

Of course money flows out of both sides.. but doesn't it seem suspicious that most of the vocal deniers are on the Heartland Institute's payroll — the same fake-science-whorehouse that has been serving big tobacco interests since the 90's? Or that one of their most notable "experts" with op-ed pieces in WSJ, Forbes, etc isn't even a scientist but rather a lawyer? (James M. Taylor) Or that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (even if you dispute the 97% figure), who receive funding from a multitude of sources, aren't deniers?


I hope you don't take Bill Nye seriously. Money says you don't even believe 30,000 scientist either. Didn't Al Gores Global Warming invention happen just after his internet invention? I always get the two dates mixed up. I have said it many times now. Why is the answer for the US only 4.4% of the worlds population to make sacrifices for the entire planet to fix Global Warming/Climate Change?

I can't get this purple koolaid past my nose and pass the smell test to even take a drink of this concoction.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
Someone already addressed the "SUN" which is also something that your scientists and cause refuse to address! Perhaps my skepticism is warranted because I don't jump on a cause blindly????


Yes, someone mentioned the "SUN", twice actually.

Once in the bizarre context how an alleged electric universe/sun is affecting our climate...and a second time where someone claimed that the aging and expanding of the Sun during the next billions of years has an effect on our weather.

If you prefer to believe THOSE theories rather than what *real* scientists came up with in the last decades I cannot help you. Just so much: Obviously scientists HAVE looked in how and whether the sun and its periodic changes affect our climate, and to my knowledge it had been found the Sun has NO effect there whatsoever. Or do you seriously think that in the last 30, 40 something years where researchers looked at many factors the potential effects of the sun had been left out?

Oh wait...all the research..in the last decades, starting from the 70s was of course done by "liberals" who willingly refuse and ignore things...is it that what you're saying here?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

So is the climate supposed to stay the same forever?

Like I said before, are we supposed to "will" the climate not to change?

It is changing, will change, and we will have to adapt to it.

The climate would change even if we didn't put one damn ounce of co2 in the atmosphere.

Why is everybody on the "fix it" bandwagon.

People that live below sea level will have to relocate. Why is that such a hard pill to swallow.

Live on the coastline or low lying area, move. Ports will have to adapt.

Period. No fixing needed, mother nature will eventually balance it out.

Do we need to conserve, you bet, but instead of blamimg the poor guys that don't really have a choice but drive to work.

Sick of the blame game. All it is, is a setup to make us pay for the changes while corporations reap the profits.

Fn report after report, but nothing is done, why?

Because it is about money, thats why. Who pays? Surely not big business, or we would see changes.


edit on 14-5-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The earth is not a greenhouse and CO2 is not the problem. Junk science mixed with political ideology is.
~Namaste



Will you deny there is a "greenhouse effect" basically over all major urban centers today, in the US as well as in China or Europe...where cities are literally choking under a cover a smog...caused by....well you guessed it...EMISSIONS and mainly Co2.

So I guess...the "smog warnings" which now are a reality on radio and TV and which did not exist, say, 20,30 years back...are just a fantasy?

Are you denying that SMOG exists...and are you denying that...say..in Asia, people now run around with protection covering their mouths/nose in the major cities...and there are "artificial sunsets" on LED screens since the sun is not visible anymore? It's a REALITY, not science fiction.

Would you also deny that if we would NOT have toxic emissions which are MAN MADE (car exhaust, industry pollution etc), mainly CO2 but also CFC, say if we would live in a pure "fantasy world" where all this doesn't happen...the above would not be the case. You *could* breathe freely in LA, Beijing etc...and you WOULD see the sun, many illnesses etc. would not even exist

How can you deny what is OBVIOUS right in front of your eyes?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

What are you blathering on about - smog alerts that didn't happen 20 or 30 years ago?????

www.kcet.org...

There is so much less smog in our cities now. Perhaps that is why the temperature rose so quickly - the sun could finally shine through.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
You will still deny global warming/climate change when you live in NYC and the sea lvel is up to your ass while ice caps in Antarctica/Arctica are melting *right in front of our eyes* and people in countries such as Australia are dying in staggering numbers due to skin cancer (incr. UV radiation due to ozon hole).

I guess it's the nature of ignorance...because I cannot think of a better example of IGNOR(e)-ance.

Also..hint: If you lack so much scientific basic understanding that you seriously think the aging/expanding of the sun has anything to do with climate change....you should not have an opinion. It's embarrassing to read.

Hint2: The issue of global warming/climate change is on the table LONG before Al Gore came even to the scene, there was already concerns/research about possible climate change when Al Gore was not even born.

WHY for God's sake must global warming be a political issue at all? Oh wait! It's because IT WAS MADE into a political issue..and now guess by whom and by why? It was made into a political issue by LEFT/RIGHT politicians of your wonderful bogus "two party system" where people are divided into two whether they like it or not.

OBVIOUSLY, there are only two outcomes...those who believe that man-made global warming may be real, which NOW are labelled the liberals, hippies, anti-american, whatever...and those who reject man-made global warming...which NOW are normally at the side of the conservatives : ) That this entire game is hideous, un-constructive and that no-one ultimately profits from having made this a political issue you obviously don't even realize?


i am frightened.
who do i make my check out to
and where am i supposed to send it to
prevent this from happening.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: amazing
I'm going to go with the smartest people in the world on this one and not the conservative talking heads or news pundits. I like to get my science from "scientists" not journalists or worse yet pseudo-journalists like those on Fox News or conservative Talk Radio.

Man Made Global Warming is real and we need to and can do something about it. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.

This quote from scientific American

If climate scientists are angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office study, between 1993 and 2004, U.S. federal spending on climate change rose from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion—a 55 percent increase. (Total federal nondefense spending on research in 2004 exceeded $50 billion.) However, the research share of that money fell from 56 percent to 39 percent: most of it went to energy conservation projects and other technology programs. Climatologists' funding therefore stayed almost flat while others, including those in industry, benefited handsomely.


That just means they are MORE hungry for money!

Cooking the books for the desired results becomes more common versus biting the hand that feeds you?


But then if I take that a step further, how does any science get done anywhere? If all scientists are only writing papers for money. Then all science can't be trusted. No scientist can be trusted and all scientists are corrupt. Where do you draw the line and how can you tell?


I've tried this argument and it fails miserably.

Apparently, the denier's view is that climate science is controlled by Al Gore and George Soros... but thankfully, the handful of honest climatologists are all on the Heartland Institute's payroll.


You fail because of your inability or cognitive dissonance to realize that money flows out of both sides?

You choose to only follow one end of it.

If you think that only one side of the political spectrum is making money off of this, that might be your problem....

There you go, being wrong again!

Of course money flows out of both sides.. but doesn't it seem suspicious that most of the vocal deniers are on the Heartland Institute's payroll — the same fake-science-whorehouse that has been serving big tobacco interests since the 90's? Or that one of their most notable "experts" with op-ed pieces in WSJ, Forbes, etc isn't even a scientist but rather a lawyer? (James M. Taylor) Or that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (even if you dispute the 97% figure), who receive funding from a multitude of sources, aren't deniers?


I hope you don't take Bill Nye seriously. Money says you don't even believe 30,000 scientist either. Didn't Al Gores Global Warming invention happen just after his internet invention? I always get the two dates mixed up. I have said it many times now. Why is the answer for the US only 4.4% of the worlds population to make sacrifices for the entire planet to fix Global Warming/Climate Change?

I can't get this purple koolaid past my nose and pass the smell test to even take a drink of this concoction.


Here, I'll just quote myself from a thread the other day:


Now let's look at this petition site. At least they were courteous enough to provide a breakdown of the qualifications of the petition signers:

Of the 31,487 signers we have:

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
Medicine (3,046)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102) - 322 metallurgists! (ROFLMAO)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
Computers & Math (935)

The remaining categories are:

Chemistry (4,822)
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

Here are the only signers that might have some sort of claim to an expert opinion on this issue:

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)

That's less than 2% of signers. Of those, the majority are meteorologists who are, again, not climatologists. In fact out of the 31,487 signers, only 39 of them are even claimed to be climatologists. That's what? 0.001% or so of the signers? What is this supposed to prove about what 97% of climatologists agree on?


Bill Nye, not a climatologist and therefore, not an expert.

I'm well aware that China is putting new coal plants online everyday and I'm not arguing that we should shut ours down tomorrow — but why not find a better way? What if there was only a 20% chance the overwhelming majority of climatologist are right? Regardless of whether you believe global warming is happening or not, wouldn't it make the most sense to err on the side of caution? Denial is not the rational course of action. What the hell has the fossil fuel industry or their lobby done for US lately? Influencing our politics, acid rain, smog, oil spills, etc — do you deny the existence of those? Of course not. We're pumping billions of dollars into countries that hate us and hell, gas isn't even cheap any more! The writing is on the wall and we should look on this as an opportunity to innovate and create new industries.
edit on 2014-5-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The irony is how many people are ready to disregard the scientific community (and really, wtf have those morons ever accomplished?) because it's been suggested to them BY ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED BY OIL AND COAL COMPANIES that it's just some way to squeeze a buck out of the little guy and meanwhile they're squeezing it all out of us anyway. Truly, it's like some sort of mind controlling parasitic slug has attached itself to the brain stems of a large section of our population.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

In my opinion we need to worry about job creation.

After all a starving person could give a damn or not about the climate.

These clowns in congress keep putting people out of work herr in the states.

They keep it up and in the very short future people will be burning tires in the winter to stay warm.

We need job creation, get people working, then when the economy is chugging along with good growth we can make drastic changes.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Pistoche




Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it fraud. You were probably the type to argue the earth was still flat or that the earth was the center of the solar system when it was proved otherwise. May I know how exactly you've come to the conclusion that it is fraud?




It would mean you'll have to understand complicated 5th grade math involving averages (whooaaa! complex!). There is nothing scientists can do about that.

I do have a fairly good education.
No, those claims where even before my time.
You sound like you know it all and we need to listen to you and heed your words or else!

Sorry, I'm not a follower like that and I would never follow anything Gore had his hands on.
No, it's the Weather Stupid!


edit on 15-5-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

To err on the side of caution? I don't consider the sky is falling the reason to pay taxes on special umbrellas to err on the side of caution. Just below this is just a few predictions made on Earth Day in 1970, thank God nobody erred on the side of caution.

If I erred on the side of caution personally I would exist only by eating fruits and nuts with only the ability to walk for transportation, I would have to build a boat for the rising tides of melting ice, and live in a dirt floor hut built from fallen tree branches. Because everything I eat and do today pollutes the environment and and kills me from the inside out.

Whether you believe all those scientist or not the climatologist didn't create all the computer models either computer programmers did. The 30K scientist aren't making all these wild claims either. As I have said before they can't get Saturdays weather prediction right what would make you think they can get a 10 year prediction right?

As for finding a better way, i made a post to an article in China showing surveillance cameras are useless the air is so brown you can't see through it, we can't even agree on slave wages there let alone industrial waste. They are a communist country. Take your cause to Vladimir Putin and see how far that gets, then tell India to clean up, then come back to me and say find a better way.

Lastly letting the US government decide on anything has been proven for decades upon decades that they could screw up a train wreck and then waste trillions trying to fix it. I can't even think of a single program that pays for itself and isn't bankrupt. And good old Al Gore is lower than a snake belling in a wagon track he doesn't even live close to what he preaches you and I should do.

1970 Earth Day predictions

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

Quotes from "Earth Day, Then and Now," by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Firstly, I read the post from your sig.

Gerhard Gerlich is a shill who was with the European Science and Environment Forum, which was basically the EU equivalent of the Heartland Institute. Another source is the Christopher Monckton paper that criticizes though doesn't actually discount the IPCC findings. Christopher Monckton is the principle writer of publications by the Science and Public Policy Institute, another magical "think tank" for global warming denial that has ties to ALEC and of course they don't reveal the details of their funding. Let's see another of your awesome sources is co2science.org, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change's webpage which espouses the research of Sherwood B. Idso. Of course, HE RUNS THIS PARTICULAR NON-PROFIT WITH HIS TWO SONS and they employ Robert Ferguson, who is the president of SPPI.

What else do we have here? Oh, yeah a bunch of graphs courtesy of Joanne Nova, who has a BA in microbiology and was key note speaker from the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Council on Climate Change (Denial). I can post a bunch of links to papers that discount/explain the CO2 lag from the Vostok cores if you'd like. I'm sorry I don't have any sources from fake "independent" think tanks which take money from the fossil fuel industry to pump out the opinions of single scientists.

www.nature.com...


The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation


www.sciencemag.org...

The deep-sea sediment oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) record is dominated by a 100,000-year cyclicity that is universally interpreted as the main ice-age rhythm. Here, the ice volume component of this δ18O signal was extracted by using the record of δ18O in atmospheric oxygen trapped in Antarctic ice at Vostok, precisely orbitally tuned. The benthic marine δ18O record is heavily contaminated by the effect of deep-water temperature variability, but by using the Vostok record, the δ18O signals of ice volume, deep-water temperature, and additional processes affecting air δ18O (that is, a varying Dole effect) were separated. At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.


I'll give you points for a better than average understanding of SOME of the physics but you do realize that with FTIR spectroscopy the precise wavelengths of infrared hitting the ground can be measured?



Note that water vapor is filtered from the graph (water vapor of course being the primary "greenhouse gas"). You talk about risking task dollars based on the climate models of the majority but it seems like you're willing to risk much more based on the climate models of the EXTREME minority.


edit on 2014-5-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The funny thing about this debate is watching people (mostly deniers) try to discredit scientists, politicians, talking heads, random people, etc., whom may or may not be fraudulent or have conflict of interests, thinking it somehow disproves the very solid and fundamental physics regarding the greenhouse effect which was postulated back in 1896, and since then experimentally proven, which any person with a bright mind can study and experiment with in their own home, and prove the existence of themselves. You don't need graphs, or to piggyback on scientists and politicians, you can prove the existence of man-made climate change your self.
edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As other posters have presented, and as I have presented in my post in my signature, there is overwhelming evidence being ignored, that shows that temperature rises occur before CO2 does.


Sorry you are completely wrong, it is not being ignored like you claim.

1: It is a well known scientific fact that temperature rises will warm the ocean, and cause the ocean to release CO2 that was trapped in it.

2: It is also a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs radiation and traps it in our atmosphere, which keeps Earth warm. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of radiation that is absorbed, and increases the temperature, which then causes fact 1 to take place again.

The two facts mentioned above can create what is called a positive feedback loop.

www.abc.net.au...

If you don't read your graphs and data correctly, it can appear that temperature comes before CO2 release, because it is a LOOP, sometimes temperature rises do come before CO2 rises. But what caused the initial temperature rise? A CO2 rise years before it.

Often times the graph below is read incorrectly by man-made climate change opponents. They read the graph left to right, and assume because the red line (temperature) often comes before the blue line (CO2) it means temperature comes first, which is not fully correct. Remember, temperature lags behind CO2, and CO2 lags behind temperature, in a loop, over and over.



The entire graph can be explained away when you consider the positive feedback loop, or runaway greenhouse effect. Ultimately proving man-made climate change.

edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
What you guys don't understand when you say...what about this Co2 or that or volcanoes or solar activity or that the earth always goes through climate changes etc. What you don't understand is that Climate Scientists know all of that and take that into consideration. It's part of the research and data. It's all in there. They get it.

You also need to understand that Nearly every scientist on earth agrees that there is Man Made Global Warming. Nearly every scientist. Not just the ones that want grants from the government and I've shown that that's just a distraction. Nobody is getting rich from grants for lying about Global Warming.

If you are saying follow the money, then you are saying that millions of people are in on the biggest conspiracy on earth and in earth's history. That is not logical.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

If you follow the money, you find that Big Industry have been funding anti-MMGW research for decades. You'd think that would tip people off as to who has a vested interest here but alas not.

Congratulations! Those of you who deny the overwhelming consensus that MMGW is very much real, you find yourself in the delightful company of such forward thinking and humanitarian institutions as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and The Heartland Institute. Enjoy your new bed fellows.
edit on 15-5-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

The earth is not a greenhouse and CO2 is not the problem. Junk science mixed with political ideology is.
~Namaste



Will you deny there is a "greenhouse effect" basically over all major urban centers today, in the US as well as in China or Europe...where cities are literally choking under a cover a smog...caused by....well you guessed it...EMISSIONS and mainly Co2.

So I guess...the "smog warnings" which now are a reality on radio and TV and which did not exist, say, 20,30 years back...are just a fantasy?

Are you denying that SMOG exists...and are you denying that...say..in Asia, people now run around with protection covering their mouths/nose in the major cities...and there are "artificial sunsets" on LED screens since the sun is not visible anymore? It's a REALITY, not science fiction.

Would you also deny that if we would NOT have toxic emissions which are MAN MADE (car exhaust, industry pollution etc), mainly CO2 but also CFC, say if we would live in a pure "fantasy world" where all this doesn't happen...the above would not be the case. You *could* breathe freely in LA, Beijing etc...and you WOULD see the sun, many illnesses etc. would not even exist

How can you deny what is OBVIOUS right in front of your eyes?


SMOG is not made of CO2 (carbon dioxide).

SMOG is made of CO (carbon monoxide).

There is a huge difference between the two, and almost all smog is produced from volatile chemicals, not from the air we breathe. The reason it hangs over cities has to do with the inversion layer that is created atmospherically from temperature differences and the chemical weight of the volatile components in the air, and nothing to do CO2.

Cities choking under a cloud of smog are because of the pollution of volatile chemicals and their interaction with each other, not because of the CO2 that we breathe and that plants emit.

Please make sure you understand the difference between carbon monoxide (very bad) and carbon dioxide. Should we not breathe as much for fear of warming the planet?

If you read my post, you'd see that I don't believe in polluting the planet, so I don't understand why your post hints that I don't believe in reducing pollution, because I absolutely do.

~Namaste
edit on 15-5-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Please explain your logic.

If climate change is happening and the only solution is to burn less fossil fuels, then the best way to reduce consumption is to raise prices.

If prices rise, oil companies make bigger profits for less work.

Why would they not support climate change?

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join