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: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It comes down to basics though and meta data or big data and lots of data from lot's science and scientific disciplines.

If most scientists in the world say that we are in a cycle of man made global warming irregardless of any of the natural cycles of climate change that earth goes through, then I'm going to have to believe them.

Most people talking on these threads saying that global warming is a hoax or scam or lie, aren't looking at the bigger picture. They will debunk one guy like Gore..yeah I just said his name, but for a reason. LOL or Mann or one report or one graph and they'll whittle away, one thing at a time while ignoring the overall scientific view.

I don't think you guys understand that most scientists are saying this and they are from most dicsiplines from geophysicists to climatologists to everything. As if that wasn't enough, then there are hundreds of university science departments from around the world and then hundreds upon hundreds of scientific organizations from around the world that are telling me this.

It's like vaccination. Most science says it's safe, so I get my kids vaccinated. I do have some concerns with mercury and some other stuff but overall the science is pretty sound. It's like evolution...there are questions and maybe some "missing links" but it's a pretty good theory and most scientists in the world say it's right on. The moon landing. some of you say we never went there but most scientists think we did...I'm going with science again. We also don't understand gravity completely or the theory of relativity etc, but science tells me that we have gravity so I'm going with them again.

If you're debunking say one guy like Mann or one vocal proponent like Gore and one report and one email scandle etc...but ignore the obvious question, I can't listen to you. Why would all those universities, scientific organizations and scientists at NASA like to me? And how could they cover up this big hoax that must include millions of people. That isn't a logical line of thought.

Then we speak about a carbon tax, but that's small potatoes considering all the billions upon billions of dollars we subsidize or spend our tax dollars on these fossil fuel companies already. You say look where the money is.. I am...it's in the pocket of fossil fuel companies.

I got to go with Bill Nye and NASA on this one.




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


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.


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?

Where are you going to get your water if there is no water?


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

Where does Northern California get it's water?

Anyway...we've already agreed that nobody has claimed outright that the drought was definitely caused by climate change. We've only established that you (on purpose) misread my example of how agriculture is tied to climate so that you could yourself launch into a mini diatribe

:-)

Well, maybe not a diatribe. Why are we quarreling again? Oh - yeah - you think I want your gun

Nice try



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
So you want me to tell you what the articles you posted said? Surely you see the issue there?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Edit: the only person who lacks imagination for the future is one who imagines it as a hopeless totalitarian world. I imagine it as humans coming together without imposing communism or fascism to obtain a better future. One where we embrace clean energy and better building practices. One where humans leave to rebuild what we destroy.

You apparently imagine a world where people must be oppressed in order for improvement. Astynax follows the line of thought of a eugenics supporter and an endorser of genocide.


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



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Since you're the expert, I'll happily sit here and have you explain which of those articles I chose were not what I thought they were. Seriously - at this point - I'm curious. If you can show me something I need to know - I'm all for it

Go on - let the greenie worshiping, freedom suppressing idiot have it

:-)

I'll wait...



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
So you refuse to educate yourself? You post articles you have no idea what they say then you want someone else to give you the cliff notes? I used the word worshiping aptly because you obviously blindly follow rhetoric without actually reading for yourself. You are probably the worst advocate for your cause....

How about you read this paper. Tell me what you think it says...

paper

a reply to: Spiramirabilis
edit on 26-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko



So you refuse to educate yourself? You post articles you have no idea what they say then you want someone else to give you the cliff notes? I used the word worshiping aptly because you obviously blindly follow rhetoric without actually reading for yourself. You are probably the worst advocate for your cause....


Now you're just trolling

If you don't want to explain things you can't really explain - then don't. I asked you to show me where I goofed - you'd think you would relish the opportunity

:-)

I'm eager to learn raymundoko - show me what you got


How about you read this paper. Tell me what you think it says...

I can't read the whole paper without signing up seems like, but the first bit seems to be saying that the rise in CO2 is greening arid parts of the earth

And?


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



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Why would I relish in pointing out your mistakes you can't find when the better option is to let everyone reading this thread see how you operate?

"Let me link a ton of articles I've never read that I pulled off google. That'll show em!!"

a reply to: Spiramirabilis



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


Fine - let everyone else read those articles. I'm OK with that

You didn't - this much I know

:-)

How did I do with your article?

How about replying to my other post as well? You know, the one that's harder to troll. If you aren't here just to bother people, and you want this to be an actual discussion - then discuss



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I am proposing a programme. I was merely reading you the news.

The totalitarian future will not be imposed on America from outside. It will arise through internal processes that are political responses to ground realities. You saw the 'lite' version in the aftermath of 9/11. That was a picnic compared to what is to come.

Nor will America be alone in this. The whole world will be in the same case. Because, as I said earlier, we're all in the same boat. The Chinese will show the way when the Party awakens from its current complacency respecting the environment and starts shooting polluters and flouters of environmental laws. Watch this space.

Most rich, advanced states will become increasingly totalitarian. Many will also go to war against other states that they deem to be ecologically irresponsible, though more often than not the true casus belli will be the need for lebensraum.

Poorer or weaker states will collapse in fragmentation and anarchy. Life for their inhabitants will be far nastier, shorter and more brutal than in the totalitarian ones. Hobbes's War of All against All will be their quotidian reality. For them, conquest and absorption by a stronger power may actually start to look like a good idea.

I suppose you are to be commended for your charity towards poor foreigners. However, your private charity does not obviate the fact that the USA is notoriously the stingiest of all rich countries when it comes to international aid. You don't even pay your dues to the UN until you're begged, pleaded with and yelled at. I have worked as a planning facilitator for large international aid projects; the Americans are always the biggest complainers, and invariably the ones whose aid has the most strictures, conditions and demand demands attached to it.


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

This page may provide some food for thought. Pay particular attention to the 'per capita' columns.


edit on 26/5/15 by Astyanax because: of incompleteness.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


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.

Yes, that's the one, though you exaggerate his prescriptions somewhat. His point is that we have to think the unthinkable if we hope to avoid a catastrophe. My point, though, is a bit different. It is that these things will come to pass whether we like it or not. The response to the coming catastrophe will be part of the catastrophe.


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

If you were within reach you would receive a sound kicking for accusing me of wanting to impose totalitarianism on anyone. Apply a little intelligence to what you read, instead of just reacting automatically like a dead frog's leg touched with an electrode.


edit on 26/5/15 by Astyanax because: of exaggerated prescriptions.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko


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.

Global warming is due to overconsumption and the resulting pollution.

Overconsumption has two causes: overpopulation and greed.

Amazing that you can write the above and not see the reality your own words define.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I'm not surprised you'd stoop to a physical threat.

Tell me, what happens to those who can't afford air in your totalitarian utopia?

a reply to: Astyanax



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
One person can over consume. Overconsumption can be from greed or ambition without being from a large population.

a reply to: Astyanax


edit on 27-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Ah... this silly discussion again? No way mate, our livestyle will never change for the better. There is no progress in anything and we will continue polluting this earth without any change whatsoever. You know... it's the economy, stupid! Be greedy and make some profit now! Without any alternative whatsoever of course! And if you dare to push for alternatives you will be labled a non-state-anti-gov.-actor (aka terrorist) as well pretty soon, even if you believe wholeheartedly in democracy and decent values.

Obey a nice day now!





posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am pretty sure he is just here to de-rail the thread and prevent a productive discussion.

CO2 levels will continue to climb, we will continue to drill and frack for oil, and we will still pump an enormous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as long as the US dollar is held up by the oil business/speculation. However if enough of the public realizes we need to change this habit soon, then perhaps we could make some real progress as to addressing this problem. Clearly there is a great PR campaign in an attempt to keep the status quo.

Also we do have a problem with CH4 as well. We also have landfills that keep getting bigger. These landfills do release a significant amount of CH4 into the air.

Overpopulation and over consumption are a problem. This should be obvious to anyone who makes an attempt to see the big picture.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Where exactly have I attempted to protect the status quo? You love inserting logical fallacies into every thread you speak in. I have always spoke against the practices of current governments, specifically towards conservation.

I drive an electric car as my DD. My family vehicle is a diesel SUV that get's about 40 MPG. I have one true gasoline vehicle that is an older model jeep for recreation purposes only.

I own a boat that fully runs off solar power (although I also have a propane generator) and an electric motor. I can't wait to have a Tesla PowerWall on it to replace my horrible battery bank, I'll probably never use the generator after I get that.

I've spent nearly 30k outfitting my house to be "green" including a propane generator, solar panels, foam insulation windows etc. I can't generate enough power to be off the grid here, but I can deal with brownouts/blackouts and fully intend to get a PowerWall installed as soon as it is available.

The difference is I actually hold hope for the human population, even as it grows. Capitalism and the free market have made it possible for the likes of Tesla and other innovators to pave the way to a greener future.

I've said in previous posts, that the US government could take HALF (not even actually) of it's war budget and actually fix energy issues in the US within a decade.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Well done on your efforts to be green, though most of what you have done simply shifts the burden of pollution away from you and onto the manufacturers of your devices. Still, you're trying.

Unfortunately, that won't be good enough, even if you could get everyone on Earth to do likewise. Cars? Oh no. You can have a bicycle. And a hand-cart. Even draught animals will be heavily taxed and restricted.

Welcome to the future.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why would electric cars be an issue? Look at the new Tesla factories, they'll be fully solar powered...more companies will shift towards that model to streamline costs to compete. Such is the free market.

Do you disagree with climate consensus that human caused warming can be completely neutralized/reversed through conservation and nuclear energy?

Energy isn't an issue, we're moving towards that, especially with the international easing of allowing non nuclear countries to conduct nuclear research and construction for power.

As energy becomes cheaper and more prevelant deforestation will slowly lessen. Look at the border between Haiti and DR for example. DR uses natural gas for energy, Haiti uses wood. You can see the clear delineation of the two countries due to the lack of trees.

Innovation and a free market will lead us into a green future, not oppression.

a reply to: Astyanax



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I got tired of posting data, studies, and articles with good science on these threads over and over again only to have that information lost by scores of posts parroting the usual flawed arguments against AGW so I decided to point out the logic fallacies in their arguments since the data and studies were not getting across.

I have noticed several others have attempted to use logic fallacies(often incorrectly) in an attempt to discredit the general scientific consensus of AGW since I first started pointing out logic fallacies.

It does seem like the tone of your posts have changed but I am not sure why you felt the need to validate your 'greenness' with your great claims of being Eco-friendly and a responsible human being.

Also could you please enlighten us on how your boat. Like specs, battery details, how much solar you have to make it work?

I can't say I ever had hope in the human race cleaning up their act. I have been hopeful and try to be hopeful but constantly faced with the reality is the most just live in the moment with no regard for the future to hold high hopes in humanity cleaning up their act. Especially with me being from Florida, a state who recently re-elected a governor who will not even let state officials use the words "climate change" or "global warming".

I really do not think nuclear is a good long term solution either.

Also Haiti destroyed much of their forests for charcoal to sell as an export, that is major factor in their lack of forest.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I discussed my "green"ness because some seem to think that a skeptical approach to the fear mongering of catastrophic global warming and alarmism is equatable to a greedy, neocon, corporatist who only cares about themselves and as such all who are skeptical should be tried for high crimes against humanity....

Yet some of these same people are all over Tesla Corp's junk in another thread not realizing that he is the epitome of free market capitalism and the American Dream.

Innovators innovate when given a free market and personal liberty.

I do not deny that we are warming. I never have. Nor have I ever denied that man has contributed a small amount to that warming. My education in atmospheric science has given me the ability to understand that most of what is circulated to the public is spun rhetoric.

One example was last years Midwest drought. NOAA completes a detailed study and determines it is not due to warming but matches cyclical weather patterns. (Same with the current Cali drought) What does the media run? A single interview of one climate researcher who doesn't even hold a degree in the field saying he doesn't think NOAA accurately took warming into account...

And SoCal? Forget that it has nothing to do with global warming and focus on it as "things to come". Even Obama attempted to blame the SoCal drought on warming via his anger interpreter at the media dinner. Did NOAA correct him? Nope.

Meanwhile, the AGU completes a study that the earth is actually greening as we warm and that it is directly linked to increasing co2 (peer reviewed paper posted in this thread)

Not only that, but NOAA/NASA determines that storms will be less likely to make landfall as we warm.

I just named a few things that are the complete opposite of what was being barked at us in the mid 2000's.

I'm approaching this as a level headed skeptic of what is expected as we warm, not of the fact that we are warming. Will sea levels rise? Yep. *snip* happens.

a reply to: jrod



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join