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.

 

Dear "Climate Change " [People]

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Moonsouljah



Anthropogenic is the word.

Actually...



edit on 11/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Perhaps so. I'm sorry if it reads like a rant. It's really not.

If you woke up every day to a news report that the sky is purple, even though to your very eyes it is indeed NOT, would you be ranting if you protested?

Such is this. The conditioning of the masses has been going on since the term "global warming" was introduced, then disavowed in favor of the term "climate change".

How is it that we do not understand deception? That we take for granted those who have "knowledge" when it is contradictory to ALL our other senses?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

I'll repeat my point I've made in other climate change threads that no one seems to give proper due.

I concede we don't know without any doubt that global warming is real.

I concede that it might be a conspiracy for making money.

I do not concede that we should do nothing. We should act as if it is real. If you think that human beings are not affecting the systems involved in maintaining our existence you are a fool.

We cannot just continue with massive industrial growth forever without consequences. Oil is not renewable nor are metals. Even the renewable resources like fish or timber can't be called that any longer because we are not letting them replenish.

At some point there will be a point of no return after which our planet will no longer be able to sustain humanity. It may have occurred. We frankly don't know. I agree that we can't understand these vast, complex systems perfectly.

If your position is that we need to continue with pushing science to the point where we ascend beyond the constraints of our environment let's do that.

We're not doing that now though. We spend the majority of our resources on completely useless things ranging from war material to silly merchandise for the latest movie.

So fine, you think global warming is a farce. You may be completely right but the fact is that we have scientists screaming for action being opposed by oil industry lobbyists and other corporate interest shills. I don't care if it's a blatant lie. The message behind global warming and environmentalism at large is primarily saying "Hey, lets not keep being irresponsible short sighted fools and start thinking about the future of our descendants."

Do you really want to pass onto your descendants a smog filled barren wasteland just so we can have the newest bull# version of the I-Phone? I sure don't.

Hopefully my point came through my words. Transmitting one's thoughts on a complex issue in a short blurb through text is difficult. I'm sure if it didn't you'll let me know

edit on 18-11-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980



That we take for granted those who have "knowledge" when it is contradictory to ALL our other senses?

You really trust your senses that much? Your senses tell you what's happening in the southern hemisphere? Your senses tell you what global temperatures are doing?

Your senses don't lie to you? You're very special.
braingames.nationalgeographic.com...



The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
edit on 11/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moonsouljah
Anthropogenic is the word.


I shall do penance. May I not be crucified nor lacerated, and may Phage not be a total douche again for my transgression.

I think the misuse of the term did not obfuscate my intention. But I like your style.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Right in my opinion the jury is still out as to what really causes the most climate fluctuation but I am afraid that Humans in today's world do have a very major impact.

Not perhaps as much as natural vulcanism does but enough to be notable.

Historically tree rings from the time of the mongolian expansion show that the massive depopulation caused by the mongol hoards murderous rampage actually caused at least a local cooling effect due to the reduction in cooking fires and that was a world with a far smaller population.

Now for the alternative.

We have actually been warming up since the last ice age ended and would be in store for another ice age, it is perhaps worth noting that it warmed up to a global temperature warmer than today before the last ice age began and we are also coming out of a cold snap that nearly tipped the planet back into an ice age called the little ice age (or the dark ages), during this period the cannals of venice froze solid, indeed it was only after the mid 1800's that in london the Thames stopped freezing over every winter as before that for several hundred years there had been every year a winter market held in the middle of the frozen river.

2.2 billion years ago the whole planet froze over with ice as far as the central equatorial regions and the entire surface of the sea frozen over, this is called the snow ball earth and is gaining increasing scientific acceptance as there is evidence of this period, that ice age lasted with perhaps some inter ice age periods until about 750 million years ago, the cambrien explosion that gave birth to mutli celled organisms happened a hundred million years later at about 650 million year's ago.

Now during the super ice age oxygen levels would have dipped to a very low level but older evidence is not conclusive though it is accepted in the face of no contrary evidence that the earth prior to his 2.2 billion year mark also had low oxygen and so precluded complex life, however like I say the evidence is not conclusive but merely supporting so there could have been an entire advanced eco system wiped out by the global cooling back then, plankton like life or algae like life would have died and so the oxygen would have dipped after this period, it is believed to have had more to do with the aging sun getting warmer as it's core is forced to fuse heavier and heavier elements and its diameter slowly grows due to the larger atomic scale of the elements that hydrogen is fused into, in theory it will continue to get warmer and slowly larger over the next 4 billion years, it is thought though at within 1.5 billion years the earth may be too hot to sustain life and even may become as Venus now is as the earth recieves more thermal radiation per cubic meter over that time slowly increasing, but remember the sun can also have calm period during which solar output actually fall's slightly with the relative cooling effect on our planet.

We are actually due for our next ice age but global warming may be a natural and unstoppable force though there may come a time when we will need to try to cool this planet down as a desperate matter of survival or else do as we know we should and get off this doomed rock learning to live among the stars as that is our true manifest destiny.

There is global warming though but is it natural or artificial or as I believe a mix of both and indeed is it actually saving us from the next ice age which would be even more devastating to our societys if it comes on suddenly which it very well may just like the little ice age did.


edit on 18-11-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

Yes, you have hammered home the crux.

Mankind *may* be affecting the climate. We also *may* be affecting the consistency of squirrel droppings.

No scientist with any repute can tell you *for sure* that mankind has affected the climate at all.

We will run out of fossil fuels. This is inevitable. Our current sources of energy are unsustainable.

I protest to the so-called scientific evidence that mankind has affected the climate of our planet. There is no evidence to any significant degree of probability to support this. We have men paid to say this for financial reasons, that is all.

And I object to those that profiteer, preying upon this un-scientific poop-junk.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

You seemed to be denying that the climate is changing when you said this in your OP:

We are experiencing, in North America, a cold snap that defies the explanations of the "climate change" crowd that continually plagues our forums.


And again when you said this:

How is it that we do not understand deception? That we take for granted those who have "knowledge" when it is contradictory to ALL our other senses?


Did you suddenly change your mind?

edit on 11/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

I partially agree with you on your last statement, especially about the financial incentive to some so called expert's who are pushing the carbon credits monopoly as a money making game, they do after all need something to offset the instability of oil and gold prices.
There is enough Gold beneath the ground of south america to reduce its value to one tenth but the group of power mongers founded by the Rothschilds are sitting on ancient contracts for that and no country want's them to cut off there trade and bankrupt them so it remains untouched though my sources on this are somewhat shaky but it does sound right to me and is the kind of thing they would have done, control the supply to maintain and control the value.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
a reply to: tavi45

Yes, you have hammered home the crux.

Mankind *may* be affecting the climate. We also *may* be affecting the consistency of squirrel droppings.

No scientist with any repute can tell you *for sure* that mankind has affected the climate at all.

We will run out of fossil fuels. This is inevitable. Our current sources of energy are unsustainable.

I protest to the so-called scientific evidence that mankind has affected the climate of our planet. There is no evidence to any significant degree of probability to support this. We have men paid to say this for financial reasons, that is all.

And I object to those that profiteer, preying upon this un-scientific poop-junk.


So the crux of your argument seems to be that the climate change folks are in it for the money and it's a hoax. What do you think the climate change deniers are in it for them? Cause it's certainly money.

As I pointed out sane environmental policy is unquestionably a good thing, regardless of global warming existing or not.

What is the noble goal behind climate change denial? All I see is the goal of profits being maintained.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

The real money is in denial. There's professional deniers. There's even elected deniers.

There's ample evidence of these cold snaps being directly related to arctic warming but I get the impression you enjoy vomiting more than learning so...



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
I don't need to cite any sources other than your own source of common sense.



We are experiencing, in North America, a cold snap that defies the explanations of the "climate change" crowd that continually plagues our forums.



And we in Europe are experiencing unseasonalby warm weather. Please don't use your local thermometer as an indication of worldwide climate change (or not). That's just dumb. The climatologists do know why it is colder in north america and warmer here in Europe but if you choose to ignore or pretend to ignore that fact there is little I can do to persude you, it's called cognitive dissonance.

You do realise as well that it is perfectly within the realms of possibility for the whole world to get a few degrees warmer and yet for some areas of the planet to get colder, as in constant cold. This is due to a thing called weather. If we take the simplistic approach to Earth temperatures then we in the UK should be frozen solid every winter due to our latitude (more northerly the colder it should be). BUT we don't, in fact the west cost of Scotland has palm trees due to the warm wet weather that blows across these islands thanks to the gulf stream which brings warm water across of the surface of the Atlantic from suprise suprise the gulf.

However, we also have a thing called the Jet Stream, a high altitude flow of air that also affects the weather. It is the "sticking" of the jet stream that is causing north america to be cold and europe to be warm.

Also note another point that floats
past the denier. The vast majority of excess heat due to climate change has been absorbed by the oceans, deep down. It looks like that absorbtion, which has slowed down the increased air temperatures that your back yard thermometer is measuring, is coming to an end. With this change in heat flow the weather will now start to get a bit lively.......

edit on 18/11/2014 by yorkshirelad because: spelling



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I would like to present this:




Even if you don't "believe" in global climate change, why not do something against the possibility, just in case? Drive a more efficient car, drive less, pollute less.
edit on 18 11 2014 by ManFromEurope because: ah crud, its not resizing.. ah well.. go to www.spiegel.de... for full pictures.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Now, I know that you are not a dullard, so I know I did not just hear a variation on the theme of "Its snowing or cold where I am, so the planet cannot be heating up", from you. Because trust me, that is the sort of thing a dullard would say. Therefore you cannot possibly have said anything like it, let alone wasted an entire OP doing so!

So what did you actually mean by what you said?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

I would argue that the fool is one who believes that "we should act as if it is real," even if said fool concedes that we don't know if it is.

On top of that (and possibly compounding the possible problem, if there is one), the actions being "necessary" to combat the "problem" will cost billions of dollars that we don't have, reduce individual freedoms that are already being reduced, and create yet another federally run business that will be inefficient, not do what it's meant to do, and will waste resources and create even more corruption.

I agree that we should be of a technological state in our world to be able to move on from fossil fuels, but when the catalyst to do so is government-mandated subsidies, intervention, and forced compliance based on the unproven AGW argument, it becomes a forcing of the hand when something is not yet ready to happen and does all the things my previous paragraph states.

So, tell me again the "why" behind your fervor to act, and calling inaction foolish...



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheFlesh1980
We are experiencing, in North America, a cold snap that defies the explanations of the "climate change" crowd that continually plagues our forums.

But…

But…

You've just described a known and predictable symptom of climate change.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This thread brought a smile to my face because my husband went off on a rant about the "global warming" crowd recently. It went something like this...

"What the hell is up with calling a cold front, a polar vortex? When did that become a buzz word to get everyone up in arms? It's winter, the weather gets cold, wow. What was that movie, Mel? The Day after Tomorrow? With the polar vortex sweeping down from oute rspace and freezing people instantly. How in the heck did a cold front in the jet streams, become a f**king polar vortex? These climate change people are idiots."

I thought it prudent to just nod complacently and not argue with him, as I so often like to do.



CdT



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

*sigh*

I've said this before and I'll say it again, and I'll put it in bold this time:

Climate change is a natural process. The question is "are our actions accelerating the process?"

And my response will always be the same: it's better to be safe then sorry.

edit on 18-11-2014 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

The climate of the planet is changing. It has been changing for 4.5 billion years. It was changing when the dinosaurs went extinct, before mankind ever farted any CO2.

I mentioned the recent cold snap because it is what brought my OP to mind, but you have made an excellent point for me. It is counter-intuitive to surmise that falling surface temps are the result of "warming".

Somehow, once the surface temperatures in lower latitudes began to fall instead of rise, "scientists" changed their tune to something entirely counter-intuitive, which we are now to believe.

So, if the entire globe experiences lower-than-average temperatures for say, 10 years, what is the next counter-intuitive suggestion from science that you will believe?

You see, once you make the scientific leap that it is man-made, it doesn't matter what the intuitive observations are anymore. No matter what the data is for the next 100 years, and no matter how absurd it would be to scientifically say that mankind is changing the climate, it will still be the "science" of the day.

If I talked to you in the year 1980 and told you that mankind was causing the earth to warm and we need to be taxed based on our carbon usage, but also told you to not be "fooled" because the surface temperature is going to get colder in significant regions, you would tell me to pound sand!

The reason it is counter-intuitive is because it is simply an agenda, not science. Did man cause the last ice-age? I don't think so. Did man cause the flood which there is evidence of?

How many "scientists" does it take to get a person to believe something they inherently know is improbable? If we are around on ATS in 10 years, we will see the story of AGW change again. The "science" will always change to fit the agenda.

Deforestation is a bigger environmental issue than man-made CO2 emissions, but it is not in the headlines every day. Know why? It doesn't fit the agenda to fight deforestation... we already pay for that. We pay for and are taxed on every product that relies on the lumber industry.

But tax somebody on their very existence? That's a ticket they haven't punched yet. To pass that one off, you need to lay a big foundation of "scientific" deception to get even the smart people to agree that the emperor indeed has fine new invisible clothes.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Now, I know that you are not a dullard


Thank you, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me since the last person said something nice; however, I see "dullard" as a relative term.

In the presence of some, I am quite a dullard. Amongst others, not so much. I have, at times, felt that I am, relatively speaking, a dullard.

But this much I know: an OP such as this is win-win fun. I get to state my opinions and see some chickens running in circles around the coop.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join