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.

 

Human carbon release rate is unprecedented in the past 66 million years of Earth's history

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude This is great news more C02 the longer the growing season to produce food ,Plants will prosper and give off more oxygen. The NSF has lied about global temps for years, you know we are in a cooling phase now with the suns output decreasing.(no sunspots) These are the same people that say kerosene and a 100 ton plane took down and turned a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building to dust.





posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

Probably not a good idea to get climate scientists mixed up with corrupt pretend scientists that help cover up the truth about 9-11.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

Probably not a good idea to get climate scientists mixed up with corrupt pretend scientists that help cover up the truth about 9-11.


It probably doesn't make a difference. They all cash paychecks written by the same people.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

Oh please, I understood it fine. You are making your usual church of climate 'point' and trying to equate the science to religious scripture. I don't think you understand how off base that is and how different those two things are.

I also didn't say that you don't care, just said this "since this can happen we shouldn't worry about anything" is stupid. Yes a super volcano can go off, but that doesn't change anything about the changing of the climate. So save the ad homs and let's talk about that.


It is the same, in many ways.

How is it, that you figure that "science" and its control sets, and how it operates in collecting data and ignoring many factors, is not exactly like religion.

You falsely believe that this is not possible, and INHERENT throughout a good many fields...............

Just take a science course and ask lots of questions and see just how "FACTUAL" and "NON RELIGIOUS" the response to you will be.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stutteringp0et

There are lots of good people using science to prevent the ecosystems being abused. If you don't see the environmental problems for the tragedy they are, then you have no heart - think of all those individual species, defenceless and at the mercy of idiots.

I don't know that someones who pay people to lie about 9-11 would care about flora and fauna at all. Unless you mean they agree with 9-11 because it killed people, and they want to get rid of people generally, because as a species people are killing all the other species?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: stutteringp0et

There are lots of good people using science to prevent the ecosystems being abused. If you don't see the environmental problems for the tragedy they are, then you have no heart - think of all those individual species, defenceless and at the mercy of idiots.

I don't know that someones who pay people to lie about 9-11 would care about flora and fauna at all. Unless you mean they agree with 9-11 because it killed people, and they want to get rid of people generally, because as a species people are killing all the other species?


I'm saying that government funded scientists say whatever they're paid to say.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: stutteringp0et

Oh right.

I don't know your view on it, but is it not obvious that changing the molecular composition of something like the air is going to make things go all out of whack?

I'm a petrolhead, and that is just a fact (if you change the molecular composition of your cars fuel then that too will affect the performance of your car; very subtle changes make big differences). I do think there's loads of cover ups regarding what things are actually most damaging to the ecosystems - they like to point fingers at cars, and fossil fuels generally. When even if all cars were electric, there'd still be enormous environmental problems that are just as unbalancing as some extra CO2. The extra CO2 probably wouldn't even be that much of a problem if it wasn't for the urbanisation, the wrong forms of agriculture, infrastructures that rely on grids instead of being off-grid, the economy being a big fake generally - it's driven by share dealings, not actual supply and demand, overpopulation - I hate to mention this but we eat from the soil and use up its nutrients and then our sewage ends up polluting the waters and it doesn't even return correctly to the soil to re-fertilise it. Tip of the iceberg of the ecological problems. If you ask me, someone is paying big bucks to cover up how extensive the ecological problems are. And of course what is really to blame.

Part of the problem is also because whenever science does come up with more holistic ways of thinking, say like morphogenetic fields, orgone, biodynamics - that other form of science which absolutely has to cover up and deny anything 'aetheric' gangs up against it. So the truth about what the ecosystems even are and how they really operate, isn't even part of the discussion most of the time.
We're losing parts of reality that science doesn't officially even recognise exist.

Again, true Full Disclosure would sort out those problems.

On the one hand, it's easy to fix the problems. But on the other hand, to be able to do so means accepting those 'aetheric' things as real.

edit on 26-3-2016 by visitors because: bit about fuel added



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




Just take a science course and ask lots of questions and see just how "FACTUAL" and "NON RELIGIOUS" the response to you will be.


I have and am. All the answers I have gotten have been backed up and I had the ability to check it my self.
Something this thread refuses to do with any of the denial. Me thinks you just don't like the answers so you assume they are false. Post some examples if you must.



How is it, that you figure that "science" and its control sets, and how it operates in collecting data and ignoring many factors, is not exactly like religion.


Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and tests that can be reproduced. It doesn't take faith for me test something and then see the results.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stutteringp0et

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: stutteringp0et

There are lots of good people using science to prevent the ecosystems being abused. If you don't see the environmental problems for the tragedy they are, then you have no heart - think of all those individual species, defenceless and at the mercy of idiots.

I don't know that someones who pay people to lie about 9-11 would care about flora and fauna at all. Unless you mean they agree with 9-11 because it killed people, and they want to get rid of people generally, because as a species people are killing all the other species?


I'm saying that government funded scientists say whatever they're paid to say.


Ah yes the point that can't be proven! Easy to hide behind something that can't really be shown either way.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Soooo, you're ignoring me. I guess it makes sense. You can't dismiss what I'm saying with a sentence or two so it isn't really convenient. If you support the concept of anthropogenic global warming you have to learn how to ignore people.

It is difficult, I admit, to provide evidence to people that pay attention. If only everybody just read the headlines and propaganda, you'd have conquered the world.

Link to the headline about the super accurate model? No? Shucks.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Sure it can. Did you miss the revelation last year about widespread falsification of weather data? The only time I've heard of professionals sacrificing their reputation is when they're bribed to do so.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: stutteringp0et

Now you are just making stuff up. Care to.provide any legitimate links to.back up your claims?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Of course not. Everyone involved was allowed to investigate their own and all found themselves innocent.

Gems like this exist in some of the reports: "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"

"inappropriately manipulated" - they acknowledge manipulation occurred, but dismissed it.


web.archive.org...://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf

Sorry, I tried - this won't link right from the web archive
edit on 26-3-2016 by stutteringp0et because: link formatting failure



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

C'mon you sweet little woodchuck. Why are you ignoring me? The world is hanging in the balance. You have to refute what I say. Otherwise the world is going to collapse. Global warming is soooo important, come into the snake pit and explain it to us. Explain the 97%.

Show us the super successful models they've been using that predicted things accurately.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
When Al Gore stops being one of the worlds biggest slobbering hypocrites, everyone will listen.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sorry I didn't see your post as I wasn't looking at this thread every minute. You are correct the 97% is not all scientist, I already posted where it is from in this thread so you can find it. I even said that in the post you responded to, not sure why you are asking me a question I answered already multiple times.

And if you are the scientist than you know the burden of proof is on you. I am asking to show the debunked models, so show me.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sorry I didn't see your post as I wasn't looking at this thread every minute. You are correct the 97% is not all scientist, I already posted where it is from in this thread so you can find it. I even said that in the post you responded to, not sure why you are asking me a question I answered already multiple times.

And if you are the scientist than you know the burden of proof is on you. I am asking to show the debunked models, so show me.


Lol wait, I think you're confused, I have to provide evidence to disprove things? That is not how science works, you're thinking of religious belief. Burden of proof is on those who propose a hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Why the perpetuation of the lies that it was ever about it just warming or cooling? It does both, that's why they changed it to call it climate change.

There's no way anyone can ever 100% be sure if the world is actually hotter than it used to be. It doesn't matter, alls you need to do to see just how much humans devastate the ecosystems, on purpose, is to look out your window or go into the town you live in.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The climate has ALWAYS changed. It wasn't constant before humans, and it won't be constant after humans.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
in my opinion, it's already too late.....we, as humans on this planet, will need to start adapting to rising seas and more frequent weather extremes...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join