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.

 

Top 6 Climate Change Problems

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
A great video here by Ben Davidson A.K.A SuspiciousObsevers, where he has made this video-article which has 90 citations, with another 124 more citations incorporated by reference.

The full list can be found below the video.

A quick summary:

The climate is changing.

Pollution is a major problem for our planet.

Cold/snow records falling

Can't trust either side of the debate.

Overdue for cooling period.

The Sun/ Planets are changing.

Weather modification.




Citations

So much for global warming!





posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Hey, I live in a place where not much has changed. Same lousy weather we always had. Didn't get much better or worse at all. I am glad the bad weather is dumping more snow down south, I hate shoveling roofs.

I'll have to watch the movie when I get home, got to run to the store. I like Suspicious observers videos.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

I was right there with him until he tried to legitimize chemtrails. But he did claim "they" will be admitting to them soon, so there is that.

Can't trust either side.....yep.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

Perfect video--there seems to have been an influx of climate change threads lately (almost like there's a concerted effort to renew the issue), and trying to talk opposing science and data is always met with a stone wall. I doubt any of them will put much weight in this video, either, but it's nice to see much of what I've discussed before all in one place with citations and documentations.

Good post, for sure. S+F



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Considering this video isn't scientific, why should anyone put any "weight" into it to begin with? You mention not wanting to talk opposing science, well in order for that to even happen you have to actually PRODUCE opposing science first. A youtube video isn't opposing science.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think the change in ocean currents is scientifically established. IMO the main factor in climate change.

education.nationalgeographic.com...
scienceline.ucsb.edu...
www.aip.org...

I predict that many places will be uninhabitable due to rising tides and ocean levels.
edit on 12-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Main factor doesn't mean only factor though.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12

Main factor doesn't mean only factor though.


Very true....

The increase in greenhouse gasses doesn't bode well for the future either.


www.esrl.noaa.gov...
www.livescience.com...

We reap what we sow....



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

What is your prediction for a time frame? I plan to move to the coast in a year or two. Should I buy second row, or third? (I am shooting for beach front without having to pay the big $)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

This highlights a very real problem with the liberal politicians pushing climate change solutions. They only focus on one aspect of the problem when there are MANY aspects of human civilization that are negatively effecting the climate. Not to mention, climate isn't the only thing we are effecting. We are negatively impacting many MANY parts of the environment as a whole. Not just the climate and weather. But THAT is a conversation no politician is willing to touch.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: olaru12

What is your prediction for a time frame? I plan to move to the coast in a year or two. Should I buy second row, or third? (I am shooting for beach front without having to pay the big $)



No time frame from this halfassed futurist. I think coastal storms would be my concern and the resulting beach erosion.

I'm also thinking of getting a place down on S. Padre Island Texas as a base for my business expansion; guide and outfitting business starting a saltwater foray for specs and reds. I think I'll rent first before I tie up my capital in what could prove to be a costly mistake.

The Laguna Madre looks to have a great season this year!!! Might even expand into surfboards and a line of beach wear to round out the tackle and trip biz.

The weather is a big factor in both my businesses but I seldom worry about it.....one day at a time.
edit on 12-3-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

The weather is a big factor in both my businesses but I seldom worry about it.....one day at a time.


Good choice. Since we can't change it, why worry? Adapt, improvise, overcome.
edit on 12-3-2015 by network dude because: fixed quote



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I know that weather doesn't exactly equate to climate, but it's been the hottest winter here in Vegas. The hottest since before WW2 I think and definitely in the 15+ years I've been here.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

The weather is a big factor in both my businesses but I seldom worry about it.....one day at a time.


Good choice. Since we can't change it, why worry? Adapt, improvise, overcome.


I think that's one of the big problems. The Military just said that they need to prepare, and Florida had banned certain terms including climate change and global warming. You can't adapt, improvise and overcome if you don't realize there is a problem.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Good news is, much like a hurricane, this won't sneak up on anyone. You won't wake up one day and find the sea had risen 2 feet. It's either going to happen, or it wont. And even if we all decided to stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, nothing short term would change. This didn't happen overnight, and the predictions of doom seem to be a bit over hyped.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Considering this video isn't scientific, why should anyone put any "weight" into it to begin with? You mention not wanting to talk opposing science, well in order for that to even happen you have to actually PRODUCE opposing science first. A youtube video isn't opposing science.


That's right...attacking the source in lieu of the information presented isn't a standard tactic by those unwilling to consider anyting other than their ideology at all.

A Youtube video may not be "science," but information contained within it can be.

Or am I wrong?

Any science here:



Or here?



Or here?



Or here?



Or...here?




My point being, trying to negate the information contained within a video simply because it is on YouTube is a pesky, recurring logical fallacy that is oft used by all people on all sides of a discussion, but it doesn't make it right, nor very intelligent, just because 'everyone else is doing it.'

Same thing goes for believing a supposed "consensus" and using that as an argument as to why that stance could be correct. Mass ignorance is still ignorant, and all sides of the Climate Change argument still are riddled with myriad holes of ignorance, because we're not even close to fully understand all driving mechanisms of climate on earth and what are the main drivers of the natural cycles.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: olaru12
Main factor doesn't mean only factor though.


But when the main focus of AGW proponents is something that exists in our atmosphere in the parts per million level (CO2) and the parts per billion level (CH4), you can't deny that it's highly probably that the focus isn't on the correct cause.

It's similar yelling at the person at the help desk for your medical insurance company for the rise in cost when it's the federal government who should be getting the focus--protesting for a pay decrease for the person in the call center is going to do nothing for your insurance cost, and it will not fix any problem, but will create a problem for the life of the call receiver. I know that's a little conveluted, but I'm tired, and it makes the point.

Chasing CO2 down the rabbit hole will do nothing of tangible significance in the grand scheme of the natural climate cycles of earth. What it can do is actually make the earth slightly cooler than it otherwise may naturally be--history doesn't show that a cooler earth is better for life on it. In fact, a warmer earth with more CO2 is generally a more fruitful place.

Personally, I think the sun drives the changes in the ocean current, so I'd even go one level deeper than Olaru12.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Here's some science . The Suns magnetism is down over 30 percent.
Ulysees Swoops.science1.nasa.gov...
For the last two million years we have had 90k of ice 12k of thaw.
Currently we are at 12.5k of thaw
The Heliosphere has shrunk drastically .science.nasa.gov...
The Sun which is just past the max hump of its solar activity cycle
is out to lunch . The last time it was this weak in sunspot numbers we "coincidentally"
had little ice age of the 1600's.
It's gonna be cold folks, I'll say it till we are all blue in the face.
edit on 13-3-2015 by UnderKingsPeak because: link

edit on 13-3-2015 by UnderKingsPeak because: links

edit on 13-3-2015 by UnderKingsPeak because: more



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Considering this video isn't scientific, why should anyone put any "weight" into it to begin with? You mention not wanting to talk opposing science, well in order for that to even happen you have to actually PRODUCE opposing science first. A youtube video isn't opposing science.


That's right...attacking the source in lieu of the information presented isn't a standard tactic by those unwilling to consider anyting other than their ideology at all.

A Youtube video may not be "science," but information contained within it can be.

My point being, trying to negate the information contained within a video simply because it is on YouTube is a pesky, recurring logical fallacy that is oft used by all people on all sides of a discussion, but it doesn't make it right, nor very intelligent, just because 'everyone else is doing it.'


I'm going to go ahead and discount every single one of those Youtube videos regardless of what is in them (and believe me I know what is in them). Videos allow too much room for editing and distorting information. Plus the video plays at a set speed. Naturally you can pause and repeat the message, but it is much easier to interpret a message that is written down that you can read and interpret at your own pace.

While the videos MAY be informative and even display valid information, that doesn't make them scientific.


Same thing goes for believing a supposed "consensus" and using that as an argument as to why that stance could be correct. Mass ignorance is still ignorant, and all sides of the Climate Change argument still are riddled with myriad holes of ignorance, because we're not even close to fully understand all driving mechanisms of climate on earth and what are the main drivers of the natural cycles.


Scientific consensus is a BIT different than plebeian consensus. Scientific consensus only comes after considerable peer reviewing of the available evidence from many different scientists.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Scientific consensus only comes after considerable peer reviewing of the available evidence from many different scientists.


There are two problems with this comment:

1. History proves that scientific consensus means nothing when better science comes along a proves it wrong, and

2. When scientists, on any side of a problem such as AGW, are funded by people with an agenda or self interest in the outcome, or they have been shown to have purposefully and willingly altered data in order to conform with their goals, or willfully ignore science that points to differing conclusions, these "many different scientists" have opinions and data that either mislead or simply don't mean jack squat. And in that instance, an intelligent individual without access to equipment nor the skills to do these measurements and experiments on their own must weight the raw data (when available), the methods used to obtain the data, and a myriad of other mitigating circumstances and determing for him/herself where the path most likely leads.

It is obvious that you think it leads to a destination that I don't see--that's fine, as long as we can both admit that climate science is in its relative infancy, and that pretending that there is an appropriate conclusion at this point in the game upon which a "consensus" of scientists can rest their laurels is, at best, premature. At worst, it's willful ignorance.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join