It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Abruptly Warming Climate Triggered Megabeast Revolutions - Evidence against man made climate change

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 10:45 PM

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Because even the qualified scientists can't agree on this issue. It's all a matter of what you choose to believe. I really appreciate the analogy to religion because that's what it's become. Separating friends and families it will. The CC believers against the Natural cycle believers......I can see it now.

You are going off the deep end here....

This may help with an understanding of what the consensus is among the 'qualified' scientists: Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:04 AM
Back to my pet hobby horse, last time I looked, CO2 was 400 parts per million, that's less that half of one percent of the whole atmosphere, just how can so little have so much effect?
As an aside, American growers use Methane burners to create CO2 in their commercial greenhouses, so I presume that gas is good for growing plants?

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: pikestaff
The botulinum toxin has a median lethal dosage of around 2 nanograms per kilogram.

That's a whole 0.0000002% of a person's weight. The argument that it's just too small is stupid.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 06:32 AM

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So rather than do your own research, you rely on federally funded/biased groups to do it for you?

They are certainly more reliable than "some guy's blog".

The fact of the matter is that the people who are in charge of controlling/advising the flow of data to the UN, IPCC, and climate scientists around the world openly talked about deleting/manipulating/withholding information.

That is NOT science. That is politics.

The fact of the matter is that you have invented your own narrative in spite of contradicting evidence. You seem to be unaware of what the word "independent" means and why having 6 sources that are all independent is pretty damning evidence. Most just require 3.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 07:10 AM
a reply to: StoutBroux

Greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide for one. Also, water vapor is a pretty nasty greenhouse gas as well. I mean, this is all climate science 101, why are you even DISCUSSING this topic if you don't know those answers?

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in