It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Climate change was created by the Club of Rome who stated that “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself believed humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”
Eco-fascists have begun a 10 year initiative that strengthens partnerships between governments, alarmist scientists and investors to develop “opportunities of global environmental change and support transformation towards global sustainability in the coming decades.” This new scheme is called Future Earth.
originally posted by: mbkennel
Do you remember just after 9-11 when there was all kinds of video evidence floating around explaining how the official story may not have been the way things really happened? Then, all of the sudden, the government took the stance that if you question any part of the story, you are siding with the terrorists, and you are unamerican.
Personally I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are also nuts and unjustified, but the evidence for climate change and human influence thereof is far stronger still.
Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.
originally posted by: Euphem
Considering you post on every Global Warming/Climate Change thread on ATS, I can safely say it is about global warming to you.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Euphem
Because this is something I studied when I went to college. Because this issue unlike the vast majority of issues discussed has worldly ramifications.
There is a problem with our planet's health and I refuse to close the blinds and pretend everything is going to be okay.
a reply to: kismetpair927
How many time are you or one of your clones going to ask me that question? Those questions are answered in my previous posts on climate change.
Global warming over the last 100 years or so cannot be proved or disproved, it has been used as a distraction and for political gain. No side can win the argument, which is exactly the kind of debate the puppet masters want the peasants to engage in.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Hilux1996
Please read my previous posts on this topic. I think you are missing the point of my post. Nothing you have written or posted holds up to the scientific standard.
Nice tactic using the emotional angle to make your point. Science has no emotion.
This is not about global warming to me. It is about the changes human activity is making to the environment.
The changes are making this planet less habitable.
originally posted by: Kaploink
The problem with deniers that many tend to hold faith based beliefs. So, no matter how much scientific evidence is shown, they simply will not believe it. The polar ice caps could melt, the sea levels could rise, the average global temperature could substantially increase and yet they would still deny global warming.
Frankly, they deserve as much ridicule as the anti vaccine folks, the chem trails folks, and the people that believe men walked with dinosaurs.
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: network dude
The man-made-climate-change skeptics, are a brave lot.
They (we) are under pressure from the media, from politicians, from social media to jump on the bandwagon and join the in crowd.
Perhaps they (we) are the last critical thinkers left.
We question the models.
We question the data collection.
We question the motives behind such "science".
When intimidation doesn't work, they use insults to poke at those of us who don't just lap up whatever dross is dished out to all of us.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: redtic
I can only speak for myself, but, your 98% figure, Where did you get that?
See, at this point I am not sure what to believe, but if you need to lie to me to get me on your side, then I really, really need to think about why you would do that. I realize there is lots of data, but there is also lots of contradictions. Since the global climate change didn't happen overnight, it doubt it's science will be settled overnight either.
We need more time for your models to get a bit clearer on what they show. We need to see what the climate will do in the next few years.
In the mean time, why don't we all try to find a better fuel source? A cleaner one.