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.


Global Climate Change is Entirely Man-Made

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:06 PM

originally posted by: arrow60
lol... good one. At any rate, one's cognizant that in order for the NWO to occur, "they" must eliminate a majority of the unnecessary (alluded to by Henry Kissinger, etc.) "eaters".

Nice quote.

I have that tattooed on my lower lip.

But that doesn't address the central theme of the thread.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 02:49 AM

originally posted by: beezzer
For the purpose of this thread, I will caveat that Global-Climate-Change is entirely man-made.



What do we do know?

China and India, 2 of the biggest criminals aren't going to do anything about their carbon output.

So what happens now?

My thoughts? Once Global-Climate-Change becomes universally accepted, there will be a call for a global, unifying government.

A one-world government to dictate and control the CO2 outputs so something could actually be done before it is all too late.

A hike in taxes won't really help.

We need a unifying control, a central authority to control the output of all the pollution destroying the planet.

Or I'm completely off base here.

So folks, what happens now?



Before you have a break down let me just put your mind slightly at ease. Have you ever asked yourself who were the first group of people to discover something was wrong and the planet was in trouble? Like where did these amazing people come from?

I will give you one who may have been there at or near the beginning. He is actually our current United States head of science who is directing our president B. Obama. So he, our president can make informed decisions on this issue. His name is "John Holdren" you can Google it.

Anyway it was 1970 when john Holdren & others like him came out with a dire warning. In a paper/ book called ...
"Global Ecology : readings toward a rational strategy" by John P. Holdren, Paul R. Ehrlich.

The warning was Climate change, Population growth, and how life on earth will cease to exist by the year 2000 if something isn't done. So what he proposed first was we had to "Melt the Ice Caps". Yes you heard it right, Melt them or face an Ice Age by the year 2000. His solution in the melting had something to do with sooth & contrails from planes. It was 1970 at the time. The conclusion suggested that if we do survive a communist/ Socialist type society will be the only way to keep mankind going. In my eyes the real objective is to hand all power and rights over to them so they can save us. Just like your begging them to do in your post. Them are the same people who run this planet now. Same people who rape it for resources, same 1% Royal elite.

So when you hear Global warming today. "
* Remember the melting icecaps plan." of yesterday
"Wonder what would have happened if we listened to that guy then?"

and "remember that Same Guy, John Holdren is steering United States policy on Climate change today. Scary!

" He recently said a name change is needed once more. Why? Well at first it was Cooling, then warming, then climate change. Changing the name to keep it fresh has worked. Plus in the last decade they told people in the U.K that they would never see snow again. there kids wouldn't even know what snow felt like cause it would be gone soon. Since the opposite happened, they figure the best name shoul be "Global Disruption". This way Rain, Snow, Shine, Hot, Cold, ect. it doesnt go against the title they are trying to sell the public. Anything that happens can be connected to Global disruption. Since the word disruption fits anything. To much snow global disruption. No snow, G.D., Too much snow? GD Ice Caps melt?GD Ice Caps growing? G.D.

Links provided below you can buy the book/paper on Amazon for $1
or a link to a site that provides it free of charge.
I provide both since people use a 3rd party source, or blog post as an excuse to dismiss it.
Remember this is nobodies opinion.
It's only the our U.S chief climate scientists opinion

The Book:

The Paper:

More Crazy/Scary # these clowns are capable of...


posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:41 AM
a reply to: CranialSponge

You see it all the time when AGW proponents are arguing with non-AGW proponents in ATS (and all over the internet).... attempting to paint non-AGW proponents all under the same label of 'planet killers' and 'planet haters' and 'not caring about our kids futures', etc etc ad nauseum.

And there it is Cranial -

People make their choices pro and con (sometimes) not based on what's what - but based instead on what other people think

Pro - or con

... and stop poking the hornet's nest.

I like hornets. All God's creatures...


posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 11:00 AM
Here's the lasted news on this. What can we really do to stop this or is it just one of those things that are inevitable to happen?

Published on Oct 3, 2014 Many keep saying "the economy the economy" never realizing climate change is more imminent and will do far more damage than a collapsed economy ever would. In effect the scare of economy collapse is a mere smoke screen disguising greater truths. We are at the point that changes everything, we either become sustainable and force the death dealers to desist or find a new Planet. One is most certainly more simple than the other.

edit on 3-10-2014 by beatbox because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 11:01 AM
Hi guys,

I'd like to throw a wrench in to this discussion.

Global climate problems fixes are really a mix of government and popular control.

If you look at what Japan did when they started generating garbage - it makes you wonder why the rest of the planet generates garbage at all.

But, we have to get to that point where we feel there is no more room for us to wiggle - then we will be willing to throw away our required comforts while "they" - and this is the real doozy - "they" is those who we will come to trust, after global warming etc.... has really handed us our proverbial rear ends in a sling. That might be when we've recreated the stone age.

But it would take governments, people, trust and direction, lowered expectations of immediate standards of living, globally in order to effect a "solution". Good luck.

Or, if they can artificially control things - like agriculture, "they" might cull the world - if "they" are organized enough about it - and fix the world's problems (oops) ie humans any how.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

First off, please try to use valid sources, if you are going to source or quote. Realclimate is no different than referring to Fox News for factual information. Sure, some of it is right on, but some of it is so biased it hurts.

It's nothing like Fox News. It is written by people who work in the field and refers to actual scientific papers and actual scientific principles.

From Harvard Edu:

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere.

And what I quoted did not disagree with that statement, but with the 95% statement. Indeed, but not 95%.

Second, if you tell me I am wrong, you most definitely need to use a different source.

It is true that water vapor is the single most important forcing and false that it is 95%.

In the case of your remark about circular reasoning, you just take a gas law and insert the correct parameters. You know what the pressure will be at sea level, on average.

Which, like temperature, depends on the energy input from radiative transfer.

It is quite easy to calculate the temperature from the formula. You claim that is it circular logic... well then perhaps you should explain that to the various physicists who have proposed just that. If you like, I can post the formula and walk you through it.I have done so repeatedly in other threads.

OK, but I think you still didn't get the point---there is a total energy balance computation necessary. Just asserting 'what the pressure is'.

Thought example: hypothetical atmosphere which has no interaction with radiation, vs gas which has interaction with radiation. The resulting states of both pressure and temperature will be different.

Your remark about Milankovich cycles being irrelevant is spoken like a true layman.
They are not irrelevant but are the major players in climate change. Try asking someone who knows instead of mouthing the mantra. Milankovitch cycles affect how much sunlight strikes the earth. Its called insolence.

insolence: (n) rude and disrespectful behavior

If you refuse to believe that insolence plays a part in climate change then we are done talking. I refuse to discuss science with morons.

insolation: (n) the amount of solar radiation reaching a given area.

Yes, of course there is astrophysical changes in forcing, the question is what is the timescale. It is on the order of 20000+ years and the changes are slow and steady (think functions of sinusoidal waves with this timescale) and so in the 200-300 years of technological civilization, the effect from perturbations in solar insolation effects (mechanism of Milankovitch) cycles is very small, and certainly does not explain observed climate changes, nor is it on the same order as, much less, dominates increases in forcing from anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases.

See the last link at the bottom if you wish to learn about Milankovitch cycles. Irrelevant, eh? I rofl at that.

Not irrelevant geologically. Irrelevant now in the near future of human civilization over which our changes will cause significant climate effects.

Milankovitch cycles don't actually change the total average solar insolation, because that would require changes in total energy of the Earth/Sun system and that requires large external perturbations which fortunately don't happen.

If GHG are such huge players, then please explain why ice ages have begun with co2 levels 10 and 16 times our current levels?

How recently were these particuilar ice ages? Are you talking about 200,000 years ago? The CO2 wasn't as high as it is now. If you're talking 500 million years ago, then that was so long (multicellular life was just being evolved) that all sorts of things about the Earth were different, and the output from the Sun was less because of slow secular changes in stellar evolution from nuclear processes?

And how does this deny the forcing from CO2, which is a quantitative measured fact.

Please explain why, if co2 is the driver, then why do we come out of glaciation when co2 levels are at very low levels and why we enter glacial periods when co2 levels are at relatively higher levels? Perhaps you can explain why co2 levels lag behind temperature changes by 800-1000 years?

Because of course there can be other forcings on of climate in addition, like the Milankovitch cycles of course. This doesn't mean that greenhouse gas isn't a forcing either---that fact doesn't come from time series but fundamental physical experimentation and current in-situ observational evidence.

Scientists have answered these ages ago. They are not fools and they've looked at the problem heavily for decades.

Swallow what they tell you, or think for yourself. I have a career of Geology, and before the current fad started it was known that co2 was a feedback, and not a cause of climate change.

Of course CO2 can be a feedback (and simultaneous forcing) which when released from geological processes further enhances the greenhouse effect and amplifies the driving from external astrophysical forcings.

And of course, the sudden release of CO2 sequestered in a different source (the fossil fuels were NOT involved in the carbon oscillations during recent Ice Ages---they were sequestered far below) is of course a new phenomenon not observed in the geological record because cavemen and monkeys didn't mine and burn coal until 250 years ago.

You do know that as co2 levels increase the increase in GHE reduces logarythmically, right? In other words, double from 200 ppm to 400ppm results in a change in GHE of X...if you double it again, it most certainly is not 2X.

Yes. The particular computations, including all sorts of gases & effects have been done by professionals.

Want more? I have reserch papers out the yingyang, bud. Most are geological in nature, but they also call into question the role that co2 plays...or doesnt play, that is. Co2 is not the driver that is being foisted on us. Co2 is a feedback mechanism...this time around it is augmented by 3% contribution by man. Wont change the coming of the next glacial period, since all the players that contribute to glacials still exist. Most prominant is the layout of the continents and their blockage of currents.

Over 50,000-100,000 years. Let's get through the next 300.

new topics

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in