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.

 

Climate change the coming Ice Age .

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: jrod

Are you saying you haven't said that in other threads? I will gladly link your own comments for you if you need it.


You are misrepresenting something I wrote, no doubt!

Go ahead and do that, I would love to know where you got that wild accusation from.

So what is this topic about?

It seems like the OP misrepresented the past and tries to pull an act of deception by proclaiming that the majority of Earth scientists were crying global cooling just a few decades ago.
edit on 7-6-2015 by jrod because: add




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Or everuone could just go back on topic
.
It is simple more co2 means heating up look at venus.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you called my responses like those of a high school cheerleader. Now they lack substance, are arrogant, and lacking tact.

Thanks so much introvert.

Can we get back to the topic now? Or have you, jrod, and monkey come to fully derail this thread?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   


a reply to: Krazysh0t

What we have is a lack of understanding of science by those who get hoodwinked by the denialist arguments.

This is not much different than the tactics the tobacco industry used. They also ended up getting hit with RICO charges. Hopefully my generation can force the same action on the industries who are funding the campaign against good science.


Or did you not say that?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3



Can we get back to the topic now?


Please, let's do.

Science has shown through ice core samples that co2 levels have risen since the industrial revolution.

Are you going to address that fact or are you going to make comments again like you did previously when I said the same thing?



Oh boy here comes the back up . I usually bow out when it becomes three on one you guys have fun .




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I never said that.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: introvert

I never said that.


Confirmed. Talk about school yard tactics, wow.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: introvert

I never said that.


You are correct. My apologies.

I copied the wrong quote.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Actually the topic was media hype. But what do I know I only authored the thread . Lol



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse




Climate change the coming Ice Age .


Yeah. I know. Headlines.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That explains it. You have become one of those guys that post off titles and ignores the OP.


Most people that actually possess a sense of humor would've recognized that was in jest.



But I know I know critical thinkers take one idea or in your case a sentence or word and rip it apart without looking at the whole concept .



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse




That explains it. You have become one of those guys that post off titles and ignores the OP.
Actually, I read the OP. As I have demonstrated more than once.



But I know I know critical thinkers take one idea or in your case a sentence or word and rip it apart without looking at the whole concept .
You quite clearly stated your position more than once.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Critical thinking is one of the funniest expressions I find on conspiracy sites. Critical thinking involves ..........

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Because in fact people on these sites instead use obfuscation , speculation, wild guesses, inconsistencies, irrelevance, biased sources , personal hatred , blinders, and anger to come to their personal opinions. Lol

Almost anyone who claims they are critical thinker only takes into consideration their opinion and by default prove they are not critical thinkers by refusing to acknowledge any type of evidence they don't agree with .


I would definitely like this thread to go where I wanted it to go that is a comparison between the biased media views from then and now .

Fortunately I believe I was able to drawl all of your best information out on your position . I've got all my ducks in a row now I will see you on a climate change thread when we are discussing scientist .


Ta-Ta

edit on 7-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

I care about this planet. I do not want to see it become a wasteland, as some of our land already is from 'progress'.

Do you NOT see the parallels of what is going here and what the tobacco industry pulled to protect their profits?
edit on 7-6-2015 by jrod because: a



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

As do I. I have volunteered my whole life in neighborhood/street/highway cleanup programs. I drive an electric vehicle. I just bought a top of the line electric lawn mower. I use rechargeable batteries in all of my electronic devices. I unplug electronics when I don't use them. I turn off lights when I leave the room. I work from home so even when I do use my EV, it is in small amounts.

Coming from someone completely against your stance on global warming, how is my opinion hurting the planet? An opinion doesn't mean anything. A tweet with the #fightglobalwarming doesn't mean anything. Words are words.

Yet you view my opinion as one that should be criminalized. Shame on you.

You are traveling down a scary path. I even got Phage to admit tonight that NASA was misrepresenting information in regards to the 97% consensus propaganda. I have seen you saying similar things. Should we put NASA employees in jail for spreading false information?

The debate isn't over.

This debate isn't stopping anyone from going completely green and cleaning up their environment.

This debate is doing exactly what it was designed to do however. To cause arguments, to create divide between people, to use as a distraction from the real issues going on in environmental pollution, and to create taxes that will then be passed down to the consumer.


edit on 7-6-2015 by c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2015 by c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

You are misrepresenting what I wrote, to put in another way, you are putting words in my mouth.

There is no debate here.

All you can do is attempt to cast doubt on what good science is telling us.

What I wrote was based on several articles I read.

Merchants of Doubt film exposes slick US industry behind climate denial

Robert Kenner’s forthcoming documentary lifts the lid on the ‘professional deceivers’ manipulating US debate on climate change


Deliberate manipulation and paying off lawmakers deserves consequences.

Do you not agree the tobacco industry was at fault for their anti-science campaign?

edit on 7-6-2015 by jrod because: ir



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Good science can stand on it's own, now more than ever with endless amounts of information at your fingertips. I see no parallels to the tobacco industry back then compared to now. Sure back then people had very few ways to obtain information, and of course the tobacco industry was at fault. The difference is now people can do their own research, and make up their own minds.

As far as this Merchants of doubt film is concerned, I have not once even heard of it. As someone who prides himself on trying to know everything about everything, I should have at least heard of it by now. Not saying it ins't popular, but I am going to go out on a limb that is isn't. I will bet that Al Gores An inconvenient truth had a teensy bit more money behind it, and was just a teensy bit more publicized.

I am going to be honest with you, I look through probably 20 different news sources every day. Ranging from conservative to liberal, outside of the box to extremely skeptical. With that being said, I see climate alarmist propaganda on an almost daily basis. I NEVER see anything relating to climate denial.

If you think there is a bigger industry behind "climate denial" vs "climate alarmists", then we must live in completely different worlds my friend.

I will let you in on a little secret though. Where do you think the majority of money comes from that climate scientists get paid with? I will give you a hint, it is not the private sector. Climate scientists produce no product or service of value to the private sector. There is one group that doles out billions and billions every year to different environmental organizations, grant programs, university studies, etc...The American tax payers via the US government.

It makes absolutely no sense for oil companies to spend tons of money "denying" global warming. The oil companies know they have us by the balls, and will pass any taxes the government imposes on them onto us. They have ALWAYS done that. They always will do that. Every company with shareholders to appease does that.

Oil companies are smart enough to know that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and sooner than later will be gone/more expensive to obtain. This is why they have been diversifying into green energy for years now.

P.S. -- I have no political affiliation.

Logic and reasoning > all.

With that I am done. Take care.


edit on 7-6-2015 by c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Hi,

You raise some interesting points in your OP.

I would argue that there is no hype over global warming, especially in comparison to the " Ïce Age" hype you reference in your OP.

It is a fact that the media are actually skewing the debate and the agenda in terms of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate.
And studies show this. Obviously, the skewing of the debate concerns both sides of the debate with certain publications favouring sides, The Guardian and The Washington posts are two examples, and interestingly enough these two publications are on either side of the political spectrum as we know it (the left and right paradigm). But in general the level of coverage afforded to the denial of scepticism of the topic does not represent the true level of scientific scepticism that actually exists. This is the hype.

If you reference the works of Naomi Oreskes, especially Merchants of Doubt, on scientific consensus and decent (Linked Video), Boycoff, Butler and Pidgeon and many others, you will find support for the fact that the media is actually hyping and also misreporting the level of debate that is indeed occurring within the scientific community regarding the nature and causes of climate change.
Naomi actually addresses the issue you raise in the OP concering the ice age claim, I hope you can take the time to watch the video, it is extremely informative.

So the hype concerns the level of scepticism and uncertainty regarding the science, and not the actual climate change that is occurring. I think that is a significant difference to what you suggest in your OP. But in my personal opinion, I think the media has hyped certain characteristics of climate change that has also lead to generating a degree of disbelief when it comes to some aspects of the topic. Characteristics like sea level rises, super storms and Artic and Antarctic ice melts etc.

I enjoyed reading the OP and the thread. I really hope you can watch the video, the Media is referenced about 25min in, extremely interesting.

Naomi Oreskes
www.youtube.com...

policy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/


psych.cf.ac.uk...
Butler, C. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2009) Public understanding of climate change and the media: reporting scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming. In T. Boyce and J. Lewis (eds.) Media and Climate Change, New York: Peter Lang, 43-58.


edit on 7/6/15 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
An ice age, like pictured below at "maximum".



It means that snow and ice builds up from winter to winter trough summer, it means that the snow and ice from winter do not melt during summer or only partially melt because of low temperatures globally.

As it is now, summers are relatively normal in temperature or warmer, and show no signs of a global cooling that could trigger an Ice age.
That in short means, there is no "Ice age" incoming, judging from the weather as it is now globally, it can change though, in a relatively short time (some 10 to 20 years, if i remember right).

Ice age is not an over night phenomena, it is very evident as summers will be cold, and carry winter to winter trough summer.


edit on 7-6-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Just call it creative licence ; )
Thanks for the corrections.
a reply to: Phage




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join