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.

 

Climate Change HOAX Exposed by Geologist to the UK Government

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rapha

So here in New Zealand, we are in the mountainous region that shows standard sedimentary bedding plains.

But according to crazy environmentalists this place should not even exist because this means that the sea was once 1-2 km above what it is at now for sediments to have been deposited on the old sea-bed.


I see this is really confusing you so I have found a video that explains how mountains were formed.

FYI land can be pushed up above sea level.





posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Rocker2013

Thanks for the correction of the name, I shall rectify once I have finished this reply.

So, are you telling me we should take the data produced by Government funded scientists as given and anybody who refutes it should be given no credence?




Imagine this scenario... a Nuclear accident occurs and the government tells you to keep away from an area. Then a random eye doctor comes along and tells you they're lying, that you should go and take a walk in the affected area.
Would you allow your paranoid distrust of your government to lead you to believe him?


That scenario would mean it is a trusting government. In the real scenario, there is a nuclear accident and the government raises the acceptable levels of radiation. The eye doctor travels a lot and notices 8 out 18 radiation sensors have been removed along the coast because they were showing high levels. Maybe that eye doctor was on to something.

Another scenario is there is a huge oil spill and that spill along with the cleanup contaminates the aquatic life. The government raises the acceptable levels of toxins in the aquatic life, so as not to alarm those who eat that aquatic life.

Another scenario is the government has a large power producing company. One bureau of the government whose duty is to regulate the air tells the company it's air is too polluted. What is that company to do? They build the smoke towers much taller so the smoke is above the air that is tested. It's now at a "safe" level.

100s or 1000s of scientists that are trustworthy? They work at universities? Where does that grant money come from? Why would they work themselves out of a job, so to say? Professors do have a vested interest.

How many times has it been revealed that scientists have falsified data in regards to what used to be called global warming? Now it is climate change, which is extremely vague to me. Why did they choose that name? Because it is obvious even to the observant eye doctor that the climate has changed throughout the earth's existence and cannot be argued with, but the same agenda that was behind global warming can remain the same.

Who would I listen to? The government? No. The university professor? Possibly. The observant eye doctor? Yep. Why? Because he doesn't have a vested interest in it other than just knowing the truth.

He also remembered 40 years ago when scientists were saying that earth was heading towards an ice age.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

It always amazes me how you guys high five each other's ignorance.

It's like you just ignore the rational side of the argument.....



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Rocker2013

It always amazes me how you guys high five each other's ignorance.

It's like you just ignore the rational side of the argument.....



The rational side of the argument is the one supported by all the actual data, and not the cherry-picked data highlighted by someone who is making a lot of money from presenting a biased misleading opinion going against all that scientifically backed data.

You're expecting us to believe the opinions of a man who is basically calling an apple an orange, because they're both round and come from trees.

Nope, this is stupidity in the extreme.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
In this video, Geologist Ian Plimer dispels the science behind the Man made Global Warming conspiracy.

Talking at the Houses of Parliament in the U.K, Ian Plimer explains that the world has always experienced climate change and on a number of occasions it has actually affected the world a lot quicker than we are currently experiencing, even though Man was not an inhabitant of the Earth at the time. Sea levels rose by 1500 metres at times and not the few millimetres the scientists are telling us will have a devastating effect on countries.


I'm sorry, but you can't just dismiss the bolded part like it is just a minor detail. Don't you think the changing climate's impact on society would be something we should be concerned about? In all the previous climate shifts, there were no society's there to gauge how to weather the shifting climate.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Firstly, World News Daily Report is a fake news site. As for the issue of prosecuting deniers:

This is a deservedly controversial topic. On the one hand, nobody should ever be prosecuted for having an opinion about anything and scientific debate shouldn't be unduly influenced by the government. On the other hand we as a society accept that making false statements can be a crime if the deception causes harm. Consider perjury/making false allegations, libel/slander (defamation), inducing panic and untold varieties of fraud — even certain types of malpractice.

Does possessing a scientific degree make a person immune from being held accountable for a crime? I don't believe so but it's a very very slippery slope and the consequences on scientific inquiry could be dire. Then again, what are the consequences for humanity if they're deliberately misleading the public and stalling changes that could preserve lives and property?
edit on 2016-4-17 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: gator2001
That scenario would mean it is a trusting government. In the real scenario, there is a nuclear accident and the government raises the acceptable levels of radiation.


Thank you!
You've just proven my point.
Everything you said there has proven that your position is based on nothing more than a knee-jerk distrust of government, in spite of decades of scientific research performed by thousands of scientists around the world, through peer-reviewed data.

Nothing is going to change the minds of the rational thinkers. You can scream all you like about how evil all the corrupt NWO governments are all you like, nothing changes the reality that SCIENCE backs up the belief, as opposed to your deniers cherry-picking information to present untruths as facts.

You can carry on thinking what you think, it's not going to change anything. The rest of the scientifically enlightened world is carrying on with sensible policies regardless of your delusional distrust of reality



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Unlike some, I actually look at the data available. I do not blindly believe someone's biased opinion.

This geologist from the op works for the mining industry....but the OP and his cheerleaders just ignore his vested interest in downplaying man's role in.our rapidly.changing climate.
edit on 17-4-2016 by jrod because: blah



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Pretty sure there is a miscommunication between you two here...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I replied to the wrong post.....go birthday week haze!

I think.the edit makes more sense.....



edit on 17-4-2016 by jrod because: stupid me



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: gator2001
That scenario would mean it is a trusting government. In the real scenario, there is a nuclear accident and the government raises the acceptable levels of radiation.


Thank you!
You've just proven my point.
Everything you said there has proven that your position is based on nothing more than a knee-jerk distrust of government, in spite of decades of scientific research performed by thousands of scientists around the world, through peer-reviewed data.

Nothing is going to change the minds of the rational thinkers. You can scream all you like about how evil all the corrupt NWO governments are all you like, nothing changes the reality that SCIENCE backs up the belief, as opposed to your deniers cherry-picking information to present untruths as facts.

You can carry on thinking what you think, it's not going to change anything. The rest of the scientifically enlightened world is carrying on with sensible policies regardless of your delusional distrust of reality


That is absurd. Proved your point? I think not. A decades long series of events does not make a knee-jerk reaction. It does, however tend to bring about common sense in some people.

So there is a consensus of scientist that back what you say? The same thing that governments are saying? Where are all of these scientists? Explain why I should believe them? Then explain this...

www.wsj.com...

Then explain why there is more ice on Antartica now when the UN stated the ocean was rising because of ice melting in Antarctica.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now have a look a this to explain the fluctuations of the sea level.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Not one mention of any man made cause. Instead, it is about nature changing areas of land and sea, like it always has. You do know that deserts were once water rich, forests were plains, land was underwater and vice versa, correct? You do know this?

Now, explain how ancient cities are now underwater? I suppose man caused all of that.

Man has caused all the terrible storms, too, I suppose you would say.

All you do is state over and over that all the science is in. It's done. Finished, but you don't look at facts.

You don't look at the facts that the earth changes on its own.

You don't look at the facts that scientists and groups are falsifying and misleading information.

Same thing with the ozone layer that scientists made people fear about. It fluctuates on its own. Aerosol cans were ruled out. I sure bet the plastics industry loved that hoax, what, with all the new pump spray bottles that came out.

Proving your point? Nope. I am proving you wrong with facts you can't argue about, so you resort to saying I am making a "knee jerk reaction."



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Climate change should be challenged, of course, at least for scientific purposes. Sure, maybe CO2 levels rising is not such a bad thing as we think.


Needs detailed scientific analysis. Result: no.


Maybe climate change is merely a symptom of a changing orbit around the sun (even though I'm not aware of any model), or the sun is itself changing


Needs detailed scientific analysis. Result, hell no.


. Maybe sea-levels rising is rather a good thing, despite the sinking of coastal cities.


So, no paying carbon/greenhouse taxes, but paying for massive coastal waterworks (soon to fail as the seas rise more) and disruption of extremely valuable capital---no problemo?

Just from the money side, failing to stop global warming is a blunder


But even so, advancing science in the spirit of clean energy, lowering pollution levels, and better management of waste, is not only for the purposes of sustaining a livable environment, but also to make the planet less ugly—and we are making it uglier. There is garbage everywhere, even in the most inhospitable places on the planet. Plumes of smoke block the sky in many places. The oceans are getting worse and worse as waste accumulates. And the smell... Putting aside the threat to a livable environment, It's ugly; and we should also defend any scientific and technological advance in environmental protection on aesthetic grounds.


So, any other reason to change policy, except the most dangerous and biggest risk is OK?



As an aside, I'm not sure why the environment isn't a top priority for the conservative ideology, especially since the root word of conservatism is "conserve".


They want to conserve their money instead of contributing to the general welfare.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: gator2001

All you do is state over and over that all the science is in. It's done. Finished, but you don't look at facts.

You don't look at the facts that the earth changes on its own.


Of course but that doesn't mean humans can't change climate either. Scientists have been looking at that for many decades and those with the most knowledge and data can tell the difference. There is mechanisms behind all of them.

So if people die from heart attacks, then when the doc sees the next gunshot victim in the ER, with a bullet on the X-ray, should he think "oh probably natural causes, that's just fearmongering from the anti-gun liberals". There is specific detailed scientific evidence relating climate change to the specific mechanistic cause from human activities.




You don't look at the facts that scientists and groups are falsifying and misleading information.


To an insiginfiant degree compared to the huge anti-scientific howlers put forth by the denialist and obfuscation side.




Same thing with the ozone layer that scientists made people fear about. It fluctuates on its own. Aerosol cans were ruled out.


That's totally false


The science won a Nobel prize and still stands.

edit on 17-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

It does, was just reading the back and forth there and assumed it was a mistake since you both were arguing from the same side.

Happy B-day, rather belated or before the date.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills


Two examples of many. We are destroying this Earth so it's hard for me to accept we aren't having any impact on the environment.

Look at the sides of our roads. Littered. Some people drive down the road and want their trash out of their car so they toss it out the window. 60 years ago I was disturbed by this. My mother said it was a problem while others said no big deal, the wind will just blow it away or it will just wash away in the next winters rain.

Then I saw my first municipal garbage dump. Filled with garbage that they said would just be covered up with dirt or hauled off to a mountain top or dumped in the ocean. That will do fine said many, but I was not so sure. By the time I was in high school in the East Bay of San Francisco we could hardly see SF across the bay because of the smog from our cars and the city dump was a cesspool that smelled for miles.

Over the years I have read about how we have ruined our local environments across the globe, actually pushing ourselves out of one locale and into another because of the ruin we had caused. And not only with our trash but with a complete lack of knowledge on the out comes of our endeavors. Easter Island comes quickly to mind. The dust bowl of the Southern US of a century ago. Toss in the ozone hole, the garbage on the beaches the species that we were driving to extinction and it all added up to the same conclusion. We had not learned to live in a sustainable manner. We were careless takers and in our modern cycle had no real concepts of sustainability.

So when the first reports of man-made global climate change began to come forth in the 90s I found it perfectly reasonable to consider them realistic. And portentous. Why not. We had been living on the brink of extinction due to the nuclear threat for decades at that point. My thought was why not. Everywhere we have been across this planet shows signs of our irreverent life styles. Consume and discard, consume and discard. Why not extend that to the possibility that we in our overly indulgent life styles are spoiling our environment on a global scale instead of just our local climes.

I think that this notion is more than many can deal with psychologically. To admit that the way they are, the lives they lead, are in fact a large factor in our present problems is just to existential for them to deal with. It would mean not only a massive change in life styles (forced by an oppressive government) but a major adjustment in self perception and how they view themselves. So rather than face themselves in a mirror of intense self scrutiny they pull up and just blame the whole thing on government conspiracy.

So now the information is pushed from both sides of the blame game. It is, it is not, it is us, it is always, it is hotter it is colder and on and on. So that now I do not know to what degree it is us or not. But what I do know is this. That those who deny so strongly so convincingly are not really confronting the situation. They are all to willing to pick the side that resolves them personally of all blame. Like a child who has no idea how the lamp got broken. Like the meth head who wonders how he ended up in the gutter. Not my fault. That would take too much self reflection.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

There are plenty of cherry pickers in the climate 'industry', so nothing new there.

The island of Jamaica has a mountain side with bands of sea shells climbing up its side, some say that shows different sea levels, 'they' might be correct, sea shells don't climb mountains on their own.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

I would recommend that ....... do a little Googling and find out more about these individuals before you believe their latest YouTube nonsense or the claims in their latest book. You'll soon find that their "science" falls far below acceptable standards and the so called "evidence" they offer for their beliefs have been repeatedly debunked by hundreds of minds far brighter than theirs.


I seem to recall George Monbiot, (and probably James Randerson at some stage) accusing Plimer of lying when he said the Hadley Centre had said global warming had stopped since 1998 as per Plimer's book. That was back in 2009.
I certainly do recall that the Met Office in 2012 or so actually made that statement public, using 1997 back sixteen years to 1981/2 making that roughly the same kind of periodical for the period 1997 to 2012, all public, but quietly done. Phil Jones poohoo'd it saying was too short a time to make anything of...woooo, that's about half of the period of modern research that has been done, while much of the modern research is with lego bricks/aka modelling.

You might also like to know that certain aspects in the conversations in the UOEA e-mails that were hacked, while those people were cleared officially of any wrong doing, privately there was serious concern about them in those circles.
So, even if Plimer had been lying, which he wasn't, your above would have been pretty much the pot calling the kettle black.

Whatever, nowadays Gavin Schmuck and his gang will not even discuss global warming any more with anyone who has a different aspect, "The science is irrefutable, there is nothing to discuss".
A bunch of comedians.
Since Plimer is, and remains a Professor Emeritus, I think he's qualified to speak, at least as much as you.
Thanks to Cobaltic1978 for bringing this to the forum....Mmmm, things are warming up...Opposing forces have already swung into action elsewhere at ATS.

edit on 17-4-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Finally , a member of a true science speaks out. A science that has MILLIONS of years of data at it's heart.Not just from the early 1900s on. I am sure , any of the other , biologists , archeologists have the same viewpoint as well. However , no one listens to them . Only to "climatologists" .



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
In this video, Geologist Ian Plimer

One lone crackpot does not a revolution make!
Even if you happen to agree with him.
There is no world conspiracy about global warming.
All the scientists haven't colluded to trick us all.
Such is the paranoia extant these days...

One lone crackpot voice means nothing, USUALLY! *__-
Time will, of course, tell!



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Well, I hope this loony shill IS correct, 'cause by the time enough of us realize he's either lying or a moron, it will be (likely already is) too late.

I fervently hope "man made global warming" is wrong, or overestimated .. .but common sense and 98% of the experts disagree.

How billions of folks burning stuff and polluting this closed system could NOT effect our climate is really the question.

But I don't blame folks for telling themselves it's all okay.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join