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.

 

Global Warming HOAX Unravels

page: 20
106
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I've watched the evolution of this general discussion since the time that I first read of Al Gore's sacrifice burning 600K+ gallons of (taxpayer) jet fuel to fly to Australia to give a 15 minute presentation about the danger to the planet that my little 3-cylinder Geo Metro posed.

What I am about to say is genuinely NOT said in disrespect. This thread has become so heavy-handed in scientific jargon vs. common sense that neither side should be surprised at the level of animus that is starting to show...

In all seriousness, it reads like the classic old joke of the man who accidentally stepped on his hubcap while changing a tire next to the fence of an asylum and lost all 4 lug nuts down the storm drain and was amazed by the insightful advice from an inmate sitting in the shade of a tree on the other side of the fence. The inmate took no offense and simply said, "I may be crazy, but I ain't Stupid..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»Discaimer: CornShucker™ neither suggests nor condones the abuse of any living creature in the following discourse and assumes no liabilities (implied or otherwise) for the actions of others under any circumstances.««
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Current Scientific Consensus" is that a frog (the amphibian-of-choice for those more learned than I) placed into a pot of water uncomfortably warmer than the present room temperature will quickly jump out. (We who have been unfortunately unable to avail ourselves of the benefits of higher learning are left to wonder what the result would be if the pot of water were uncomfortably colder than the present room temperature and are left to our own devices as it seems to have never been a matter that an "intelligent" researcher thought worthy to document...)

From my perspective, part of the antagonism in this thread seems a growing frustration with the fact that, if we use the analogy of the previous example, we apparently have a multitude of frogs aware that the temperature of the water in the pot and the temperature where they currently sit are similar, if not the same.

For the time being, it's a matter of trying to reason with the frogs... "Take my word for it, I and all my colleagues have determined that a time is certainly coming (if not sooner, then sooner than later and if not sooner than later, it's coming anyway) when the temperature outside that pot is going to become so uncomfortable that your grandchildren, or if not your grandchildren then your great-grandchildren) will praise the day you were wise enough to jump into that pot.

Regardless of any applicable theories, a frog's natural habitat is NOT a pot (boiling or not). From where I sit, that seems to be the main
bone of contention. When you try to force any living creature to discard what all those before knew as fact and follow you because of a concept that (while sincerely believed by you) is alien to their kind, it is only natural that you meet with resistance. All you need to do is talk to anyone who loves horses. They are NOT stupid animals. Heaven help the person, though, who has a fire and is short-handed. Keeping a horse from running back into their stall even though the barn is totally in flames is nearly impossible.

Since the frog example is repeated ad nauseum, I'm curious how many of you have done the experiment. Do you use it because you actually know the validity or do you parrot givens because of your faith in the fact that the "Science is Settled?"

I know that common sense is considered by some as a sign of ignorance, but I grew up close to the land and can tell you that there are things an old man that has worked and loved his land can tell you that would be correct but cost you a fortune to verify with all your labs and fancy equipment.

In the end I may pay dearly for trying to spread the word, but the fact is that a boiling pot isn't the natural habitat for a frog, anyway... While I still have the chance I intend to tell as many as I can that, at some point in the not too distant future, going into the pot won't be a matter of being convinced it will be by force.

It's already started in rural America but a controlled media doesn't cover what isn't on the menu. When county commissioners are told that "certain plans that I'll not name here" should make them grateful because it means no more county roads to maintain, that should tell anyone of a reasonable level of intelligence that something is happening that won't be reversed by future elections.

Considering that I'm from the generation that grew up hearing how lucky I was not to be growing up in the You S S Are, it is breaking my heart that we are now to the point that you risk all you have if you dare to tell the Trooth.

The massive DoS I was hit with came from an official Daught Gee Oh Vee site. No h*cking, I just dnload*d a file they made availabe. My mistake was not breaking my 'N*t connection before I opened it.

It ain't about science, people...

edit on 12 6 2015 by CornShucker because: punctuation

edit on 12 6 2015 by CornShucker because: Added another couple of sentences for clarity

edit on 12 6 2015 by CornShucker because: deleted uneeded word

edit on 12 6 2015 by CornShucker because: spelling




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Like most issues there it is a mixture of fact, fiction, lies and politics. Humans have had a tremendous impact on the global ecosystem. Tremendous amounts of pollutants expelled into the environment combined with dramatic deforestation has resulted in us poisoning ourselves and other life, possibly for hundreds of thousands of years in respect to nuclear waste.
The planet and likely life will not be extinguished by this activity, save global thermonuclear war perhaps, but we may render ourselves extinct or greatly crippled.

Meanwhile politicians, or career criminals as the case may be, will skew any topic to render taxes unto them. We can't have "leaders" because there is no one worthy of the title. Blind leading the blind, lunatics running the asylum, etc. In the meantime we need consensus government bound by strict rules that hinder the inevitable human corruption, loopholes for sociopaths to dominate, destroy and ruin it for the rest of us. In the U.S.A., the Constitution has failed to be enforced and upheld by the populace.

Carbon tax is a fraud and sham regardless of facts related to the health of our planetary ecosystem.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: CornShucker




What I am about to say is genuinely NOT said in disrespect. This thread has become so heavy-handed in scientific jargon vs. common sense that neither side should be surprised at the level of animus that is starting to show...


This is a scientific subject. Dumbing it down or over simplifying it leads to misconceptions which leads to all sorts of problems. I have for the most part do not even try to explain things anymore because I see many of the same people claiming the same things over and over in like threads many times after explaining the facts to them with links before on multiple occasions.

It really isn't hard to find the definitions of words while you are already reading posts on a computer. You can even highlight a word left click to look it up.


edit on 7-12-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CornShucker

I've read up a little on the sustainability living that is to come and no I would not like it. I checked out my own city's plans. Looks like the idea is to make housing that's stacked vertically and only in certain areas or zones. Is this related to agenda 21 or whatever it's new title is or am I confusing the two?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: CornShucker

I've read up a little on the sustainability living that is to come and no I would not like it. I checked out my own city's plans. Looks like the idea is to make housing that's stacked vertically and only in certain areas or zones. Is this related to agenda 21 or whatever it's new title is or am I confusing the two?

Thanks



Nope. You're on the right track only we have version 2.0 coming.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

NO, it means it is less alkaline (basic)/more neutral, not more acidic.

a reply to: Agartha

Since we are roughly the same age I am going to say you did NOT learn about ocean acidifcation in college and you absolutely did not learn that less alkaline means more acidic. It means more neutral and any chemistry professor in the 80's/early 90's would have taught you that. I took plenty of chemistry as well.

Do me a favor, find me a paper before 2006 that mentions ocean acidification. The term was invented in 1995 by Hendricks and didn't pick up steam until 2005. It is nothing more than a term to scare people. They liked how acid rain scared people into changing. Global warming wasn't doing jack ish to scare people, so in comes ocean acidification.

Even if you google "acidification defintion" google tries to cut off your definition for acidification to hopefully help you miss the actual definition of acidification.



Care to guess when the WIKI for it showed up? It's nothing more than fearful propaganda. A fake term for a real thing: The neutralizing and imbalancing of PH in the ocean which results in the die off of certain species which can effect the ecosystem. But who cares about that last part, did you see the part about ACID???? It's a marketing ploy.

You seem to think I disagree with the science. I don't. I disagree with how that science is being showed to the public. I really can't wait for a tropical earth though. I hate cold weather.
edit on 7-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Interesting vid by James Corbett just put up on YT ... He does a great job in showing just what is has been happening in AGW .



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
it's just fear mongering. The cold war is over so they have to find something to scare the kids into submission with.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
A fake term for a real thing: The neutralizing and imbalancing of PH in the ocean which results in the die off of certain species which can effect the ecosystem. But who cares about that last part, did you see the part about ACID???? It's a marketing ploy.


We are saying exactly the same thing, we are just using different words for the same meaning. And I have explained why they opted to use 'acidification' instead of 'neutralization or imbalancing'. Oceans don't have to get to 'PH7' to kill ocean life.



You seem to think I disagree with the science. I don't. I disagree with how that science is being showed to the public. I really can't wait for a tropical earth though. I hate cold weather.


I can't stand hot weather and all the mosquitoes it brings. lol



originally posted by: tanka418
So you think about this: How does the concentration of CO2 in water increase when there is no corresponding increase in partial pressure.


The more molecules of gas = the greater the partial pressure = the more of that gas dissolves in the water (to keep the equilibrium solubility of a gas described in Henry's law).

But I know you are going to disagree and accuse me of of not understanding or something of the sort, so let's just leave it at that. It gets boring after a while.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Agartha

I agree with you about Henry's Law but perhaps Dalton'sLaw should be examined to resolve the issue.

The transfer of excessive CO2 to the ocean at the levels currently happening are in fact a positive thing. When CO2 rises in the ocean, it has the same fertilizing effect as on land. Plankton, the bottom of the food chain for aquatic life, has increased by 20 %! Just like plant life in soil with a 33 % increase.

Of course, any plankton that manage to escape predators, ultimately dies and sinks to the bottom ocean sediments. As you can see, plankton becomes massive carbon sink.

This is how the ocean responds to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is the same feedback mechanism that has existed for thousands and thousands of years.

There is no reason to believe that it won't work now.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Mosquitoes only thrive in low co2 environments.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Is proving "global warming" is a hoax make things better, I wonder. My husband's family just sold the family farm that they homesteaded in the 1870's. Because the weather patterns have most definitely changed in the last 5 years. It will take new people with new ideas to adapt now.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Corbets latest is very funny and very pointed .....



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Thank you for your reply


What about sea life like Pteropods? There is evidence that the 'acidification' of the oceans is already affecting them in a negative way. Raised CO2 is not really doing them any favours, right?
LINK 1
LINK 2



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko


Mosquitoes only thrive in low co2 environments.


Ah,I didn't know that.... I hate mosquitoes because they love me with a passion! I will never understand why they prefer some people over others, I'm sure there is a scientific explanation out there but I'm getting off topic...... so, my apologies to the OP.




posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Here are 3 pieces that has a look at the 'acidification question ... Study: CO2 “acidification” does not harm Coral wattsupwiththat.com...

Dr. Christopher Cornwall Responds to “Ocean Acidification: Trying to Get the Science Right” wattsupwiththat.com...

Ocean Acidification: Trying to Get the Science Right wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




“acidification” does not harm Coral


The study says coral has a high degree of tolerance. It does not say what you claim.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

And life will eventually kill ya .....It was a copy past thing . For every breath of air you breath in , that is one breath I cant ....slow down will ya :>)



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




It was a copy past thing


OK...I get it you didn't actually read them.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I didn't read them today but probably did when they were first posted . I find more info in the discussions in the comment sections as I am not very technical and a lot of it is way over my head ...



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join