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.

 

NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Interesting development to this story:

Just to recap, the source for the claim in the OP came from an article in Forbes written by James Taylor, who referred to this graph posted at the University of Illinois’ Atmospheric Science dept.

Now the University of Illinois has posted a scathing rebuttal to Taylor’s phony claims. They first of all reassert that there is indeed a long term decline in global sea ice extent:



Then go on to say this about Taylor’s article:


Cherry-picking limited data to illustrate a point on climate change is not a compelling argument, whether it is done by those who advocate for a warming planet, or those who advocate for the opposite. Publications including arguments of this type either lack a basic understanding of science or are intentionally misleading in order to promote an agenda.


Source




posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You haven't a hope of 'dismantling my point of view', but you're welcome to try. Are you going to tell me what I sound like, or not?



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Exactly. Look what's happening here. I show people the future and someone immediately accuses me of trying to bring it about.

People -- decent, deluded people -- are forever banging on about their 'rights'. They're not rights. They are privileges, conferred upon us through the efforts of generations of forebears who created the economic surpluses that made them affordable.

That era is over. The ship of civilisation is like to founder in the coming tempests, and there is no longer any room on board for mutinous freeloaders and those who abet them by denying the imminence of disaster.

I'd be crowing with Schadenfreude at their discomfiture were it not for the knowledge that I and the rest of the human race may not make it safe to port either.

We're all in the same boat.


edit on 25/5/15 by Astyanax because: of storm warnings.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

The world is drowning in hot water and you're burbling on about taxes?

Yes, keep your aid shipments (that don't amount to more than a tiny fraction of a percentage point of US GDP anyway). Let poor black and brown people starve and die, while America eats till it bursts. There are far too many of us damn third worlders anyway, right? Breeding like damn rabbits, hey? What did you call us? 'Mud People', was it?

Look, chum: you're still fighting yesterday's battles. That world is dead. Taxes? You'll be counting yourself lucky if they let you keep your dog.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

*Chuckle*



Cherry-picking limited data to illustrate a point on climate change is not a compelling argument, whether it is done by those who advocate for a warming planet, or those who advocate for the opposite. Publications including arguments of this type either lack a basic understanding of science or are intentionally misleading in order to promote an agenda.


Taylor to himself: "Shhh, I thought scientists read real newspapers, not the friggin Forbes! Oh dear..."



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

we are eventually going to reach a bottleneck, whether by natural process or man made disaster.

You talk of forced (bloody) totalitarianism to achieve you goals - global population control, but it's the white mans fault that brown people have too many mouths to feed?

I've given years of my life (more than a decade), my health, my blood, my sweat, my tears, and my sanity to provide food, shelter, comfort and hope to those "mud people" (your words). I am not rich and I never will be. I'm not foolish and I never will be.

I have brothers and sisters the world over from Kansas to Djibouti, from Sierra Leone to Croatia. They come in all shapes, colors, religions, and political mindsets.

How exactly is taking away anything from America going to help with the over population in sub-Saharan Africa, India, or Bangladesh?

Or is taking the cars, guns, and freedoms from Americans simply going to make it easier to strip them of everything else?

Sorry to stray so far OT, I'm really trying to understand.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
It's actually quite easy to dismantle it with just one question...

Why wouldn't people be allowed to own guns?

a reply to: Astyanax



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus


Or is taking the cars, guns, and freedoms from Americans simply going to make it easier to strip them of everything else?


The inequalities we're accustomed to now are not at all what they will be in the future

The America you're clinging to will no longer be possible

Hard to imagine - I know



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

So let's break it down bit by bit:


I would go further and suggest that people who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change are actually obstacles to our ability to cope with the biggest challenge to the future of humanity since Mt Toba erupted.


One can be skeptical of the impact man has had on warming and still not deny that the climate is warming or that man has indeed contributed a small amount to that warming. One can also be skeptical of how bad warming is for humans, if it is bad at all. Will the sea level rise? Sure; However humans can adapt to that easily.

It is also scientifically accepted that humans impact on co2 can be completely neutralized/reversed through conservation and reforestation as well as moving to cleaner energy (e.g. Thorium Reactors)


Writing with respect to the problem of overpopulation in his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, the biologist Garrett Hardin observed that the only way to save the ecology is to forcibly restrict human breeding.


Garrett Hardin, the same man who believed genocide was an acceptable form of culling a population to quickly come into balance with nature? Tell me, which groups deserve to be culled from the population? Hardin, the same man who thought we should stop food shipments to starving children to "solve the overpopulation problem?" Hardin, the same man who thought we should move towards Eugenics? I don't really think anything more needs to be said on that specific quote of yours, as it is obvious where you are going with this.


Climate change is essentially a symptom of overpopulation.

The era of the freedom of the commons is over. In the future we may have to radically restrict personal liberty, and all common resources; even water, even air; will have a price tag on them.


It sounds more like you are using climate change as an excuse to implement your own view of how the world should be, and by violent inhumane methods if necessary. How do I know you would use violence as a means to an end?


Some of our freedoms will also have to go. The quaint anachronism Americans call 'the right to bear arms', for instance, will soon be history. So will the right to plant what crops you like, keep pets and livestock, use powered private transport, etc.


Why else would you need to remove ones firearms if for nothing else than to leave them defenseless against the powers you deem worthy enough to control the useless eaters. Not only that, you don't want those who disagree with you to e able to grow their own food, or have their own animals, or get themselves where they would like to go. Also, are you familiar with a group that tried to implement those very same policies?


Either that, or environmental collapse followed by social implosion, anarchy, and a return to the Bronze Age for the few hundred thousand who survive - if they're lucky.


And finally the fear mongering to make sure everyone is afraid enough to submit to this totalitarian regime you have in your brain.

Edit: See this thread
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'm not really "clinging" to anything.

I'm just curious as to why America needs to give up everything in order to control population (when we have 2-3 kids per household) yet we are always "free" to continue to feed the countries that have 10-14 kids per household and no means to feed them.

Just seems like reverse Darwinism.

Lions do not give up their food so starving hyenas can feed their pups. Fight to survive or become a footnote in history.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus


Lions do not give up their food so starving hyenas can feed their pups. Fight to survive or become a footnote in history.

It's only lack of imagination that prevents us from taking circumstances that exist now and projecting these into the future. It's not just that though - it's denial. Not wanting to think about how bad bad can get is exactly what's preventing us from moving to prevent the worst of it. If we had started 20 years ago it would probably still be too late - but, never say never I always say :-)

Trust me - I am not here to argue for doom - or to suggest that this is a future I want

The lions will be your neighbors if you want it to be as simple as a TV show

America will be fighting with itself - forget the rest of the world

It would be funny if it weren't so completely demoralizing - but this fascination with the zombie apocalypse is a little too on the nose for me

And to think - I woke up in a good mood this morning

:-)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Not only that, you don't want those who disagree with you to e able to grow their own food, or have their own animals, or get themselves where they would like to go.

Astyanax will have better answers to your questions - but this one point really interests me

Growing food and having animals depends on not just weather - but climate

If these things change - even just a little - growing food will not be as easy as it once was. How much land do we have dedicated to feeding America? What kinds of food would we need in a worst case scenario?

Your family's private garden will be subject to the same weather variations as the breadbaskets. You can see what a relatively short period of drought has done to California?

The people who keep talking like this - like I am now - are not pessimists

This is a conspiracy site - true - but in the interest of denying ignorance, there are, and always have been a handful of people here who are trying to sway opinion. That opinion can be swayed both ways. Eventually, even people who think that this is a plot to turn the world into a one world totalitarian government might begin to realize that that's not so much a plot as an inevitable outcome of circumstances that may well be beyond our control

But - like I said - never say never :-)

I'm an optimist. We are smart - to put it simply, and bluntly. But, not always wise. It will require sacrifices (to our liberties too - unfortunately) but it really is sink or swim - it will require a new way of thinking and a dedication to the cause

That cause being - saving humanity - and preserving what we can of our habitable planet. An uninhabitable planet means the end - for us, and a great deal of the fauna and flora that exist now

Simple



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Your family's private garden will be subject to the same weather variations as the breadbaskets. You can see what a relatively short period of drought has done to California?


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate works. Are you suggesting that if I grow my own food I am stealing co2 and water from the environment? If I am able to grow food without using city water then why should my ability to grow food be inhibited?

Also, the drought in California has nothing to do with global warming, man-made or otherwise. And why don't you lecture me on what it has done to my area? OH NO! It has returned the desert to a desert!!! WHATEVER WILL WE DO?? WHY GOOOODDD!!! WHHHHYYYYYY!Y!!!?!?!?!??!

You do realize that most of the water in SoCal isn't even from there right??? It gets piped in from NorCal

SoCal is a result of overconsumption, not overpopulation or global warming. They built resorts in the desert which used as much water as San Diego to keep themselves green.

No comment on the fact that humans can currently completely neutralize/reverse their impact on co2/warming without any type of liberty infringements?
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Also, the drought in California has nothing to do with global warming...

Maybe not - I never said it did

Your response to that bit of information is typical of what we're up against. That was only an example - used to illustrate the point I was trying to make. Which was and is: growing food depends on certain things - and when those things are not the same as they always have been - growing food becomes more difficult

So, you think that you can prove that this is all a hoax by not paying attention? Or is it that you do believe, you just can't accept that our lives will have to change because of it?

Science is unwilling to commit to saying this drought or that flood is or isn't because of climate change because - it's science. We should be grateful for that level of caution - it's why science works

Meanwhile - farmers are dealing with it now, and planning for the future:

Video: Iowa Farmer Sees Climate Changes Accelerate Alarmingly

How the risk-taking farmers of Southeast Asia will survive climate change

The Impact Of Climate Change On Farmers And Food

Climate Change And Food Security: Coffee Farmers In Tanzania Feel Strain Of Rising Temperatures, Unpredictable Rainfall

Southwest climate hub helps farmers, ranchers adjust to climate change

Climate change blamed for severe drought hitting Vietnam's coffee crops

Seeds of Time - preserving food resources in a hot future climate

Farm ers Face Harder Challenges on Account of Climate Change

The availability of resources will change, economics will change - our lives will change. You're counting on an availability of resources we can't know for certain will still be where we want them when we want them. You tell me I don't understand climate - I'm not a climatologist, but I do understand certain things


No comment on the fact that humans can currently completely neutralize/reverse their impact on co2/warming without any type of liberty infringements?


Can we? If so - why haven't we?

Will we?

Your reply tells me no

:-)

Have a nice day raymundoko. We have to strike a balance (I've learned) between understanding what needs to be done and still living our lives. I understand your annoyance, but I'm going to move on now. I know that people the world over are working on this. Like I've said - who knows what we can accomplish?


edit on 5/26/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: adding and subtracting



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Look at my post history. I absolutely believe in climate change, specifically that we are in a warming period and that man has indeed contributed some amount to that warming.

I do not subscribe to your ridiculous belief that we must curtail liberty to adapt and survive.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Edit: and yes, science absolutely committed to staying the SoCal drought has nothing to do with climate change.

Concerning the will we? Why haven't we? Questions, you should ask the very green movement you currently worship. They blocked nuclear research and brought it to a standstill in the U.S. Luckily it's picking up steam again.

Also, you didn't read any of those links you posted, otherwise you wouldn't have used at least two of them.
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Why so defensive raymundoko?

And a wee bit hostile too :-)

I am so over it you know - not here to fight

You'll have to warm over your tired old argument for somebody else. I'm all about solutions now - not squabbling




Also, you didn't read any of those links you posted, otherwise you wouldn't have used at least two of them.


Probably not - I discarded 3 others while I was copying them - which I admit was a fast and furious process. What do you think you've proven? There are thousands more out there that will prove my point - and nearly as many that will contradict them

You still understood my point - that's all that matters

:-)


edit on 5/26/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I understand your point that you don't understand what you are talking about, and that you look at evidence based on headlines. You may see me coming off as hostile and I welcome that greatly. Your viewpoint of how the world should be handled SHOULD be met with hostility in the truest sense of the word: opposition.

Do me a favor, why don't you research which prominent political group attempted to limit ones ability to grow their own food and own their own animals or own their own guns.
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
I can see you want to argue...

And that you think you know what you're talking about :-)

To borrow a phrase (recently minted for popular use): I am not a scientist. I don't need to be. I rely on the hard work and expertise of others - as do you

Those headlines you want to focus on were intended to demonstrate that agriculture is taking all this seriously. If I posted a couple of articles that say otherwise - oops...

Doesn't change the fact that, yes - the many people who are involved in farming the entire world over are in the process of trying to find ways to mitigate the possible (or probable) effects of climate change

So, what is your point? That they're not?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Actually I do know what I am talking about. Again, view my post history as well as my introductory post that is several years old at this point.

Edit: As far as your question about agriculture, where did I ever say it wouldn't be impacted? This is a red herring you introduced to our conversation.
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Now that I think about it...


Do me a favor, why don't you research which prominent political group attempted to limit ones ability to grow their own food and own their own animals or own their own guns.

Since you're focused on this - I begin to see you aren't really interested in a discussion that involves a set of circumstances that may exist in the future. You want to stay rooted in now. You think I argue against freedom? And, that I argue for...for what?

Make this political if you want - the more important point made earlier on is that when things really do begin to hit the fan - our ideas about freedom are going to change. I've said myself - not looking forward to that

It becomes apparent that you either can't envision that future, or that you're here to talk smack instead of joining a constructive conversation that works towards a solution. You tipped your hand earlier when you stated (without actually knowing) that I worship the Green movement. That word worship - nice choice :-)

How about you post the articles from the headlines I posted that you're hung up on an elaborate a little about why they're making your point rather than mine. That's something that would interest me



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join