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.

 

Mainstream scientists finally admit global warming has not occurred for 2 decades

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Acatalepsia

I think they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" to validate carbon taxes. Yes, the climate DOES change. Everything is cyclical.




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ultralight

Well here in Florida it goes by Atmospheric Re-Employment since the governor banned the term climate change.


BTW it was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a memo that advised conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:



It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
link



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

But that was before the numerous snow storms hit the eastern US states repeatedly. Hard to claim "warming" when snow has covered your 3 story home...3 times in 3 months!



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The Australian is a Newscorp paper, nothing more than propaganda for Rupert Murdochs own conservative political philosophies.

I wouldn't give anything the article claims any credibility, without at least finding a non-newscorp source.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Grimpachi

But that was before the numerous snow storms hit the eastern US states repeatedly. Hard to claim "warming" when snow has covered your 3 story home...3 times in 3 months!


I see you are having a hard time comprehending the term "global".


Breaking news "it will be cold in the winter and hot in the summer".



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The basic thing from all of this is there is no money to made from climate change deniers. If there was money to be made the facts would suddenly change. Never let a crisis go to waste even if you have to invent it. Even better if you can invent it. You control the "facts" and the "message". The sheeple don't need the money it was never theirs in the first place. It belongs to the powers that be.
Can you name any other science that cannot be disproved when the facts don't support the contention?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Even if it is the article isn't anything close to what the OP made it out to be.


It was cheaply cherry-picked to give a false narrative.


In fact, the OP substituted his own title in place of the articles. He may be skirting the T&C.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: datasdream




The basic thing from all of this is there is no money to made from climate change deniers.


Yeah, because there is no money in oil and coal industries...err....what?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: here4this
See , thats what is driving this whole thing. Evidence can be posted for , and then someone will deny it and post something else.I go deeper on this subject than numbers or what someone "says". Numbers can be altered , people lie to get what they want. I want to know how "carbon tax credits" going to a company backed by politicians and ex-politicians (you know who I am talking about) is going to save the world ? Even our current President is a mega stock holder.Billions in cash to them ? From the lower and middle class families of the world . Now , who stands to gain all these billions? It isnt the GW Deniers' club. Does anyone stop and think about that ? If you had invested millions in an "investment" and stood to gain billions worldwide from it , would you continue to press the idea no matter what ? Yes. Didn't Al Gore state that the Ice Caps would be melted by last year ? The GW crowd is getting desperate as the data fails them. All they see is all that money going away.And as far as that goes , if I though for an instant (and I dont) they would actually utilize that money to improve the world in some way I would not be against it . But they wont . Not one penny. This is just their greed showing its face in one more way . The old saying goes (and it is an absolute must in this case) "Follow the money"
"Nuff Said"

Yes, that "someone" is Dr. Roy Spencer, noted AGW skeptic and one of the people running UAH (University of Alabama - Huntsville)'s satellite. Even he - someone who has little motive to NOT embrace the cooler trend shown in RSS data - says RSS is messed up and showing too much cooling.

You are conflating things. You seem to be analyzing in this manner, given that's basically the first thing you write: A) taxes are bad, leading to B) carbon taxes are bad, leading to C) carbon taxes are to combat global warming leading to D) therefore global warming is a scam for taxes. If this is the case, you are going about this entirely backwards.

Give me some hard figures - some hard numbers, right here and now, about this giant jackpot of carbon stocks or whatever it is you seem to think exists. Will you do this or will you deflect?

Al Gore did not say the ice caps would be melted last year. He cited one worst case scenario study from U.S. Navy researchers that the Arctic Ocean, specifically, might be entirely ice-free in the summer months in 2014. Thankfully, the worst-case scenario did not materialize. In the very same speech, he mentioned a study that suggested it would happen in 2029 at the earliest. In case you did not notice, this is a range - not a specific date of doom. You are quite literally repeating garbage political talking points.

The only desperation we have is that there is little time remaining to even do anything (and it may be too late already), and yet the Earth ends up doing this so that my idiotic Senator can throw a snowball on the floor of Congress:


For most of two years now, it has been cooler than average in the northeast U.S. and it is frustrating that one of the most populated areas in the most powerful country on Earth is debating reality.

I was born in '81, when (according to NASA) the mean global temperature was +0.28 °C over ~1950. It was the hottest year to date. In 1998, a very strong El Niño and a very hot year combined made the mean global temperature +0.61 °C over ~1950, which was the hottest year to date. Last year, 2014, it was +0.67 °C over ~1950, and the hottest year to date - with a weak El Niño.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

You mean the flooding, snow, cyclones, typhoons, etc. happening at same time US has its snowmaggedons? All with lower temps...yeah, I get global.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ultralight

If you do then why do you keep going on about localized events?


Oh gee... look at the pics above your post does that look like it is cooling everywhere?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
Sorry , try again...oh you are out of tokens. Thank you for playing the game.Did I not say I do not go by maps , numbers. I could set here in photoshop and make the maps look exactly opposite. Too easy. 5 minutes maybe to alter and repost...Look , you can let them take your money in the cost of gasoline , heating and cooling for your home , the price of food , etc. if you want . Follow the crowd . A lot of people did in the 70s with propellants to cure the hole in the ozone . Then in the 80s with freon to cure the hole in the ozone. Guess what . After the skyrocketing prices of propellants , then the absolute thievery that came with the freon , the hole in the ozone layer is still there unchanged. Why dont you hear about it anymore? They got exactly what they wanted . My money and yours. So , now the GW scare is on (that would be the 90s when it started . Looks like every 10 years.) The only problem this time , science is taken a stance against them . No , not in the majority like I would like , but still it is slowing them down from grabbing another chunk of my money .



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Not to mention hit and run.

Post a misleading thread and won't even respond in it.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Acatalepsia
There is no global warming. It's also quite difficult to convince someone who lives up north who experiences record breaking lows that seem to break records each year that passes accompanied by long-term severe cold weather.
Also, I guess the massive snow storms on the east coast are most definitely signs of global warming.


Obviously you're disregarding that 0.05% rise in temperatures last year sir, how dare you insinuate that the planet will not be cooked by the fires of Supermans heat vision. smh





posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: here4this
See , thats what is driving this whole thing. Evidence can be posted for , and then someone will deny it and post something else.I go deeper on this subject than numbers or what someone "says". Numbers can be altered , people lie to get what they want. I want to know how "carbon tax credits" going to a company backed by politicians and ex-politicians (you know who I am talking about) is going to save the world ? Even our current President is a mega stock holder.Billions in cash to them ? From the lower and middle class families of the world . Now , who stands to gain all these billions? It isnt the GW Deniers' club. Does anyone stop and think about that ? If you had invested millions in an "investment" and stood to gain billions worldwide from it , would you continue to press the idea no matter what ? Yes. Didn't Al Gore state that the Ice Caps would be melted by last year ? The GW crowd is getting desperate as the data fails them. All they see is all that money going away.And as far as that goes , if I though for an instant (and I dont) they would actually utilize that money to improve the world in some way I would not be against it . But they wont . Not one penny. This is just their greed showing its face in one more way . The old saying goes (and it is an absolute must in this case) "Follow the money"
"Nuff Said"

Yes, that "someone" is Dr. Roy Spencer, noted AGW skeptic and one of the people running UAH (University of Alabama - Huntsville)'s satellite. Even he - someone who has little motive to NOT embrace the cooler trend shown in RSS data - says RSS is messed up and showing too much cooling.

You are conflating things. You seem to be analyzing in this manner, given that's basically the first thing you write: A) taxes are bad, leading to B) carbon taxes are bad, leading to C) carbon taxes are to combat global warming leading to D) therefore global warming is a scam for taxes. If this is the case, you are going about this entirely backwards.

Give me some hard figures - some hard numbers, right here and now, about this giant jackpot of carbon stocks or whatever it is you seem to think exists. Will you do this or will you deflect?

Al Gore did not say the ice caps would be melted last year. He cited one worst case scenario study from U.S. Navy researchers that the Arctic Ocean, specifically, might be entirely ice-free in the summer months in 2014. Thankfully, the worst-case scenario did not materialize. In the very same speech, he mentioned a study that suggested it would happen in 2029 at the earliest. In case you did not notice, this is a range - not a specific date of doom. You are quite literally repeating garbage political talking points.

The only desperation we have is that there is little time remaining to even do anything (and it may be too late already), and yet the Earth ends up doing this so that my idiotic Senator can throw a snowball on the floor of Congress:


For most of two years now, it has been cooler than average in the northeast U.S. and it is frustrating that one of the most populated areas in the most powerful country on Earth is debating reality.

I was born in '81, when (according to NASA) the mean global temperature was +0.28 °C over ~1950. It was the hottest year to date. In 1998, a very strong El Niño and a very hot year combined made the mean global temperature +0.61 °C over ~1950, which was the hottest year to date. Last year, 2014, it was +0.67 °C over ~1950, and the hottest year to date - with a weak El Niño.



Is there not volcanic and other geothermal activity going on in those "record warmest" areas? hmmm



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: IntroduceALittleIrony

Why not show it instead of asking the question.
edit on rdThu, 23 Apr 2015 23:16:56 -0500America/Chicago420155680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Currently CO2 at Mauna Loa the CO2 count is at 404ppm, pretty much an all time high.

Very few deny that CO2 levels are increasing today. At least that is a step in the right direction in terms of the public perception of the climate problem that we have played a major role in creating.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Even if it is the article isn't anything close to what the OP made it out to be.


It was cheaply cherry-picked to give a false narrative.


In fact, the OP substituted his own title in place of the articles. He may be skirting the T&C.


Okay, you have said that twice. Tell me what I said that was not in the article? What did I cherry pick?



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Grimpachi

The Australian is a Newscorp paper, nothing more than propaganda for Rupert Murdochs own conservative political philosophies.

I wouldn't give anything the article claims any credibility, without at least finding a non-newscorp source.



Murdoch or Packer, the newspaper just reprinted the main points of the Nature article. IF you read the article in the journal and find the newspaper misrepresented it, please tell us.




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join