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: 7
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Global Warming vs. Climate Change


The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.



edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: korath
Since we need trees to clean the air, it's probably not helping with corporations clear cutting the woods and chopping down the rain forests. Any studies on the impact of their hand in this? They might not be producing a lot of co2, but their doing a fair job of killing off the solution to it.


Why would they do that i wonder? And i agree. Clearly the green things need lots more CO2 and the crop yield goes up when it does too so i am at a loss for why they want to call a natural process to be unnatural. I am sure at this point it is about power and control.

Who would willing give up any power or control who has it now and who would say they don't want to preserve their gains for perpetuity?

That is a good question to ask.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
If one chooses not to believe in climate change is a choice. It does not change the reality or the science. People ignore science and believe in things like the flat earth as well. That is all well and good but, that does not change the reality people are facing right now. Even our long term military strategy and those of other nations is being planned with it in mind.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

No but just follow the logic.

CO2 is now at 400 ppm or so. Of this, 30 % is contributed by fossil fuel burning. That is about 120 ppm.

Now that means that whether we burned fossil fuels or not, the atmospheric CO2 would still be at 280 ppm



For the past 200,000 years CO2 have oscillated between 170 ppm and 280ppm but we have now raised it to 400 ppm which has not been seen for millions of years. We have raised that in only a few decades. You are right, we are not responsible for all 400, but we are responsible for driving CO2 levels to a concentration never experienced by Homo Sapiens! That unseen jump from 280 to 400 ppm is our doing, not nature.

And we need to do something before the concentration gets to a level that will cause temperatures to raise so much it will kill all plant and animal life on this planet.

To say there is no problem is the easy way out. We are responsible and we need to fix this for our children and grandchildren.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh man why play naive about this fact you HAVE plenty to look at in this thread and i am getting crickets from you while you continue down the erroneous paths without proving your arguments properly. Ignoring the facts will make you look very bad when you finally realize it you will be devastated with a Homer Simpson like "DOH!!!".

Take the time to check out my links. I don't disapoint. I am backing my reasons for believing as i do.l see you not caring to read the material as if you don't care what the truth really is as long as it what you thought it was. I expect more from you than that, really.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Planting a billion more trees as carbon sinks?.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
If one chooses not to believe in climate change is a choice. It does not change the reality or the science. People ignore science and believe in things like the flat earth as well. That is all well and good but, that does not change the reality people are facing right now. Even our long term military strategy and those of other nations is being planned with it in mind.

The science needs to be based on good data, NOAA's nationwide ground temperature set-up is a shambles.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh man why play naive about this fact you HAVE plenty to look at in this thread and i am getting crickets from you while you continue down the erroneous paths without proving your arguments properly. Ignoring the facts will make you look very bad when you finally realize it you will be devastated with a Homer Simpson like "DOH!!!".


Crickets? I just addressed the source you JUST provided me AND provided further sources to elaborate on what the lady you were quoting was saying. How am I ignoring facts exactly? I've responded to every "fact" you've given me. I'm not about to go and refute every "fact" that you or some other denier in this thread may have addressed to someone else during the course of this 7 page thread (I've only been here since the last two or three). If you want me to address something, address it directly to me and I'll be happy to oblige. Don't accuse me of ignoring things that I'm not even aware of.


Take the time to check out my links. I don't disapoint. I am backing my reasons for believing as i do.l see you not caring to read the material as if you don't care what the truth really is as long as it what you thought it was. I expect more from you than that, really.


I just DID check out one of your links and discovered you were cherry picking information. And now, when I pointed that out, you conveniently change the topic of the conversation to an ad hominem about me not reading your sources. You expect more from me? Sorry, I'm not going to bend over backwards to agree with cherry picked information.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: MrSpad
If one chooses not to believe in climate change is a choice. It does not change the reality or the science. People ignore science and believe in things like the flat earth as well. That is all well and good but, that does not change the reality people are facing right now. Even our long term military strategy and those of other nations is being planned with it in mind.

The science needs to be based on good data, NOAA's nationwide ground temperature set-up is a shambles.


Good thing the NOAA doesn't just use ground thermometers anymore right?

Measurements



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


YOU may not know, but that doesn't mean that I don't know or that the answer is unknowable.


Wow. Okay. You know... you know absolutely and without a doubt what scientists with real experience and degrees in the field don't know... and you understand all the pertinent variables and possible interactions and therefore know the inevitable results. Okay. Shaking my head and backing away slowly...


Because it is confirmation bias to assume that something is unknowable then refuse to seek an answer to it based on that assumption.


No. For me to recognize and acknowledge my own limitations on what I can and cannot know is called intellectual honesty. You speak as if this is the first time I've heard of global warming and have never done my own due diligence. I have read much on the subject, and spoken to people with far more knowledge and understanding than I have of the conditions and factors involved... I understand that I do not know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I will not presume to know otherwise.


The politicians in paris had to get to paris by SOME measure...


Actually, no. No one "had to get to paris" by any measure for any reason. We have some awesome technology that allows folks from all over the world to "meet" in real time via electronics... and that's presuming that such a meeting was warranted to begin with -- a big presumption.


...and unfortunately all those measure create carbon footprints.


Exactly.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74


Planting a billion more trees as carbon sinks?.


That's one of the things we could do, instead deforestation is what we are doing ~sigh~
We should also stop burning fossil fuels, we could have all our energy and electricity from solar and wind.
As individuals we should try to use our legs to get us places (bicycles, walking), so many little things we can do which can also keep us fit and healthy!




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

No but just follow the logic.

CO2 is now at 400 ppm or so. Of this, 30 % is contributed by fossil fuel burning. That is about 120 ppm.

Now that means that whether we burned fossil fuels or not, the atmospheric CO2 would still be at 280 ppm



For the past 200,000 years CO2 have oscillated between 170 ppm and 280ppm but we have now raised it to 400 ppm which has not been seen for millions of years. We have raised that in only a few decades. You are right, we are not responsible for all 400, but we are responsible for driving CO2 levels to a concentration never experienced by Homo Sapiens! That unseen jump from 280 to 400 ppm is our doing, not nature.

And we need to do something before the concentration gets to a level that will cause temperatures to raise so much it will kill all plant and animal life on this planet.

To say there is no problem is the easy way out. We are responsible and we need to fix this for our children and grandchildren.




But CO2 has been even higher long before we existed.

This articles has each source's hotlink embedded into it. It will let you see who is saying these things and give you a chance to see if you think they and their data used are credible.


www.skepticalscience.com...
edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: need a proofreader



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

But CO2 has been even higher long before we existed.

This articles has each source's hotlink embedded into it. It will let you see who is saying these things and give you a chance to see if you think they and they data used are credible.


www.skepticalscience.com...


Thanks, I have to go now, I'll come back to this later on.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cherry picking the opposition to your side of this story. I have your side of it for the most part. You don't believe there are real scientist in dissent do you? I see new data doesn't compel you anymore as you have stopped at 2006 or thereabouts on what data is acceptable to you. All the counter science is deemed crap by you and the like of the Global Elite perpetrating this hoax.

You have not been using the logic we both know you can.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
If one chooses not to believe in climate change is a choice. It does not change the reality or the science. People ignore science and believe in things like the flat earth as well. That is all well and good but, that does not change the reality people are facing right now. Even our long term military strategy and those of other nations is being planned with it in mind.


Would you want flat-Earthers to be in control of congress or occupy the White House?

Would you be more skeptical and cautious about the decisions they make or propose when in positions of power?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Wow. Okay. You know... you know absolutely and without a doubt what scientists with real experience and degrees in the field don't know... and you understand all the pertinent variables and possible interactions and therefore know the inevitable results. Okay. Shaking my head and backing away slowly...


Don't strawman my argument. I know what the scientists know. That we have proven that there is a direct correlation with human CO2 output and the changing climate. Don't pretend like I'm saying things are definitive either. I know there is no such thing as settled science, but this correlation is more thoroughly proven than the theory of gravity at this point.


No. For me to recognize and acknowledge my own limitations on what I can and cannot know is called intellectual honesty. You speak as if this is the first time I've heard of global warming and have never done my own due diligence. I have read much on the subject, and spoken to people with far more knowledge and understanding than I have of the conditions and factors involved... I understand that I do not know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I will not presume to know otherwise.


Like I said confirmation bias. You've decided that the answer can't be known so no further research is necessary. I notice you've failed to produce any links backing your position up.


Actually, no. No one "had to get to paris" by any measure for any reason. We have some awesome technology that allows folks from all over the world to "meet" in real time via electronics... and that's presuming that such a meeting was warranted to begin with -- a big presumption.


Technology which leaves a carbon footprint... You do know that using electricity produces carbon right?


Exactly.


Seriously would it be SUCH a bad thing if we got rid of carbon output and worried about improving the world we lived on? If it's all a hoax, oh well, at least we cut down on destructive pollution and weaned ourselves off of our oil addiction. Oil which is finite by the way.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Global Warming vs. Climate Change


And?

Of course climate change could include global cooling.... or global warming... or lots of things. I referenced the predictions of global cooling that were everywhere in the '70s... and I gave you a link that provided several examples of the same.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cherry picking the opposition to your side of this story. I have your side of it for the most part. You don't believe there are real scientist in dissent do you?


Oh I believe there are scientists in dissent. Whether they are "real" or not is an arbitrary distinction. I more worry about what the huge salaries they are receiving from the oil industries to say the opposite of mainstream science.


I see new data doesn't compel you anymore as you have stopped at 2006 or thereabouts on what data is acceptable to you. All the counter science is deemed crap by you and the like of the Global Elite perpetrating this hoax.


Where are you getting this claim from? Where did I stop at 2006 data?

ETA: Here is the global heat temperatures setting global records or being in the top 10 all the way back to 2006.
2015 Likely to Be Hottest Year Ever Recorded
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year


You have not been using the logic we both know you can.


You are literally baffling me with your words here. You are making tons of claims about what I'm not doing while doing those exact same things then insult me for not agreeing with you. Grow up. Stick to the topic and stop discussing my ability to perform logic.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t



Exactly.


Seriously would it be SUCH a bad thing if we got rid of carbon output and worried about improving the world we lived on? If it's all a hoax, oh well, at least we cut down on destructive pollution and weaned ourselves off of our oil addiction. Oil which is finite by the way.


No it wouldn't. Honestly the people bringing you the tax are holding back cars like this one i sent Al Gore a few emails while he taught that this same University about this car.

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

Tell me what you think about this being designed and built for them by Nissan of North America over 25 years ago.



edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Shame on you for being baffled , this IS English i am typing. You have a good brain, it is focused in the wrong places. Concentrate on connecting the dots i have provided. It WILL come to you when you see this pattern. READ about that car. I am not sure why you can't see this with all we have provided you to study.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)


Earlier in this thread I provided a link to dispute the highest temperature claims and you claim cherry picking?
edit on 3-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join