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.

 

NOAA report confirms: 2014 was Earth’s warmest year on record

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Have to say I agree with that, I mean just look at this picture of Texas,
oops! no it's not, Texas is there though about near right of centre where you can stick most of the world's population comfortably, and probably most of the world's ant population which has been suggested as equal in weight to to the human population, and all concerned are farter carters of Methane, however ants have been around for a very long time, like a 100 million years, along with their Methane of course. But, it's all the fault of humans allegedly, they say in their short timeline also allegedly, ever since they started to rub a couple of sticks together..timeline not recorded.
I agree that we can improve all things to do with our viablity, and that's mostly what we do, (mad military excepted) but AGW, is a load of er, shiite!



edit on 17-7-2015 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing

So let's say that even if the data has not been manipulated, and the idea being pushed(even by NASA) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is real isn't total misinformation, what is the point of the incredible amount of global warming fear mongering in the MSM on a daily basis?



The point is that we can do something about it. Especially when you consider how technology is going to improve and change in the next century. I don't see technology slowing down and just look at what has happened on earth, technologically in the last 100 years.

We can produce less pollution and actually reduce the pollution in our air considerably.
We can mitigate rising sea levels by building sea walls and changing building laws for low lying areas.
We can let our military create contigency plans as they have asked for to deal with local wars bought about by drought, mass migration and famine.
We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fracking.
We can save our water tables from contamination from fracking.
We can stop Saudi Arabia from having so much influence in the middle east when they're oil isn't worth anything anymore.
We can produce and mandate vehichles with much, much higher MPG>
We can stop subsidizing oil and coal companies with billions of taxpayer dollars and put it back in our pockets and fix our infrastructor and public transportation.
We can plant billions of more trees.
We can stop rampant deforestation.
We can do so much...we just need to start.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say.

Like you said earlier, you are doing your part to help the environment. Like I said earlier, I am doing my part to help the environment. We have two completely opposite viewpoints on this issue, yet we are very similar in our life choices when it comes to doing what we can to help the environment.

The average person this fear mongering campaign is geared towards cares about the environment. That same average person is too poor to leave a big carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.

I agree with you on a lot of what you say we can do, and many of those things we are doing. A lot of the things that would make a big difference in reducing CO2 emissions comes down to technology that we just don't have yet.

Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have the medical/technology breakthroughs which allowed us to get to this point, and have the exponentially greater standard of living we do now VS even just 100 years ago.

Put your emotions on hold for a minute. Think about who controls the solutions to AGW that you proposed. It isn't in the hands of the average person this fear mongering is pushed onto...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well, we're coming out of an Ice Age anyway, is this a surprise?

Why did VonBraun warn about a fake global warming scam when it was really cooling...?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing


The average person this fear mongering campaign is geared towards cares about the environment. That same average person is too poor to leave a big carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.


That makes zero sense. The average american's carbon footprint is 10x the average for the rest of the world. It's our way of life, our habits, and our living arrangements.


I agree with you on a lot of what you say we can do, and many of those things we are doing. A lot of the things that would make a big difference in reducing CO2 emissions comes down to technology that we just don't have yet.

Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have the medical/technology breakthroughs which allowed us to get to this point, and have the exponentially greater standard of living we do now VS even just 100 years ago.

Put your emotions on hold for a minute. Think about who controls the solutions to AGW that you proposed. It isn't in the hands of the average person this fear mongering is pushed onto...


I'd definitely disagree with this as well. People can choose different lifestyles, and different living arrangements.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: amazing


The average person this fear mongering campaign is geared towards cares about the environment. That same average person is too poor to leave a big carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.


That makes zero sense. The average american's carbon footprint is 10x the average for the rest of the world. It's our way of life, our habits, and our living arrangements.


I agree with you on a lot of what you say we can do, and many of those things we are doing. A lot of the things that would make a big difference in reducing CO2 emissions comes down to technology that we just don't have yet.

Without fossil fuels we wouldn't have the medical/technology breakthroughs which allowed us to get to this point, and have the exponentially greater standard of living we do now VS even just 100 years ago.

Put your emotions on hold for a minute. Think about who controls the solutions to AGW that you proposed. It isn't in the hands of the average person this fear mongering is pushed onto...


I'd definitely disagree with this as well. People can choose different lifestyles, and different living arrangements.


Different lifestyle, different living arrangements...explain that to me in a way that is logical in the real world. How can I reduce my footprint more than I am now?

Like I said, poor people don't have the money to leave a large footprint even if they wanted. That is why our footprint is "10x" higher than the rest of the world, because we have a higher standard of living.

Millions of people in Africa and India don't have even the basics that we would consider awful living standards. When you don't have anything you don't leave much of a carbon footprint do you?

edit on 17-7-2015 by Danke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
It's so hard to trust anyone about global warming when they've changed their minds so many times over the last 40 or so years.

"We're entering another ice age!"

A few years later: "Global warming will kill us all! Temps will be 30 degrees higher in 10 years!"

10 years later: "We're entering another ice age again!"


It's really obvious that climatologists don't have a solid grasp on how to analyze the data because the records don't go back very far but there are plenty of con men and gullible idiots ready to take the information and run with it.

I would love to see everyone move toward renewable energy sources just because it makes sense but nobody cares until there's a giant looming threat or maintaining the status quo starts to get more expensive.

edit on 7/17/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Lifestyles of the rich and the famous is what you are referring to. This has nothing to do with the majority of the world that simply doesn't have the resources to contribute a large carbon footprint.

Stats can tell any picture you want them to. Manipulated data or not, it doesn't really matter.

Who has most of the $$? Who has most of the power?

It definitely isn't me, and I doubt it's you either.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Danke

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say that the poor in the US have no means to leave a high carbon footprint, then say Africans leave little footprint because they have nothing. Our poor trumps the upper middle class in many nations around this globe.

How to reduce your footprint? Tune your ac up or heat down, get rid of the vehicle, get a bike for starters. Longer term would require choosing different housing communities that provide more necessities within walking distance. Developers assume demand, and we fulfill it.

Look into the stats of the average trip distance in an automobile. If you take out long trips, then you see the average trip is within biking or walking distance. How much do you think that would reduce the footprint?

I do get your take, and it's the same gripe I have against the punishments for a DWI. I think human nature attempts to maximize short term benefits at the expense of potential long term consequences. In my mind the stats of drinking and driving won't much change until we tech out of it with driverless cars.

Kinda strange how this is all working out, in that by lowering the standards of living here, we would otherwise be helping the planet, yet the means in which we achieved this seems to cause the opposite (or at least offsetting the decline) by raising the standards elsewhere.

I think there's more that can be done, but they seem radical and people roll with assumptions that their current options are limited by recent choices.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

kid, it's the US of A. The 1% are not even close to the 99% in terms of collective footprint. We are the world's elite.
edit on 17-7-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Danke

You're contradicting yourself. You can't say that the poor in the US have no means to leave a high carbon footprint, then say Africans leave little footprint because they have nothing. Our poor trumps the upper middle class in many nations around this globe.

How to reduce your footprint? Tune your ac up or heat down, get rid of the vehicle, get a bike for starters. Longer term would require choosing different housing communities that provide more necessities within walking distance. Developers assume demand, and we fulfill it.

Look into the stats of the average trip distance in an automobile. If you take out long trips, then you see the average trip is within biking or walking distance. How much do you think that would reduce the footprint?

I do get your take, and it's the same gripe I have against the punishments for a DWI. I think human nature attempts to maximize short term benefits at the expense of potential long term consequences. In my mind the stats of drinking and driving won't much change until we tech out of it with driverless cars.

Kinda strange how this is all working out, in that by lowering the standards of living here, we would otherwise be helping the planet, yet the means in which we achieved this seems to cause the opposite (or at least offsetting the decline) by raising the standards elsewhere.

I think there's more that can be done, but they seem radical and people roll with assumptions that their current options are limited by recent options.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

kid, it's the US of A. The 1% are not even close to the 99% in terms of collective footprint. We are the world's elite.


In no way did I contradict myself. People all over the world dream of moving to the US even just to be poor here, because the standards of living are so much greater. So unless you want the US to become a 3rd world nation, there is no point making such ignorant comparisons between CO2 footprints.

Like I already said, I drive an EV, I have an electric lawn mower, I work from home, I have all energy efficient appliances, I moved my office to my basement where it's much cooler so I can turn off the AC when my wife leaves, etc...

The reality is that most people can't afford an EV, they can't afford an electric lawn mower, they can't afford expensive energy efficient appliances, they can't work from home, etc...

So what are you doing that I am not, and what realistic changes can the average person make? People need to get to work on time, most can't afford to live in the cities they work so they have to commute.

I am all ears oh great and wise environment man...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Danke

You most certainly contradicted yourself. Just get over it, it's not a big deal.

Dude, don't get defensive or passive aggressive, I'm not great, not too wise, and certainly not calling you out for your life choices, rather poking holes in your reasoning. It's just too easy.

So, you do realize a lot of those green things don't amount to much, right? Anyways, back to the point. People don't need those fancy "green" things. They could just make better decisions in day to day actions. Your statement about "can't work from home". How old are you? I'm curious. There's been a large increase in the at-home workforce in the last 15 years. It's not the majority, no, but that's not what I mentioned.

The average person can bike or walk to many more places. Don't sidestep the facts. Most people drive for no good reason on most of their trips.

Anyways, you seem irritated for no good reason, so I'll leave you to figure that out. Nice chatting with ya.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Kid? Yeah...no. Being called out is no fun, but try to leave the childish remarks to the children okay?

Do you have any idea how enormous the carbon footprint of just the US military is?

As for the "1%", there are around 20,000 private jets in the world that use a network of over 5,000 airports in the US alone. Commercial airlines can only utilize 550 airports. The average person is crammed into an airplane, a bus, a crappy apartment complex, etc...while the average 1%'er easily creates a carbon footprint to that of 99 poor folk. I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to the carbon foot print of 99,999 poor people.

Some of the longest range private jets cost over $50,000 just to fill up. I doubt the average person even comes close to spending $50,000 on fuel in their entire lifetime.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Danke

You most certainly contradicted yourself. Just get over it, it's not a big deal.

Dude, don't get defensive or passive aggressive, I'm not great, not too wise, and certainly not calling you out for your life choices, rather poking holes in your reasoning. It's just too easy.

So, you do realize a lot of those green things don't amount to much, right? Anyways, back to the point. People don't need those fancy "green" things. They could just make better decisions in day to day actions. Your statement about "can't work from home". How old are you? I'm curious. There's been a large increase in the at-home workforce in the last 15 years. It's not the majority, no, but that's not what I mentioned.

The average person can bike or walk to many more places. Don't sidestep the facts. Most people drive for no good reason on most of their trips.

Anyways, you seem irritated for no good reason, so I'll leave you to figure that out. Nice chatting with ya.


You failed to show how I contradicted myself. You failed to point out any "holes" in my reasoning.

Passive aggressive? How so?

If anybody is being passive aggressive it is you. Dodging my questions, and then saying "So, you do realize a lot of those green things don't amount to much, right? Anyways, back to the point. People don't need those fancy "green" things. They could just make better decisions in day to day actions."

Seriously?

Get over yourself...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

You're just not weighing things properly. Look at the miles trekked by private jets of the rich and compare that to the miles by commercial airlines.

It doesn't matter how many digits you have, you are only one person compared to the vast majority under you.

This is a bit ridiculous. That's why I find the need to say, kid.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Danke

I pointed it out in my first reply, and this will obviously go on forever. I can apply the same counters to you as you did to me.

*sigh*

I think this points to two personalities using different cognitive functions. We'll never meet in the middle. So be it.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

If smug was similar to smog, your footprint would be off the charts.

Luckily we don't live in the world of South Park.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

No you didn't, and no this won't go on forever because I am ending it now to keep the thread on track.

I hope for the world's sake you aren't under 30 years old.

Good luck!



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Danke

Relax friend. This is just a discussion and I happen to think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

This is a case, it seems to me, of a certain agenda being pushed by exploiting what is likely a real but still misunderstood phenomenon . Environmental responsibility IS a good thing, but entire dramatic civilization changes and doom-screaming aren't going to do anything but make matters worse. Over reaction would be as--or more--- damaging as under reaction at this point.

Me personally I agree that individualism is ultimately what is TRULY threatened right now. Moreso than life on this planet.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Nope, not close. You have been given bad information to come to that conclusion.

The general consensus has been that humans are contributing a warming effect on this planet. This became widely accepted by the scientific community since the 1960's, correct me if I'm wrong.

Only a very small number of experts actually believed that a coming ice age was near in the 1970's when that story made National Geo. (again please correct me if I am wrong....)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   
As Australia currently endures one of its "Coldest" winters since records began, with snow falling, where snow rarely falls.

BTW the "Hottest" year is all over .5 or 1/2 of a degree, recorded at maximum temperature (which is about 1/2 to 1 hour for a hot day in bright full mid afternoon Sun)........The Sun having a flare could just make that difference.
Not to mention the 1000s of modern temperature measuring devices that are Everywhere now, that didnt even exist 15-or even 20+ years ago.
One half a degree could just be in Calibration methods!!

We all know how accurate electronics are.........uhum speed cameras anyone....the hit and miss units, trees travelling at 60mph units etc etc.

Climate change Yes, it has all happened before, will happen again.....adapt or die...natures way.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join