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.

 

Think climate change isn't man-made? Then PROVE it: Professor offers $30,000 reward for anyone who

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
a reply to: Denoli

Yes, I too believe that will be impossible to Prove or Disprove ... ( and the man will be able to keep his $30,000.00 ).

HOWEVER

How does he explain Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

UNLESS

He can PROVE that MAN is Populating these other Planets and Moon too.

.


With respect,

The complexities of planetary climatology aside, your rhetoric fails to persuade. The conditions on any planet in space will be consistently governed by the specifics of each planet. The entire construct of the argument is warped. Its not about other planets, it's more importantly about Earth.

The environment of our planet, scientific consensus occasionally agrees, is well understood enough to allow for meaningfully accurate forecasts into it's future form.

The patterns of our climate, some 'occasionally' say, has begun manifesting trends of development that point towards a very undesirable future... one which would require civilization to completely reengineer its production and economic models. The many disingenuous alarms which are often raised about this never seem to relate an actual 'remedy' ... and since, as I recall, we hit the "ecological point of no return" in the late 1970's, thus we are encouraged to be content with "doing what we can."

"What we can" inevitably leads to the establishment of another economic model - based upon "carbon credits' - and I assure you... it is not an egalitarian future-minded solution to reversing, even coming to a point where our industrial impact is balanced against the measures we might take to do so.

No, the solution is another for-profit, privately owned monopoly on monetary control.... but instead being 'virtual currency' it's now 'virtual carbon.'

Truly, are we not learning at all?

But the flip-side is this. Let's make a bid damn deal about how it's not "man's fault" because that fact is more important than that most of our descendants for quite sometime to come will be tasked with the burden of our pedantic kvetching... as they construct another igloo, or join the great migration to a place which cannot sustain them... because they have no where else to go.

Sorry about that my great grand children.... you have to understand, it was a matter of principle!

Irrational fixation on blame - when you know those truly responsible for the dearth of raping and pillaging of the planet are FAR removed from consequences as OUR grandkids may be - is ultimately irrelevant. If there are such people ... I am cynical enough to question how realistic is it to think they will "make it right" ... or some moral justice will rectify the wounds we allow to be inflicted on our posterity.

I tell you what, in most theories I hear - yes - the sun is a factor.... in no theory is it the only factor ... nor does it excuse resistance to awareness of the gravity of the problem....

I agree the discussion about this problem is being "used." But no -less by the detractor than the promoters.... and neither is actually inclined to solve the problem... they just want to make a game show out of it.

Our emergency is the in hospitability of our posterity environment - "the establishments' " is not the same emergency; theirs is that thee current model of our 'civilized' human culture could no longer be one of "consumer" orientation juxtaposed against resource exploitation... but whatever happens..., they will remain the insulated elite.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
>>
But the flip-side is this. Let's make a bid damn deal about how it's not "man's fault" because that fact is more important than that most of our descendants for quite sometime to come
>>

This is exactly the point. We don't really have a lot to lose in case it turns out climate change is NOT man made. However, we have a LOT to lose if it is man-made and we're not doing something about it. We literally have an entire planet and its populace to lose. Risking this because some political agenda is nothing but stupidity.

Furthermore: Don't limit climate change to "warming" only. There is MUCH more to it. Increased skin cancer rates due to ozon hole etc. are a reality. People ARE dying from it. Right now. People in cities in China need to wear breathing masks due to smoke and pollution. Reality. In some areas, people have miscarriages or get deformed children due to toxins in the water/atmosphere. Also a reality. There is only one side which can have an agenda that the very real things happening supposedly "are not happening": Those who are responsible for it. And of course those as conspiracy theorists like to call them "elites" want to spread the message that it doesn't occur. Because it could be damaging for their profits.
edit on 6/30/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
LOL. Pretty darn hard to prove a negative. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Rather easy to prove climate change isn't man made.

The climate was changing on this rock long before man was ever 'born'.

Where's my prize ?


G,day mate. well said and noted.someone here on ATS maybe a year ago maybe more posted a long item on climate change.
a copy of a document written in i think 1941 by the council on foreign relations calling for a new kind of war to be sold to the people called global warming.
i searched for it some time ago and failed to locate the article.
you might have better luck and then its bingo time and beer o'clock



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: hydeman11
There are many factors that have contributed the major, global climactic changes on Earth in the past. Volcanic eruptions were a big one(of course, I'm including flood basalts as well)
Climate models are tricky things, too many variables for anyone's liking, if I'm honest. I give those men and women credit for trying to wade through that noise...

That said, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the Earth is getting hotter from just being in an ice age after the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that has resulted from the uncovering and burning of large carbon reserves known as fossil fuels? ;D


Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the magnetic field has been weakening over the last 100+ years. Isn't it remarkable that with a magnetic field that is currently 15% weaker than 100 years ago that we are seeing more radiation from the sun leaking through? Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that it's over the last 100+ years that, according to the climate change religion, that man has caused the climate changes?

But...hey! There is no money to be made by claiming the magnetic field is responsible...there IS, however, tons of money to be made if man is, supposedly, responsible.




G,day mate
well spoken
and two other points on the magnetic field
the weakening of said field has resulted in a flattening of the oceans
result more feet wet on dry land
and an increase in the speed of the winds across said oceans
result more dry feet wet on low ground on the low pacific islands
i have always said that i have climate change covered
summer autumn winter and then spring

oh if anybody wants me to present proof
the documents are here on ATS
edit on 30-6-2014 by pronto because: CANT SPELL



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
It's impossible to prove...he risks nothing.

Humans have an effect on the climate.

The only question is whether that effect poses a risk
worth taking action against.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: rival
It's impossible to prove...he risks nothing.

Humans have an effect on the climate.

The only question is whether that effect poses a risk
worth taking action against.


G,DAY MATE
YES your comment has much merit we should all do as much as possible to keep our part of the world cleen and free from as much pollution as possible
if not for our own sakes then for the sake and health of those that come after us
but i do like the idea of thorium reactors. oh well



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
30,000 bucks?Thats not worth breaking a sweat over!Make it 30 million then,maybe.Meanwhile,global warming is a buncha baloney!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Dr. Keating is not an Atmospheric Scientist, He is a Political Economist.



www.richmond.ac.uk...

Dr. Keating is buying a job of work. I guess.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I will give this guy Ten Million if he can prove he never participated in animal necrophilia. It's a blank check and soapbox posturing. Yet another example of intellectual dishonesty from the left.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
I will give this guy Ten Million if he can prove he never participated in animal necrophilia. It's a blank check and soapbox posturing. Yet another example of intellectual dishonesty from the left.
(Hides roadkill)

I need a solicitor before I'll answer any more questions



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
There are many factors that have contributed the major, global climactic changes on Earth in the past. Volcanic eruptions were a big one(of course, I'm including flood basalts as well)
Climate models are tricky things, too many variables for anyone's liking, if I'm honest. I give those men and women credit for trying to wade through that noise...

That said, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the Earth is getting hotter from just being in an ice age after the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that has resulted from the uncovering and burning of large carbon reserves known as fossil fuels? ;D


CO2 is now at 400 parts per million, that's less than one percent of the total atmosphere, less that one percent can heat up the other 99.6 percent of the atmosphere? really?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
It is funny but earthquakes are just growing growing so that in 2024 it will be doubled. No one knows why ! Their science is too weak to know !!
Well only one plausible reason remains which is consistent with experimental results !!!
SINS



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Oddly enough, vulcanism is likely to contribute more to cooling than heating simply due to the emissions of particulates that block sunlight. There have been many cases of volcanoes causing a cooling period. I can provide the examples and details if necessary.

The biggest concern I have right now is the thawing of the tundra in Siberia. That single event is going to release a lot of methane into the atmosphere....Not much we can do about that except build a buncha freezers to keep the ground frozen (LOL).

Perhaps everyone in the world could turn on their A/C's and open their windows....perhaps that would slow climate change!! (doesnt work if you are an engineer...so only non-engineers should attempt this).



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Over the last 4 billion years, the Earth’s climate has changed many times.

Earth’s unstable climate

Life on Earth has flourished and evolved for hundreds of millions of years. However, this does not mean that the climate has been stable throughout this time.

Geological data shows evidence of large-scale climate changes in the past, caused by factors like the tilt of the Earth’s axis and tectonic plate movement (as climate is affected by the distribution of the planet’s continents). Some of these changes were gradual; others were much more rapid.

Cretaceous world

In the mid Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago, the distribution of fossil plants, and large herbivorous dinosaurs, suggests sub-tropical conditions extended to Alaska and Antarctica and there were no polar ice caps. The planet was warmer than today - scientists have estimated it was 6 – 8°C warmer. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were about 5 times higher than today.

These warm conditions lasted for tens of million of years before the climate started cooling.

Rapid temperature change

The geological record also reveals dramatic events when there was much more rapid climate change. One of the fastest changes in Earth's temperature took place during an event that oceanographers call the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

55 million years ago, global temperatures rose 6°C over a period of 20,000 years or less. Like climate change today, scientists think that an increase in greenhouse gases caused this rapid warming. This was possibly due to a catastrophic release of frozen methane deposits - like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas.

This period of climate change caused major ecosystem changes and extinction of many organisms.

The ice ages

In the recent geological past, much of Britain was covered by ice sheets. We know this because the landscape shows many distinctive glacial landforms, especially in North Wales, Scotland and the Lake District. Also, fossils of mammoths and woolly rhinoceroses, which lived in cold climates, have been found across southern Britain.

This type of evidence, along with marine sediment cores and ice cores, shows that over the past 2 million years, climate fluctuated dramatically between ice ages and warm interglacial periods, similar to today’s climate.

These major changes were driven by cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit, which altered the distribution of solar energy between the seasons and across the Earth.

An inescapable conclusion of this is that the Earth’s climate is unstable and minor changes in the Earth's energy budget cause large changes in climate.

Will the planet survive human interference?

There is some comfort in the knowledge that even the worst-case models of future climate change are unlikely to result in the Earth experiencing climates warmer than those seen in the Cretaceous. So, we are unlikely to make the planet uninhabitable for life.

Unfortunately though, a rapid change to much warmer temperatures and higher sea levels would cause enormous disruption to ecosystems and human society across the world. Some future climate change is inevitable but anything we can do to reduce the scale of this change will be worthwhile.


The climate has always changed, ever since long before we were here.(Case proven)
We know that if a human farts it affects the climate to a minute extent.
Either way what do we do?
Butt plugs maybe?

When do I collect my cheque?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I am going to paste over my response from the other thread since it fits with this theme as well.

Several things going on here.

I do not think anyone in this thread is advocating or fighting for hurting our Mother Earth. There is a problem with emissions and trash, but to think that we are having such an impact on a system that could care less whether we reside on it is laughable.

The Earth has been around for many, many, years and right now we just happen to be fortunate enough to live in a time period that has been relatively calm and conducive to our continued survival. That hasnt always been the case, and it will not remain a constant. We are in but a brief moment in this Earths history that has allowed us to be here, we can easily go the way of the dinosaurs and be stricken from this earth without notice at any time.

So foremost, the whole global warming thing is really a moot point, none of us are guaranteed to see tomorrow and our species isnt guaranteed a tomorrow either, we should live in the moment a tad bit more, even planning out the next 20 years of our lives is too much, and we should be focused on living and loving one another today and tomorrow.

Now I want you all to clear your mind for a moment, no AGW or 'denier' nonsense for the next couple of moments while I try to convey my thinking on the subject.

We are here on Earth, we can feel the Sun's rays from where we stand and therefore we know that good old Sol has an impact on our environment, a mighty large one at that.

We are here on Earth, we see and feel the impact of the moon on our planet on a daily basis. Just the simple movement and proximity of the moon effects our tides and water flow. Again a HUGE impact is imparted by an outside force that we have no control over.

We are here on Earth, we can see how our orbit effects the various days and seasons of our lives. Tilted too much one way and we have longer seasons. Tilted the other way, shorter seasons. This tilt can be responsible for many variations in our weather/climate pattern, but not enough study has been devoted to this particular area of study, and the cycle for repetition is so long that we havent even been recording human history for the duration of a single revolution of the cycle.

We are here on Earth. Earth, the 3rd planet from the Sun in a Solar System of 8 planets. All of which play a factor in our local environment both in space and physically down here on the surface of the Earth. On this Earth, everything is moving, in this solar system, everything is moving, in this galaxy, everything is moving, in this universe, everything is moving

We are here on Earth, as it spins on its own axis, as it revolves and dances around our Sun, which in turn is moving and dancing around our Galaxy, the Milky Way.

The Milky Way is but one Galaxy in an unfathomable amount of space that also contains other galaxies. We very easily could be seeing effects from something as simple as two galaxies intermingling with one another and ever so slightly effecting what we see on a day to day basis. If something as simple as the wobble of the Earth can throw our seasons and temperatures around on a cyclical scale, then it would be worth considering that our movement as a galaxy could very well be effecting us. (Does our galaxy 'wobble') If how close the Sun is to our planet plays an effect directly on our Earth, then so surely does our proximity to other celestial bodies play a role. If we are coming at our nearest a galaxy or black hole, but still far enough away to not be harmed, shouldnt we expect a fluctuation here on Earth? Everything else out there is playing a part, and when you have millions of tiny pieces playing a role in whether or not we remain on this planet, well it make arguing with one another over who caused it to be sort of trivial. Especially when we dont know the extent of what ANY of the factors I mentioned could do to our climate/atmosphere/weather/etc.

Im not saying do nothing, there are very real pollution problems that ARE hurting this earth, but to sit here and point fingers at something we know nothing about, and even playing with the idea of imposing a rule on someone else over it is quite preposterous.

Also, my theory is pretty much pulling rank on all of you. There is no one who can refute my data, simply because this angle hasnt been studied. The reason why, is it is inevitable that an outside force interrupts our way of life. The other reason is that there is no money to be made off of selling Global Warming that is happening beyond anything that we could theoretically control. They cant tax a galaxy that is increasing our temperature, they have to pin it on us in order to get our guilt money for it.

Also, it is the height of human arrogance to think we are more important than any one link I mentioned above. The overall cosmic picture could easily be at play, and here we are arguing over what nominal impact we may or may not have had on 'global warming'.

And lastly as a check mate, im just gonna go ahead and throw dark matter into the equation, for good measure. We very easily could be or have been moving through a patch of dark matter. We cant see it, we cant measure it, we cant harness it, and we know nothing about it other than its out there and exists in large quantities. We have no clue about the effect on galaxies, solar systems, universes, or planets. We have know way of knowing where dense patches are, how it is distributed, or how it may disrupt certain things. Could it slow the spin of a galaxy? A planet? Could we pass through a dense cloud and experience overall cooling, again on any scale because we know nothing about it? Could it be between our Earth and Sun and acting like a magnifier heating up our atmosphere? Aside from the endless possibilities that can be looked at from the standpoint of dark matter and its effects on celestial bodies, what about the fact that the discovery of dark matter is relatively new and hasnt even been thoroughly studied? Could we still find a particle or molecule or piece of matter that we know nothing about, but very easily could effect our day to day lives? Those are the questions and things that I think about when 'man' arrogantly thinks he is causing the problem and worried about saving a system that cares not for us, and will survive long after the human race has left this plant. Thats the real truth of the matter, and all of you fighting over who is the problem have once again fallen for the trap of division. We should be united in trying to ensure we can survive even past an extinction level event, not worried over who is causing a tiny issue in the grand scheme of the cosmos.

Which opens the door to the other part of this. Lets work on colonizing other planets and celestial bodies. That way if something happens to Earth, some of us will survive.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well, that is sure a safe bounty to offer. Not so much because someone couldn't make a sincere go at taking him up on it, but the terms and nature of what would require proven, if it could even be done, would make $30,000 about a token a gift by the end as the trophies to high dollar sports events. It would be a grand investment to make a man like Soros turn and say 'You suggested WHAT?!'.

Having said that, I think the truth is almost certainly in between the extremes of playing down natural cycle almost to the point of irrelevance by some or the idea that man has no impact on global conditions at all, on the other.

If only those far camps could take a short break to have a some quality time between to examine what this really is almost a satirical offer about, given the realities.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well said! You summarized my position rather succinctly. I think it is hubris to believe that we could so severely damage the climate, by ourselves (short of nuclear warfare or something so drastic) in roughly 100 years that we would be (by ourselves) risking our own survival.

It is also hubris to think that we could (or even should??) reverse the direction of nature. We do not know enough about planet earth to accurately predict the weather during the next day or 2, let alone put great weight on forecasts that reach 100 years into the future. Too many unknowns. I am reminded of a small child who is attempting to "fix" his toy that is no longer working as he thinks it should.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

LoL!
Dude.
Does he even science?
You cannot prove a negative......
Well you can, in small cases, with all possible variables known.
But that's not the case with something as complex and not completely understood as the weather.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Let's reverse it. He thinks it is .. have HIM prove it or pay me $30,000.

He won't do that offer because he knows neither side can prove anything.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join