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.

 

The Last Ten Years of Global Warming Never happened

page: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by nixie_nox removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: charles1952




"But all that is a politician's area not ours. i


The second politicians started running their mouths about GW, and started blowing billions of taxpayer dollars on it.

IT stopped being about the 'science'. In one respect.

The only science it is about now is the political science.

That uses FEAR MONGERING to scare the masses in to supporting government fascism.


Right. I see. So the fact that the reinsurance industry is desperately worried about global climate change means nothing to you does it?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This is a debate I have had with family members who are all for taxing more under the guise of stopping/changing/helping/correcting what was then flat out called "Global Warming". No amount of money given or taken can change anything that has been done, period. All we can do is try and do better in the future, and I still fail to see how higher taxes or carbon trading schemes accomplish that.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: neo96

See you still don't have any answers, just tantrums. What a useless poster.



Sorry my bad.

I thought the 'science' was settled, and the 'debate was over'.

Apparently it isn't since someone feels the need to disparage ats posters because they dared to go against the 'mob'.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Those darn scientists, always robbing people, and kicking at the teeth of the innocent.

Mobsters, I tell you. . .



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
did you know?

Climate change could make red hair a thing of the past if Scotland gets sunnier

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...


lol,

"We think the gene for red hair... is an adaptation to climate."

Get back to me when we "think" becomes we "know".

Scientific test. 2 natural red heads (hair color gene = Red/Red or Red/Blond), spend entire life in tropical climate, they mate. Will their offspring have brown/black hair because of the adaption to climate?

Genes are genes, code is code, and red is recessive to brown; so the day two natural red heads give birth to a brown/black haired child we can discuss the potential climate change extinction of red heads.

Again when "think" (theory) becomes "know" (fact) we can discuss this possibility.

God Bless,



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




Right. I see. So the fact that the reinsurance industry is desperately worried about global climate change means nothing to you does it?


The things that are worrysome is the fact that some are trying to grow government bigger to unprecidented levels the likes the world has never seen.

Compound that stupidity with the 'carbon tax' scam and 'credits' that the GW crowd created.

Much like they did with mortgaged backed securities. And push it to trillions of dollars creating another bubble.

That will come crashing down.

Like like we saw in the 2008 'financial crisis'.

Compound those with that scam of robbing from the rich and giving to the so called poor.

On a GLOBAL SCALE.

We don't need what the church of climatology is selling.

Because the EPA already exists.

And the government ALREADY has the power to regulate business in this country.

They EFFING don't need any more power.
edit on 7-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: neo96

Those darn scientists, always robbing people, and kicking at the teeth of the innocent.

Mobsters, I tell you. . .


We know the Us goverment robs people, kicks them in the teeth, and does a lot more to the 'innocents'.

Mobsters ?

Well they do run the largest racketeering racket in this country.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: guohua

You are posting a link that has already been posted. *shakes head*

lookie! I can post silly cartoons too!!







posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yea you know, because what's the difference between a scientist and a government official... apples, oranges, they're all fruit!

I see, you reason well.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AngryCymraeg




Right. I see. So the fact that the reinsurance industry is desperately worried about global climate change means nothing to you does it?


The things that are worrysome is the fact that some are trying to grow government bigger to unprecidented levels the likes the world has never seen.

Compound that stupidity with the 'carbon tax' scam and 'credits' that the GW crowd created.

Much like they did with mortgaged backed securities. And push it to trillions of dollars creating another bubble.

That will come crashing down.

Like like we saw in the 2008 'financial crisis'.

Compound those with that scam of robbing from the rich and giving to the so called poor.

On a GLOBAL SCALE.

We don't need what the church of climatology is selling.

Because the EPA already exists.

And the government ALREADY has the power to regulate business in this country.

They EFFING don't need any more power.


???? I see. You don't actually know what reinsurers do, do you?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

skepticism for skepticisms' sake is a dangerous and useless lifestyle.

I am still waiting to hear how the natural cycles of the Earth work and how GW is just a natural cycle. But since it is been asked 4 times with nothing but hogwash as a result I guess shows that you are just a skeptic for the fun of it.

That is not the point of being a conspiracy theorist. The very action is offensive to real conspiracy theorists who have put a lot of time and research into their conclusions, to have someone make them look bad by trolling and claiming it is for skepticism sake.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

He doesn't know what any of the things he is actually saying, means.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


With no other reason for power, and control.

Global warming is just another means to and end of controlling US.

Steering us away from the real issue of global pollution is accomplished two ways with this "hoax".

The first is pushing the doom deadline out fifty years when we'll all be sorry (by then we'll be dead of old age and no long care), the second is debunking that claim and making us think everything is okay.

Meanwhile, oil is pumped, reified and burned to the heavens, plastic chokes the oceans, tar and fertilizer cover the lands. The mining industry dumps acids and mercury and the nuke industry makes more fuel rods to bury somewheres. Forests are clear cut, jets seed the heavens with exhaust and we all happily think every thing is going to go bad after were gone or that everything is A-okay.

The hoax is on us alright.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Well no # sherlock, if people paid attention to their environment over the long term -- AND REMEMBERED IT -- most people would recognize a normal, rhythmic ebb & flow of temperatures and weather conditions rather than screech about abrupt weather doom porn.

I swear, humans have memory issues. This summer, while hot & muggy and nasty, isn't the worst one I've sweated & panted through down here, not by a long-shot. I've lived in the same general region of this state all my life, and I've yet, since the mid-to-late 90's, seen a return of those nasty record-breaking, heat-stroke inducing heatwaves (no, the heat index doesn't count) We've come close, sure, but so did other years back in the day.
Just because it feels hotter than the Devil's sack to me doesn't mean it really is via the thermometer. There's a reason the heat index values are used, it's to calculate an approximate "feels like" temperature based on actual temperature & humidity (hopefully most know this already)
A lot more than just humidity goes into it, steering currents, highs, lows, ridges, jet stream, everything moves. Your environment is not a static bubble in time, and never will be. You'll get everything from pleasantly cool to WTF hot in your lifetime no matter where you live, because that's the way this floating rock rolls.


I don't agree very often with your point of view, but wow, this just hit the nail on the head. So forceful and funny at the same time


*applauds*



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Well you said the UNITED STATES is cooling. So what about the mean temperature of the entire earth? I mean that is like saying that it has been cooling off in the Arizona desert so there is no global warming.




-Alien



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Steering us away from the real issue of global pollution is accomplished two ways with this "hoax".


Yeah hoax because the US is NOT the only country in the world.

And to state the obvious most of the world doesn't give a snip what the US says.

So how does destroying business in this country more than it already is 'save the planet' ?

What it does its make goods more expensive, and ship jobs overseas.

Where they still use fossil fuels to make, and use fossil fuels to be shipped here.

SO HOAX.

The global warming crowd is trying to sell ice water to eskimos.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Michael Dettinger, U.S. Geological Survey
Christa Peters-Lidard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Van Ness Feldman GordonDerr
Ken Reckhow, Duke University
Kathleen White, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David Yates, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Richard Grotjahn, University of California, Davis
Patrick Holden, Waterborne Environmental, Inc.
R. Cesar Izaurralde, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Terry Mader, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Elizabeth Marshall, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Shawn Carter, U.S. Geological Survey
Nancy B. Grimm, Arizona State University
Josh Lawler, University of Washington
Michelle Mack, University of Florida
Virginia Matzek, Santa Clara University
Heather Tallis, Stanford University
Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Commission
Bob Gough, Intertribal Council on Energy Policy
Kathy Lynn, University of Oregon
Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation
Susan Wotkyns, Northern Arizona University
Christopher M. Clark, U.S. EPA
Nancy Grimm, Arizona State University
Robert Jackson, Duke University
Beverly Law, Oregon State University
Peter Thornton, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Alan Townsend, University of Colorado Boulder
Marcie D. Bidwell, Mountain Studies Institute
Craig Landry, East Carolina University
David McGranahan, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Joseph Molnar, Auburn University
Lois Wright Morton, Iowa State University
Marcela Vasquez, University of Arizona
Kristen Averyt, University of Colorado
Robert Harriss, Houston Advanced Research Center
Robin Newmark, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Steven Rose, Electric Power Research Institute
Elena Shevliakova, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Vincent Tidwell, Sandia National Laboratory
John Balbus, National Institutes of Health
Howard Frumkin, University of Washington
Mary Hayden, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Jeremy Hess, Emory University
Michael McGeehin, Research Triangle Institute
Nicky Sheats, Thomas Edison State College
David Anderson, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Viatcheslav Kharin, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis
Thomas Knutson, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Felix Landerer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Tim Lenton, Exeter University
John Kennedy, UK Meteorological Office
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univ. of California, San Diego
Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University
James Kossin, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Kenneth Kunkel, CICS-NC, North Carolina State Univ., NOAA National Climatic Data
Graeme Stephens, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Peter Thorne, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Russell Vose, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Michael Wehner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Josh Willis, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Just a few there are more.... Go ahead read the PDF and get back to us.

Read it and WEEP... Source





edit on Mon Jul 7 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


(post by WeAreAWAKE removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You know, I've been reading through this thread for quite a bit now, and I have to say, I'm feeling more than a little offended at being referred to as a "Flat-Earther", simply because I do not march in lockstep with the GW/CC/CD movement and its claims.

There has been ZERO evidence (in my opinion) to support claims of so-called "Man-Made Climate Change", "Global Warming", "Climate Change", "Climate Disruption", or whatever title it goes under this week. In fact, with all of the proven number manipulation going on, and all of the funny money being tossed at the "cause" (all at the expense of the tax payers), I'm ever more inclined to reject their ideas outright.

Instead of name-calling, why don't you folks produce this so-called "incontrovertible evidence"?

The burden of proof is not on those of us that have accepted the traditional understanding of global climate; it is on YOU to prove that said view is incorrect, and you haven't.

Now that I've said my piece, let the unnecessary name-calling, ridiculous shaming, questioning of critical thinking, doubting of intelligence, and tunnel vision-aided attacks begin.




top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join